1 / 21

Information Services

Information Services. The JCPSG case study BUFDG Full Economic Costing Seminars December 2004 / January 2005. The project. Development of a methodology for the treatment of Information Services costs within the Transparency Review

landis
Télécharger la présentation

Information Services

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. The project Development of a methodology for the treatment of Information Services costs within the Transparency Review • Project leader – Annette Haworth, Director of Information Services • Project officer – Roger Jones

  3. Approach to the study • Analysis of centrally provided IS resources to identify usage patterns • Total University IS resources and demand – include data from finance, facilities, HR and student services • Develop allocation model(s) • Assess implications & lessons for Reading

  4. Reading - Background • Study based on 2002/03 data • Schools - 23 in 4 Faculties Students - 11,400 FTEAcademic Staff - 1,560 FTE (1,284 in Schools) • Three sites in Reading with two main campuses • Information Services (IS) at Reading include: - IT Services (ITS) - Library - Museums & Collections Services • IS - total cost £8.9M (= 6.4% of total income) - 207 FTE (all grades)

  5. IS usage pattern • School average usage per FTE student ranges widely  considerable imbalance • Imbalance in availability and resourcespartly due to: - School/department location - Student profile (self funding; FT v PT; mix of UG, PGT, PGR) - Predominately “9-5 culture” • Enabled identification of some important IS issues facing the University and its Schools

  6. Relative use of services by user type Service UG PGT PGR Staff Library:Library lending 1 1.6 1.4 0.7Use of e-sources 1 2.2 8.0 5.6 ITS:e-mails sent/received 1 3.9 6.2 18.8Web use 1 4.6 9.8 11.0e-mail server storage 1 2.1 5.9 8.6Home directory storage 1 2.6 12.7 9.2PC laboratory usage 1 1.7 1.1 0.2

  7. Relative IS usage by School

  8. Total University IS resource • Need to understand total University resources devoted to IS, not only the ISD (Directorate) spend • Considerable (but highly variable) proportion of resourcing is from School funds • Analysed ‘central’ data prior to meeting with Schools

  9. Example of School summary information

  10. Development of costing models • Models not directly tied to management structure:- PC labs treated separately from other ITS costs- E-source costs of library service modelled with general IT costs- Library archives & special collections included with museums • 4 models – 1 for each group of services: - PC labs - General IT services (incl. e-sources) - General library service (excl. e-sources) - Museums, archives & special collections

  11. The models • Alternative models considered for each –14 for library and 12 for ITS costs • Target – to match allocations to usage • Allocations based on staff & student FTEs • Adjusted for some elements of direct spend by Schools • Constructed to enable cost of IS for staff, taught and research students for each School to be identified

  12. ITS cost models Weighting for PC labs: - UG = 1 - allocated to teaching - PGT = 1.5 - allocated to teaching - PGR = 1 - allocated to research • Weightings for general ITS (incl. e-sources): - UG = 1 - allocated to teaching - PGT = 3 - allocated to teaching - PGR = 8 - allocated to research - Academic staff = 11 - allocation to T, R & O based on time analysis andSchools weighted by HEFCE multiple

  13. Library cost model • Actual Library allotment to Schools for books (T) and journals (R) allocated direct to Schools • Weightings for library (excl e-sources): - UG = 1 - allocated to teaching - PGT = 1.5 - allocated to teaching - PGR = 1.5 - allocated to research - Academic staff = 0.7 - allocation to T, R & O based on time analysis • Low staff weighting reflects declininguse of physical resource, increasing use of e-sources

  14. Allocation of museums, archives & special collections costs • About 10 per cent of usage is by members of the University • Analysis of usage data, combined with managers knowledge, used to allocate costs to Schools and apportion between Teaching and Research • 90 per cent of costs allocated to “Other”

  15. Matching usage to cost allocations

  16. Impact of new model Comparison of existing & new modelsExisting New Teaching 64% 58% Research 25% 30% Other 11% 12% • Change in allocation to FacultiesTeaching Research Arts & Humanities -20% +15% Economic & Social Sciences -6% -3% Life Sciences -6% +17% Science -5% +38% TOTAL -10% +20% Varies from School to School within Faculties

  17. Benefits of the study • Analysis identified total resource devoted to provision of IS in the University– c£12m+ v. £8.9m for transparency • Has influenced allocation of resources in 2004/05 budget exercise • Identified issues to be addressed in developing IS in the University • Also compared performance with other HEIs through use of SCONUL and UCISA survey data • Derived detailed IS costs per FTE by School – can be used for costing research projects

  18. Average FTE costs by user type

  19. FTE research cost index by School

  20. The Future • Project helped to give a better understanding of IS provision and use in the University • Future planning being aided by project findings • Input into 3 year planning and budget cycle • Will need to re-validate the weightings at intervals • Systems needed to improve collection of usage data

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

More Related