1
Refining MDA
To Support WSU’s Mission, To Drive Growth
To Infuse Accountability
2
MDA StE Committee
• Joanne Li, Chair – Dean RSCOB• Dan Abrahamowicz – VP Student Affairs• John Bale – Associate Dean BSOM• Barb Bullock – AVP, Institutional Research• Cassie Dorsten – Finance, Lake Campus• Ryan Fendley – Office of the Provost• Dan Krane – Faculty President, COSM• Suganya Sundaram - BPRA• Kristin Sobolik – Dean COLA
3
Charge to the Committee
• Provost established the MDA Committee
• Charge:– Align with guiding principles– Identify issues (both real and perceived) – Develop recommendations
• Determined:– Old model replete with issues– Easier to develop new model from scratch
4
A Moment of Pragmatism
• No model is a panacea• Iterative process• Continual monitoring for
unanticipated impacts• Commitment to resolve such issues
without penalty to impacted units
5
Core Goal and Elements
• Core Goal:– Growth based on quality academic
innovation
• Fundamental Elements:– Easy to understand and transparent– Provide flexibility– Support accountability for performance– Incent calculated risk-taking– Drive growth consistent with our mission
6
7
Growth Imperative
• Ohio Workforce– Education key to growth– Fewer HS graduates, more non-
traditional students
• Raider Country Revitalization– First-generation college– Re-tooling career paths
8
Model Taxonomy
• Academic Unit: A college or school– BSOM, CONH, COLA
• Auxiliaries: Revenue Potential– Bookstore, Hospitality Services, Nutter
Center
• Support Unit: No Revenue Potential – Physical Plant, Admissions, General
Counsel
9
Performance & Accountability
• Academic Units:– Performance measured relative to targets– Unit flexibility for investment and growth
• Auxiliaries:– Expectation for aggregate net revenue, after
transformation
• Support Units:– Alignment with mission, accountable to
customers (i.e. students, academic units, administration)
10
Growth Enablers
Endowment(Advancement)
Extramural Funding(Research)
Enrollment(Academic Programs)
Included? No Yes (F&A only) Yes
Rationale Restricted, Variable timing
Raises portfolio, key recruitment and
retention toolKey to growth
Incent mission consistent growth
N/A Yes Yes
11
Units Supporting Growth
Academic Auxiliaries Support Units
Included? Yes Post-Transition - Yes Yes
TreatmentAll unit revenues
and direct expenses included
Excluded while being restructured to
revenue neutral/positive
All revenues and direct expenditures included
RationaleEmpower quality
innovation of sustainable programs
Initially Managed outside model, Goals:
quality service, minimizing aggregate
subsidy
Net expense key component of
University sustainability
12
The Model
• A Performance Based Budget Model–With involvement of all constituencies
will:• Establish accountability and transparency• Define performance metrics for all units –
and connect funding to those metrics• Empower and incent innovation and
investment at the unit level for each unit across the university
13
The Model: Academic Units
• No Academic unit starts “in the red’ or “in the black”
• Provided a revenue target and a budget
• Achieving revenue targets within provided budget ensures continuity of resources
• Exceeding revenue targets within provided budgets maximizes resources available to units to support growth
14
The Model: Academic Units
• First growth target: return to revenue level equal to 5-year best (2009 – 2013)
• Budget: Equal to actual unit expenses in the year highest revenue level achieved
• Growth beyond revenue targets returned to unit following a formula
15
The Model: Academic Units• Unit revenue target will have two components:
– X = base revenue target– Y = “stretch” revenue target (X*1.09)– Y-X = strategic investment– Y-X pool is shared between unit and central administration
• Additionally, if unit generates more than Y they receive 70% of any incremental revenue
• During viability stage latitude is provided with clear metrics and timeline for reassessment of initiative including:– Quality, relevant need, sustainability
16
The Model: Academic UnitsCEHS
5 Year High Revenue Baseline +/- Investment
$34,929,270.00
$0.00 Based on growth goals
2013 Actual Revenue Baseline +/- Investment*
$29,759,753.00
-$5,169,517.00 $250,000 (P#) to grow to $31.5M (for FY 16)
CONH5 Year High Revenue Baseline +/- Investment
$19,599,214.00
$0.00 Based on growth goals
2013 Actual Revenue Baseline +/- Investment*
$16,506,692.00
-$3,092,522.00 $150,000 (P#) to grow to $18.5M (for FY 16)
SOPP5 Year High Revenue Baseline +/- Investment
$4,944,115.00
$0.00 Based on growth goals
2013 Actual Revenue Baseline +/- Investment*
$4,662,896.00
-$281,219.00 $120,000 (P#) to grow to $5.1M (for FY 16)
*: Investment shown, and associated growth target is only an exampleP#: Indicates central investment
17
The Model: Academic Units*: Investment shown, and associated growth target is only an exampleP#: Indicates central investment
LAKE5 Year High Revenue Baseline +/- Investment
$9,335,348.00
$0.00 Based on growth goals
2013 Actual Revenue Baseline +/- Investment*
$8,415,505.00
-$919,843.00 $200,000 (P#) to grow to $9.3M (for FY 16)
SOMD5 Year High Revenue Baseline +/- Investment
$39,267,198.00
$0.00 Based on growth goals
2013 Actual Revenue Baseline +/- Investment*
$34,616,500.00
-$4,650,698.00 Based on growth goals
CECS5 Year High Revenue Baseline +/- Investment
$34,574,201.00
$0.00 Based on growth goals
2013 Actual Revenue Baseline +/- Investment*
$34,574,201.00
$0.00 Based on growth goals
18
The Model: Academic UnitsRSCOB
5 Year High Revenue Baseline +/- Investment
$29,714,541.00
$0.00 Based on growth goals
2013 Actual Revenue Baseline +/- Investment*
$29,608,287.00
-$106,254.00 Based on growth goals
COSM5 Year High Revenue Baseline +/- Investment
$45,665,009.00
$0.00 Based on growth goals
2013 Actual Revenue Baseline +/- Investment*
$45,350,585.00
-$314,424.00 Based on growth goals
COLA5 Year High Revenue Baseline +/- Investment
$54,681,110.00
$0.00 Based on growth goals
2013 Actual Revenue Baseline +/- Investment*
$52,873,834.00
-$1,807,276.00 Based on growth goals
19
The Model: Academic Units
• While a unit may currently be below its baseline, it is not “in the red”.– If it exceeds its base revenue target it
can still benefit as discussed on slide 15
• Size of investment and associated growth expectation is situation specific– Consider many factors: unit, initiative,
type of resources needed, etc.
20
The Model: Support Units
• For modeling purposes support costs apportioned in the aggregate (one rate)
• Academic Unit participation in metric establishment and evaluation critical– Changes the conversation from:
• “I don’t use it because I have my own.” • to• “I’m not getting the service that I need and
we need to fix this”
21
The Model: Support Units• Presidential mandated review of all support units• Coordinated by Provost’s Office and inclusive of all
constituencies who are (or should be served) by the unit
• Focus of that review – three phased:– What services does the university need the unit to
provide?– What metrics measure that service provision?– Based on benchmarking peer institutions what are
appropriate budgets to deliver the desired level of service?
• Begin 2015
22
Implementation
• Pace of growth not expected to be same for all. Targets set in collaboration with each unit.
• Have developed a ladder strategy that provides a base, with an infusion of year-to-year funds, to achieve a revenue target.
• Once achieved – year-to-year funding converted to base.
23
Next Steps• Continue to share concept, gain feedback, make
adjustments;
• Fiscal infrastructure is testing model to identify potential fiscal issues;
• Use FY 2015 to tweak initial step on ladder and get University community educated as to how this works, and what it means.
• Prepare for conversion to this model in 2016.– Monitoring for unintended impacts;– Mitigating those that are undesirable without penalty to the
impacted unit
24
Discussion
• Questions About the Concept?
Top Related