Technology Fee Working Group
Report & Recommendations
Background and Context
Description and Board of Regents Policy
The Technology Fee is a mandatory student fee charged to each student who is enrolled in creditbearing courses at Georgia Tech, regardless of the number of credit hours taken. Currently, the fee
is $107 per student per term. The fee is intended to support and enhance the technology available
for the education of Georgia Tech students and is administered in accordance with Board of Regents
Business Procedures Manual Section 24.3.1 Mandatory Student Fees. The relevant section of the
policy is appended to this report (see Appendix A).
Charge to the Group
In the Fall of 2015, Provost Rafael L. Bras appointed and charged a working group to study the
Institute’s technology fee process and make recommendations for improvement, if
warranted. Provost Bras charged the group to review the policies, practices, and procedures
related to Technology Fee allocations to ensure:




input to the allocation process is appropriate and adequate;
consistency with BOR policy and guidelines;
the resource is keeping pace with the changes in course offerings; and
the funds are meeting Institute priorities and objectives.
The working group included stakeholders of faculty, staff and student representatives familiar with
the process.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Tina Clonts, Institute Finance Support Team
Robert Foy, Institute Finance Support Team
Jennifer Herazy (chair), Office of the Provost
Karan Jani, Graduate SGA
Alan Katz, College of Computing
Leo Mark, GT Professional Education
Eric Trevena, College of Design
Doug Williams, College of Engineering
Carol Whitescarver, Office of Information Technology – Finance
Summary of Discussion and Findings
The working group met during the late Fall and Spring of the 2015-16 academic year. The group
reviewed past allocation data and discussed experiences and perceptions surrounding the existing
Tech Fee process. Main themes and key points of those discussions include:
1. The existing process is managed well and adheres closely to BOR policy. However, some
confusion has existed around the interpretation of allowable uses in the policy.
2. Student input to the allocation decisions needs to remain as a strong element of the process
and could be enhanced through regular reporting.
28-Jul-17
1
3. The need for funding to support Institute technology expenses is understood but
visibility could be improved with the current decision-making process, especially given the
growing and varying number of constituencies.
4. The current approach to allocations has not kept pace with the evolving composition of
student body and technology needs relative to on-campus, off-campus, undergraduate and
graduate students.
5. The nature of the current competitive allocation process does not allow baseline budgeting to
the departments and hinders planning and budgeting for technology needs.
6. Some academic units feel the funds are not consistently allocated proportionally to
teaching workload and instructional technology needs.
7. Given the reliance on this resource, the process should be sustainable and should include
regular checks and reports to ensure oversight, agreement on priorities, interpretation of
policies, and continued effectiveness.
Recommendations
To ensure Technology Fee funds are meeting Institute priorities, keeping pace with evolving
program offerings, consistent with BOR policy, and allocated with adequate input from the
community, the group recommends the following:
1. Adopt an allocation model that seeks to:
a. Designate funds for technology maintenance, as well as technology
enhancements at both the Institute and college-level.
b. Divide funds by student type to better serve the needs of Georgia Tech students who
pay technology fees but are enrolled in programs not on the Atlanta campus.
2. Strengthen representation, transparency, and checks in the process through:
a. Faculty representation from each college and GTPE and an equal number of
students (7) on the allocation committee.
b. Periodic reviews through the appointment of a representative ad-hoc committee by
the Provost about every three years to review the process for consistency with policy,
student needs, and effectiveness of allocation formulas (proposed below).
c. Clarifying the allowable uses of technology fee funds, consistent with the policy and
Institute priorities and practice.
d. An annual report of technology fee expenditures available to the campus
community.
Further details of the recommendations are included in the remainder of this report.
Recommended Allocation Model
As in the past and consistent with USG policy, student technology fees should be used to support
and supplement normal levels of technology spending; and should be focused on technology related
to either academic outcomes or instructional objectives. The proposed allocation model provides a
consistent source of funding for Institute (enterprise-wide) technology infrastructure; supports
colleges’ technology-based costs proportionately to their teaching workload and enrollment; and
continues a competitive process and funding for innovative and supplemental investment to
advance technology services and support to the students. Additionally, the Provost may designate
28-Jul-17
2
additional expenditures of Technology Fee funds for appropriate expenses if allocated funds cannot
be used for the initial designated purpose. The below graphic of the model uses FY16 technology fee
revenue for illustrative purposes.
1
Institute/Enterprise Allocation 25%
2
Divide Funds by Student Type
Allocate 25% of the funding “off-the-top” annually to the Institute to support the technology
infrastructure and technology costs benefitting all or a majority of students – on both the Atlanta
campus and other locations, as well as distance learning students. This is consistent with current
practice, but would make this allocation of funds to necessary and appropriate purposes a
transparent part of the allocation process. This pool of funds would be administered by the Institute
Budget Office at the direction of the Executive Leadership Team.
The remaining funds will be divided by student type – on-campus or off-campus – based
upon current enrollment. This methodology ensures funding is proportional to the diverse needs of
the students on the Atlanta campus and those degree seeking students participating via distance
28-Jul-17
3
technology or on one of the other learning sites (such as Lorraine or Shenzhen). The division would
be based on actual tech fee revenue from each population.
3a
Allocations through Competitive Process 75%
The greatest portion (75%) of the funds generated from on-campus students would be
allocated through a competitive process for innovative projects and supplemental investment to
advance technology services and support to students. These funds would be allocated following a
review and recommendation process with equal faculty and student representation and one faculty
representative from each college and GTPE (14 total voting members). The focus of these funds will
be technology enhancement and the process will seek to award funds to proposals that provide
direct student benefit, maximize student impact, and support technology that is innovative and
enhances the Institute’s instructional technology assets (more than routine technology maintence).
This allocation process would follow the format and process of the current competitive allocation
process.
3b
College Allocations 25%
A small portion of the Atlanta campus funds would be allocated directly to the colleges to
support technology maintenance needs proportionately to their enrollment and teaching workload.
Like the Institute allocation, these funds are to be used to support the technology infrastructure and
technology costs specific to the college’s majors and students taking classes in the college. These
funds would be distributed at each Dean’s discretion to support and supplement normal levels of
technology spending specific to their instructional mission. Based on the average proportion of
student contact hours generated and enrollment for the period from FY11 to FY15, this pool of
funds would be divided as follows:
*Five-Year Average: AY11-15 (Grad & UG, ATL campus only)
Contact Hours
Student Enrollment
Generated
Combined & EquallyCOE
COS
COC
Scheller
IAC
Design
Total
4
#
11,909
%
60.3%
#
304,332
%
36.6%
Weighted
2,026
1,857
10.3%
9.4%
243,920
81,395
29.4%
9.8%
20%
10%
2,071
986
10.5%
5.0%
59,550
97,775
7.2%
11.8%
9%
8%
903
19,752
4.6%
100%
44,248
831,220
5.3%
100%
5%
100%
48%
Programs Not Based on Atlanta Campus
The revenue generated from fees paid by students enrolled in online (only) programs or in
programs in which students are not on the Atlanta campus is rapidly growing. The Office of the
Provost will allocate these funds, with appropriate and broad input from impacted students, faculty
and staff as these programs grow and reach steady state.
Recommendations to Strengthen Representation, Transparency, and Checks in the Process
Competitive Process Allocation Advisory Committee
The funds designated as described in 3a above would be allocated as is done currently through an
advisory committee tasked with making recommendations to the Provost regarding the allocation
of this portion of the Technology Fee Funds. The recommended committee and process is
consistent with the current practice with the exception of a larger and more fully representative
committee. The annual process and the committee’s activities would include the following:
28-Jul-17
4
1. Call for Proposals: The funding process for technology fee funds starts during the fall
semester when the Provost solicits proposals for Technology Fee allocations for the following
fiscal year. All units that serve students on the Atlanta campus are invited to submit
proposals. Campus units submitting proposals should have an internal process that
prioritizes needs, is inclusive when identifying potential needs, and incorporates student
input wherever possible.
2. Committee Review: Each Committee member individually reviews and rates all proposals.
The Committee then develops a consensus on the proposals giving strongest consideration
to the number of students impacted, return on investment (benefit to students), and level of
innovation with the technology request. The Committee chair may choose to contact
sponsors for additional and specific information. Additionally, the Committee may request
sponsors of proposals attend a committee meeting to provide further explanation of and
additional background on the request. The Committee then prepares recommendations to
the Provost as to how the tech fee funds should be allocated among the proposals.
3. Decision and Initial Allocation: Using input from the committee, the Provost determines
the final allocations to the campus units, in consultation with others in the Executive
Leadership. The Provost and Executive Leadership allocates technology fee funds to meet
high-priority Institute technology needs in support of academic outcomes and instructional
objectives. The first phase of allocations includes those proposals that are consistent with
Institute priorities, as stated in Georgia Tech’s Strategic Vision and Plan, and typically those
that have the highest ratings among Committee members.
4. Possible Additional Allocations: Once the Technology Fee revenue for the year is known,
there may be additional allocations approved by the Provost based on Institute priorities
and recommendations from the Committee.
As is the practice now, the Provost will annually make appointments so the committee has the
following composition of members. Each member serves a two-year term, with the terms being
staggered and a replacement added if a member does not serve her/his entire term.





Seven faculty members (one from each College and GTPE), with one designated as Chair
Seven students, three graduate and four undergraduate students, including one designated
as Co-Chair (the presidents of the Student Government Association are asked to provide
recommendations of student members)
A representative of the Office of Information Technology (ex-officio, non-voting member)
A representative of the Library and Information Center (ex-officio, non-voting member)
A representative from the Institute Finance Support Team will staff and coordinate the
activities of the committee (ex-officio, non-voting member).
A calendar of a typical fiscal year cycle of the committee’s process would include:
December – February
Proposal Solicitation Period
February
Proposals Due to Budget Office
March
Tech Fee Allocation Advisory Committee (TFAAC) Members conduct
independent review of proposals
April
TFAAC collective review and ranking of proposals
May
Recommendations submitted to Provost for allocation decision
Allocations awarded to recipients
28-Jul-17
5
Periodic Process Checks
Due to the evolving nature of technology needs and the potential for change among the student
body composition, the group recommends that the Provost appoint an ad-hoc working group about
every three years to review the process, allocations, and model to ensure consistency with BOR
policy, Institute priorities, and technology needs of the campus. This group’s activities may include
the following as well as others as directed by the Provost and Executive Leadership:





Review of policies, procedures, and formulas, and make recommendation for changes when
appropriate (for example, changes in percent allocation or in response to new institute
initiatives or changes in enrollment).
Review prior year’s process and evaluate use/impact/outcomes after allocations.
Review and recommend optimum composition of allocation committee.
Provide advice and counsel, and advocate for improvements to the University System of
Georgia Technology Fee Expenditure Guidelines, as appropriate.
Review any issues identified by the allocation committee and recommend solutions to the
Provost.
Clarifying Allowable Uses
All campus units are eligible to receive Technology Fee allocations, as long as their approved
projects meet the “authorized usage” guidelines in the BOR policy. In addition to technology
enhancements to further academic and instructional objectives, technology fee funds can be
awarded to support the normal academic and instructional operations of campus. In keeping with
the spirit and intention of the BOR policy, possible uses of these funds may include, but are not
limited to:








Expenses related to the delivery of instruction or curriculum requirements;
Equipment and networking for instruction or student-used labs;
Educational software purchases or licenses;
Classroom technology maintenance;
Infrastructure for network capacity or internet access needed for instruction;
Research technology, but only to the extent it is directly linked to student learning;
Training for students in the use of computing and networking resources;
Other technology expenses directly related to instructional delivery or studentlearning/academic outcomes and objectives.
Drawing upon the BOR policy, technology fee should NOT be used to fund:






Faculty and staff technology training;
Existing positions that would otherwise be cut from an operation budget;
General computing and networking positions that have a significant administrative or
research support component;
General supplies or software or hardware products for faculty use, unless there is a
demonstrated and direct value to students;
Technological resources that will be used for administration purposes; or
System hardware, software, and other related costs that do not have a direct impact on
academic outcomes and/or instructional objectives.
Annual Reporting of Tech Fee Expenditures
In closing, the group also recommended that an annual summary report of technology fee uses be
distributed. The chair and co-chair of the allocation advisory committee should be tasked with
working with the Institute Budget office (through the Institute Finance Support Team) to gather
and compile such a report for distribution to the cabinet, academic leadership and SGA.
28-Jul-17
6
Appendix A: University System of Georgia Business Procedures Manual
24.3.1 Mandatory Student Fees
Technology Fees
Technology fees are charged by all “teaching” institutions. The BOR Central Office and the
Skidaway Institute of Oceanography do not charge technology fees. Financial accounting for
technology fees is addressed is Section 2.9 of this Manual.
Authorized Usage
There are two basic principles governing use of student technology fees:
Student technology fees should be used to support and supplement normal levels of technology
spending. Institutions should be able to provide evidence that overall institution technology
expenditures clearly reflect that expenditures based upon fee revenues are above and beyond
normal levels.
The focus of student technology fees should be on technology related to either academic
outcomes or instructional objectives. Distinctions should be drawn between expenditures for
administrative applications or scientific and laboratory equipment, and instructional technology.
Technology fee revenues should be used for the primary benefit of students by:






Directing expenses to assist students in meeting educational objectives of their academic
programs;
Ensuring that there are sufficient campus software licenses, so that students have easy access
to “technological” tools needed in their chosen disciplines;
Ensuring that “computer” labs used by students are adequately equipped and have sufficient
network bandwidth and appropriate internet access;
Providing training for students in the use of computing and networking resources, when
needed. Generally faculty and staff training should be paid for from general operating funds,
but faculty and staff may avail themselves of student training sessions if space permits.
Leveraging with other funds to yield greater resources for students; (Technology fee revenues
may be combined with another fund source(s) to make purchases that will enhance
technological resources provided to students).
Providing new staffing only when it will clearly add documented value for students. Under no
circumstances can technology fees be used to fund existing positions that would
otherwise be cut from an operational budget, nor should fees be used to fund general
computing and networking positions that have a significant administrative or research
support component.
Generally, technology fees should not be used to acquire general supplies or software or hardware
products for faculty use. General operating funds should be used for these purposes, unless there is
a demonstrated and direct value to students which would justify use of technology fees.
Also, technology fees should not be used to purchase technological resources that will be used for
administration purposes. System hardware, software, and other related costs that do not have a
direct impact on academic outcomes and/or instructional objectives should be paid from general
operating funds.
Pasted from:
www.usg.edu/business_procedures_manual/section24/C2050/#p24.3.1_mandatory_student_fee
28-Jul-17
7