Refining MDA
To Support WSU’s Mission,
To Drive Growth
To Infuse Accountability
1
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
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
6
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
7
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
8
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)
9
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 tool
Key to growth
N/A
Yes
Yes
Incent mission
consistent
growth
10
Units Supporting Growth
Academic
Auxiliaries
Support Units
Included?
Yes
Post-Transition - Yes
Yes
Treatment
All unit revenues
and direct
expenses included
Excluded while being
restructured to
revenue
neutral/positive
All revenues and direct
expenditures included
Rationale
Empower quality
innovation of
sustainable
programs
Initially Managed
outside model, Goals:
quality service,
minimizing aggregate
subsidy
Net expense key
component of
University
sustainability
11
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
12
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
13
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
14
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
15
The Model: Academic Units
5 Year High Revenue
CEHS
Baseline +/-
Investment
$34,929,270.00
$0.00
Based on growth goals
2013 Actual Revenue
Baseline +/-
$29,759,753.00
-$5,169,517.00
Investment*
$250,000 (P#) to grow
to $31.5M (for FY 16)
5 Year High Revenue
CONH
Baseline +/-
Investment
$19,599,214.00
$0.00
Based on growth goals
2013 Actual Revenue
Baseline +/-
$16,506,692.00
-$3,092,522.00
Investment*
$150,000 (P#) to grow
to $18.5M (for FY 16)
SOPP
Baseline +/-
Investment
$4,944,115.00
$0.00
Based on growth goals
2013 Actual Revenue
Baseline +/-
$4,662,896.00
-$281,219.00
Investment*
$120,000 (P#) to grow
to $5.1M (for FY 16)
5 Year High Revenue
*: Investment shown, and
associated growth target is only an
example
P#: Indicates central investment
16
The Model: Academic Units
5 Year High Revenue
LAKE
Baseline +/-
Investment
$9,335,348.00
$0.00
Based on growth goals
2013 Actual Revenue
Baseline +/-
$8,415,505.00
-$919,843.00
Investment*
$200,000 (P#) to grow
to $9.3M (for FY 16)
*: Investment shown, and
associated growth target is only an
example
P#: Indicates central investment
SOMD
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
5 Year High Revenue
CECS
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
5 Year High Revenue
17
The Model: Academic Units
5 Year High Revenue
RSCOB
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
COSM
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
5 Year High Revenue
5 Year High Revenue
COLA
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
18
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.
19
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”
20
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
21
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-toyear funds, to achieve a revenue target.
• Once achieved – year-to-year funding
converted to base.
22
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
23
Discussion
• Questions About the Concept?
24