Tech Forum

I need to upgrade each of the Ward computers to 1 Gig of Ram ((2) 512 sticks)
What is the proper procedure on purchasing computer accessories? Do I make direct contact with the FMG or some other avenue.
I am the Stake Technology Specialist.
Also, are these Dells on a 3 or 5 year rotation?

Thanks in advance

johnsco wrote:I need to upgrade each of the Ward computers to 1 Gig of Ram ((2) 512 sticks)
What is the proper procedure on purchasing computer accessories? Do I make direct contact with the FMG or some other avenue.
I am the Stake Technology Specialist.
Also, are these Dells on a 3 or 5 year rotation?

Thanks in advance

I had the same question a while back.
I just bought from dell's web site what i needed. When it comes to such a small piece of hardware, then the church doesnt say anything about it.

See:
http://tech.lds.org/forum/showpost.php? ... stcount=47

johnsco wrote:What is the proper procedure on purchasing computer accessories? Do I make direct contact with the FMG or some other avenue. I am the Stake Technology Specialist.

The stake may budget for and purchase the memory. I do not believe the FM Group will spring for it, especially in the current budget crunch, but you might ask, and they could if they had some spare change.

We have 14 computers and finally upgraded them to 512 meg of ram each. Our STS found an online source that was acceptable for our stake budget. He used his credit card, and the stake issued a check to reimburse him. It came out of stake budget.

johnsco wrote:Also, are these Dells on a 3 or 5 year rotation?

They should be. You will have a high councilor who serves as your stake physical facilities representative (PFR). Check with him, and he can get a schedule from the FM Group if he does not have it.

We have a schedule from the FM Group for each of the computers in our stake that spans over the next three years (2010-2012).

johnsco wrote:Also, are these Dells on a 3 or 5 year rotation?

It's supposed to be a on a 5-year, but:

1) In all likelihood, the stake would have to remind the FM group when the budget was being put together. If it's not in the budget, it's not happening.

2) The FM group is under tight budget restrictions. Their budget comes from tithes and since the world-wide financial meltdown, the church is most likely needing to be frugal right now.

Since many of the machines were purchased at the same time, they're all coming due for replacement at the same time. The FM groups have been asked to spread out replacements over a 3 year period.

On the subject of memory upgrades, I think 512 is the sweet spot of most bang for the buck. One trick you can do it buy 512MB, put it in one machine, take it's old 256MB and stick it into another. Two upgrades for the price of one.

The stake might need a little more due to the larger database they have.

RussellHltn wrote:The FM groups have been asked to spread out replacements over a 3 year period.

That's not universally true. It may be true of the FM groups in your area, but not mine.

Alan_Brown wrote:That's not universally true. It may be true of the FM groups in your area, but not mine.

That's the problem with statements - there's always exceptions. However, I think we've seen a number of different posts here that indicate the request is fairly wide-spread.

The original plan for computers, monitors, and printers was to replace them in the fifth year from the date of purchase. However the Physical Facilities Department sent a message to FM managers this spring that said because of budget cuts and adjustments they were not going to stick to the five year replacement schedule. In that same message they left the decision up to the FM managers to come up with thier own schedule. The Physical Facilities Department recommended FM managers adopt a replacement schedule that started in the fifth year but be spread over three years. In other words, if all a stake's computers were purchased in 2004 then the replacement schedule would have one third replaced in 2009, one third in 2010 and one third in 2011. Our FM Manager explained the impact the budget cuts have had and is attempting to replace CPUs using the one third schedule beginning in 2009. He has taken monitors and printers off the replacement schedule and is only replacing them when one fails.

I gathered from the Physical Facilities Department message that the replacement schedule is no longer mandated from Church headquarters and that the schedule is in the hands of local FM managers. FM managers have been given the flexibility to manage the replacement schedule based on their local budgets.

jdlessley wrote:In other words, if all a stake's computers were purchased in 2004 then the replacement schedule would have one third replaced in 2009, one third in 2010 and one third in 2011.

I wonder if any of them went with "Stake A" in 2009, "Stake B" in 2010 .....

jdlessley wrote:I gathered from the Physical Facilities Department message that the replacement schedule is no longer mandated from Church headquarters and that the schedule is in the hands of local FM managers. FM managers have been given the flexibility to manage the replacement schedule based on their local budgets.

Well, I hope 5-year replacement isn't completely out the window. Otherwise we're back to "replace when fail".

RussellHltn wrote:Well, I hope 5-year replacement isn't completely out the window. Otherwise we're back to "replace when fail".

That's exactly what the policy is from my FM group, at least until further notice.

RussellHltn wrote:That's the problem with statements - there's always exceptions. However, I think we've seen a number of different posts here that indicate the request is fairly wide-spread.

You've drawn that conclusion before, but it is not justified by the data. In the thread Administrative Computer and Printer Replacements there are 4 people, all in different areas, who say that their FM group's policy is replace on failure, and only 2 or 3 people who describe the 1/3 per year replacement policy. So the 1/3 policy is the exception to the rule (based on limited data, of course, but the same data you claim to use).