June 12, 2004 Resource Planning CAUBO Meeting

June 12, 2004 Questions we want answered? How much investment will take us to where we want to be? How do we measure when we are there? How do we get to a sustainable funding model? How do we keep up with salary increases? What is the right levels of tuition? What are we doing that we shouldn’t be doing? How will we make the decisions?

June 12, 2004 Finding the answers Historical GPO focus needed to be extended Had to be able to compare ourselves to others and believe the results and act on them Had to be willing to make trade offs Realizing that the detailed budget process was one tool to achieve financial planning

June 12, 2004 What we knew we needed Longer term focus Allows for tradeoffs – modeling what ifs Looks at funding and expense assumptions University wide model Supports decision making Some benchmarking to compare

June 12, 2004 How have we evolved Quantified the costs of the strategic plan –Flat costing – no context –No priority mechanism –Not dynamic as it didn’t change over time –didn’t consider the base activity

June 12, 2004 How have we evolved Moved to Trek Financial model that looked at the base and then initiatives –Projects university wide expenses out 5-10 years –Dynamic model as variables changed impact on each changed –Very good for evaluating new projects or investments – what ifs –Very complex model

June 12, 2004 Trek Financial Model All operating revenues and expenses (Core – specific purpose, GPO, and research) Focusing on 5 years Framed in five initiatives – Trek goals –Key targets: –Student numbers and mix –Goal for financial support –Research Capacity –Capital Infrastructure Identify the funding gap Develop a framework to help prioritize the initiatives and funding solutions Create a roadmap for moving forward

June 12, 2004 How have we evolved Moved to benchmarking data against other universities and over time –Comparison data is not timely –Found comparing against ourselves overtime was best –Too many comparisons – needed to pick a few key items

June 12, 2004 How have we evolved Planning Framework –High level costing model that uses key ratios –University wide –Simple –Flexibility to build up and break down –Tied to key ratios where goals can be identified

June 12, 2004 Planning Framework Developing a model that: Understands the costs per student –What does it cost to train a student Mix of grad to undergrad, research intensity, services offered, financial support for students Addresses the cost sharing: How should it be shared between –Student –tuition –Government – grant –Financial Support – endowment/donation

June 12, 2004 University Planning Framework Planning Framework Want to get to consolidated for all operations Rolling 5 year financial plan GPO Budget will be a detailed annual plan within this framework Benchmarking to support allocation and reallocation Internal and external comparisons

June 12, 2004 How have we evolved Consolidated Budgeting –Peoplesoft product being developed –For University community –To compare consolidated quarterly results –Need to match planning framework

June 12, 2004

Benefits of the planning framework FTE staff and faculty reports More timely data than comparing to other Universities Sharing of tuition and grant –Can explain to government and Board Can compare over time and against other Faculties Monitor key indicators quarterly which tie to the planning framework

June 12, 2004 Are we there yet? - NO It’s a race that has no end Trek Financial Model Planning Framework Key Indicators Consolidated Budgeting