As promised, posted below is the start of our discussion on research costing developed by Andrew Faulkner. We would like to start an open debate / discussion on this topic which seems to be of interest to all Universities in Australia at the moment, so please add your comments / suggestions below.
SRE 2010 Transparent Costing (TC)
- A set of allowable indirect costs, falling into one of four indirect cost categories; and
- A single indirect cost driver to support the calculation of the proportion of indirect costs incurred by universities attributable to ACGs.
Four categories of indirect costs will be adopted in the 2010 trial TC framework:
- non-academic salaries and on-costs;
- costs of maintaining physical university infrastructure;
- finance and insurance costs;
- other costs indirectly associated with research.
One of two cost drivers will be adopted in the 2010 trial TC framework relating to the relative effort of academic staff on ACG research. The preferred method, takes the universities research related indirect costs (derived from a cost model or comprehensive financial systems) and allocates them to ACG based upon the percentage of staff time performing ACG research.
% time spent on ACG research * FTE ACG associated staff / total Research Active staff FTE
% time spent on ACG research * FTE ACG associated staff / Total staff FTE
Otherwise, ACG is receiving a smaller indirect portion than it really should.
If a cost model is used that calculates ACG Research as one of its product lines then this has the advantage of isolating the direct ACG Research and FTE, calculating the relative FTE ratios between ACG and the rest of the university and apportioning the indirect costs according to a suitable driver (FTE). The key to making such a model accurate and usable from a SRE reporting viewpoint is having an accurate allocation of staff time to ACG Research. If the model is already fully allocating academic (and research staff) time according to workloads, payroll data and faculty/school business rules then the only piece of information required to complete the model for ACG research costing is the time spent by staff on ACG Research. This means that rather than a full survey of all staff, only a partial survey of research involved staff is required covering their research time.
Because this would reduce the survey burden it seems more likely to receive willing input from the academics than a full staff survey, especially as the results of it relate to the research funding received by the university. One issue is that the survey responses could be skewed towards too much time spent on ACG research. This should be countered by the fact that the results will be used to calculate the direct research costs as well as the indirect research costs, thus showing up as an over-expense in relation to direct funding if they over-estimate their time.
Join the discussion and tell us your opinion.
ACE Management Model? This is probably an abbreviation I should know, but I’m drawing a blank and Google is surprisingly unhelpful. What does it stand for? Is this a proprietary concept? Thanks
Hi Carl, Yes it’s our proprietary modelling engine (ACE) – the actual name is Analytical Costing Engine – but it can be used for much more than costing. We’ve used ACE in a range of different industries including the Military, Oil/Gas, Insurance, Gaming but we have developed a specific methodology for Higher Ed over the last ten years with our standard Management Model, as well as our Predictive Model. We also have a brand new entry level Rapid Prototype Model to let universities see their institutional data in the ACE Management Model framework before they commit to a full model build. Cheers, Lea