Northern Arizona University
Student Computer Ownership
Implementation Plan
“It is essential that we prepare our students for the 21st
century and the New Economy. A significant part of that
preparation is inextricably connected to the use of
computer technology ...
“Through lack of action, we are allowing a digital divide
to grow among our students at the very time when their
ability to use information technology is becoming essential
to their success in the classroom and in the workforce”
-NAU President Clara Lovett
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 4
II. Background .................................................................................................................. 6
III. Student Computer Ownership Team (SCOT) ......................................................... 6
A. SCOT Charge ....................................................................................................................................... 6
B. SCOT Organization ............................................................................................................................. 6
C. SCOT Web Site .................................................................................................................................... 7
IV. Computer Ownership Rationale ............................................................................... 7
V. Student Computer Ownership Program Oversight .................................................. 8
VI. General Student Ownership Policies ........................................................................ 8
VII. Financial Aid and Funding ...................................................................................... 9
A. Responsibility ....................................................................................................................................... 9
B. Eligibility Criteria for Students .......................................................................................................... 9
C. Grant Monies Available ...................................................................................................................... 9
D. Other Alternative Funding Options ..................................................................................................10
E. Sources for Free “Loaner” Computers .............................................................................................10
VIII. Faculty Support and Training.............................................................................. 10
A. Responsibility ......................................................................................................................................10
B. Faculty Training Program Recommendations .................................................................................10
IX. Curriculum in Support of Student Computer Ownership ................................... 12
A. Responsibility ......................................................................................................................................12
B. “Technology Across the Curriculum” Recommendations ..............................................................12
X. Technology Assessment of Freshmen ....................................................................... 13
A. Responsibility ......................................................................................................................................13
B. Assessment Program Recommendations ..........................................................................................13
XI. Student Support ........................................................................................................ 14
A. Responsibility ......................................................................................................................................15
B. Minimum Hardware and Software Standards .................................................................................15
C. Hardware Support ..............................................................................................................................15
D. Software Support and Student Services ...........................................................................................16
E. Internet Connectivity ..........................................................................................................................16
F. Other Issues .........................................................................................................................................17
1. Lease Payment Options ...................................................................................................................17
2. Adaptive Technologies ....................................................................................................................18
3. Environmental Concerns ................................................................................................................18
4. Departmental Support Concerns ...................................................................................................18
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
2
XII. Publicity and Marketing......................................................................................... 19
A. Responsibility ......................................................................................................................................19
XIII. Costs ........................................................................................................................ 19
A. Student Services and Software Support ...........................................................................................19
B. Faculty and Curriculum Support ......................................................................................................20
XIV. Risks ........................................................................................................................ 21
A. The Faculty Support and Curriculum Subcommittee’s Recommendation to Delay
Implementation One Year ......................................................................................................................21
1. The Issue ...........................................................................................................................................21
2. The Risks ..........................................................................................................................................22
B. Lack of Funding for Student Support Services ................................................................................22
1. The Issue ...........................................................................................................................................22
2. The Risk............................................................................................................................................22
C. Recommendation ................................................................................................................................22
XV. Appendices ............................................................................................................... 23
Appendix A. Possible Timetable for a “Technology Across the Curriculum” Plan ..........................23
Appendix B. Software and Hardware Recommendations ...................................................................25
Appendix C. Computer Vendor RFP Considerations ..........................................................................27
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
3
I. Executive Summary
Introduction
The NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan is the culmination of
research and reflection by the Student Computer Ownership Team (SCOT) during the
spring semester 2001. This plan details the many issues that encompass the execution of a
student computer ownership program and recommends courses of action with specific
responsibilities assigned to various existing campus organizations.
Background
In December 2000, NAU President, Dr. Clara Lovett, made the decision to go forward
with writing an implementation plan to support an NAU student computer ownership
requirement beginning with the fall 2002 freshmen class. The NAU Chief Information
Technology Officer, Fred Estrella, was named as the SCOT chair and was charged to
investigate the details of an ownership program, assess any costs and risks to the campus,
and to draft an implementation plan, which will be used by NAU management officials to
execute the various aspects of a student computer ownership requirement.
SCOT Organization
SCOT was organized into four subcommittees, each charged with researching specific
aspects of the plan. A website was created to keep the campus community apprised of the
committee and subcommittee activities. The subcommittees met often during the
semester, some on a weekly basis, to discuss and debate their portion of the plan. Several
universities, which have student computer ownership programs, were contacted and
provided helpful insight into implementation issues. The committee also received input
from various campus constituencies. Each subcommittee issued a report on their findings
and these documents were used as the basis for this plan.
Major Implementation Issues Addressed in the Plan


Financial assistance to students with the most need: The committee focused on a
method to identify NAU students with the most need and, then, to help those
students get a computer either through grant money or loaner equipment pools.
Student “need” will be based on their PELL eligibility information submitted by
students on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid form. Students with the
most need will then have the following options for obtaining a computer:
o University grant money to buy or lease a computer
o Alternative funds provided through scholarships or other institutions
o Loaned a computer from a university owned equipment pool
Faculty Training and Support: Faculty members must be exposed to methods and
processes for integrating technology into their classes, receive technical training
to increase their technology skills, be provided upgraded equipment, and have
continual support in keeping their courses operational and up-to-date. A
combination of workshops, seminars, and other faculty development techniques
are proposed to bring faculty up to speed.
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
4



Curriculum Changes: A “Technology Across the Curriculum (TAC)” program
was determined to be an integral part of the NAU computer ownership program.
All academic departments will engage their faculty to identify the needed
technology skills and knowledge their graduates should have when they receive
their degrees. Then, faculty must determine within the courses they offer as part
of a degree program exactly where the technology skills will be taught and used.
A recommended timetable for a TAC effort is given in the plan.
Technology Assessment of Freshmen: An assessment of freshmen technology
skills is needed before they enter their first class. If deficiencies exist, a training
capability must be made available quickly to get students to a basic skill level.
Such an assessment process is included in the plan.
Student Support Services: A highly critical part of an ownership program is
support for students to setup, network, and assist with problems when they arise.
The following support issues are addressed in the plan:
o A method to annually identify minimum hardware and software standards
o Various options for hardware support, which are primarily based on
vendors providing warranty support for their equipment
o Increased need for more Academic Computing Help Desk and other
student support organizations’ personnel to handle the doubling of their
current service load
Unresolved Issues
Two significant issues emerged during the planning process that present risks to the
program’s success. These issues must be resolved before proceeding with the plan.
1. Additional Costs: Approximately $135,000/year for four years in additional
funding is needed to finance increased student support services. Extra funding
may also be needed to subsidize the additional costs for adding students to our
existing Microsoft Campus License Agreement. Faculty support funding is
assumed to come from the E-Learning Initiative of Proposition 301. Departmental
and other implementation costs may arise and will be dealt with by the
Implementation Steering Committee.
2. Faculty Request to Delay Implementation One Year: The faculty subcommittee
does not believe there is enough time, nor a sufficient faculty development
support structure, to establish a TAC program, educate faculty members in the use
of technology, and give faculty time to upgrade their courses before fall semester
2002. They recommend that NAU start executing all aspects of the
implementation plan, but tell entering freshmen in fall 2002 that NAU “strongly
recommends” owning a computer and establish the time to start the ownership
requirement as fall semester 2003.
Recommendation: The SCOT committee recommends to the President that she
reallocate funds for support services and approve the faculty request to delay one year.
Approval: On May 7, 2001, President Lovett approved the implementation plan,
including the one-year delay and additional funding for student support services.
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
5
II. Background
NAU began to investigate the issue of student computer ownership beginning in the
spring, 2000. The Mobile/Ubiquitous Computer Committee (MUCC), headed by Fred
Estrella, the NAU Chief Information Technology Officer, was formed at the request of
the PMT to determine the feasibility of such an ownership requirement at NAU. The
committee, made up primarily of faculty members, decided to first find out what the real
expectation of student computer use in NAU academic work by developing a faculty
survey. The faculty survey, which asked whether certain computing skills were required
now and/or in the near future, was administered via the web in April & May 2000. The
results show that nearly all faculty expected students to have basic skills now and a
majority felt that students would need advanced skills in the near future. At the beginning
of the fall 2000 semester, the next step was to ask students about their feelings towards
computing at NAU. The MUCC and the Resident life staff gave two surveys to freshmen.
One survey was administered to all freshmen living in ResLife Halls on the mountain
campus. The other was part of the CIRP survey, in which 21 questions were asked of
students about computer ownership and expectations of using computers at NAU. The
ResLife survey found that nearly 70% of freshman brought computers with them to
campus. This number was higher than expected and showed that students and their
parents thought that personal computers were needed and they were willing to pay for a
PC prior to arriving on campus. The CIRP survey showed that students truly expect to
use computers for academic and personal uses. The MUCC then worked on a detailed set
of benefits and costs of an ownership program and presented these in a briefing to the
PMT in the fall. On Dec 4, 2000, the MUCC made a recommendation to the PMT and the
President, who decided that a computer ownership program was the right thing to do for
NAU students in order to properly prepare them for careers in the 21st Century.
III. Student Computer Ownership Team (SCOT)
A. SCOT Charge
The Student Computer Ownership Team (SCOT) was established to develop an
implementation plan for a student computer ownership requirement at NAU. President
Lovett and her President's Management TEAM (PMT) made the decision to go ahead
with implementation planning in December 2000. The target date to begin the ownership
requirement for all incoming freshman was initially set as Fall Semester 2002.
B. SCOT Organization
SCOT was organized into four subcommittees, each dealing with the major
implementation issues. The deadline to complete the implementation plan was
established as the end of Spring Semester, 2001. This date was chosen to allow materials
to be prepared for prospective freshmen, who plan on entering NAU in the fall 2002.
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
6
Each subcommittee was given a charge document, which gave specific tasks for each
group. The four subcommittees are:

SCOT Chair: Fred Estrella

Faculty Support & Curriculum Subcommittee (FSCS)
Chair: Rob Till

Financial Need & Funding Subcommittee (FNFS)
Chair: Jim Pritchard

Academic & Business Policies Subcommittee (ABPS)
Chair: Ron Pitt

Student Support & Technical Issues Subcommittee (SSTIS)
Chair: John Campbell
The subcommittee membership consisted of faculty, staff, and students. The SCOT and
subcommittee chairs determined the actual committee members, with approval coming
from Dean/Vice Presidential levels.
C. SCOT Web Site
SCOT primarily used a website (http://www4.nau.edu/scot/) to post information for the
general NAU campus community about SCOT activities. The website also provided a
frequently asked question page, a location to post full SCOT and subcommittee meeting
minutes, and a list of pertinent references on student computer ownership.
IV. Computer Ownership Rationale
In order to better prepare our students for the 21st century, NAU will require incoming
freshmen students to have their own computer when they begin classes starting with the
Fall Semester, 2002. The enormous expansion of the Internet and its increased use at
home, school, and in business requires college graduates to have a high level of
computing skills to be successful in their future careers. By experiencing firsthand the use
of a personal computer, NAU students will build those necessary skills and, thus, be
better prepared for the technology challenges they will face on the job and in their
everyday life.
NAU administration noticed that more and more freshmen were coming to campus with
computers. But, what about the students who do not bring a computer to campus? Are
they at a disadvantage in their course work and other campus activities because they
don’t have access to a computer anytime they want? The NAU administration feels the
answer is yes, and by making computer ownership mandatory, NAU is making a
commitment to find the best way to get a personal computer into every student room,
where they can use it at anytime day or night. Through this commitment, even students
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
7
with the most financial need will not go without a computer, thus closing the digital
divide that exists for our financially disadvantaged students.
With the adoption of a student computer ownership requirement, NAU is also committed
to give its students a technology-rich education, which will better prepare them for their
life after graduation. Knowing that all students will have a computer, the NAU faculty
will explore ways to enrich their classes by adding more class information and materials
online. Additionally, the faculty will be reviewing their curriculum for each degree
major, identifying the technology skills that all graduating students should know as they
enter into the 21st century job market in their chosen field.
V. Student Computer Ownership Program Oversight
The student computer ownership requirement must be supported by all academic and
administrative agencies across the campus. In order to provide continuous oversight of
the program, a high-level steering committee is needed. The recommended steering
committee makeup is as follows:
Chair: Provost
Provost Office Representative(s)
Associate Provost, Student Affairs
Director, OTLE
CITO
ACITO for Academic Computing
Budget Officer
Director, Financial Aid Office
Director, Resident Life
Faculty Senate Representative(s)
Public Affairs & Marketing Office Representative
Development Office Representative
VI. General Student Ownership Policies
A. The computer ownership requirement will be analogous to requiring students to
purchase textbooks for a class. Therefore, there will be no enforcement policy per se.
Students will be expected by faculty members to have a computer and students will not
be able to use the excuse of not having a computer to finish their course work.
B. Most central computer labs operated by ITS in Residence Halls will be phased out as
the computer ownership requirement moves on from year to year. All labs will remain
open during the first year of the ownership requirement and usage will be monitored by
ITS. Based on these usage statistics, Residence Hall labs will be closed as usage
decreases. Most likely, the labs in freshmen halls will close first. Some ITS supported
computer labs will always be available to students. One main reason would be to provide
students a place to use a computer if their personal computer is not working. Plus, the
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
8
remaining ITS labs would afford students services that they might not have access to in
their rooms, like scanners, CD writers, and laser printers. Additionally, departmental labs,
offering specialized software, will continue to operate. Residence Life and ITS will
recommend to the Steering Committee when and what ITS labs should be closed.
C. Even though the ownership requirement will be mandatory for freshmen, any NAU
student will be able to purchase hardware and software through any plan established as
part of the ownership requirement program.
VII. Financial Aid and Funding
Establishing a robust financial aid program to support the NAU computer ownership
requirement is paramount to the program’s success. The SCOT Financial Needs and
Funding Subcommittee (FNFS) worked on several options to provide a variety of ways
that a student in need can obtain funds for a computer or have use of a loaned computer.
A. Responsibility
Director, Financial Aid Office – Financial aid issues
V.P. for Advancement – Foundation issues
2. Secondary: CITO; Director, Purchasing Office; other officials who deal with
vendors
1. Primary:
B. Eligibility Criteria for Students
Eligibility will be determined by the information from the Free Application for Federal
Student Aid (FAFSA) form. A determination of the level of PELL eligibility, which will
be used for participation in the need program, needs to be made based on the amount of
funding available.
C. Grant Monies Available
1. The funds available from Retained Tuition Funds (Set Aside) would be
approximately $500,000 each year and they would be only available to students with the
most need as determined by the filing of a Free Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA). Funds would have to be reviewed every year.
2. The amount available from various Scholarships would be approximately
$70,000 annually depending on earnings each year on their endowments.
3. Other sources of grant money should be explored through other organizations
like the NAU Foundation.
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
9
D. Other Alternative Funding Options
1. The Financial Aid Office will continue to work with the Navajo Tribe and other
Native American and ethnic organizations to make sure funding is available for ethnic
students and that additional funding may be needed to meet the need for the computer
ownership requirement.
2. Short-terms loans through the Bursar’s Office could be available to purchase or
lease computers for the students who are not considered in need. The amount available to
students would be around $200 a semester. A payment plan would be set up with the
students and they would receive a monthly statement. These loans would be kept
between the lender and the student. NAU would not be involved.
E. Sources for Free “Loaner” Computers
1. All vendors doing business with NAU should to be contacted to discuss
donation options which might include: money to buy loaner computers; refurbished
computers which would meet our minimum standards; and “free” computers for being an
NAU “preferred” computer vendor, based on volume of sales.
2. ITS should provide computers from their labs as they are replaced, which
would amount to approximately 100 computer annually.
VIII. Faculty Support and Training
The Faculty Support and Curriculum Subcommittee was charged with developing a plan
that would get the NAU faculty prepared to use technology in their classes. The
subcommittee strongly felt that, in order to effectively enact the proposed student
ownership initiative, the faculty requires extensive technology training opportunities.
The training requirement depends upon the individual’s existing skill set, software and
hardware requirements, available personal/professional time, and the individual’s own
learning style. As with most populations, some will quickly utilize and adopt technology
(early adopters), while others will adopt at a later time (late adopters).
A. Responsibility
1. Primary:
Provost; Director, OTLE
2. Secondary: Deans; CITO; Associate Provost, Student Affairs
B. Faculty Training Program Recommendations
1. A comprehensive instructional technology training program using various types
of training methods should be planned. For some faculty members, self-paced training in
the form of online computer training, videos or even written text documentation is
sufficient. The late adopter population requires a more structured learning environment
to improve their technology skills. Small group training sessions (maximum of 10
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
10
members), with structured learning objectives should be made available on a regular
basis. If possible, one-on-one training sessions should be available whereby a faculty
member can meet with the trainer and work through various technology issues. Finally,
training at other training facilities such as University extension and other commercial
training organizations, should be made available to the faculty for their development.
2. If affordable, an Instructional Designer/Media Specialist should be hired by the
University (from a central budget) for each college for the purpose of supporting faculty
within that college. Faculty members are more likely to utilize the services of such a
specialist if that person is housed in the same building and s/he is available when faculty
most need help. Specialized software should be purchased by the University for college
and departmental use in training faculty to support technology in the classroom.
3. The Academic Computing Help Desk (ACHD), Learning Assistance Centers
(LACs), Cline Library, and residence halls are partners with other units and faculty in
providing time-of-need support, tutoring, short courses, research assistance, and
technology applications specific to class assignments. To be well prepared, these entities
need to coordinate with the developers of the year-of-implementation courses, e.g.,
UC101, First Year Experience (FYE), EPS 101, English 105, and gateway courses.
4. Already, there is a reliance on Student Affairs, NAU PD, and ITS, to convey
expectations and address incidents related to user behavior; acts of crime and misconduct,
conflicts of fair use and intellectual property rights, online etiquette, etc. Student
understanding of protocols and expectations may need to be enhanced.
5. If NAU embraces standard tools, support responsibility falls logically to ITS.
Discussion will need to occur about whether colleges and schools are prepared to host
and support other applications appropriate to the discipline, profession, projects, and
course assignments.
6. NAU should design FYE instructional modules on developing NAU essential
computing skills.
7. NAU should train personnel in the essential skills assessment process and the
use of standard NAU tools. Personnel would include those involved in UC 101, English
105, FYE, EPS 101, first-year gateway courses, residence halls, labs, learning assistance
centers (LACs) and library.
8. NAU should confirm that proposed first-year strategies are viable for 50
UC101 faculty, 8 selected gateway course faculty, 40 FYE peer mentors, etc.
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
11
IX. Curriculum in Support of Student Computer
Ownership
The Faculty Support and Curriculum Subcommittee was also charged with
recommending an effort to support a “Technology Across the Curriculum (TAC)”
program for all colleges and school curricula. A thoughtful plan must be devised for each
degree program, which will define the technology skills and knowledge a student should
have by the time they graduate from NAU.
A. Responsibility
1. Primary: Provost; Deans
2. Secondary: Curriculum Committees
B. “Technology Across the Curriculum” Recommendations
1. NAU curriculum will provide students with opportunities to develop and
demonstrate technology skills and will allow them to graduate with technology
competencies appropriate to their disciplines, to the future practice of their professions,
and to life-long learning. A recommended timetable for a TAC program is given in
Appendix A.
2. In Fall 2001 (and continuing as necessary), the issues related to the role of
technological literacy across the curriculum should be addressed by all faculty curriculum
committees, including departmental-, college-, and university-level committees.
3. A dialogue should develop within the individual colleges about the technology
proficiencies that their students should possess at the time of graduation (such
proficiencies would need to be phased in over a 2-4 year curricular period). It is expected
that once these proficiencies are identified (through faculty, employer, and other input)
and decided upon, the technology proficiencies will be addressed in specific courses
(normally 300-400-level courses) offered within each college. If some colleges offer
interdisciplinary degrees, collaboration among colleges and faculty will need to be
recognized as critical in this process. An example of a possible TAC student skill set:
a. Able to engage in electronic collaboration.
b. Able to use and create structured electronic documents.
c. Able to do technology-enhanced presentations.
d. Able to use appropriate electronic tools for research and evaluation.
e. Able to use spreadsheets to manage information.
f. Able to use databases to manage information.
g. Able to use electronic tools for analyzing quantitative and qualitative data.
h. Familiar with major legal, ethical, and security issues in technology.
i. Has a working knowledge of technology platforms.
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
12
4. NAU should identify areas that will require ongoing assessment such as
technology skill definitions, functional specifications of technology tools, infrastructure
capacity, etc.
5. To an extent, essential skills should be customized to NAU goals and
environment. For example, mastery of the NAU essential skills should allow a student to
successfully participate in an NAU Online course.
6. NAU should adopt university cross-platform standard tools and practices for
electronic communication, collaboration, content manipulation and creation.
7. At minimal to no cost to the individual, NAU should provide all students,
faculty, and staff with software that supports university standard tools and practices.
8. When possible, NAU should maximize access and minimize support concerns
for university standard tools (as well as specialized applications) by shifting from client
to server applications.
9. NAU should confirm that a coherent, robust, and sustainable support structure
is available to the unit level for a TAC effort. Plans and funds for a continuing support
structure are critical to the credibility and success of the effort.
X. Technology Assessment of Freshmen
The Faculty Support and Curriculum (FSC) Subcommittee was also charged with
planning for a technology assessment program. It is quite possible that a freshman might
not possess the basic computing knowledge necessary to begin their studies. Those
students without this basic knowledge must be identified as soon as possible and a
program established to help them get the knowledge they need early in their first
semester.
A. Responsibility
1. Primary: Provost; Director, OTEL
2. Secondary: ACITO for Academic Computing; Director, Learning Assistance
Center
B. Assessment Program Recommendations
1. The FSC subcommittee recommends that the University test the assumption
that students entering the university have these foundation skills. In the fall of 2001, an
assessment should take place. Results of that assessment should be shared with the
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
13
university community as a way of providing baseline data to inform the planning process
outlined in the TAC programs.
2. If NAU assesses (and even certifies) essential skills in the first year, the
university needs to decide if a final-year assessment of proficient skills and/or specialized
skills should be conducted by the colleges and schools.
3. By Spring 2002, NAU should offer an online checklist of basic (foundation)
technology skills that NAU assumes all first-year students will have when they start the
fall semester of the ownership implementation year. The checklist should be linked to
online resources that would allow any students lacking these basic (foundation) skills to
remedy deficiencies prior to Lumberjack Welcome Week of the implementation year.
4. During Lumberjack Welcome Week (of implementation year), NAU should
provide new students with the opportunity to self-administer a web-based assessment test,
which measures their mastery of NAU essential skills.
5. No later than the first week of classes, test results should be sent to the
students, their First Year Experience (FYE) academic peer mentor, their University
Colloquium (UC101) instructor, and their English 105 instructor.
6. The University should identify what will be the standard NAU tools; which
best practices should be followed; and develop an easy path for students to access the
tools and information needed to succeed.
7. In FYE, students should be offered opportunities to remedy deficiencies in
NAU essential skills and to re-test their skills. Learning opportunities should
accommodate a variety of learning styles and skill deficiencies: computer-based
instruction, research consultations with librarians, software training with LAC personnel,
etc. Design opportunities to demonstrate essential skills in UC 101, English 105, EPS
199, and gateway courses.
8. In FYE, NAU should also offer learning opportunities to those students whose
skills exceed the essentials level. For instance, students might design complex web-based
projects that reflect curricular or community interest. Such projects would be added to
their Electronic Portfolios.
9. NAU should design connecting mechanisms for essential skills assessment,
feedback, retesting, and certification. No later than a student’s last day of enrollment in
FYE, an authentication of essential skills could be added to the student’s Electronic
Portfolio.
XI. Student Support
Without a strong commitment to provide sound support services, NAU’s computer
ownership program will most likely fail. Standards must be established for both hardware
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
14
and software that will ensure students will a computing system capable of handling the
required workload. Reasonable repair and helpdesk services must be established to aid
students when problems arise.
A. Responsibility
1. Primary: ACITO for Academic Computing
2. Secondary: Associate Provost, Student Affairs; Director, Purchasing Office
B. Minimum Hardware and Software Standards
These two issues were combined as the Student Support and Technical Issues (SSTI)
subcommittee felt software drove the hardware requirements. The detailed hardware and
software minimums are located in Appendix B. These minimums will be updated on an
annual basis and will be published in the spring for the following fall semester. Individual
colleges and schools will have the ability to recommend higher requirements for their
degree-seeking students if they wish. However, the subcommittee felt the most intense
computer use would still require students to use departmental labs until significant
departmental infrastructure and/or curricular changes were warranted. A very informal
survey seemed to indicate faculty were not yet ready for these changes. Students should
always check with their college or department to see if there are additional requirements
beyond these minimum standards. Also, hardware requirements are generally based on
the software students are expected to run.
Software recommendations are broken between the two platforms:
1. minimum recommendations for an Intel-based PC;
2. minimum recommendations for a Macintosh.
Hardware and operating system recommendations in this document are broken into four
parts:
1. minimum recommendations for currently owned Intel-based PC;
2. minimum recommendations for currently owned Macintosh;
3. minimum recommendations for purchasing a new Intel-based PC;
4. minimum recommendations for purchasing a new Macintosh.
C. Hardware Support
The SSTI subcommittee looked at various options to support student computers.
Although the subcommittee wished to fully support all students with an NAU on-site
repair facility, the $1+ million cost is prohibitive. In today’s consumer market, vendors
selling computers with a warranty have the responsibility to provide support for the
products they sell. NAU should work with vendors to provide a reasonable effort to have
repair facilities on-site or in-town for students who purchase computers from them.
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
15
Students, who bring computers from home under warranty, must work with their
computer manufacturer to get support. Those students with no warranty must use in-town
computer repair shops. Should a student’s personal computer take days to repair, ITS
central lab facilities will be available for their use.
As state above, hardware support will be provided to students through the vendors who
sell equipment to students. Vendors would become a “preferred NAU vendor” if, through
a contract agreement, they set up an on-site or in-town repair facility for all student
computers they sell. A guaranteed minimum downtime needs to be established, and if
possible, a loaner program if the machine will require more time than the maximum
allowable. Managing this program will require a careful RFP with sufficient service level
agreements, remedies, and contract management (semi-annual reviews, data collection,
etc.) to insure service levels are being met (see Appendix C for RFP suggestions). A
contract administrator, with a strong technical background, will be necessary to
administer and support this program. Such a staff member will cost approximately
$40,000 per year. Note that the subcommittee also recommends setting aside a
contingency fund for emergency student aid, legal assistance in case of problems with the
provider, or to meet other unexpected needs.
D. Software Support and Student Services
The SSTI subcommittee felt the best way to provide software support and increased
student services would be to extend the role of the already rich campus support structures
to include helping students with operating system or software installation problems. This
alternative, of course, implies an increase in staffing and training to cover these new and
increased responsibilities.
Currently the Academic Computing Help Desk (ACHD) and the Residential Computing
Consultants (RCCs) assist with common software and connectivity issues but do not
work on operating system and software installation problems. The ACHD + RCC
services must be brought up to the level needed to cover more computers and operating
system and software installation problems. A similar expansion of Learning Assistance
Center services should be planned for as well.
Cost associated with the increased need for student support is shown in Part XIII, Section
A of this report.
E. Internet Connectivity
The computer ownership requirement clearly assumes that the student not only owns a
computer but also uses the computer to access the Internet. The subcommittee believes
that the current ResNet capacity and Flagstaff modem pools are sufficient if connectivity
bandwidth expectations are kept at 28.8 Kbps.
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
16
Moving beyond a minimum web design standard of 28.8 Kbps should be seen as a long
term, but very expensive goal. The subcommittee recommends giving as many students
as much bandwidth access as is reasonably possible, but at the same time requesting
campus administrative and distance education designers to understand that many students
will only have 28.8 or slower network access. There are exciting new options available
in both Blackboard and WebCT to allow a web course to control a course produced CDROM. This may be a good hybrid option for solving high bandwidth course needs. Any
departmental programs with higher bandwidth requirements should clearly state these
requirements as part of their adjustments to the hardware and software minimum
requirements. In addition, any individual courses requiring higher bandwidth, or special
software and hardware, should clearly communicate these needs before students actually
enroll in the course.
F. Other Issues
1. Lease Payment Options
Leases, while seemingly attractive, have a bad reputation in that most require students to
take extremely good care of the equipment, original packaging, original documentation,
and return the machine while it has some residual value. Lease restrictions often
preclude adding new hardware or software, sharing, swapping or trading equipment. All
of these restrictions may be difficult to explain or enforce on a campus where not
everyone is participating in exactly the same plan. Also, penalties are often significant if
there is the slightest variance from the conditions of the lease. Returning equipment, for
example, involves properly packaging the machine for shipping and meeting a deadline
or paying a stiff penalty.
A lease or purchase program should also respect the major assumption of our
subcommittee: namely that all students have equal access to the program. Given that a
lease involves a 3-year payment of around 90% of the total cost of the base machine,
residual savings do not really translate into significant cost savings for students.
Qualifying all students for a payment program, either through a lease or through
financing, is a challenging problem that needs to be discussed with the chosen vendors to
see what help they can give in meeting two major goals: 1) every student can get a
computer, and 2) the University is not liable for student financial agreements.
For all these reasons, the subcommittee felt it would be wisest to avoid lease programs
and concentrate on purchase payment plans. If a lease program remains a consideration,
then students may also need significant help storing boxes, having a lease
contact/shipping agent, and general support in successfully managing the terms of the
lease. Clearly any enhancements allowing students to finance their computer purchase
need to be carefully written into the actual contract with the selected vendor(s) and
spelled out carefully in the RFP. (This points out the need for any final RFP committee
to include purchasing, technical, and financial aid committee members…see Appendix C
for more RFP recommendations).
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
17
2. Adaptive Technologies
Support for adaptive technologies needs to be provided by NAU. Few vendors will know
or participate in our internal evaluation of the products we intend to support. As stated in
the key features of the RFP process below, selected vendors must provide a product line
that works well with those adaptive technologies in use at NAU. At the same time,
Disability Support Services needs to be fully funded with the staffing necessary to make
recommendations on behalf of the campus for adaptive technologies. Also, students with
mobility problems may deserve home computer support—ITS recognizes that a few
faculty require special accommodations because bringing their equipment to campus for
service would be a severe hardship.
3. Environmental Concerns
Faculty and students have asked the subcommittee to make recommendations on
environmental concerns. These matters fall mainly into the following areas: building an
energy saving culture among student computer owners, building energy saving
awareness, and understanding how computers should be properly recycled at the end of
their life cycle. Our recommendation is that the computer ownership program should
address all these issues, however, we feel it is very important to avoid all energy saving
features of hardware and software, as these are frequent sources of problems. Computer
users should make it a habit to conserve energy by turning off monitors and shutting
down computers when they are not used for an extended period of time, instead of relying
on power management tools. Students should be educated on how and where computer
components can be recycled.
4. Departmental Support Concerns
Departmental staffing for computer support has historically been a difficult area, which
may require special attention. As centralized open labs are reduced somewhat in
importance through the student ownership requirement, the departmental labs and
especially departmental staffing needs will increase. This is due to the expected changes
in the curriculum and the recognition that, especially in the higher-level courses,
discipline specific software not covered by the student computer ownership program will
be required. Departments may, for instance, release their own software through the web
or on a CD to students or even become an application service provider. These
transformations will require appropriate funding to be successful.
In addition, helping students with the required use of computers in their disciplines will
come to occupy an increasing percentage of the working hours of academic personnel
including faculty, graduate assistants, computer laboratory support staff and lab aides,
and the lab managers of traditional scientific teaching laboratories when computer use
becomes a part of the lab assignments. Providing instruction and responding to student
questions in the area of course-specific computer use will take an increasing amount of
time during office hours and study sessions, as well as class time in recitations and
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
18
lectures. Increased use of course-related email raises student expectations of interacting
with faculty and teaching assistants at a high level of individualized detail.
Departmental computing laboratories will continue to provide the setting for training
students how to use discipline-specific software and computer-based analytic techniques,
and will likely become centers for administering proctored quizzes and exams online.
There will be increasing reliance on classrooms with multimedia presentation
capabilities, including computer-based presentations from the lectern and in some cases
directly from student workstations.
Currently lab fees cover the costs of equipment for courses that have been able to set such
fees in place. However, these fees do not cover staffing costs (both full time staff and
student workers). Quantification is difficult because of the diverse and discipline-specific
nature of technological innovation, and because of the distributed nature of budgeting for
such enhancements. However, we anticipated that the student computer requirement will
require funding increased levels of work effort for faculty, graduate and undergraduate
student workers, and technical and professional staff within the academic units.
XII. Publicity and Marketing
As with other major programs affecting students and the campus, the Public Affairs and
Marketing Office will play the lead role in providing information to incoming students,
parents, and the general public. A typical publicity campaign should be put together
which would include such things as a website explaining the details of the computer
ownership program and mailings to perspective students.
A. Responsibility
1. Primary: V.P. for Public Affairs and Marketing
2. Secondary: All other campus units supporting the program
XIII. Costs
A. Student Services and Software Support
1. Looking at the current ResNet ratio of 3,000 out of 6,000 users, we computed a
straight-line extrapolation of costs from today’s level for the Academic Computing Help
Desk (ACHD) and the Residential Computing Consultant (RCC) program. Since ITS
currently has four staff, one additional staff member is needed per year to support the
increase in computer users. Four additional staff members (one per year) are also needed
to handle the support of operating system and software installation. The following chart
shows the annual increases necessary to complete increased support in the areas impacted
over the next 4 years.
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
19






Two ACHD staff:
$78,000/yr
ERE for two full time staff: $13,260/yr
ACHD students:
$21,590/yr
RCC student staff:
$11,250/yr
Total yearly increase:
$124,100/yr
Additional RCC/ACHD helpdesk staff training/support budget after 4 years:
$21,328
At the end of four years, we’d have eight more ACHD staff (growing from the current
level of 4 to 12 employees), have at least two students on duty at a time at the ACHD,
and also double the RCC program. In addition, the new professional staff will need
annual supplies, computer refurbishments, and training money, estimated at $5,322 per
year for 2 new employees. The total cost increase after four years: (4*$124,100 +
4*$5,322)  $517,728.
2. A similar expansion of Learning Assistance Center (LAC) services should be planned
for as well. The LAC calculates that direct computer related assistance currently amounts
to $23,000 per year. At the end of four more years, assuming again that service demand
doubles, we anticipate a total cost increase of $23,000 (per year increase of $5,750). This
figure, however, accounts only for normal growth of LAC services based on today’s
models. If LAC plays a significant part in Sections VIII & IX, these cost figures will need
to increase.
3. There is a cost issue with adding students to our Microsoft license agreement (details
are addressed in Appendix B, section 1). The Microsoft contract currently states that the
university must pay for all students (FTE) when the student portion of the license is
enacted. Since we are phasing in the ownership requirement starting with freshmen, NAU
would have to pay the difference of the total license cost, which is approximately $273K,
minus what we collect from freshmen. Our initial discussions with Microsoft have given
us the impression that they will not change their contract language.
4. Additional costs to consider: $40,000 + ERE for an IT contract specialist to handle
RFP and Microsoft contractual issues.
B. Faculty and Curriculum Support
It is assumed by this committee that the recommendations for faculty development,
curriculum support, and freshmen assessment activities would be funded through the
Provost and the E-Learning Initiative from Proposition 301 funding.
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
20
XIV. Risks
The committee and subcommittee chairs agree on two areas of concern that appeared
during our plan development. Both have significant risks associated with them. The PMT
and President should address these two areas of concern before a final decision is made to
go forward with the plan.
A. The Faculty Support and Curriculum Subcommittee’s
Recommendation to Delay Implementation One Year
1. The Issue
A key factor in the ultimate success of the “Technology Across the Curriculum” program
will be the ability to deliver appropriate and timely support to faculty. This support
includes training in technology applications relevant to redesigned assignments,
individual consultations on instructional design, student assistants to help with
developing materials for projects, workshops on assessment, and technology assistance
through the first pilot offerings of reworked courses.
It is the recommendation of the FSC subcommittee, after considerable discussion of
resources, requirements, and timelines, that the initial student computer ownership
requirement be phased in, more specifically, that computer ownership be recommended
for 2002 freshmen and then required of 2003 freshmen. The subcommittee points to two
areas that emerged during their assessment of developing a logical process in preparing
the faculty and curricula to support student computer ownership:
a. Lack of time: A sequence of activities relating to faculty and curricula that
should transpire before students are required to have computers, is as follows: (1)
dialogue and consensus of what skills and knowledge are needed by students within their
degree programs; (2) training of faculty on methods to enhance classes with technology
and ways to support technology within their curricula based on (1) above; and (3) time
for faculty to apply what they’ve learned. This subcommittee feels that more than one
year is needed to accomplish these tasks.
b. Lack of adequate faculty development and support on campus: This emerging
problem has been acknowledged prior to the SCOT efforts. The Provost charged a faculty
committee to look into the issue and their report is due at approximately the same time as
this plan. Certainly, the organizational structure that this committee recommends will be
key in developing a faculty support and training program based on the recommendations
in this plan. If organizational changes are made, the new unit will need time to organize
and then begin to tackle the issues presented in this plan, as well as their other
responsibilities.
The FSC subcommittee has proposed a number of steps that would involve the University
in an aggressive plan to engage faculty in the process of determining the best ways to
infuse technology into the curricula. These steps will ensure that NAU offers its students
challenging and creative ways to understand and use technology in order to prepare
themselves for the world of work they will enter upon graduation. However, more than
one year is needed to attain these goals.
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
21
2. The Risks
If a one-year delay is not enacted, there are a number of risks that will potentially have
severe adverse effects on the success of the overall computer ownership program.
a. A proactive stance on the part of the university in regard to technology must
also include the faculty. NAU cannot encourage the growing computer literacy and
computer use among NAU students without simultaneously expanding opportunities for
faculty to learn and experiment with technology in their research and teaching. It is here,
in the classroom and the laboratory, that student outlays of money and time for
purchasing computers and for learning computer skills will be truly rewarded.
The computer initiative cannot be successful without providing adequate and
accessible learning opportunities to faculty for their own technological development.
Adequate time and support is needed for faculty to learn new technologies related to their
research and teaching interests, decide on the best pedagogical uses of technology, and
incorporate them thoughtfully into courses and curriculum. Faculty are essential, as
well, in deciding what computer competencies to expect of students, and what curricular
initiatives-such as a Technology Across the Curriculum program-should be put in place.
Without both sufficient lead-time, and an adequate infrastructure to support faculty
development, the entire computer initiative could fail.
b. Since this recommendation is coming from a subcommittee of nearly all
faculty members, refusing their request for a delay may invite a significant faculty
backlash against the entire ownership program. The lack of faculty support would
seriously weaken the entire program.
B. Lack of Funding for Student Support Services
1. The Issue
No additional budget dollars have been established to increase the support services
needed to provide students an adequate support structure. The ownership program is
doomed if students do not get the support they need when a problem arises. Currently
our estimated un-funded, first year requirement, which is detailed in Section XIII, is
$135,172, plus, whatever the impact is from adding students to the Microsoft license
agreement.
2. The Risk
Students will become extremely frustrated if they cannot get help with their computer
problems. If they have to wait in a long call queue to get answers, they will question the
whole premise of the ownership requirement if they perceive support to be inadequate.
Potentially, we could lose students and receive bad publicity for not supplying adequate
support services.
C. Recommendation
The SCOT committee recommends that the President direct the reallocation of funds to
support the additional funding for student support services. The committee also
recommends that the faculty request to delay the requirement by one year be approved.
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
22
XV. Appendices
Appendix A. Possible Timetable for a “Technology Across the
Curriculum” Plan
Outlined here is a detailed example of a plan to focus initial TAC efforts on the freshman
UC101 course, and to expand the effort in subsequent years. The outline is intended to
illustrate the many concurrent, and sequenced, activities that will be needed to validate
the computer ownership requirement.
Phase 1:
1. Summer 2001. Surveys would be designed to poll employers about the type of
technology abilities that they seek in recent graduates. Results from this survey would
help to shape the set of technology skills that graduates would need to have at time of
graduation.
2. Fall 2001. Faculty would be released (probably from one course) so that they
could focus efforts on the learning of new technology applications. Individual colleges
would identify specific technology skills and then identify courses in which the skills
would be taught. Departments, who have already gone through this process, would be a
good source for mentors/discussion leaders to assist other units. Faculty would meet with
colleagues, collaborate on teaching ideas, and work to redesign courses. It would be up
to each unit to determine how faculty would be assessed on these endeavors and how
student feedback could be included in this process.
3. Spring 2002. Faculty members redesign their courses to integrate technology
and have them ready for Fall 2002. Redesigned courses should be counted as part of an
individual faculty member’s scholarship or teaching productivity for the next evaluation
period (consistent with Boyer’s Model of Scholarship). Faculty who usually teach junior
and senior students would start dialogue/process to redesign courses. Faculty would be
provided support for professional development opportunities (e.g. visit other universities
who are successfully integrating technology into teaching in area of expertise).
4. At the University level, the OTLE would develop self-paced, web-delivered
modules for faculty to learn how to use and integrate TAC. The first modules should
target basic skills and would need to be ready at the beginning of the Fall 2001 semester.
5. OTLE would provide the following resources for faculty use: Instructional
Media Designer (design web-deliverable instructional materials), Educational
Technology Specialist (expert in theoretical application of technology to learning
environments), Technology Support Specialist (IT services and Web support).
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
23
6. OTLE would develop and offer mini-workshops that focus on learning
technology while using technology for teaching. Mini-workshops would be offered
during the Spring 2002 semester.
Phase 2 (Fall 2002 - Spring 2003):
1. The target group of this phase would be faculty who usually teach sophomore
students. Activities at the college and university level would continue as in the previous
phase. In addition, faculty who participated in the previous phase would revise their
courses. Lead faculty from the previous phase would be recruited to coach “new” faculty
on how to integrate technology into TAC. (Release time for lead faculty may be
necessary.) Funding would be provided so that classrooms within each unit could be
equipped with the necessary hardware and software to accommodate the needs of
teaching with technology. Survey results would be analyzed and feedback given to
faculty who teach junior and senior students. Faculty who teach junior and senior
students would start learning specific technology for their discipline.
2. At the University level, OTLE would continue developing self-paced modules
for faculty training. The Intramural Grants Committee would develop criteria to support
faculty members who wish to undertake multimedia projects in their classes. Criteria
would be developed and released for the 2002-2003 competition. OTLE would begin the
development of a clearinghouse on technology integration best practices.
Phase 3 (Fall 2003 - Spring 2004):
1. The target group of this phase would be faculty who teach junior students. All
activities at the College and University level would continue as explained in the two
previous phases.
Phase 4 (Fall 2004 - Spring 2005):
1. The target group of this phase would be faculty members who teach senior
students. All activities at the College and University level continue as explained in the
three previous phases. In addition, new partnerships with external agencies would be
sought for placement of students on technology-related internships. At the University
level, a technology fair could be organized to showcase the students’ technology abilities.
Public relation articles could be developed to outline approaches and strategies used in
developing and implementing TAC at NAU.
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
24
Appendix B. Software and Hardware Recommendations
The following minimum recommendations have been available for comment on the
SCOT website since March 12, 2001 and represent our current best recommendations.
Note that minimums such as these change on an annual basis and, as much as possible,
the wording regarding new equipment is vague enough to insure that mid-year product
improvements from manufacturers will become the de facto minimums for new computer
purchases. Also note that these recommended minimums are base minimums. Different
colleges and departments may specify higher requirements for their degree-seeking
students. Students should always check with their college or department to see if there
are additional requirements beyond these minimum standards. Also, hardware
requirements are generally based on the software students are expected to run.
1. Minimum Software for a PC
The main component of the NAU software suite is the Microsoft Office 2000
Professional edition. This software for students can be added to the NAU existing campus
license agreement with Microsoft. There is a potential problem in the way Microsoft
charges for student participation in the student portion of their campus license. If NAU
signs up to the student portion of the license, we must pay for all students (FTE).
Microsoft currently charges approximately $20/yr/student FTE, which would mean a cost
to the university of $20x13,650 (our fall 2000 FTE number) = $273,000. We would
expect students to pay for this software, but, since we are phasing in the requirement, the
university would have to pay the difference from what is charged and collected from
students and the total cost. We will try to negotiate this point with Microsoft but there is a
potential cost associated with this license if they hold to their current contract language.
Note other software (especially browser plug-ins) will also be available from the NAU
software web site or from the Internet.





Microsoft Office 2000 Professional [primarily Word, Excel, FrontPage, and
PowerPoint]
Email client (available with OS or from NAU’s software web site)
Internet Browser (available with OS or from NAU’s software web site)
Acrobat Reader (available from NAU’s software web site)
Network Associate Antivirus (available from NAU’s software web site)
2. Minimum Software for a Macintosh
Note other software (especially browser plug-ins) will also be available from the NAU
software web site or from the Internet.


Microsoft Office 98 Professional [primarily Word, Excel, FrontPage and
PowerPoint] (available through the campus Microsoft License Agreement)
Email client (available with OS or from NAU’s software web site)
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
25



Internet Browser (available from NAU’s software web site)
Acrobat Reader (available from NAU’s software web site)
Virex Anti-virus (available from NAU’s software web site)
3. Hardware and OS minimums for a currently owned Intel-based PC





233MHz CPU, 64Mb memory, 2Gb hard drive
CD-ROM, 16 bit sound card
28.8 Modem (appropriate Ethernet card if you are living in the Residence Hall)
Printer
Windows NT 4.0, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000
4. Hardware and OS minimums for a currently owned Macintosh



Any iMac or G3 model Macintosh
Printer
Mac OS 8.1 or better
5. Hardware and OS minimums for a new Intel-based PC
Note that faster machines will hit the market well before the Fall 2002 time when
students are required to have a machine. Hence our advice is to purchase any reasonably
new computer that meets (or hopefully exceeds) the following March 2001
specifications:





700MHz CPU, 128Mb memory, 10 Gb hard drive
CD-ROM, 16 bit sound card
56K Modem (appropriate Ethernet card if you are living in the Residence Hall)
Printer
Windows ME, Windows 2000
6. Hardware and OS minimums for a new Macintosh



iMac or G4
Printer
Mac OS 9.1 or better
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
26
Appendix C. Computer Vendor RFP Considerations
There are a number of sub-issues to consider in this area. The subcommittee was
concerned about supporting the existing base of equipment or, at the very least, providing
some alternative computer access system for students when their equipment, regardless of
where it was purchased, breaks. Implied in some of the previous discussion is a possible
need for a complete Request For Information or Request for Proposal process to
determine what sort of service center options are feasible here in Flagstaff.
Key features/objectives of a vendor RFP:
 The vendor offerings meet NAU’s continuously evolving hardware and software
minimum requirements (including ISP access).
 Upgrade paths are available after the purchase.
 Ubiquitous access: all NAU students are eligible for purchase, payment plans, and
service regardless of family income or credit history.
 NAU will in no way be liable for student equipment purchases.
 The purchase program has toll free telephone and web access points.
 Students are billed directly.
 Warranty service: warranty repair meets the students’ need for having a machine
available within the timeline set by the faculty. Very likely this means within 24
hours. (Or NAU provides an acceptable alternative for students.) An extended
warranty of three years needs to be available.
 Out of warranty hardware service: some economies of scale may allow students to
access a repair facility set up through the vendor(s) of choice. This is important to
assure students have computer access regardless of where they purchased their
computer. To meet service level expectations, the vendor may establish a loaner
program (or the campus may come up with an acceptable computer access
alternative).
 Software support: most vendors provide very limited software support. However,
support for damaged software is considered as important as support for damaged
hardware, both means the student’s computer is unusable. This may require a
separate agreement, Request For Information (RFI) or RFP or an in-house support
effort. Software support should be 24x7 but other high availability options will be
considered if there are significant cost savings.
 Adaptive technology compatibility: Many adaptive technology products lag
behind state of the art operating systems and/or hardware. Vendor offerings need
to include options for purchasing equipment deemed usable by students with
special needs. Although the specific adaptations may not be the responsibility of
the vendor, they also must not void the warranty.
 Service level agreements include a “remedy” for failure to meet conditions of the
agreement. Performance indices are well established, reports are semi-annual and
the student computer ownership contract manager holds performance reviews
twice a year.
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
27

A termination agreement is established ahead of time specifically to allow NAU
to select another vendor if the current vendor is unable to meet obligations. The
termination agreement stipulates termination penalties, procedures, and schedule.
More study and discussions with vendors are needed to determine what a single provider,
versus multiple providers, may be able to do for the campus. A Request For Information
(RFI) may be necessary in order to determine what is possible. Clearly NAU needs to
explore the limits of the existing vendor (Dell and Compaq) agreements in order to know
which, if any, of the above features and objectives they would not be willing to meet.
The subcommittee also feels an exacting “due diligence” process is necessary to evaluate
any suppliers we consider for ability to actually execute support contracts of the
magnitude implied by the features and objectives stated in Alternative 2 above.
More campus information needs to also be collected so that we can have meaningful and
informative discussions regarding purchase and support contracts. For example, it’s
important to know exactly how many students will be “maxed out” and thus ineligible for
further financial aid to pay for a new computer. Depending on the size of this population,
a vendor may or may not be able to offer “free” computers as part of their contract.
The solution we consider most likely to succeed for purchasing, and then supporting the
computer hardware and campus related software, would entail both in-house and vendor
participation. Apple’s program, for example, is quite limited and does not provide for
on-site hardware or software support. To give equal access to all students may require
NAU to be involved in doing the actual software support (including the OS) and, perhaps,
running a loaner program with both PCs and Macs to accommodate the unavoidable
down time a repair facility will face. Asking a repair facility to support any and all
brands suggests a loaner program is necessary. It’s simply impossible to be certified on
all machines and to carry all the necessary parts. To meet a performance index like “a
student must be back on-line with a working machine in less than 48 hours” probably
requires a provider, in many cases, to loan a student a machine, order the parts, and repair
the machine after the parts have arrived and then return the machine once the student has
paid the bill.
The next step in this effort should be to form a team with broader representation
(technical, financial, and purchasing agents) and even, given the scope of the work to be
done, build a formal project plan with a project manager assigned at least half time to just
this effort.
NAU Student Computer Ownership Implementation Plan
28