The base criteria for inclusion in this report is as follows
The room in a lab (contains at least 2 computers)
The lab contains computers that will not support Windows 11
This list was then further pruned by examining Computer Utilization as reported by Labstats over a specified time frame.The time frame for this report is September 1st, 2023 to April 18th, 2024.
Labstats gives data for:
number of total users who logged into the machines
number of unique users who logged into the machines
average daily unique users (i.e. how many different people logged into a machine a day)
average daily logins (i.e. the same user could be counted multiple times if they return to the same machine)
total number of machines in a room
number of machines used
maximum concurrent machines used
maximum concurrent machines used as percentage
It is these last columns that are the focus of the report–the general thought is that there must be an established threshold for maximum concurrent usage that reflects the the resources in the lab (the computers) are meeting needs effectively and efficiently.
For example, if the maximum concurrent usage in a room of 12 computers is 25%, the number of computers should be reduced to meet the threshold such that when replacement is necessary, the financial burden is lessened while still meeting the needs of the students.
In this way, the threshold used in this report is 70%; if a lab is already at 70% maximum concurrent usage, it was not included.
Important to note is that the 70% mark is flexible, as the total number of computers in some labs would make this a mathematical impossibility–what follows are five tables summarizing the data, but broken up in such a way that the maximum concurrent usage is weighed against the possibilities offered by the total number of computers in the room.
| Room | Total.Stations | Stations.Used | Max.Concurrent.Used | Stations.Never.Used | Max.Available.Computers | Max.Concurrent.Pct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NEC 109 | 2 | NA | 0 | NA | 2 | 0 |
| SWN 406 | 8 | NA | 0 | NA | 8 | 0 |
| VFS 104A | 1 | NA | 0 | NA | 1 | 0 |
To err on the side of caution, we recommend speaking with the stewards of the areas to ensure our reporting is correct–otherwise, the technology needs of these rooms should be reevaluated
| Room | Total.Stations | Stations.Used | Max.Concurrent.Used | Stations.Never.Used | Max.Available.Computers | Max.Concurrent.Pct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASC 0010 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 |
| AUT 105 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 |
| SCI 235 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 |
| SCI 308 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 |
As these rooms only have two computers, they are going to be at 0%, 50%, or 100% maximum concurrent utilization–it is our opinion that 50% represents an appropriate level and no action is needed
| Room | Total.Stations | Stations.Used | Max.Concurrent.Used | Stations.Never.Used | Max.Available.Computers | Max.Concurrent.Pct |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAC 111 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0.667 |
| SWN 201A | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0.667 |
Similar to the reasoning above, removing computers from these spaces poses more risk that reward based on the already low number of machines and the relatively high level of usage
| Room | Total.Stations | Stations.Used | Max.Concurrent.Used | Stations.Never.Used | Max.Available.Computers | Max.Concurrent.Pct | Suggested.New.Total | Projected.Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCO 331 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0.500 | 3 | 0.6666667 |
| SCI 110 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0.250 | 3 | 0.3333333 |
| SCI 112 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0.250 | 3 | 0.3333333 |
| SCI 115 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0.250 | 3 | 0.3333333 |
| SCI 138 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 0.200 | 4 | 0.2500000 |
| SCI 139 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.333 | 2 | 0.5000000 |
| SCI 232 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0.400 | 4 | 0.5000000 |
| SWN 133D | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0.333 | 2 | 0.5000000 |
| VFS 321 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0.333 | 2 | 0.5000000 |
| VFS 424 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 0.200 | 4 | 0.2500000 |
In an effort to increase maximum concurrent use, it is suggested that the total computers in each room be reduced by one–this is at the discretion of the room technology owners, but to assist in this decision making a project concurrent max is included in the table
| Room | Total.Stations | Stations.Used | Max.Concurrent.Used | Stations.Never.Used | Max.Available.Computers | Max.Concurrent.Pct | Suggested.New.Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASC 1015 | 13 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 0.385 | 7 |
| BUS 104 | 49 | 49 | 25 | 0 | 24 | 0.510 | 36 |
| BUS 116 | 29 | 29 | 18 | 0 | 11 | 0.621 | 26 |
| BUS 310 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0.286 | 3 |
| BUS 329 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0.286 | 3 |
| GRN 259 | 20 | 9 | 7 | 11 | 13 | 0.350 | 10 |
| HEC 106A | 23 | 19 | 6 | 4 | 17 | 0.261 | 9 |
| HEC 106B | 11 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 0.273 | 4 |
| IRC 137 | 12 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 0.250 | 4 |
| MCO 213 | 37 | 17 | 16 | 20 | 21 | 0.432 | 23 |
| MCO 301 | 13 | 11 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 0.462 | 9 |
| NEC 121D | 16 | 14 | 10 | 2 | 6 | 0.625 | 14 |
| SCI 228 | 11 | 11 | 7 | 0 | 4 | 0.636 | 10 |
| STR 106 | 21 | 5 | 2 | 16 | 19 | 0.095 | 3 |
| STR 139 | 28 | 25 | 9 | 3 | 19 | 0.321 | 13 |
| SWN 205 | 24 | 18 | 8 | 6 | 16 | 0.333 | 11 |
| SWN 212 | 21 | 20 | 13 | 1 | 8 | 0.619 | 19 |
| SWN 228 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 0.250 | 3 |
| SWN 408 | 10 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0.500 | 7 |
| SWN 411 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 0.222 | 3 |
| SWN 504 | 18 | 5 | 2 | 13 | 16 | 0.111 | 3 |
| VFS 421 | 16 | 5 | 3 | 11 | 13 | 0.188 | 4 |
| VFS 423 | 12 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 9 | 0.250 | 4 |
Being that these rooms have a higher number of total machines, we are able to enforce our 70% threshold–as such, we take the reported maximum concurrent use, multiply that by 100 then divide by 70 to give us a new total number of machines per room. This is of course still at the discretion of the room/technology owner and only exists as a suggestion based on the available data