Institutional Pricing & Data Responsibility

Here is how we approach institutional pricing, governance, and data responsibility.

1. Our guiding principle

Cost follows responsibility, not adoption.

Process Feedback is free for individual teachers and students. Institutional agreements are designed around governance, data responsibility, and support; not around counting users.

2. How our pricing works

Process Feedback does not price by the number of teachers, students, courses, or seats. Adoption volume does not determine price. Instead, pricing reflects the institutional responsibility we assume.

3. Pricing framework

We express our pricing using the following conceptual framework:

Price = Organizational Scope × Data Responsibility Tier + Support Level

This framework is not a per-unit calculation. It represents the scope of governance, data stewardship, and operational support involved in an institutional deployment.

4. Organizational scope

Organizational scope defines who governs the deployment and who sets policy.

Examples include:

  • Department or faculty
  • Single school or institution
  • District or municipal authority
  • State or system-wide authority

Pricing reflects the breadth of governance and legal responsibility, not the number of people using the tool.

5. Data responsibility tiers

Data responsibility defines what Process Feedback is responsible for handling and retaining.

a) Tier 1 - No centralized data retention

This deployment prioritizes privacy, local control, and minimal data handling.

  • Google Docs and LMS browser extensions
  • Local, in-browser exploration of writing process reports
  • No central storage by default
  • No identity tracking
  • Teacher dashboards run locally in the browser

b) Tier 2 - Limited data retention

  • “Share this report” functionality
  • Server-side storage with time-limited retention (e.g., approximately six months)
  • User-initiated data sharing only
  • Process Feedback operates under defined data handling and retention rules

c) Tier 3 - Institutional data & integrations

In this model, Process Feedback assumes institutional data stewardship responsibilities.

  • LMS/LTI integration
  • Process Feedback editors
  • Institution-defined retention and deletion policies
  • Formal operational and compliance obligations

6. Support levels

Support expectations are defined as part of the institutional agreement. Institutions select a support level based on internal capacity and response needs. All levels include email support.

  • Standard – general support
  • Priority – expedited response
  • Managed – highest-priority support and coordination

7. What we do not sell

Process Feedback intentionally avoids pricing models that discourage adoption or require surveillance.

We do not sell:

  • Seats or per-person licenses
  • Usage quotas or data caps
  • Analytics designed to monitor individual behavior
  • Pricing tied to student or teacher counts

8. Identity and usage tracking

In privacy-preserving deployments, Process Feedback does not collect or log individual usage information.

Identity and centralized data management are introduced only when institutions require:

  • shared reports,
  • system integrations, or
  • formal data retention policies.

9. Data storage and retention

  • Writing process data are retained for defined periods
  • Extended retention is a governance decision, not a usage decision
  • Institutions that require long-term storage explicitly opt in
  • Process Feedback is not a data warehouse by default

10. Regulatory and policy alignment

Process Feedback is designed to align with major educational data protection and privacy frameworks across jurisdictions, including: FERPA and COPPA (United States), GDPR (European Union), and Australian Privacy Principles (APPs).

In institutional contexts:

  • The institution serves as the data authority for its users (e.g., data controller under applicable law)
  • Process Feedback operates under institution-defined data handling and retention requirements
  • Privacy-by-design and data minimization guide system architecture
  • Formal agreements (e.g., DPAs or institutional contracts) govern rights, retention, and operational responsibilities
  • No secondary data use or resale

11. Institutional fit

Because institutions differ in governance structure, data policies, and support needs, pricing is finalized after clarifying:

  • who governs the deployment,
  • what data responsibility is required, and
  • the level of operational support expected.
We are still working on a short course for students. Please stay tuned!