Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsb!marvit From: marvit@hplabsb.UUCP (Peter Marvit) Newsgroups: comp.edu Subject: Re: unused gifts Message-ID: <52800002@hplabsb.UUCP> Date: Mon, 31-Aug-87 16:17:00 EDT Article-I.D.: hplabsb.52800002 Posted: Mon Aug 31 16:17:00 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Sep-87 07:16:21 EDT References: <407@ndsuvax.UUCP> Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories - Palo Alto, CA Lines: 89 > Why do companies doante equipment to prestigious schools which those >schools either do not want or do not have planned uses for, when there are >many deserving schools that would be delighted to develop plans and compete >for the gifts? Advantages to the donating company of giving the equipment to >less prestigious and equipment-rich schools include the assurance that it will >be used, if a plan had to be developed to get it, and the greater appreciation >students at that school will have since the donated equipment is likely to be >the only sophisticated equipment they use in school. I have been on both sides now of the equipment donation equation and understand the frustration that smaller schools and even smaller departments inside the larger schools feel when they see or hear about $N million of equipment (scopes, PC's, workstations, et al) donated to University X. I see several problem areas for the less established (potential) grant recipients, and the original question brushed by one point. Nearly all grants are made for specific departments doing quite specific projects or in specific areas. Nearly every notable donation (except for a few of *very* old, but serviceable, equipments) was preceded by a detailed proposal by the school after some period of mutual courtship. Smaller schools often either 1) are unaware of potential grant sources, 2) do not have the resources to write proposals, 3) cannot secure additional (matching) funds internally or externally as required by some grants, 4) are waiting for the philanthropist to discover them, 5) some combination thereof. If you want "free" items, do your homework and go after the grants. Other respondents have addressed the ROI (Return on Investment) which the companies must expect. There may be a few commercial establishments which anonymously donate tons of $ or goods just to Do Good, but I don't know them. The point here is not seeding potential employees or even getting press exposure, although both may be laudable byproducts; the rationales anf expected returns from donations are ususally intangible and difficult to objectively define. Many schools have to sell the companies on how a donation will benefit the company. Consider asking a friend for a donation; you will probably have to explain why you need it, what it will be used for, and what your friend will get out of it. Now try the same excercise on a complete stranger. The smaller schools, because of their equipment-paucity also face the double bind of technical unsophitication. I have seen several cases where smaller schools have received state of the art hardware which sat unsed for nearly a year because no one at the school knew what to do with them. Or the school did not have the (people) resources to set them up. Or there wasn't enough continuity for proper systems administration. Or they didn't know UNIX or C or... The question, of course, is how to get these schools into the 20th century with a minimum of fuss. But why should a company take yet another chance of donating high performance graphics workstations to a school which is still using a batch Univac 90/30 as its primary teaching computer? Would you give a Lamborghini to someone who drives a horse and buggy? A corollary is ongoing support, both from the donor company and from the school itself. As someone else said, TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch). Nowadays, most new equipment donations come with some sort of free service contract. Sometimes philanthropic contracts include some longer periods of time for service contracts as well. If the purpose of a donation is to get state-of the art gear into the hands of students, then the boxes should have the absolute lates software on it -- usually available only through some sort of ongoing maintenance contract. Computers, as everyone knows, need care and feeding; the schools *must* understand that this is part of their bargain as well and that they must be willing to commit some of their own resources to this. Sure, service contracts are expensive; but most donors have discount schedules and will accomodate a wide variety of needs. You may have the resources, as a school, to only need software updates. That's cheap and easy. You may really need the hand holding of an on-site person. That's expensive. Finally, schools, what will the equipment *really* be used for? How does it fit into your curriculum? How will it be shared (or not) amongst departments and faculties? There are logistical, political, and extra-technical questions which *you* must answer before approaching potential donors. Enough of my diatribe, Peter Marvit HP Labs P.S. As a side note to the person who carefully worked out the math of saving $$ by donating HP equipment to some school, I wonder how many National Public Radio employees HP hires for its $500,000/year donation for "All THings Considered" and "Morning Edition"? P.P.S. A repeat of standard disclaimer: I speak only of my own opinions which may or may not be shared by my emploer. I certainly disagree with some of HP policies and they with mine. That's the First Amendment with intellectual freedom!