Transcript Next Generation Networking - Colorado State University

Classroom Technology Proposal
Presentation to the UTFAB
Monday, February 26, 2007, 4-5 PM, Weber 202
Andre’ Smith - Associate Director/Chief Engineer
Classroom Support Services-ACNS,
[email protected], ext. 1-6035
Outline

Proposal for FY 08






Maintain Technology Refresh on 5-year cycle
New rooms
Budget
3-yr. plan
Analysis – “fit” with UTFAB funding criteria
Q&A
Feb. 26, 2007
Classroom Technology Proposal
2
Proposed Project for FY08
Proposal for Data Projector
Refresh to Maintain 5-year Cycle
Building
1
2
3
Engineering
Engineering
Engineering
5 Rockwell (x2)
6
Pathology
Feb. 26, 2007
Room Capacity
B4
E103
E203
49
49
54
165
101
45
145
Classroom Technology Proposal
4
Proposed New Installations Technology Upgrades
Feb. 26, 2007
Building
Room
Capacity
1
Clark
C337
49
2
Clark
C358
58
3
Eddy
5
60
4
Eddy
104
36
5
Eddy
107
35
6
Eddy
108
35
7
Eddy
118
36
8
Eddy
119
36
9
Engineering
B103
49
10
Engineering
B105
36
11
Glover
201
65
Classroom Technology Proposal
5
Budget for Classrooms
Non-capital Equipment
Materials and Supplies
Construction
Staffing (Installation)
Totals
Feb. 26, 2007
Proposed Budget (Recommend @ $175K)
New
Technology
Installs
Refresh
Totals
$101,985.00
$15,890.00
$117,875.00
$3,625.00
$350.00
$3,975.00
$7,150.00
$0.00
$7,150.00
$46,200.00
$1,860.00
$48,060.00
$158,960.00
$18,100.00
$177,060.00
Classroom Technology Proposal
6
3-Year Plan
3 Year Plan (Includes Next Year)



Quantities below
Includes doc camera refresh beginning 08/09
Supplemental for doc cams in 07/08 separate proposal
FY
Refresh
Smart Rooms
(Projectors/
Doc Cams)
New Smart
Rooms
Total
Smart
Rooms
% of
Smart GA
Classrooms
07/08
7/0
11
114
76%
08/09
10/10
11
125
83%
09/10
10/13
11
136
90%
Feb. 26, 2007
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. 26, 2007
Classroom Technology Proposal
9
Thank You

For your continued support!
Feb. 26, 2007
Classroom Technology Proposal
10
Discussion and Questions
Are most welcome.
Feb. 26, 2007
Classroom Technology Proposal
11