Refining MDA

1. Refining MDA To Support WSU’s Mission, To Drive Growth To Infuse Accountability

2. MDA StE Committee Joanne Li, Chair – Dean RSCOB Dan Abrahamowicz – VP Student Affairs John Bale – Associate Dean BSOM Barb Bullock – AVP, Institutional Research Cassie Dorsten – Finance, Lake Campus Ryan Fendley – Office of the Provost Dan Krane – Faculty President, COSM SuganyaSundaram - BPRA Kristin Sobolik – Dean COLA

3. Charge to the Committee • Provost established the MDA Committee • Charge: • Align with guiding principles • Identify issues (both real and perceived) • Develop recommendations • Determined: • Old model replete with issues • Easier to develop new model from scratch

4. A Moment of Pragmatism No model is a panacea Iterative process Continual monitoring for unanticipated impacts Commitment to resolve such issues without penalty to impacted units

5. Core Goal and Elements • Core Goal: • Growth based on quality academic innovation • Fundamental Elements: • Easy to understand and transparent • Provide flexibility • Support accountability for performance • Incent calculated risk-taking • Drive growth consistent with our mission

7. Growth Imperative • Ohio Workforce • Education key to growth • Fewer HS graduates, more non-traditional students • Raider Country Revitalization • First-generation college • Re-tooling career paths

8. Model Taxonomy • Academic Unit: A college or school • BSOM, CONH, COLA • Auxiliaries: Revenue Potential • Bookstore, Hospitality Services, Nutter Center • Support Unit: No Revenue Potential • Physical Plant, Admissions, General Counsel

9. Performance & Accountability • Academic Units: • Performance measured relative to targets • Unit flexibility for investment and growth • Auxiliaries: • Expectation for aggregate net revenue, after transformation • Support Units: • Alignment with mission, accountable to customers (i.e. students, academic units, administration)

10. Growth Enablers

11. Units Supporting Growth

12. The Model • A Performance Based Budget Model • With involvement of all constituencies will: • Establish accountability and transparency • Define performance metrics for all units –and connect funding to those metrics • Empower and incent innovation and investment at the unit level for each unit across the university

13. The Model: Academic Units No Academic unit starts “in the red’ or “in the black” Provided a revenue target and a budget Achieving revenue targets within provided budget ensures continuity of resources Exceeding revenue targets within provided budgets maximizes resources available to units to support growth

14. The Model: Academic Units First growth target: return to revenue level equal to 5-year best (2009 – 2013) Budget: Equal to actual unit expenses in the year highest revenue level achieved Growth beyond revenue targets returned to unit following a formula

15. The Model: Academic Units • Unit revenue target will have two components: • X = base revenue target • Y = “stretch” revenue target (X*1.09) • Y-X = strategic investment • Y-X pool is shared between unit and central administration • Additionally, if unit generates more than Y they receive 70% of any incremental revenue • During viability stage latitude is provided with clear metrics and timeline for reassessment of initiative including: • Quality, relevant need, sustainability

16. The Model: Academic Units *: Investment shown, and associated growth target is only an example P#: Indicates central investment

17. The Model: Academic Units *: Investment shown, and associated growth target is only an example P#: Indicates central investment

18. The Model: Academic Units

19. The Model: Academic Units • While a unit may currently be below its baseline, it is not “in the red”. • If it exceeds its base revenue target it can still benefit as discussed on slide 15 • Size of investment and associated growth expectation is situation specific • Consider many factors: unit, initiative, type of resources needed, etc.

20. The Model: Support Units • For modeling purposes support costs apportioned in the aggregate (one rate) • Academic Unit participation in metric establishment and evaluation critical • Changes the conversation from: • “I don’t use it because I have my own.” • to • “I’m not getting the service that I need and we need to fix this”

21. The Model: Support Units • Presidential mandated review of all support units • Coordinated by Provost’s Office and inclusive of all constituencies who are (or should be served) by the unit • Focus of that review – three phased: • What services does the university need the unit to provide? • What metrics measure that service provision? • Based on benchmarking peer institutions what are appropriate budgets to deliver the desired level of service? • Begin 2015

22. Implementation Pace of growth not expected to be same for all. Targets set in collaboration with each unit. Have developed a ladder strategy that provides a base, with an infusion of year-to-year funds, to achieve a revenue target. Once achieved – year-to-year funding converted to base.

23. Next Steps • Continue to share concept, gain feedback, make adjustments; • Fiscal infrastructure is testing model to identify potential fiscal issues; • Use FY 2015 to tweak initial step on ladder and get University community educated as to how this works, and what it means. • Prepare for conversion to this model in 2016. • Monitoring for unintended impacts; • Mitigating those that are undesirable without penalty to the impacted unit

24. Discussion Questions About the Concept?