Computer Replacement Plan shows sustainability and efficiency

As the two discussed challenges, they focused on solutions for funding and managing computer replacements.

“The deans and chairs, as well as other department directors, were spending a considerable amount of time determining who needed new computers and how they would pay for them,” Burk said. “Employees were questioning when they would receive new equipment. The entire process was no longer sustainable.”

After administrators decided how many systems to order, the nature of the budget cycle resulted in a flurry of purchasing activity at the end of each fiscal year.

“Information Technology was unable to predict workload as purchase requests were occurring throughout the year and often during the summer, our peak upgrade period, and when faculty were off campus. New systems frequently sat in storage waiting for off contract employees to return for the fall term, with warranties ticking away,” Burk said.

Snare and Burk agreed a streamlined model for lifecycle management was needed to relieve strain across all units, starting with a business process analysis.

During fall 2014, a draft plan was presented to the campus. In December 2014, the plan was finalized and the first bulk orders were submitted in January 2015 to Apple and Dell with funding provided by Cabinet members for their respective units. A second order was submitted in the spring, reducing the number of orders to four compared to 73 for a similar time period before the CRP.

Burk said she refers to the organizational chart to determine the positions scheduled for primary computer replacement. Laptops or desktops still in good working order are issued to work study or graduate students. Older units are designated as non-supportable and sent to auction or destroyed.

Employees select their primary computer by responding to an electronic survey that reflects a standard configuration for desktops and laptops, alleviating undue stress on IT support services, Burk said.

With replacement ordering and deployment processes streamlined, funding of orders was still dependent on IT collecting individual budget codes from unit heads. In the spring of 2016, Burk presented a funding analysis estimating the five-year prorated amounts from each unit for the CRP. With Cabinet approval, the Vice President for Finance and Administration created a centralized Computer Replacement Fund with Burk designated as fund controller.

After four years of implementation, outdated equipment has been almost completely removed from campus, according to Burk. She said there is a long list of benefits from implementing the CRP.

“Employees now know when to expect their primary computer replacement. Bulk ordering drives costs down 1-3 percent. IT has very focused, predictable periods dedicated to system deployments, releasing time throughout the remainder of the year to focus efforts elsewhere, and fund controllers are free of decisions around replacement timing and funding,” Burk said.

Burk said there has been a dramatic reduction of paperwork by all involved offices, academic, finance and IT: four orders in 2017-18 compared to 73 in 2012-13, and 36 document touch points in 2017-18 compared to 949 touch points in 2012-13. 

Snare said the Computer Replacement Plan is a good illustration of campus collaboration as well as commitment to continuous improvement. 

“The Computer Replacement Plan is an example to support unfunded mandates by reducing costs, utilize faculty and staff time more effectively, and align with planning efforts. The Computer Replacement Plan built a sustainable model to assist with supporting key Master Academic Plan priorities,” Snare said.

The focus of the Computer Replacement Plan in 2018-19 will be classroom and laboratory spaces, according to Burk.