JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ADMIN-PLANNING Archives


ADMIN-PLANNING Archives

ADMIN-PLANNING Archives


ADMIN-PLANNING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ADMIN-PLANNING Home

ADMIN-PLANNING Home

ADMIN-PLANNING  2001

ADMIN-PLANNING 2001

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Resource allocation at module level

From:

Nigel Phillips <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

This list is for the benefit of those working in academic, financial or spa" <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:43:50 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (137 lines)

The system at Bradford is also module/load based.As in Birmingham, 10% of
load is distributed to the home department to cover registration, course
admin etc.
A record is kept of teaching attributions for each module, updated annually
in the autumn term, and contains % splits of modules jointly taught.
Shortly after second semester registrations, load is calculated based on
current year student numbers and modular load. Funding for the following
year (based on Hefce grant, projected home and overseas fees, NHS contracts
etc) is distributed in relation to the current year load. Part of the logic
is that this year's student load per HESES produce next year's grant.

Load for each full time student is rounded to 1 FTE. For flexible
programmes, (eg CE), less rounding is possible so it is more important to
get the record absolutely correct.

This is a theoretical income distribution which can be varied through a
plan-led budgeting system, for example to cope with rapidly expanding (or
contracting) areas.
Shared teaching between cognate areas can be a significant financial flow
from one area to another, but few "GAMES" are played in practice. Resource
flows with work, after all.
With newer data systems more information is provided about numbersof
students on modules etc to ensure that each School or department fully
understand itsload pattern of "imports" and "exports".
The system is complex, and that can be difficult to handle in itself, but
its well established here and we haven't found a fairer or more accurate
method. Its running costs are not too bad, because we tie it in to other
systems on student records.

The idea of an AUA session sounds fun, and I would be happy to be a joint
presenter with someone from another uni.

Nigel Phillips
Senior Assistant Registrar
01274 233109
[log in to unmask]





At 15:49 12/06/01 +0100, you wrote:
>We resource via module where we have module information, and where a
>programme isn't modular we resource by programme (and for PGRs we resource
>the dept of the supervisor(s)).
>
>The pitfalls of this are when do you take your data. The 2nd second module
>choices aren't fully onto our system until the end of February, so our
>final load snapshot takes place early March. This is then used in the in
>year financial forecast. Having just run a fresh snapshot last week, I can
>see that on the whole the Schools that are a relatively normal have UG
>loads of +- 5 FTEs (this equates to +- 0.5 to 1%). The greatest
>discrepancies occur in areas where there is less normal provision and
>courses starting at non-standard times. We haven't been able to solve this
>one yet. (But we are reviewing our RAM, and one way to do it may be to do
>a best quality calculation at the end of year, rather than a good quality
>calculation in year. This runs into the problem of using data out of cycle
>to the financial year, but we accept this from HEFCE.)
>
>To reward/resource recruitment and administration the Home dept(s) retain
>10% of the student load. This is also done as an incentive to prevent load
>hoarding. Our underlying resource principal is to resource activity.
>Therefore the quickest way to increase your activity is to prevent
>students from taking modules from outside of your discipline. (This
>problem is not present in a resource by programme model). We therefore
>have policy that insists on yr 1 students on taking modules outside of
>their main discipline (except in Schools where there are accreditation or
>other academic reasons).
>I think this problem can be handled via academic policy, or through
>resource policy (and using a formula that somehow negates this). But if
>you have a "fully" transparent model and methodology, short-termism rules
>and the natural game to play is to hoard.
>
>As stated elsewhere there are data quality/quantity concerns. We are able
>to record the nominal teaching dept (those who organise the teaching), the
>lecturing dept (those who deliver), and the FTE dept (those who actually
>get the cash). And we do record responsibility splits for modules that are
>taught by more than 1 dept.
>
>In the past we carried out a less than logical calculation of the FTE. The
>denominator for each student was the sum of all their registered credits,
>and the numerator for each module was the credit value for the module.
>Therefore an FT student always had a total FTE of 1. But if they were only
>registered on 100 credits then a 10 credit module received 1/10, rather
>1/12 FTE. This year we moved to the much better method of fixing the
>denominators at 120 and 180 for UG and PG respectively.
>
>Does anyone think there is a session that could be made out of this for
>AUA conference? Possibly along the lines of role/game playing?
>
>Dave
>
>On 12 Jun 01, at 14:19, A.M.Grey wrote:
>
>> Dear all,the university is currently reviewing the way in which
>> HEFCE income is distributed to departments.  The current
>> proposal is to move to a system where money follows
>> students, that is departments get money on based on the
>> number of students on modules, rather than programmes.
>> Does any one have any words of wisdom that they like to
>> share with me, before we start?  In particular are there
>> any pitfalls we should be aware of?  Also if you currently
>> running a modular based system and have chosen to abandon
>> it, could you say why?
>>
>> It makes sense logically and provided the student data is
>> accurate should be relatively straight forward, but I just
>> have a feeling that I'm missing something really obvious.
>> I realise that we do need to make some policy decision
>> first, such as do we give the 'home' department an
>> allowance for the work involved in recruitment/student
>> support and also when should the extract of data be taken.
>> But anything else I've missed?
>>
>> Many thanks in anticipation.
>>
>> Anna
>>
>> ----------------------
>> A.M.Grey
>> Assistant Registrar (Planning)
>> Planning and Quality Office
>> (Tel)01482 466867
>> (e-mail) [log in to unmask]
>>
>> **Please note change of address**
>
>
>--
>Dr Dave Radcliffe
>Planning Officer
>Planning & Policy Development
>Academic Office
>Tel: 0121 414 3753
>Web: http://www.ao.bham.ac.uk/plan/
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager