Educators with limited budgets are increasingly faced with the challenge of aging computers and the need to provide adequate technology for state-of-the-art learning environments. This chapter of the MAR*TEC Technology Coordinators Handbook describes best practice strategies and techniques for developing and maintaining a managed refresh program and identifies tips for determining replacement needs.

Proactive Refresh Cycles

Best practice information technology (IT) strategies require a managed refresh program, which necessitates that schools and districts proactively replace their technology on a regular basis. School budgets are left vulnerable and technical support is strained when schools choose to retire client systems only when they are broken or outdated. Frequent breakdowns cause users to try to deal with the disruptions, thus decreasing their productivity and often causing more damage. Furthermore, security risks rise as schools continue to support operating systems that possess known security flaws. If the operating system no longer has patches available, security holes leave the network defenseless. Therefore, planned periodic refreshment cycles avoid these issues and allow IT staff the opportunity to justify client planning and budgeting.

How long a cycle? Musthaler (2003) believes that refresh cycles are getting longer. She states, “It was fairly common to see a three-year refresh cycle, so that every year, one-third of a company’s PCs were retired as new PCs came in the door. Now, improved technology and shrinking IT budgets have induced many companies to replace PCs every four years” (p. 1). Intel (2003) recommends a refresh cycle of 3 years for desktop computers and 2 years for notebook computers. However, some experts suggest that PC life cycles can be extended by employing a server-based computing model where applications are delivered through a web browser from a portal framework. This model will allow a longer (4+ years) PC life cycle. Montgomery County Public Schools (2003) in Maryland have adopted a Technology Modernization program (Tech Mod) that includes a 4-year refreshment cycle for its technology infrastructure, equipment, and software.

A managed refresh program is advantageous for three reasons. First, migrations to a new system can “piggyback” on the normal client refresh cycle. Data from Meta Group’s predictive cost model suggest a 36% savings when migrating to Windows XP by piggybacking the project on a managed refresh program (Schlegel, 2002). Second, ongoing support is improved because a certified build program is more effective than troubleshooting specific problems, especially for districts or regions with limited technical support. Maximizing technical support is difficult when support staff is responding to specific troubleshooting problems in distributed locations. Technical support that is overly reactive creates a lack of confidence in the integrity of the technology infrastructure and the technology leadership. It is much more effective to schedule technology replacement for specific buildings at specific times than to allow support staff to travel across the region “putting out fires.” Finally, software distribution is more successful with managed refreshment cycles. Schlegel (2002) states, “In the past, software distribution projects were considered successful when 65 percent of desktops functioned correctly. Through the managed refresh program, software distribution success rates are now up to 90 percent of all targeted clients” (p. 2). This increase is attributed to thorough testing that can be done before deploying the new systems.

A note of caution exists in the professional literature concerning refreshment cycles. Standardization is the mantra for effective technology management. Schools and districts can maximize their efficiency by choosing standard network configurations, standard hardware platforms, and core software packages. Constant change and evolution can fragment technology infrastructure, especially when technical support staff and budgets are small. Therefore, some experts suggest adopting a uniform hardware life cycle. For instance, in phase one, the school or district would acquire new model types from the manufacturer through normal distribution channels. In phase two, as the model is discontinued, they would acquire additional models as needed through surplus markets. Phase three involves the acquisition of models refurbished to original specifications, and phase four entails returning to phase one and repeating the process. This four-phase cycle fits nicely with a 4-year refreshment cycle and allows schools and districts to maximize technical support investment by supporting a standard infrastructure (Argency, 2005).

Establishing Effective Policy

The first step in creating an effective refreshment cycle is to inventory all network infrastructure, hardware (including assistive technology devices), and software. Step two should consider technical support issues and be conducted concurrently. Microsoft (2005) advises educators to document answers to the following questions:

 

These answers will help you evaluate the effectiveness of current administration and equipment standards. Step three requires setting equipment and software standards. This step will require consensus across buildings and stakeholders. It will require “buy-in” from users and therefore must be managed carefully. Technology must be an item line on the school district budget in order for effective refreshment cycles to operate. Funding sources such as one-time levies and grants cannot sustain an effective refreshment cycle policy. Therefore, the data gathered in steps one and two will provide quantifiable evidence of cost savings that will aid in getting buy-in from administrators. Step four in establishing an effective refreshment cycle requires creating a hierarchy based on user needs and scalability designs. Scalability of networks must be considered before hardware and software equipment upgrades. After priorities are set, technology leaders can build a calendar for refreshing infrastructure, equipment, and software. The fifth step is to design quality testing for a limited number of computers before deploying the roll-out. If administrators determine that they will replace ¼ of all hardware and software in the district starting with the high school, they need to make sure that a few computers have been thoroughly tested with the new software package and that network compatibility is satisfied. The sixth and final step involves migration or roll-out. Administrators or educators will need to evaluate whether some machines can be pushed down to less demanding users. For instance, can high-school machines be pushed to elementary schools? If not, machines should be removed and sold, donated, recycled, or discarded.

Replace or Repair?

When considering whether to replace or repair a computer, an administrator should determine the cost. If the replacement parts and software cost more than 50% of a new computer’s purchase price, it should be replaced. If the replacement parts and software cost less than 50% of the new computer's purchase price, then it should be repaired.

Intel (2003) warns

How’s your crystal ball? The longer your refresh cycle, the better prognosticator you need to be in order to specify machines that will still be viable at the end of the cycle. If you buy too low, you can incur significant expense by having to replace or upgrade your machines prematurely. As you specify machines consider memory, storage and communication interfaces as well as processor speed (p. 3).

 

Forklift upgrades are defined as upgrades to a computer network that requires massive hardware investment. Forklift upgrades are typically used in place of managed refreshment plans. If schools and districts are working under the forklift strategy, they will maintain technology until they determine that a forklift upgrade is necessary, and then they will change all hardware and software to accommodate the new investment. This strategy is useful if technology is funded by one-time financing such as levies and grants. However, it is more costly in long-term dollars. Schlegel (2002) states

A small staff of [three full time employees] could replace 14 PCs per working day to refresh a 10,000-client installed base every three years. The cost of these three FTEs’ $30 per seat per year is less than the one-time $125-$150 per desktop fee that a desktop outsourcer would charge to refresh a PC fleet (p. 1).

 

Effective Refreshment Cycles Impact Teaching and Learning

In conclusion, effective technology refreshment cycles allow administrators, teachers, and students to conduct their business more effectively and efficiently. Additionally, a successful refreshment cycle builds confidence in technology and technology leaders. Administrators can effectively manage data, and teachers can trust that equipment will work. Students will have access to dependable hardware and software. Montgomery County Public Schools (2003) have outlined the following benefits of their Tech Mod program:

 

MAR*TEC is gathering your stories. Please let us know of the lessons you learned while developing and implementing an effective refreshment policy by contacting Patricia Hendricks at phendric@temple.edu.

 

References

Intel (2003). Replace PCs proactively. Retrieved May 2005, from http://www.intel.com

Microsoft Corporation (2005). Defining significant support issues. Retrieved May 2005, from http://www.microsoft.com

Montgomery County Public Schools (2003). Technology modernization program. Retrieved May 2005, from http://www.mcps.k12.md.us

Musthaler, L. (2003, January). Examining the PC upgrade cycle. IT World Canada. Retrieved May 2005, from http://www.itworldcanada.com

Schlegel, K. (2002, September) Managing PC life cycles. Tech Update. Retrieved May 2005, from http://techupdate.zdnet.com