1 / 24

Implementing Full Cost A new way of thinking and acting

Implementing Full Cost A new way of thinking and acting. Ljubljana N ovember 19, 2009 Bea Krenn PhD. Adviser EU research funding Pieter-Jan Aartsen, Corporate controller Universiteit van Amsterdam. Agenda. Introduction Preliminary considerations

avel
Download Presentation

Implementing Full Cost A new way of thinking and acting

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. Implementing Full CostA new way of thinking and acting Ljubljana November 19, 2009 Bea Krenn PhD. Adviser EU research funding Pieter-Jan Aartsen, Corporate controller Universiteit van Amsterdam

  2. Agenda • Introduction • Preliminary considerations • Relevant environment - external and internal • Basic steps in preparation Full Cost • Ways to implement Full Cost • Provisional conclusions • Questions

  3. Knowledge Transfer Office UvA-AMC http://www.english.uva.nl/knowledgetransfer Funding team EU research EU education NL research Legal advisers Business Developers Corporate Control Project controllers at Faculty level

  4. II.Preliminary considerations

  5. Full Cost: a matter of transparency • Accountability towards national and European tax payers • 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

  6. III.Relevant environmentexternal and internal

  7. National setting universities • Ties universities - national government • Control and management structure • Funding principles • Boundaries financial responsibility • Accounting principles

  8. 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, % of Education budget Tendency to increase competition based funding (quality assesments) to shrink fixed amounts • Financial responsibility • 1997: abolishment cash-based system • 2008: Obligation to apply general (national) accounting principles

  9. Developments in NL • All public Dutch universities: intention to implement FC • Phasing is different • Empowered by Dutch Association of Universities • Voluntarily (no requirement ministry of Education) • Dutch ministeries have adopted FC in contract conditions (SISA) • Trying to pull on board Dutch Research Council!

  10. Internal environment Organizational conditions (UvA) • Strong support for transparency by board / management (2006) • Establishing climate for cost-(recovery) related decisions • Full scope responsibility Faculty deans • Concentrating financial and academic policy in one hand • Rationalizing internal budget allocation • Tendency to relate costs to performance • awarding “preferred behaviour” • Budgeting is about numbers, not (in first place) about € • € is derivate: university heart pulses elsewhere • Sound information system to accommodate principles of cost and budget allocation

  11. IV.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 • Valorisation (Intellectual Property) • Other activities • Care for patients (hospitals – faculty of medicine) • Guardianship cultural heritage (museums) • Consultancies

  14. Analyze cost drivers • Teaching & Research: Primary cost driver • Time spent by academic staff (# hrs / # fte) • 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) • 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 )

  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; 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 two components: • Direct personnel costs - one rate per homogeneous salary group (UvA: 18) • Indirect overhead costs - different rates (in €, not in % sal. increase), depending on • Cost structure academic discipline α, β, γ, medicine, etc.) • Specific cost structure research institute (laboratories, equipment etc.) 4) 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 education 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. V.Ways to implement Full Cost

  18. 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 compatible (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 Financial Information System)

  19. 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) • if time spent will be compensated (saving for taking sabbatical) • 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

  20. 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 • 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

  21. VI.Provisional conclusions

  22. Added value of Full Cost • Full Cost: the only clear base for management decisions • Relating costs to cost driver and in the meanwhile budgets to performance indicators can replace the cheese slicer • 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

  23. VII.Questions

  24. FP7 and different national settings: One size fits all? • 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?

More Related