FY 2008-09 IT Funding Request process

For the FY 2008–09 budget process, UC Berkeley's Campus Technology Council (CTC) reviewed 24 technology funding requests representing $25M in total proposed campus investment. Based on their guidance, CIO Shel Waggener recommended funding $5.58M in projects through the IT Bank, a seven-percent cut from FY 2007–08, and creating an IT Loan Pool with an initial allocation of $2M. Chancellor Birgeneau accepted these recommendations and funded them on a temporary basis.  The full list of funding recipients is listed below.

In their review process, the CTC evaluated requests against a set of critical criteria, including the Chancellor's goals, to help ensure the alignment of technology investments with campus priorities. Specifically, the Council's philosophy is to fund requests that:

• are innovative in approach and aligned with campus technical vision;
• impact the campus community most broadly and effectively;
• equitably support the key areas as identified in the IT Strategic Plan, including Research, Teaching and Learning, Student Experience, Administration, and IT Governance; and
• have clear and sustainable funding and support models with matching campus and departmental investment.

In this second year of the IT Funding Request process, submissions have qualitatively improved, with far greater consideration of architectural alignment and technology life-cycle planning, as well as increased matching unit contributions totaling $13M. While the model is clearly gaining traction, a number of challenges remain, and some new opportunities have emerged.

Challenges

Basic faculty technology need

Several funding requests sought to improve faculty access to a range of next-generation, technology-based services, as well as to address the serious lack of basic computing tools, a problem particularly acute in the humanities, arts, and social sciences. Computing and related support are now required for research and teaching in virtually all disciplines, and are a prerequisite for campus initiatives such as the streamlined academic review process. While cost-effective technology services do exist, the lack of even minimal discretionary departmental funding frequently prevents their adoption.

As this does not to appear to be so much a technology issue but rather one of operational funding constraints and departmental priority setting, the IT Bank is not the appropriate funding mechanism to resolve these issues. However, failure to confront these issues will further exacerbate the already serious challenge of faculty recruitment and retention. With those factors in mind, a planning grant was given to explore a radically different, cost-effective way of providing computing services and support using virtualized desktops, the goal being to lower overall computing costs to campus, particularly in administrative areas, ultimately freeing resources to support the more diverse needs of faculty.

Operational shortfalls and inadequate life-cycle planning

The historical campus practice of providing one-time, start-up funding for new services or projects without requiring a viable technology life-cycle plan or long-term funding model has created ongoing structural funding gaps for core campus services. Several requests for technology upgrades and replacements were submitted this year, competing directly with innovation requests. The majority involve critical campus systems and therefore must be supported, yet continuing to fund these on an ad hoc basis using innovation funds diminishes the ability of the IT Bank to advance our progress on strategic campus priorities. Moving forward, a comprehensive life-cycle plan, inclusive of routine maintenance and upgrades costs, must be required prior to any significant technology investment.

Opportunities

Innovation

A new generation of creative solutions involving a complex mix of departmental, campuswide, and cross-institutional collaborations were represented in several requests. These proposed projects include funding models that present significantly greater risk than the more traditional single-source model, and often require multi-year commitments. In the future, it is essential that the IT Bank have a predictable funding stream, preferably on a rolling three-year timeline, to appropriately plan annual funding allocations. Requests that cross multiple fiscal years will be expected to provide a higher degree of progress reporting and compliance than previously required.

Planning grants

Several projects are in relatively early stages of development and, while promising, are not yet mature enough in design or financial model to warrant full funding at this time. In some of these cases, planning grants were awarded. In others, funding requestors were asked to work with CTC members to do some additional proposal tuning, including further partnership development and viability assessment, prior to resubmitting their request for planning grant consideration.

IT Loan Pool

Several funding requests presented opportunities for increased efficiencies rather than innovation. These requests, where the risk and recovery are appropriately shared between campus and the requesting unit, are best funded with loans rather than with grant allocations. The Chancellor agreed to create a separate IT Loan Pool for FY 2008–09 with temporary funding, dedicated to technology efficiency opportunities. This year, that pool will loan money to two initiatives, the BFS Upgrade and the Payroll Migration to PPS.

2008–09 IT funding recipients

Following is a list of all the requests that received funding this year. To see a complete list of this year's requests, including the full request submission, visit the FY 2008–09 IT Funding Request Outcomes page. For questions, contact Liz Marsh and Susan McKeehan,