300 likes | 1.09k Views
Activity-Based Budgeting. T-FLEx Spring Conference Las Vegas April 5, 2006. DART’s Current Operating Budget Alignment. Horizontal: Line Items Object Classes Vertical: Cost Centers Divisions Departments. What is the Value of the Current Operating Budget?. To a cost center manager?
E N D
Activity-Based Budgeting T-FLEx Spring Conference Las Vegas April 5, 2006
DART’s Current Operating Budget Alignment • Horizontal: • Line Items • Object Classes • Vertical: • Cost Centers • Divisions • Departments
What is the Value of the Current Operating Budget? • To a cost center manager? • To an executive decision maker? • To the Board?
DART’s Current Operating Budget Alignment – Advantages • Traditional, consistent • Easy to understand, high level of detail • Year-to-year trending data • Departmental line-of-sight
DART’s Current Operating Budget Alignment – Disadvantages • Limited context information • Lack of visibility • Budget cuts can be arbitrary • Insufficient data to evaluate cost effectiveness or prioritize expenditures • Weakened inter-departmental communication
First Step:‘Context’ Information • Direct Service Costs (66%) – Costs directly related to providing transportation service to the customer • Indirect Service Costs (25%) – Costs that are one step removed from direct costs; generally impact service quality • General and Administrative (9%) – Costs not directly related to service but that provide essential business functions
Next Step:Activity-Based Management • Activity-Based Budgeting (ABB) • Build the Budget • Activity-Based Costing (ABC) • Track Expenditures • Activity-Based Management (ABM) • Prioritize Projects and Processes • Drive Efficiency • Identify Opportunities for Continuous Improvement
Name Type (process or project) Description Work Triggers Suppliers Resources Work Partners Work outputs, measures, and metrics Cost Drivers Customers/Clients of Activity Activity Elements
Why Activity Based Budgeting? • Communication with the Board • Context information • Agency activities >> Board Goals • Internal Communication • Program changes not made in isolation • Break down the silos • Prioritize Activities • Eliminate across-the-board cuts, cut lowest value activities • Identify of areas to target for process reengineering • The “A-Ha Factor” • Understanding the Cost of Quality
Rapid Prototype Implementation • Quick, highly summarized initial effort • Top-Down Approach • Promoting Buy-in • Involves every department • Provides an immediate work product • Avoids “Death by Details” • First model is not an exercise in precise costing • Iterative Process
ABM Implementation Phasing • FY06 – Phase I • Define Agency activity dictionary (Model Zero), create draft activity-based budget (information only), begin to evaluate tracking systems requirements • FY07 – Phase II • Reinforce ABM culture, enhance activity list detail, develop tracking systems, create usable ABB for FY08 • FY08 – Phase III • Full implementation, tracking time and expenditures, system maintenance, identify opportunities for efficiencies and process re-engineering
Phase I Timeline • Jan-Mar – Develop Model Zero • 6-10 half-day ABM sessions • Agency-wide Team • Create Activity List • Trace Agency Costs to Activities • Apr-Jun – Review with Management • Departmental Management • ELT / EMT • Jun-Sep – Create and present an Activity- Based Budget
What Activity-Based Budgeting Isn’t • It is not a control budget • It does not replace the department / line item budget, it is supplemental information • Activities are owned at the agency level, not the departmental level • It is not a Panacea, it is a tool
Lessons Learned So Far • Communicate “Why” • Agency-wide inclusiveness vs. isolated department work sessions • Team Members • Top-down vs. Bottom-up approach • Rapid-prototype • # of Activities / Activity Count envy
Lessons Learned So Far (Cont’d) • Don’t sweat the small stuff • Activity intersections – Project vs. Process? • How much detail do you need? • Cost vs. Benefit