Week 8: Finance and the Financing of Technology in Higher Education
Premise:
Where we spend our institutional funds reflects our institutional
priorities. What do we value as student affairs professionals?
We may each find ourselves in leadership positions within the
field of student affairs, where we must make critical evaluations
of immediate and long-term budgetary priorities. The integration
of technology, whether physical changes to the institution’s
material spaces or the dissemination and acquisition of various
skills, is an expensive undertaking. If an organization priorities
technological innovation, student affairs professionals must
strategically plan for the development of that physical and human
capital.
The instructors assume that students enrolled in this course have
taken a prerequisite course on finance in student affairs.
Purpose:
To reflect on our short-term and long-range priorities. To articulate
a vision with regard to the acquisition, dissemination, and management
of technology. To reinforce from the perspective of technology
management the concepts of strategic planning, budgeting, essentiality,
efficiency, privatization, outsourcing, and fundraising.
In Class Excercises:
Following a discussion of the literature, we will work in committees
for two exercises. First, the Office of Finance and Business,
the Office of Information Technology, and the Division of Student
Affairs have been asked by the Chancellor of State University
to draft a joint mission statement articulating the role of technology
at the university. Second, we will examine the 2003 financial
report for our home institution, looking for and discussing technology-related
expenditures.
Readings to be completed by the start of class:
Carnavale, D. (2002, January 5). Indiana governor seeks
to cut technology spending. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved February 10, 2004, from http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v48/i20/20a03202.htm
Foster, A.L. (2003, June 27). California State U. loses
vote on oversight bill. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
February 10, 2004, from http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v49/i42/42a02902.htm
Graves, W.H. (2002). New educational wealth as a return
on investment in technology. EDUCAUSE Review 37 (4), 38-48.
Full text available online through ERIC.
Abstract:
Describes how, by focusing information technology (IT) resources
on strategic goals, a growing number of higher education organizations
and their leaders are creating new educational wealth and, in
the process, increasing their return on investment.
Green, K. and Jenkins, R. (1998). IT Financial
Planning 101: Developing an Institutional Strategy for Financing
Technology. Business Office 31 (9), 32-37.
Full text available online through ERIC.
Abstract:
A three-step plan for colleges and universities to use in financing
technology is presented: (1) establishing an effective asset
management program; (2) developing a life-cycle budget process
that annualizes total technology costs into streams of longer-term
perpetuities; (3) identifying and matching funding sources to
meet total annual costs. Administrators are also urged to learn
about market and demand trends.
Matthews, D. (1998). Transforming higher education:
Implications for state higher education finance policy. Edcom
Review 33 (5), 48-50.
Abstract:
Examines how information technology is transforming higher education
(asynchronous learning, distance education, customized program
structure, customized delivery, outcome-based programs, collaboration,
and competition) and discusses implications for state higher
education finance policy (competition, student costs, collaboration,
and learner-centered education). Makes eight recommendations
for restructuring systems of funding, budgeting, and financial
planning higher education.
McClintock, M. (2000). MIS finance and budgeting issues
in small public and private institutions. EDUCAUSE 2000: Thinking
IT Through. Proceedings and Post-Conference Materials (October
10-13).
Abstract:
Studied on Information System resources in higher education have
traditionally focused on the large research institutions, leaving
much unsaid about other types of institutions. This study focused
on smaller colleges and universities, institutions with fewer
than 5,000 students. Some of the areas studied were finance and
budgeting of technology resources. Of the 629 institutions surveyed,
350 provided usable responses. Responding information system
administrators perceived that information technology departments
have lost ground in the resource expenditure area when compared
with expenditures for other institutional resources. This perception
may be reality, since the mean information system budget was
found to be only 3% of the total institutional budget. Respondent
institutions charged computer lab fees less than 30% of the time,
with public institutions more likely to charge lab fees than
private institutions. Respondent institutions charged technology
fees less than 20% of the time, and private institutions were
less likely to have such fees. When schools charged technology
fees, the distribution of the fee went to departments other than
information systems. Some recommendations are made for improving
the position of information technology on college campuses. An
appendix contains the study tables.
Olson, F. (2003, April 11). Colleges expect to increase
spending on information technology by 5%. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved February 10, 2004, from http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v49/i31/31a04301.htm
Olson, F. (2002, October 18). U. of California at San
Diego opens tech-oriented college. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved February 10, 2004, from http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v49/i08/08a03802.htm
Olson, F. (2001, November 19). Survey documents increased
spending by colleges on information technology. The Chronicle
of Higher Education. Retrieved February 10, 2004, from http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v48/i11/11a05301.htm
Phipps, R.A. and Wellman, J.V. (2001). Funding the "infostructure":
A guide to financing technology infrastructure in higher education.
New Agenda Series 3 (2).
Full text available online through ERIC.
Abstract:
This report is based on a survey of state financial officers and
interviews with experts and institutional representatives on
the financing of technology in higher education. Surveys were
returned from 21 states. Officials saw technology as a key issue
for their schools' success, whether it is used for distance education,
enhancing student services, or supporting the work of administrators
and researchers. An institutional digital divide seems to be
developing, with larger and wealthier institutions finding it
easier to stay technologically current than smaller and less
well-funded schools. Planning and budgeting for technology, while
increasingly seen as important, are complicated by the fact that
methods of capital financing traditionally used in higher education
do not work well in funding technology infrastructure and because
higher education officials lack a common language that allows
them to communicate clearly about technology. Many college and
university officials are not familiar with the innovative funding
sources that may be appropriate for some elements of information
technology. Based on these findings, the report makes recommendations
that can help campus officials and state and federal policy makers
develop funding policies for information technology. The report
also offers a new lexicon for the components of technology infrastructure
to create the necessary common language for communicating about
technology.
Schmidt, P. (2002, March 29). States Push Public Universities
to Commercialize Research. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved February 10, 2004, from http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v48/i29/29a02601.htm
Home exercise (due to the instructors via E-mail before
the start of the next class session):
Research online the most recent annual budgets (or financial reports)
for one public institution and one private institution. Write a
summary of the two institutions’ budgetary priorities, paying particular
attention to funding for technology-related initiatives. Consider
also:
·
What do the two budgets have in common?
·
Are there any significant differences?
·
Do you agree or disagree with any of the institutional values these
funding allocations represent?