1 / 15

The Sustainability of Research: Lessons from the Full Economic Costing Programme in the UK

The Sustainability of Research: Lessons from the Full Economic Costing Programme in the UK. John Newton Assistant Director (Costing, Pricing and Special Projects), Cardiff University. Background. Transparency Review UK Government expectations/commitment - 2002

kami
Download Presentation

The Sustainability of Research: Lessons from the Full Economic Costing Programme in the UK

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Sustainability of Research: Lessons from the Full Economic Costing Programme in the UK John Newton Assistant Director (Costing, Pricing and Special Projects), Cardiff University

  2. Background • Transparency Review • UK Government expectations/commitment - 2002 • JCPSG, TRAC and its strategy – methodology finally agreed June 2005 • Additional support for UK Research Councils • Implementation for Research Councils from September 2005 • Cost-based pricing based on TRAC/fEC • Market-based pricing • Sustainability – Reporting of data to UK government, Funders Forum, metrics

  3. fEC • Definition of fEC • Full economic costs based on TRAC – definitions of activities, data, time allocation schedules, validation, testing, internal audit- refer to http://www.jcpsg.ac.uk/ • Cost models and rates vary between institutions • QA process – Dipstick testing • Rates calculated for Estates and Indirect costs – generic and lab-based departments • Breakdown of costs: • Directly Incurred (DI) • Directly Allocated (DA) • Indirect • Exceptional items

  4. Directly Incurred (DI) costs DI costs are: • explicitly identifiable as arising from the conduct of the • research; • are charged on the basis of the cash spent; and • are verifiable and auditable from accounting records Types include: • Staff specific to a project (e.g. Technicians, RAs) – underpinned by an auditable record (i.e. timesheet) • consumables, travel, equipment) • Facility usage –if usage/project and auditable costs charged on the basis

  5. Directly Incurred (DI) costs Issues • Names of staff • RAs and RFs wholly working on the project and all salary costs charged to the project treated differently to those working on a variety of projects • Hours in total over project • Cannot use pay bandings. Use actuals • Use of equipment funded by Research Councils/double counting • How are estimates derived? Note later justification for audit • Recording of costs as expenditure made • Indexation

  6. Directly Allocated (DA) costs DA costs are: • shared costs based on estimates; and • do not represent actual costs on a project-by-project basis Types include: • Departmental technical and administrative service staff • Costs to projects, based on a charge-out rate related to estimated costs

  7. Directly Allocated (DA) costs Issues • PIs/Co-investigators – change from current procedure • Costs of staff that work on several projects are generally directly allocated • Names • Hours (based on estimates – no timesheets) • Charged on the basis of standard charge-out rates and estimated time • Lab technicians to be directly allocated by 1 August 2007 • Research Councils will not fund PIs more than 1650 hours/year – 100% of salary • Costs of major research facilities to be directly allocated by 1 August 2007 • Reconciliation between actual and estimated hours • Agreed estimated costs paid – no more, no less • Pay bandings – TRAC • Estates – FTE based on research staff on project or sq m • Indexation

  8. Estimating academic staff time/project (1) General • Pay bandings/actual salary costs • 1650 hours for fEC purposes – note standard and not contracted hours • Hours conversion to FTEs • Confirmation of time estimates annually or as required • Do not include time spent training or supervising project or tied studentships on project but record separately. • Determine total hours for project

  9. Estimating academic staff time/project (2) Points to consider • Whether PI or Co-investigator • How many on project • Experience of RAs • General experience/aptitude • No. of partners • Type of equipment • No. of papers to be written • Sponsor requirements • Can include writing up time • Do not include dissemination

  10. Estimating academic staff time/project (2) Methods • Zero-based • TRAC data • Time/RA – weighting as appropriate • Standards of department • Experience of older researchers • Peer discussion

  11. Indirect costs • Cost driver model • Consists of: • the Support time of academics • clerical and administrative staff in • academic departments (exc. DI/DA costs) • non-staff costs in academic departments • central services (Finance, Research Admin., etc) • estates costs of central service departments • Cost of Capital Employed Adjustment (COCE) • FTE calculation – TRAC Time Allocation Schedules/PGR weightings • The total indirect costs for Research/total FTEs for Research provides the indirect cost rate/FTE for Research • Annual calculation, using historical data for the previous accounting year

  12. Exceptions for Research Council purposes Include: • 100% fEC of equipment over K£50 threshold (total) • 100% of project studentship stipends and tuition fees (where applicable to project). Do not include as part of FTEs • Note indexation

  13. General • Charge-out rates to be determined by central Finance division of university but in liaison with all other relevant staff • Costs used to establish the indirect cost, estates cost and all other charge-out rates are reconciled to the financial statements plus the two cost adjustments • Terms and conditions • Peer Review and fEC.

  14. Conclusions • Do not underestimate work in implementing fEC systems • Involve all staff across university • Be aware of different funding regimes - Structural Funds, Charities, UK Research Councils, EU, etc • Some indirect costs may be ineligible – clarification required • Need to compare full economic costs with costs recovered in price for all projects • Activity needs to fit in with institutional/school strategic plans • What happens to shortfall between costs and price? Who meets shortfall? • Are European projects sustainable? - refer to: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/research/downloads/EUFrameworkProgammes.pdf

  15. Contact • John Newton • Assistant Director (Costing, Pricing and Special Projects) • Cardiff University • P O Box 497 • 30 -36 Newport Road • Cardiff CF10 3XR • UK • Email: newton@cardiff.ac.uk

More Related