Download First Small Group Session: What positive outcomes of the new

First Small Group Session: What positive outcomes of the new budget model are you anticipating the most? Why?
1
Anticipated Outcomes
More equitable
More transparent
2
3
Better accounting of funds- larger general funds
More rational process, less historical
Plans for/keeps up with growth
Allow more entrepreneurial efforts – clear model
incents program evaluation
Transparency
Rationale, logical: can be explained to both internal
and external audiences – data driven
Incentive to innovate
Discussion about priorities
Potential for improved efficiency
Build PSU community – More awareness of other
programs/unit on campus. More conversation
Contract negotiations could be smoother.
Can units be involved in how revenue generated
beyond expected budget can be allocated. (e.g. IELP,
would like to use revenue to provide support for
international students/ NNS in academic
Why?
Follows a process that is well-defined; has documented support of
non-revenue generating units
Again, a posted process, published data, clearer info. Who has access
to data? How to request that data-? People implementing model at
department levels need access to data.
Pool and identify funds first, then re-allocate
Recognition of effort. Transparent
Assuming model fairly supports revenue generators and supporters
Can clearly show how new programs/initiatives will succeed or fail –
“less lobbying” or begging
Help mold or focus the mission of PSU
4
5
6
7
departments throughout PSU.
Improve transparency/reduce paranoia about what
others are getting relative to what you are getting.
Being able to participate and understand rationale
for all allocation/redistribution.
Keep PSU solvent! We may find out what it really
costs to offer our causes, etc.
information that’s accurate, good for development
office’s case statement/transparency to public
donors
Departmental/unit planning would be facilitated
Has potential to provide incentives to increase
productivity
Transparency: For community discussion that
encourages innovational change.
Finding out true cost of education.
Cut out some complaints about inequitable
distribution.
Additional transparency might make it easier to
make the case for additional resources.
Ability to predict trends.
Faculty will have to confront how much support
really costs.
Transparency and cost control
It will be transparent, improve trust (but will it be clear how and why
contributions are weighted) (but-what will the set point be? (Base line
set at SCH generation that is already unsustainable with current
resources.)
If data is available to department level.
If data is available to department level.
It will make realistic conversation possible but needs some education
on the value of support (new federal, state obligations)
Revenue supporters “must” or should/ follow a performances based
Eliminate begging
Improve quality of programs
We can affect cost of revenue supporters who
charge for support services.
Cross-subsidy
Hope for providing incentives/resources to improve
college and quality.
Eliminate begging from departments
8
9
Identifying inefficiencies and waste through
transparency
Alignment of allocation of resources with
institutional goals and priorities
Has the potential to level the playing field.
Increased transparency
Fact-based Decision Making
More effective use of resources
10
Provide predictability (long range planning)
Could encourage collaborative solutions
Enable us to evaluate the costs of a new
program/course/innovation
models. Revenue generators have choice and are working with
revenue supporters to control cost.
Predictable budget
Hope for providing resources to improve quality
Support units viewed as partners in this process. Tie their revenue to
our revenue.
Their funds are dependent on our being successful.
Working in partnerships – Max $ incentive support services to
maximize revenue.
To save money and redistribute funds more intelligently
To clarify they should be funded adequately
It’s necessary for this model to work and the institution is committed
to it.
Changes to institutional thinking that’s based on history
Resources will be tied to performance, where now it is weakly or not
clearly related
Imperative: carry forward fund balances
Allows better planning
Units can be strategic based on data – a “contract”
for what will be delivered.
11
Activities related to outcomes
Transparency
12
13
14
Consistent way of generating $$
Self support
Freedom to allocate at unit level
Deans accountable for student success
Rationale for funding
Using different metrics
Expose value of a support unit (library)
Transparency
Identifying outcomes and linking new, appropriate
metrics
Accountability
Consistency of data
Timely forecasting
Institutional transparency
More consistent revenue model for forecasting
needs.
Creates a road map
Allows for a unit performing analysis to occur. This
evaluation would occur at a high level. More
alignment to university goals.
Rewards good performance
Identify outcomes
Support student success outcomes with $$
Who has money
Where it is going
Who is generating
Less confusing to students
Transparent
Using more appropriate metrics to measure performance
To know why budget is constructed as it is.
Transparency
Because all data is the same number
Determine more timely budget forecast
Helps to plan going forward with transparency for all
Obtain recognition for fiscal responsibility and performance and
Recognize and incent
Actual transparency and timeliness of budget data
15
Allows for identification of inefficient processes –
transparency of transactional costs
Appropriate funding of revenue supporters
Drive the organization to focus on core values
Ability to prioritize university-wide needs
More transparency would be good
16
Align resources with mission
Units have more control over income
streams/“destinies”
Transparency
17
18
productivity
Provide data in a timely fashion to allow for strategic planning and
lead time for compliance with union contract notification
Frees resources to be used for processes and implementation of
support services that can have significant impact campus wide
Deal with complaints better (data = proof)
Help justify decisions by showing revenue vs. cost (differences)
Indirect costs/revenue supporters – might fare proportionally
(aggregate model)
Incremental model built on historical events
Reactive vs. proactive
Provides ability to strategize and plan incentivize
Facilitates trust that budget model consistently applied; accessibility =
understanding + accountability
Department and School will be incentivized to
increase retention, improve instruction
A formal commitment to transparency/priorities of
institution are clarified
A better feedback loop between the classroom
experience of students and faculty/department
consequences.
Adequate support for student support services
Building feedback into how we get and spend money Alternative (current) is insane
is important
Creates potential for becoming a more
agile/responsive institution
Transparency: clarity of incentives and costs
19
20
Calculate tax based on revenue bodies/students now
on revenues
How to identify and reserve income streams that
exist in specific departments
How to balance efficiency and financial incentives
How to integrate tenure which is not agile and not
responsible – business model and culture is different
Fear of gaming the system
Shifts in service causes
Focus on SCH
Encourage innovation, program development, and
entrepreneurial activities
Predictability, stability and flexibility
Transparency of funds, allocation and decision
making process
More opportunities for input into the budgeting
model and outcomes
Potential for improved alignment of revenues and
student long-term success
It will help speed up change
Help or force units to make better decisions
Make evaluation claims of productivity and benefits possible and
more rational
disincentive for more experienced programs especially for programs
with tuition differential
Checks in system outside of the budget model
Deans
Faculty senate
Increase revenue, visibility/recognition of University
Less dependence on the State
Accountability at all levels and communication within and among
units
So it truly remains transparent
Essential to overall success of the university
21
22
23
Individual units may feel more invested if they are
allowed to collaborate in how to create and spend
revenue, especially if a % of revenue is retained
If this model is reflected at department level, it will
allow dept. to determine a balance among its
offerings with less pressure to eliminate all lowerenrolled courses if it determines offerings fulfill its
mission
More students will graduate
Allows for better planning
Fewer back room deals
More people involved in decision making +
governance/ information sharing
Better data reporting/ compiling capacity
Commitment to transparency
Much clearer view of what budget is and will be
Both instructional and non-instructional units keep
significant and known portions of the annual carry
over
Clarifies priorities and structure
Can this model eliminate all the fees we change each
other – facilities, visas, rentals – inefficient?
Focus on overall numbers/production + commitment to PSU’s
mission rather than on micromanagement of a unit’s production
Depts/colleges have an incentive to help students graduate
Required step that precedes the implementation of performancebased model
Allow better planning
Ensure units abilities to plan strategically over multi-year periods
There are many perverse incentives and strategic misalignments that
this new model should resolve.