Transcript Next Generation Networking

Physical I&IT Infrastructure
Proposal
Presentation to the UTFAB
Monday, February 20, 2006, 4-5 PM, 202 Weber
Sally Hibbitt, Dir. of OIS, [email protected], 1-1325
Andre Smith, Mgr, CSS-OIS, [email protected], 1-1325
Outline

Proposal for FY 07 (new years)







Refresh to be on 5-year cycle
New rooms
Budget
3-yr. plan
Analysis – “fit” with UTFAB funding criteria
Thank you
Q&A
Feb. 20, 2006
Classroom Technology Proposal
2
Proposed Project for FY07
Proposed for Technology Refresh
– to Maintain 5-year Cycle
"Refresh" Rooms
Building
Room Capacity
Aylesworth
C106
49
Eddy
105
30
Engineering
B004
49
Engineering
B101
52
Microbiology
A108
85
MRBSC
111
38
Natural Resources 109
51
Physiology
103
98
Rockwell
167
90
Shepardson
118
93
Wagar
133
98
Yates
104
252
Feb. 20, 2006
Classroom Technology Proposal
4
Proposed New Installations Technology Upgrades
New SMART Room Upgrades
Building Room Capacity
A/Z
W205
112
Aylesworth C108
50
Chemisrty B202
48
Clark
C146
89
Eddy
10
60
Education
11
30
Gifford
149
54
Glover
130
176
Shepardson 102
49
Shepardson 120
47
Shepardson 212
88
Wagar
132
49
Feb. 20, 2006
Classroom Technology Proposal
5
Budget for Classrooms
Non-capital Equipment
Materials and Supplies
Construction
Staffing (Installation)
Proposed Budget (Recommend @ $175K)
New
Technology
Installs
Refresh
Totals
$87,414.00 $38,378.00
$125,792.00
$4,000.00 $1,350.00
$5,350.00
$6,400.00
$0.00
$6,400.00
$33,276.00 $5,734.00
$39,010.00
$131,090.00 $45,462.00
Feb. 20, 2006
Classroom Technology Proposal
$176,552.00
6
3-Year Plan
3 Year Plan (Includes Next Year)

That the UTFAB consider funding technology
in classrooms for 3 years, with a combination
of new rooms added and technology refresh
FY
Refresh
New
Total
% of
Smart
Smart
Smart
Total
Rooms Rooms Rooms
07/08
10
12
101
65%
08/09
8
14
115
74%
09/10
14
10
125
81%
Feb. 20, 2006
Classroom Technology Proposal
8
UTFAB Funding Criteria
1. Benefit as many students as possible
Almost all students at CSU will benefit.
2. Ability to effectively utilize the fee
Your decision.
3. Not funded by CFT
It is not.
4. Adherence to budget and
accountability
Your decision.
5. Potential for direct student use
Absolutely.
6. Effort, thought & clarity in the plan
Your decision.
7. Quantitative usage data
A lot.
8. Financial co-sponsorship
1:1 match in infrastructure $$$, plus
CRB upgrades.
9. Central/distributed balance
Not that applicable here.
10. Cost/benefit ratio
Your decision.
Feb. 20, 2006
Classroom Technology Proposal
9
Thank You

For your support, especially for getting
the University on the 5-year refresh
cycle
Feb. 20, 2006
Classroom Technology Proposal
10
Discussion and Questions
Are most welcome.
Feb. 20, 2006
Classroom Technology Proposal
11