jones2005

Information ServicesInformation Services

The JCPSG case studyThe JCPSG case study

UMSLGUMSLG Summer Residential MeetingSummer Residential Meeting

7- 8 July 20057- 8 July 2005

UMSLG Summer Residential Meeting - July 2005 UMSLG Summer Residential Meeting - July 2005 22

TRAC and fECTRAC and fEC

Why and What?Why and What?


PrinciplesPrinciples

Publicly funded research should be Publicly funded research should be fully funded by public fundsfully funded by public funds

Universities should know their own Universities should know their own costs, price for costs, price for sustainabilitysustainability and and plan for reinvestmentplan for reinvestment

Public money is for public good onlyPublic money is for public good only


TransparencyTransparency

TRAC - costing of teaching, research & allTRAC - costing of teaching, research & all other activities other activities

In operation in HEIs for a few years atIn operation in HEIs for a few years at School level School level

Aims to identify the full economic costAims to identify the full economic cost (fEC) of activities (fEC) of activities

From Sept ’05 funding from ResearchFrom Sept ’05 funding from Research Councils based on fEC Councils based on fEC

Major ‘central’ costs – estates & ISMajor ‘central’ costs – estates & IS


What is fEC?What is fEC?fEC is the full cost of undertaking an fEC is the full cost of undertaking an activityactivityfEC includes all direct costs and indirect fEC includes all direct costs and indirect costs such as space, central services costs such as space, central services and a contribution to the University’s and a contribution to the University’s infrastructureinfrastructurefEC is the same regardless of sponsorfEC is the same regardless of sponsorCreates a distinction between cost and Creates a distinction between cost and pricepriceObjective is to ensure Objective is to ensure sustainabilitysustainability


SustainabilitySustainability““An institution is being managed on a sustainableAn institution is being managed on a sustainable basis if, taking one year with another, it is basis if, taking one year with another, it is recovering its full economic costs across its recovering its full economic costs across its activities as a whole, and is investing in its activities as a whole, and is investing in its infrastructure (physical, human, and intellectual) infrastructure (physical, human, and intellectual) at a rate adequate to maintain its future productive at a rate adequate to maintain its future productive capacity appropriate to the needs of its strategic capacity appropriate to the needs of its strategic plan and students, sponsors and other customer plan and students, sponsors and other customer requirements requirements.”.” (TRAC Volume III, A1 para 51)(TRAC Volume III, A1 para 51)

Thus resources must be identified to meet the full Thus resources must be identified to meet the full costs in the long run:costs in the long run:– Direct, indirect, maintenance, cost of capital & investmentDirect, indirect, maintenance, cost of capital & investment– Areas of cross subsidy and transparency for decision makingAreas of cross subsidy and transparency for decision making


Information ServicesInformation ServicesThe University of ReadingThe University of Reading

JCPSG good practice JCPSG good practice case studycase study


The projectThe project

Development of a methodology for the Development of a methodology for the treatment of Information Services treatment of Information Services

costs within the Transparency Reviewcosts within the Transparency Review

– Project leader – Project leader – Annette HaworthAnnette Haworth, , Director of Information Services Director of Information Services

– Project officer – Project officer – Roger JonesRoger Jones


Approach to the studyApproach to the study

Analysis of centrally provided IS resourcesAnalysis of centrally provided IS resources to identify usage patterns to identify usage patterns

Total University IS resources and demandTotal University IS resources and demand – include data from finance, facilities, – include data from finance, facilities,

HR and student services HR and student services

Develop allocation model(s)Develop allocation model(s)

Assess implications & lessons for ReadingAssess implications & lessons for Reading


Reading - BackgroundReading - Background

Study based on 2002/03 dataStudy based on 2002/03 dataSchools Schools - 23 in 4 Faculties - 23 in 4 Faculties StudentsStudents - 11,400 FTE- 11,400 FTEAcademic Staff - 1,560 FTE Academic Staff - 1,560 FTE (1,284 in Schools)(1,284 in Schools)

Three sites in Reading with two main campusesThree sites in Reading with two main campusesInformation Services (IS) at Reading include:Information Services (IS) at Reading include:

- IT Services (ITS)- IT Services (ITS)- Library- Library- Museums & Collections Services- Museums & Collections Services

IS - total cost £8.9M IS - total cost £8.9M (= 6.4% of total income)(= 6.4% of total income)- 207 FTE - 207 FTE (all grades)(all grades)


IS usage patternIS usage pattern

School average usage per FTE studentSchool average usage per FTE student ranges widely ranges widely considerable imbalanceconsiderable imbalance

Imbalance in availability and resourcesImbalance in availability and resources partly due to: partly due to: - School/department location - School/department location - Student profile (self funding; FT v PT; - Student profile (self funding; FT v PT;

mix of UG, PGT, PGR)mix of UG, PGT, PGR) - Predominately “9-5 culture” - Predominately “9-5 culture”

Enabled identification of some important ISEnabled identification of some important IS issues facing the University and its Schools issues facing the University and its Schools


Relative use of services Relative use of services by user typeby user type

ServiceService UGUG PGTPGT PGRPGR StaffStaff

Library:Library:Library lendingLibrary lending 11 1.61.6 1.41.4 0.70.7Use of e-sourcesUse of e-sources 11 2.22.2 8.08.0 5.65.6

ITS:ITS:e-mails sent/receivede-mails sent/received 11 3.93.9 6.26.2 18.818.8Web useWeb use 11 4.64.6 9.89.8 11.011.0e-mail server storagee-mail server storage 11 2.12.1 5.95.9 8.68.6Home directory storageHome directory storage 11 2.62.6 12.712.7 9.29.2PC laboratory usagePC laboratory usage 11 1.71.7 1.11.1 0.20.2


Relative IS usage by SchoolRelative IS usage by School


Total University IS resourceTotal University IS resource

Need to understand Need to understand totaltotal University University resources devoted to IS, not only the ISD resources devoted to IS, not only the ISD (Directorate) spend (Directorate) spend

Considerable (but highly variable)Considerable (but highly variable) proportion of resourcing is from School proportion of resourcing is from School funds funds

Analysed ‘central’ data prior to meetingAnalysed ‘central’ data prior to meeting with Schools with Schools


Development of costing modelsDevelopment of costing models

Models not directly tied to management structure:Models not directly tied to management structure:- PC labs treated separately from other ITS costs- PC labs treated separately from other ITS costs- E-source costs of library service modelled with- E-source costs of library service modelled with general IT costs general IT costs- Library archives & special collections included- Library archives & special collections included with museums with museums

4 models – 1 for each group of services:4 models – 1 for each group of services:- PC labs- PC labs- General IT services (incl. e-sources)- General IT services (incl. e-sources)- General library service (excl. e-sources)- General library service (excl. e-sources)- Museums, archives & special collections- Museums, archives & special collections


The modelsThe models

Alternative models considered for each –Alternative models considered for each – 14 for library and 12 for ITS costs 14 for library and 12 for ITS costs

Target – to match allocations to usage Target – to match allocations to usage

Allocations based on staff & student FTEsAllocations based on staff & student FTEs

Adjusted for some elements of direct spendAdjusted for some elements of direct spend by Schools by Schools

Constructed to enable cost of IS for staff,Constructed to enable cost of IS for staff, taught and research students for each taught and research students for each School to be identified School to be identified


ITS cost modelsITS cost models

Weightings for general ITS (incl. e-sources):Weightings for general ITS (incl. e-sources):- UG = 1 - allocated to teaching- UG = 1 - allocated to teaching- PGT = 3 - allocated to teaching- PGT = 3 - allocated to teaching- PGR = 8 - allocated to research- PGR = 8 - allocated to research- Academic staff = 11 - allocation to- Academic staff = 11 - allocation to

T, R & O based on time analysis T, R & O based on time analysis

andand Schools weighted by HEFCE multipleSchools weighted by HEFCE multiple

Weighting for PC labs:Weighting for PC labs:- UG = 1 - allocated to teaching- UG = 1 - allocated to teaching- PGT = 1.5 - allocated to teaching- PGT = 1.5 - allocated to teaching- PGR = 1 - allocated to research- PGR = 1 - allocated to research


Library cost modelLibrary cost model

Actual Library allotment to Schools for booksActual Library allotment to Schools for books (T) and journals (R) allocated direct to (T) and journals (R) allocated direct to Schools SchoolsWeightings for library (excl e-sources):Weightings for library (excl e-sources):

- UG = 1 - allocated to teaching- UG = 1 - allocated to teaching- PGT = 1.5 - allocated to teaching- PGT = 1.5 - allocated to teaching- PGR = 1.5 - allocated to research- PGR = 1.5 - allocated to research- Academic staff = 0.7 - allocation to- Academic staff = 0.7 - allocation to T, R & O based on time analysis T, R & O based on time analysis

Low staff weighting reflects decliningLow staff weighting reflects declining use of physical resource, increasing use of physical resource, increasing use of e-sources use of e-sources


Allocation of museums, archives Allocation of museums, archives & special collections costs& special collections costs

About 10 per cent of usage is byAbout 10 per cent of usage is by members of the University members of the University

Analysis of usage data, combined withAnalysis of usage data, combined with managers knowledge, used to allocate managers knowledge, used to allocate costs to Schools and apportion between costs to Schools and apportion between Teaching and Research Teaching and Research

90 per cent of costs allocated to “Other”90 per cent of costs allocated to “Other”


Matching usage to cost allocationsMatching usage to cost allocations


Impact of new modelImpact of new model

Change in allocation to FacultiesChange in allocation to FacultiesTeaching Teaching ResearchResearch

Arts & HumanitiesArts & Humanities -20%-20% +15%+15%Economic & Social SciencesEconomic & Social Sciences -6%-6% -3%-3%Life SciencesLife Sciences -6%-6% +17%+17%ScienceScience -5%-5% +38%+38%TOTAL TOTAL -10%-10% +20%+20%

Varies from School to School within FacultiesVaries from School to School within Faculties

Comparison of existing & new modelsComparison of existing & new modelsExistingExisting NewNew

TeachingTeaching 64%64% 58%58%ResearchResearch 25%25% 30%30%OtherOther 11%11% 12%12%


Benefits of the studyBenefits of the study

Analysis identified total resource devoted toAnalysis identified total resource devoted to provision of IS in the University provision of IS in the University – c£12m+ v. £8.9m for transparency – c£12m+ v. £8.9m for transparency Has influenced allocation of resources inHas influenced allocation of resources in 2004/05 budget exercise 2004/05 budget exercise Identified issues to be addressed inIdentified issues to be addressed in developing IS in the University developing IS in the University– Also compared performance with other HEIs Also compared performance with other HEIs

through use of SCONUL and UCISA survey through use of SCONUL and UCISA survey datadata

Derived detailed IS costs per FTE by SchoolDerived detailed IS costs per FTE by School – can be used for costing research projects – can be used for costing research projects


Average FTE costs by user typeAverage FTE costs by user type

0

100

200

300

400

Taught Students Research Students Staff (T portion) Staff (R portion)


FTE research cost index by SchoolFTE research cost index by SchoolArts and Communication Design

Continuing Education

English and American Literature

History

Humanities

Linguistics and Applied Language Studies

Modern Languages

Business School

Institute of Education

Health and Social Care

Law

Sociology, Politics & International Relations

Agriculture, Policy and Development

Animal and Microbial Sciences

Applied Statistics

Food Biosciences

Plant Sciences

Psychology

Chemistry

Construction Management & Engineering

Human and Environmental Sciences

Mathematics, Meteorology and Physics

Systems Engineering

Staff

PGR Students


The FutureThe Future

Project helped to give a better understandingProject helped to give a better understanding of IS provision and use in the University of IS provision and use in the University

Future planning being aided by projectFuture planning being aided by project findings findings

Input into 3 year planning and budget cycleInput into 3 year planning and budget cycle

Will need to re-validate the weightings atWill need to re-validate the weightings at intervals intervals

Systems needed to improve collection ofSystems needed to improve collection of usage data usage data


Further InformationFurther InformationSee JCPSG web site section on Costing & See JCPSG web site section on Costing & Pricing – Good Practice for downloads of the Pricing – Good Practice for downloads of the Reading case study & a consolidated report:Reading case study & a consolidated report:http://www.jcpsg.ac.uk/costingpricing/practice/index.http://www.jcpsg.ac.uk/costingpricing/practice/index.htmhtm

Core slides from this presentation are at:Core slides from this presentation are at:http://www.rdg.ac.uk/foia/downloads.htmhttp://www.rdg.ac.uk/foia/downloads.htm

Further detail of this project can be obtained Further detail of this project can be obtained by contacting:by contacting:– Information Management and Policy Services, Information Management and Policy Services,

Reading University at Reading University at [email protected]@reading.ac.uk

OROR– Roger Jones at Roger Jones at [email protected]@imper.co.uk

Information ServicesInformation Services

The JCPSG case studyThe JCPSG case study UMSLGUMSLG

Summer Residential MeetingSummer Residential Meeting7- 8 July 20057- 8 July 2005

jones2005

Documents

trac volume

special collections

library service

full economic

information

general library

library archives

archives amp