University of Arizona’s Technology Refresh Bank Copyright Peter L. Harris, Sally Jackson, Limell' Lawson and Natalie Max , 2002. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non- commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.
Transcript
University of Arizona’s Technology Refresh Bank
Copyright Peter L. Harris, Sally Jackson, Limell' Lawson and Natalie Max , 2002. This work is the intellectual property of the author.
Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright
appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or
to republish requires written permission from the author.
“Not Our Problem”
• Proliferation of departmental labs– external grants & gifts– internal grants (New Learning
Environments)
• Uncontrolled growth of inventory
• Acquired dependency on technology
• No permanent funding for most labs
“Not Our Problem”
“Not Our Problem”
. . . nevertheless ours to solve
Inventory-Indexed Budgeting• Calculate value of
inventory• Divide by years of
service• Build ‘savings’ for
refresh into annual budget
• Unknown to any central source
• Unknown by departments
• Untenable for departments (carry-forward too risky)
Introduction of Bank• 1998: discontinuation of grants for new labs• 2000: last round of refresh grants• 2001: introduction of Technology Refresh
Bank as response to department requests for assistance– Not quite a grant– Not just a loan
Goals of the Refresh Bank• Save the instructional labs
– Maintain decentralized purchasing– Cater to disciplinary and departmental preferences
• Improve departmental management practices– Plan replacement life-cycles instead of responding to
decrepitude– Structure departmental payments to allow budgeting without
carry-forward funds
• Improve central support– Distribute scarce resources more rationally– Leverage vendor relationships and other advantageous
agreements– Develop a total campus view of inventory
StructureBank provides:• up to 100% equipment replacement• structured repayment over set term• “forgiveness” of final 25% of principal
Department decides:• Amount funded• Equipment and lab characteristics• Payback period
Program Highlights• Enables planning vs “begging”• Shift toward equipment costs as
“operational” rather than “capital”• Fully voluntary with enforceable
contracts• Highly flexible terms• Better data on inventory and improved
control of inventory growth
Benefits & Challenges• Benefits
– reduced internal competition for limited funds– cultivation of good management practice
throughout the institution– staff can focus on getting the real job done– ability to support $2.4M in inventory with only
$200K yearly allocation from bank
• Challenges– balancing dept vs. central fund responsibilities– decommissioning labs lacking department support
Current Clients• Social & Behavioral Sciences
– Journalism, Reporting & Editing, Newspaper Production, Broadcast Video
