Appendix A: TCM Pilot SitesContextIssueMethodologySummaryEmail: ron.obenhaus@enmu.eduContextIssueOutcomesSummaryContextIssueMethodologyTraditional On-Campus French Course CostsOutcomesSummaryContextMethodologySummaryOutcomesContextIssueMethodologyOutcomesTable 3 – Cost Estimates By Major Activities – “ABC View”Table 4 – Average Proportion of Total Expense by Major ActivityDiscussion and Next StepsSummaryFLORIDAGEORGIALOUISIANAMONTANANEW MEXICOOREGONUTAHWASHINGTONTechnology Costing MethodologyCasebook 2001FIPSETechnologyCostingMethodologyProjectiiTechnology Costing MethodologyCasebook 2001Edited byMarianne F. BoekeWestern Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications (WCET)© 2001 Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications (WCET)Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE)WCETP.O. Box 9752Boulder, CO 80301-9752http://www.wiche.edu/telecomAll rights reserved. Any portion of this Casebook may be published or cited in an unaltered form, as long as WCETis cited. If you need more information, contact WCET at [email protected] Publication Number # 2A287AFor more information, contact:Western Cooperative for Educational TelecommunicationsEmail:[email protected]:http://www.wiche.edu/telecom/Projects/tcm/index.htmPrinted March 2001iContentsForeword...................................................................................................................................... iiiIntroduction................................................................................................................................. vCase 1:Eastern New Mexico University.................................................................................... 1The Cost of ITVCase 2:Florida State University.................................................................................................4An Analysis of Costs Related to Mentor Recruiting, Training, and Supportfor Student Cohorts in 2+2 Distance Learning Initiative Courses, Year 01Case 3:Georgia Board of Regents.............................................................................................. 7A Cost Analysis of the French Foreign Language Collaborative’s OnlineWebCT CourseCase 4:Northwestern State University (Louisiana) ................................................................. 11Comparison of the Costs Associated with Compressed Video, Internet,and Face-to-Face InstructionCase 5:San Juan College (New Mexico).................................................................................... 13Receive Site Costs are Real13Case 6:The University of Montana—Missoula ........................................................................ 16• Delivering an Undergraduate Course to a Local Community College• Delivering a Course Online and On-CampusCase 7:University of New Mexico.............................................................................................. 19Indirect Costs of Technology-Based InstructionCase 8:University of Utah – Utah Education Network............................................................ 22The Value of AccessCase 9:Utah State University—Logan...................................................................................... 24The Costs of Satellite, EdNet, Online, and Face-to-FaceCase 10:Valley State College...................................................................................................... 29Comparing Course Costs Across Five ModalitiesiiCase 11:Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges.......................... 32An English Composition Course Delivered Four Ways: Face-to-Face,Telecourse, WAOL, and College-Delivered OnlineCase 12:Washington State University....................................................................................... 35The Costs of Developing Courses and Teaching OnlineAppendix A:TCM Pilot SitesiiiForewordThe Technology Costing Methodology (TCM) Project is funded by the U.S. Department ofEducation’s Fund for Improvement of Post Secondary Education (FIPSE) and is a joint endeavorbetween the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications and the National Centerfor Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS).The Technology Costing Methodology (TCM) project began in September of 1998. TCM’s goalis to develop and pilot test an authoritative costing methodology (and related procedures) forcalculating costs:• Within an institution to determine if proposed instructional approaches that make heavy useof technology actually do serve to contain costs; and• Across institutions, allowing data to be compared legitimately for different instructional ortechnological approaches, which will benefit legislatures, state-governing boards, statecoordinating boards, and federal agencies.The Technology Costing Methodology Project will have two published works at the completionof this project—the TCM Handbook and the TCM Casebook. The TCM Handbook outlines thepolicies and methodology utilized to calculate technology costs. The initial feedback indicatesthat the TCM Handbook will be a useful tool for institutions and system offices to analyzeinstructional technology costs for decision-making purposes.The TCM Casebook is a compilation of implementation case studies from a selection of theTCM pilot projects. The TCM Casebook supplements the TCM Handbook. The TCMCasebook is the only public document of the pilot site results. We anticipate that the TCMCasebook will assist those new to the methodology understand how it can be implemented.In addition to the TCM Handbook and Casebook, the TCM Project received additional fundingfrom FIPSE and from the Andrew W. Mellon foundation to create a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheetthat would capture the TCM Handbook procedures in an easy to use format. The result is theTCM Tabulator, located on WCET’s Web site:http://www.wiche.edu/telecom/Projects/tcm/index.htmThe TCM Project had a total of 17 pilots (please see appendix A for a complete list) of which 12of the case studies are listed here. Not all the institutions were comfortable with publishing theirwritten reports and as such are not included in this document. Other institutions worked onsimilar issues, and thus only one report per topic was chosen for inclusion in the Casebook. Twoof the institutions (University of New Mexico and University of Utah—Utah EducationNetwork) found that the TCM Model did not work for their particular issues, and choose insteadto reflect upon