Transcript PNIA/F - European University Association

1
Implementing Full Cost
A new way of thinking and acting
Short report about a cultural revolution in a university
Warsaw
May 13th 2011
Pieter-Jan Aartsen ([email protected])
Corporate controller
Universiteit van Amsterdam
2
Agenda
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Preliminary considerations
Relevant environment - external and internal
Basic steps in preparation Full Cost
Ways to implement Full Cost
Lessons learnt – recommendations
Provisional conclusions
Puzzling themes
3
I.
Preliminary
considerations
4
Full Cost: a matter of transparency

Accountability towards national and European tax payers

Creating level-playing field / common reporting language

Inevitably: reflecting national setting individual universities

Main objective: showing value for money

Showing the need for university contribution to externally
funded research projects

Creating a sound basis for negotiations about covering costs
5
II.
Relevant environment
6
National setting universities






Institutional ties national government – universities
Control and management structure
Stakeholders organization
Funding principles
Boundaries financial responsibility
Accounting principles
7
Setting Dutch universities


“Withdrawing” national government
Development towards private enterprise structure:

Final responsibility: executive board
 Limited influence on decision-making by employees / students
 Also exploiting private activities (sometimes in separate legal entities)

National funding principles (output oriented):

Education: # students, # Ba/Ma degrees (weighting factors per discipline)
 Research: # PhD, % on Education budget
Tendency

to increase competition based funding (quality assesments)
to shrink fixed shaft (based in “history”)
Financial responsibility

Full balance / P&L (1997: abolition cash-based system)
 2008: Obligation to apply general (national) accounting principles
8
National Dutch developments

All public Dutch universities: intention to implement FC

Phasing is different

Empowered by Dutch Association of Universities

Agreement about “10 commandments” to respect in FC

Voluntarily (no requirement ministry of Education)

Other Dutch ministeries! have adopted FC in contract conditions
(SISA)

Trying to pull on board Dutch Research Council!
9
Organizational conditions (UvA)



Strong support for transparency by board / management
Establishing climate for cost-(recovery) related decisions
Full scope responsibility faculty deans


Rationalizing internal budget allocation




Tendency to relate costs to performance
Automatic favorishing / rewarding “preferred behaviour”
Budgeting is about numbers, not (in first place) about €


Concentrating financial and academic policy in one hand
€ is derivate: university heart pulses elsewhere
Sound information system to accommodate principles of cost
and budget allocation
Planning & Control cycle: balance between autumn and spring
10
Performance indicators: EC (education)
11
III.
Basic steps in
preparation Full Cost
12

Denominate primary activities in university

Analyze cost drivers (primary and secondary)

Design cost allocation scheme
13
Denominate main activities
Reason of existence universities:

Teaching

Research

Other activities

Valorisation (growing intellectual property)
 Care for patients (hospitals – faculty of medicine)
 Guardianship cultural heritage (museums)
 Consultancies
14
Analyze cost drivers

Support and facilities: Secondary cost drivers








Time spent by support staff (# hrs / # fte)
Use of space and housing facilities (# sqm)
Use of ICT-facilities (# workstations, # laptops)
Administrative support (k€ revenue, k€ costs, # headcount, # used)
Use of university library (# fte academic staff)
Student support and facilities (# students)
Use of dedicated research facilities (time used / % cost increase )
Teaching & Research: Primary cost driver

Time spent by academic staff (# hrs / # fte)
15
Design cost allocation methodology - I
1) Separate all direct costs
a) Direct project costs
b) Exclusively (directly) teaching- or research-related costs
2) Allocate remaining overhead costs:
a) Collect these costs in cost pools;
representing separate support tasks / departments;
b) Allocate them via appropriate keys / indicators / cost drivers;
(sqm / fte / income / total budget);
c) in one (“simplified model”) or in more steps;
(eventually reciprocal);
d) mainly to available productive time of all academic staff.
(per department / faculty)
16
Design cost allocation methodology - II
3)
Calculate hourly rates of academic staff, taking into account available
“productive time”, discerning three components:
a)
b)
Direct personnel costs (gross salary) - one rate per salary scale / step (CLA: ± 70)
Surcharges on direct personnel costs:
•
•
•
c)
Indirect overhead costs - different rates (in €, not in % sal. increase)
•
•
•
4)
% Sickness leave (differing for support and academic staff)
% Redundancy payments (one rate UvA-wide)
% Perquisites, average on special remunerations (differing per faculty)
Standard workspace facilities (one rate UvA-wide)
General faculty overhead (differing per academic discipline α, β, γ, medicine, dentistry etc.)
(Research) institute overhead ( differing per research institute (laboratories, equipment etc.)
Finally allocate full costs by time recording
•
•
•
Hours recorded multiplied with hourly rates (in different components)
To individual research projects (+ teaching programs / evt. other activities)
Final step: exclusively teaching or research related overhead costs on the basis of
time spent (FP7 requirement: not mixing costs by nature)
N.B. Applied to all activities: either governmentally or externally funded, i.a. FP7- research
17
Breakdown Full Cost rate UvA
8 - Institute costs
7 - Departmental costs
6 - Work space
5 - Central administration
4 - Other personnel costs
3 - Redundancy
payments
2 - Sickness leave
1 - Personnel costs
18
IV.
Ways to implement Full Cost
19
Necessary preconditions

Apply cost allocation model to figures from Annual Report


or from annual budget, provided regularly adjusted from post calculation
Decide:


Implementing cost settlement procedures in Financial Information System
(making full cost base of management accounting throughout organisation)
Keep model extracomptable (Excel)
(making full cost a tool of controllers especially for reporting FP7-projects)

Communicate tariffs / rates / procedures in organization

Offer a reliable time-recording system

Preferably computerised (and integrated with FIS)
20
Zooming in: Time recording

Active day-to-day time recording (Employee Self Service):


only by those who are employed in contract activities (if required)
Instructions for active time-recording:

In principle: record all real hours spent (avoid mystification / simplification / copying plan)
 Take into account off-time due to illness and holidays
 Way of recording overtime (at FC-rate or zero-rate) depending on contract conditions:




if overtime will be paid for (In NL not, acc. to C.L.A.)
if time spent will be compensated (saving for taking sabbatical, racking holidays / year)
if external contract party is willing to pay for it (E.U.-FP7: not)
Passive “background” recording (periodically updated timetables)
for all other personnel: “detailed” distribution of available time to various activities /
project (as planned – taking into account illness and holidays)
 timesheets are “automatically” generated

21
Other aspects of time recording

Emphasize:






Academic activity is highly “personnel consuming”
Appointments / salaries of academic personnel are expressed in
hours per week,- due to this:
Measuring academic effort in time spent is the best cost indicator
In any case as long as external funding is not output-related
“No cure no pay” is conflicting with academic “code of conduct”
Sometimes “misunderstanding”:

Nor brain activity (probably continuous), nor presence is measured
 Desecration of the academic professional is not the aim
 Accept the necessity as an economic fact of life

Management reporting

Knowledge about time available and time spent can refine and
deepen the conception of academic activity
22
Time spent academic staff: Fac. of Science
23
Time spent academic staff: Fac. of Humanities
24
V.
Lessons learnt
Recommendations
25
Some do’s and do not's


Be sure of the support of the University Board and management
Use only one central Financial System and make an image of the
governance (responsibility) structure within the university in this system


Take only a few transparently measurable cost drivers (less is more)





For those who are increasing efficiency or productivity
Put no IT-specialists in the lead



At the maximum level available (estimated time division can be beginning)
FC is not about available (human) capacity but about the use of (human) resources
Build in: There is something to gain


Only a minimum of relevant and significant cost distinction has to be supported
Avoid scholastic discussions (or cut them off timely)
Show and explain breakdown of cost rates (the necessity and reasonability of them)
Make use of the information about time spending of academics


In “companies”, profit centre's, cost centre’s or business areas e.g.
But financials with knowledge of the nature of the academic “enterprise”
Involve faculty staff, in any case those who are working “at the frontier with outside”
Designing and implementing a FC is funny job and a solvable problem
26
VI.
Provisional conclusions
27
Added value of Full Cost

Full Cost: the only clear base for management decisions


Put the money where the universities heart is
Relating costs to cost drivers and in the meanwhile budgets to performance
indicators can


replace the cheeseslicer / salt dispenser
show added value of financial discipline (not just transferring governmental decisions)

In the long run: FC necessary precondition for sustainability

Explicitly co-funding, matching and cross-subsidizing is better
than hollowing out government budgets implicitly

Matching expresses bi-lateral interest in research outcome

Showing poverty: the beginning of political awareness
28
VII.
Puzzling themes
29

FP7 and Different national settings:
Level-playing-field? One size fits all? Eligibility criteria!

Is the price of Full Cost acceptable?

FP7 Consortia: Market principle or Quality Selection?

Academic manager: contradictio in terminis?

FP7-regulations: Crowbar to increase transparency?