 |
 |
At UEA we are also reviewing our RM so I am particularly interested to hear views of others in the RM area. At one time income was top sliced at a fixed % to pay for central service costs and University initiatives. This of course gurantees growth of suche expenditure at the same rate as growth in income. So we moved over to an annual star chamber approach. That settled costs at a level after a short time. Subsequently we have started with historic cost + something for inflation and a "CUBS" process (Central Units Budget Setting) whereby central units bid for additional funds which should be to secure university strategic objectives. In determining the costs of central units we take into account the space occuopied. C costs are derived from drivers: space, staff, students and an income tax on all income in the RM model. The cost drivers are related to the relevant C costs that they need to generate income to support (so Personnel is driven by staff and library by a mixture of staff and students for example. Good luck: I hope I shall hear more. Rob Rob Evans Deputy Academic Registrar University of East Anglia -----Original Message----- From: Mair, Ilona [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 25 November 2003 17:12 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Resource Allocation Models: Treatment of overheads At QMUC, we are currently reviewing our resource allocation model and together with wanting to introduce drivers which better incentivise and promote growth, we want to review how overheads are treated and specifically how to allocate resources to and across support areas (currently they are allocated a proportion based on historical cost totally approx. 40% of total income). Any comments on how successfully other institutions have handled this would be appreciated. With thanks. Ilona Mair Head Strategic Planning & Policy Unit Queen Margaret University College Ph: 0131 317 3290 email: [log in to unmask]