Information Services

1. Information Services The JCPSG case study UMSLGSummer Residential Meeting 7- 8 July 2005

2. TRAC and fEC Why and What?

3. Principles • Publicly funded research should be fully funded by public funds • Universities should know their own costs, price for sustainability and plan for reinvestment • Public money is for public good only

4. Transparency • TRAC - costing of teaching, research & all other activities • In operation in HEIs for a few years at School level • Aims to identify the full economic cost (fEC) of activities • From Sept ’05 funding from Research Councils based on fEC • Major ‘central’ costs – estates & IS

5. What is fEC? • fEC is the full cost of undertaking an activity • fEC includes all direct costs and indirect costs such as space, central services and a contribution to the University’s infrastructure • fEC is the same regardless of sponsor • Creates a distinction between cost and price • Objective is to ensure sustainability

6. Sustainability • “An institution is being managed on a sustainable basis if, taking one year with another, it is recovering its full economic costs across its activities as a whole, and is investing in its infrastructure (physical, human, and intellectual) at a rate adequate to maintain its future productive capacity appropriate to the needs of its strategic plan and students, sponsors and other customer requirements.”(TRAC Volume III, A1 para 51) • Thus resources must be identified to meet the full costs in the long run: • Direct, indirect, maintenance, cost of capital & investment • Areas of cross subsidy and transparency for decision making

7. Information Services The University of ReadingJCPSG good practice case study

8. The project Development of a methodology for the treatment of Information Services costs within the Transparency Review • Project leader – Annette Haworth, Director of Information Services • Project officer – Roger Jones

9. Approach to the study • Analysis of centrally provided IS resources to identify usage patterns • Total University IS resources and demand – include data from finance, facilities, HR and student services • Develop allocation model(s) • Assess implications & lessons for Reading

10. Reading - Background • Study based on 2002/03 data • Schools - 23 in 4 Faculties Students - 11,400 FTEAcademic Staff - 1,560 FTE (1,284 in Schools) • Three sites in Reading with two main campuses • Information Services (IS) at Reading include: - IT Services (ITS) - Library - Museums & Collections Services • IS - total cost £8.9M (= 6.4% of total income) - 207 FTE (all grades)

11. IS usage pattern • School average usage per FTE student ranges widely  considerable imbalance • Imbalance in availability and resources partly due to: - School/department location - Student profile (self funding; FT v PT; mix of UG, PGT, PGR) - Predominately “9-5 culture” • Enabled identification of some important IS issues facing the University and its Schools

12. Relative use of services by user type Service UG PGT PGR Staff Library:Library lending 1 1.6 1.4 0.7Use of e-sources 1 2.2 8.0 5.6 ITS:e-mails sent/received 1 3.9 6.2 18.8Web use 1 4.6 9.8 11.0e-mail server storage 1 2.1 5.9 8.6Home directory storage 1 2.6 12.7 9.2PC laboratory usage 1 1.7 1.1 0.2

13. Relative IS usage by School

14. Total University IS resource • Need to understand total University resources devoted to IS, not only the ISD (Directorate) spend • Considerable (but highly variable) proportion of resourcing is from School funds • Analysed ‘central’ data prior to meeting with Schools

15. Development of costing models • Models not directly tied to management structure:- PC labs treated separately from other ITS costs- E-source costs of library service modelled with general IT costs- Library archives & special collections included with museums • 4 models – 1 for each group of services: - PC labs - General IT services (incl. e-sources) - General library service (excl. e-sources) - Museums, archives & special collections

16. The models • Alternative models considered for each – 14 for library and 12 for ITS costs • Target – to match allocations to usage • Allocations based on staff & student FTEs • Adjusted for some elements of direct spend by Schools • Constructed to enable cost of IS for staff, taught and research students for each School to be identified

17. ITS cost models Weighting for PC labs: - UG = 1 - allocated to teaching - PGT = 1.5 - allocated to teaching - PGR = 1 - allocated to research • Weightings for general ITS (incl. e-sources): - UG = 1 - allocated to teaching - PGT = 3 - allocated to teaching - PGR = 8 - allocated to research - Academic staff = 11 - allocation to T, R & O based on time analysis andSchools weighted by HEFCE multiple

18. Library cost model • Actual Library allotment to Schools for books (T) and journals (R) allocated direct to Schools • Weightings for library (excl e-sources): - UG = 1 - allocated to teaching - PGT = 1.5 - allocated to teaching - PGR = 1.5 - allocated to research - Academic staff = 0.7 - allocation to T, R & O based on time analysis • Low staff weighting reflects declining use of physical resource, increasing use of e-sources

19. Allocation of museums, archives & special collections costs • About 10 per cent of usage is by members of the University • Analysis of usage data, combined with managers knowledge, used to allocate costs to Schools and apportion between Teaching and Research • 90 per cent of costs allocated to “Other”

20. Matching usage to cost allocations

21. Impact of new model Comparison of existing & new modelsExisting New Teaching 64% 58% Research 25% 30% Other 11% 12% • Change in allocation to FacultiesTeaching Research Arts & Humanities -20% +15% Economic & Social Sciences -6% -3% Life Sciences -6% +17% Science -5% +38% TOTAL -10% +20% Varies from School to School within Faculties

22. Benefits of the study • Analysis identified total resource devoted to provision of IS in the University – c£12m+ v. £8.9m for transparency • Has influenced allocation of resources in 2004/05 budget exercise • Identified issues to be addressed in developing IS in the University • Also compared performance with other HEIs through use of SCONUL and UCISA survey data • Derived detailed IS costs per FTE by School – can be used for costing research projects

23. Average FTE costs by user type

24. FTE research cost index by School

25. The Future • Project helped to give a better understanding of IS provision and use in the University • Future planning being aided by project findings • Input into 3 year planning and budget cycle • Will need to re-validate the weightings at intervals • Systems needed to improve collection of usage data

26. Further Information • See JCPSG web site section on Costing & Pricing – Good Practice for downloads of the Reading case study & a consolidated report:http://www.jcpsg.ac.uk/costingpricing/practice/index.htm • Core slides from this presentation are at:http://www.rdg.ac.uk/foia/downloads.htm • Further detail of this project can be obtained by contacting: • Information Management and Policy Services, Reading University at imps@reading.ac.uk OR • Roger Jones at roger.jones@imper.co.uk

27. Information Services The JCPSG case study UMSLGSummer Residential Meeting 7- 8 July 2005