Information Services The JCPSG case study BUFDG Full Economic Costing Seminars December 2004 / January 2005

Information ServicesInformation Services

The JCPSG case studyThe JCPSG case study

BUFDG Full Economic Costing SeminarsBUFDG Full Economic Costing Seminars

December 2004 / January 2005December 2004 / January 2005

BUFDG - fEC SeminarsBUFDG - fEC Seminars 22

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

Total University IS resources and demand Total University IS resources and demand – include data from finance, facilities, HR– include data from finance, facilities, HR and student services and student services

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

Assess implications & lessons for ReadingAssess implications & lessons for Reading


Reading - BackgroundReading - BackgroundStudy 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 student School average usage per FTE student ranges widely ranges widely considerable imbalanceconsiderable imbalance

Imbalance in availability and resourcesImbalance in availability and resourcespartly 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 IS Enabled identification of some important IS issues facing the University and its Schoolsissues 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 fundsfunds

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


Example of School summary informationExample of School summary information


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 costs14 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 spend Adjusted for some elements of direct spend by Schoolsby 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 identifiedSchool 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 modelActual Library allotment to Schools for books Actual Library allotment to Schools for books (T) and journals (R) allocated direct to (T) and journals (R) allocated direct to SchoolsSchoolsWeightings 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 declininguse of physical resource, increasing use of physical resource, increasing use of e-sourcesuse of e-sources


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

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

Analysis of usage data, combined with Analysis 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 ResearchTeaching 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 studyAnalysis identified total resource devoted to Analysis identified total resource devoted to provision of IS in the Universityprovision of IS in the University– c£12m+ v. £8.9m for transparency – c£12m+ v. £8.9m for transparency Has influenced allocation of resources in Has influenced allocation of resources in 2004/05 budget exercise 2004/05 budget exercise Identified issues to be addressed in Identified issues to be addressed in developing IS in the Universitydeveloping IS in the University– Also compared performance with other HEIs Also compared performance with other HEIs

through use of SCONUL and UCISA survey datathrough use of SCONUL and UCISA survey data

Derived detailed IS costs per FTE by School Derived 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 understanding Project helped to give a better understanding of IS provision and use in the Universityof IS provision and use in the University

Future planning being aided by project Future planning being aided by project findingsfindings

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

Will need to re-validate the weightings at Will need to re-validate the weightings at intervalsintervals

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

Information ServicesInformation Services

The JCPSG case studyThe JCPSG case study

BUFDG Full Economic Costing SeminarsBUFDG Full Economic Costing Seminars

December 2004 / January 2005December 2004 / January 2005

Documents

Information Services The JCPSG case study BUFDG Full Economic Costing Seminars December 2004 / January 2005