Update on RCB/RCM

1. Update on RCB/RCM Resource Implementation Team

2. Change in Budget Approach • What we have now: • Historical, incremental approach • What the Resources Subcommittee of Vision OHIO proposed: • Moving to a responsibility centered approach

3. Why RCB/RCM? • Match resources with priorities • Get a better handle on costs • Provide the ability to do rational cost/benefit analyses • Push decision making, responsibility and accountability down to the appropriate level

4. A highly simplified example of RCB/RCM for an academic area

5. Implementation Team Charge • Review goals and metrics associated with a new approach to the budgeting process as identified in Vision Ohio. • Review best practices related to budgeting processes at other educational institutions, in particular, our peer institutions • Provide oversight and guidance to the development of the budgetary rules and processes necessary to move to a new budgeting process consistent with the principles identified by the Vision Ohio Resource Committee • Communicate with the university community on a regular basis as the team’s work progresses • Identify interest groups on campus related to resources and communicate with and actively seek input and feedback from them • Identify groups responsible for meeting Resources goals (identify who “owns” or is responsible for each goal) • Host focus groups and open forum discussions to identify barriers and solutions to the Resources Team’s efforts at Ohio University • Develop a prioritized budget for implementing the proposed solutions • Establish the timelines for running the FY ’07 budget parallel with the existing process

6. Membership • 20 committee members including faculty, students, deans, associate deans, administrators, classified staff • Co-chairs: Terry Conry (Director of Facilities and Auxiliaries) & Phyllis Bernt (College of Communication Faculty) • 4 resource members

7. Membership • Carolyn Bailey-Lewis (Center for Public Media – Administrative Senate - Director) • Debbie Brewer (HHS/Classified Senate - Records Management Coordinator) • Tom Flynn (English – Eastern Campus - Faculty) • Steve Flaherty (Regional Higher Education - Associate VP) • Willie Gist (Accounting – Faculty) • David Thomas (Film – Faculty) • Chris Downey (Student Senate – Student Representative) • David Mould (College of Communication—Associate Dean) • Deanna Russell (Fine Arts - Budget Officer) • Aimee Howley (Education – Faculty) • Phyllis Bernt – co-chair (Comm Sys Mgt – Faculty Senate - Faculty) • Joseph McLaughlin (English – Faculty) • John Day (College of Business – Associate Dean) • Shane Gilkey (VP for Research – Budget Director) • Terry Hogan – (Student Affairs - Dean of Students) • Margaret Sheskey (University Advancement – Assistant VP) • Terry Conry – co-chair (Finance and Administration – Associate VP) • Gary Neiman (Health & Human Services - Dean) • Dennis Irwin (Russ College of Engineering & Technology – Dean) • Morgan Vis (Envionmental and Plant Biology – Faculty) • Resource Members • Darrell Winefordner (Provost’s Office – Assoc Provost for Budget & Planning) • Dawn Copeland (VP Finance – Asst VP for Admin – Budget & Planning) • Shelley Ruff (VP Finance – Asst VP for Finance) • Michael Williford (Institutional Research – Associate Provost)

8. Team Subcommittees • Best practices • Communication (Margaret Sheskey) • Budget Structure • Revenue (David Thomas) • Cost (Steve Flaherty) • Support Group (John Day)

9. Guiding Principles • The budget allocation process must support the academic plan, and therefore must be focused on quality. • The process must be transparent to all members of the campus community, and must require accountability. • The process must be easy to administer, and not costly to maintain. • The process must reflect the principles of shared governance. • The process must balance the redirection of funds for new initiatives with the goal of providing sufficient funds for ongoing efforts, and must provide budget stability.

10. What we’ve done so far • Researching best practices • Indiana University (Ed Whalen visit) • Ohio State (teleconference with Lee Walker) • New Hampshire (teleconference with David Proulx) • Michigan (teleconference scheduled with Phil Hanlon) • Lots of reading • Minnesota, Pennsylvania, UCLA, and more • Modeling of FY’05 and FY’06 financials • Measuring impacts of “what if” scenarios

11. Emerging themes • RCB/RCM continuum • Detailed allocation of all dollars (Indiana) • Flat-rate percentages (Michigan) • Keep it simple • Develop good data • Strike the right balance between decentralizing resources and generating a central pool • Minimize perverse incentives • Support the common good • Recognize that not all areas will be able to pay their own way • COMMUNICATION IS CRUCIAL

12. Communication Efforts • Memo from the President and Provost • Informational email to be sent soon • Open forums scheduled: • December 20 • January 11 • January 25 • Ongoing information to be provided to the University community

13. Steps • Identify responsibility centers • Decide what will be allocated and on what basis • Decide how to deal with areas in which revenues do not cover costs • Decide how to monitor quality—what measures will be used • Decide how to assure accountability and also shared governance

14. Timeline • This year (2005-06): • Fall quarter, winter break, beginning of winter quarter: research • Winter quarter and beginning of spring quarter: policy and procedure formulation • Spring quarter and summer: implementation • Second year (2006-07) • Run parallel budgets • Third year (2007-08) • Go live with the new budget system