Please enable javascript to view this page in its intended format.

Queen's University

Guidelines for Funding Software at Queen’s University

Approved by the Senate Information Technology Committee - May 2006

This document provides a set of guidelines which can be used in University planning and budgeting processes at various levels in determining how software is to be funded. These guidelines are based on a set of three software classifications, defined as follows:

Software Class: Defined as (one or more of the following): Example:
  • Used by the majority of the campus, or the majority of a particular constituency
  • Plays an integral role in the Queen’s technology infrastructure or is deployed under a University-wide initiative
Microsoft Office
General Interest
  • potentially of interest to and/or is used by many people at the University
  • is not necessarily integral to the Queen’s IT infrastructure
  • decision to adopt and use the software rests with the user
Adobe Acrobat
Special Interest
  • is of interest to a specific discipline (e.g., Economics) or a group of disciplines (e.g., Social Sciences)
  • meets a specific academic or administrative requirement

  1. Enterprise Software should, subject to the availability of required funding, be funded centrally where it is desirable to maximize adoption of that software across the University in order to meet one or more of the following University objectives:
    • To preserve the security and integrity of the University’s IT infrastructure and information, and the privacy of those who use this infrastructure.
    • To ensure equitable access to services and information for persons with disabilities.
    • To facilitate collaboration and sharing of information resources such as documents, where the University community deems this to be important.
  2. Funding General Interest Software is the responsibility of the end user or their department.
  3. Funding Special Interest Software that is required by a single academic department is the responsibility of that department.
  4. Where there can be broad-based economy-of-scale or standardization benefits in a common license agreement for Special Interest Software, central funding should be considered to enable or assist a group of academic departments to establish such an agreement. The intent of such funding is to seed or initiate such license agreements, not sustain them over time.
  5. Where possible, ITServices should seek to coordinate, negotiate or assist in arranging license agreements or volume discount arrangements for software that is widely used across the University, and maintain knowledge about such arrangements on behalf of the University.
  6. ITServices should ensure that information about licensing agreements and volume purchase arrangements is readily available to the campus community.
  7. Distributing software should not obligate ITServices to provide technical support for that software, beyond limited installation assistance.
  8. ITServices should fund a set of baseline software in the computer labs they operate for the University. This baseline should include the operating system (e.g. MS Windows), a personal productivity suite (e.g. Microsoft Office), and appropriate security and facility management software.
  9. Funding of all non-baseline software in computer labs or e-classrooms operated by ITServices is the responsibility of the academic departments requiring that software, unless the cost of the software is covered under an existing central license agreement.
  10. Funding of all software required in a departmental (private) computing lab or e-classroom is the responsibility of that department, unless the cost of the software is covered under an existing central license agreement.
  11. Departments and groups should be provided with a means to request that a software product be considered for central licensing and distribution, using a standard form on the ITServices web-site.
  12. ITServices should on an annual basis provide the Senate Information Technology Committee with a concise review of changing software requirements, trends, opportunities and requests from the campus community. This review should include any proposed or potential changes in the Enterprise Software category.

Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6 613.533.2000