Upload
eric-henry
View
221
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2
Agenda
• The context• The Target of GP projects• The Model • The main “products”• The general results for the Italian University system
3
The context
• Autonomy means:– Impact of central services on differentiation– Impact of central services on cost reduction
• But we need management tools consistent with the characteristics of central services
4
The target of Good Practice
– Identify performance indicators;– Identify good practices;– Understand key driver of good practice, in order to suggest
opportunities for improvement.
5
University GP GP2 GP3 GP 2003 GP 2005 GP 2007
1 Bari Politecnico X X2 BERGAMO X3 BICOCCA X4 Bologna X X X X X5 Calabria X X X X X6 Camerino X X7 Catania X X X X8 Ferrara X X X9 Firenze X X X X10 Foggia X X X11 Genova X X X X12 INSUBRIA X13 IUAV X14 L'Aquila X15 Lecce X X X16 Macerata X17 Messina X18 Milano Politecnico X X X X X19 Milano Università X X X20 Molise X21 Napoli Federico II X22 Napoli Parthenope X23 Padova X X X X24 Palermo X X X25 Pavia X X X X X26 Roma La Sapienza X X27 Salerno X28 Siena X X X29 TORINO X30 Torino Politecnico X X X X X31 Trento X X X X X32 Trieste X X33 Venezia X X X34 Verona X X
10 14 7 16 19 23
Th
e u
niv
ersi
ties
in
volv
ed
7
The measures and area addressed
• The measurement system have included:– Efficiency indicators– Effectiveness indicators:
• Subjective quality• Objective quality
• The areas of the university included are:– Student support services– Accounting– Procurement and Logistics– Personnel management (humane resource)– Research support services – Information system services
8
The area addressed
Area GP GP2 GP3 GP 2003 GP 2005 GP 2007Accounting Efficiency Efficiency
Objective qualityEfficiencyObjective quality
EfficiencyObjective quality
EfficiencyObjective qualitySubjective quality
EfficiencySubjective quality
Student support services
EfficiencyObjective qualitySubjective quality
EfficiencyObjective qualitySubjective quality
EfficiencyObjective quality
EfficiencyObjective qualitySubjective quality
EfficiencySubjective quality
Human resources Efficiency EfficiencyObjective quality
EfficiencyObjective quality
EfficiencyObjective quality
EfficiencyObjective qualitySubjective quality
EfficiencySubjective quality
Procurement and logistics
EfficiencyObjective quality
EfficiencyObjective quality
EfficiencyObjective quality
EfficiencySubjective quality
Research support services
Efficiency EfficiencyObjective qualitySubjective quality
EfficiencySubjective quality
Information and computing services
EfficiencyObjective quality
EfficiencyObjective quality
EfficiencyObjective quality
9
The efficiency indicators
• The indicator used for measuring efficiency is the cost
• The model based on activity allows to measure: The total cost of the activities The unit cost per output of the activities
For example if we consider the matriculation activity:• Total cost for university A = 120,000€
• N. of matriculated students of A = 10,000 students
• The unit cost per output is 120,000€/10,000 = 12 €/matriculated student
ACTIVITYInput output
Cost
Output (or driver)
10
An example of activities and drivers
Activity Driver1 Prospective students support2 Information n. students3 Registration 1st year n. 1st year students4 Registration n. students5 Students cards management n. students6 Certification n. students7 Students programme
managementn. students
8 Graduation management n. graduations9 State exam management n. exam
10 Career management n. students11 Mobility management n. student in mobility12 PhD management n. PhD students13 Post-graduate school n. Post Graduate students14 Student Grant management n. grants15 Stage management n. stages
STUDENTS SUPPORT SERVICES
11
Effectiveness Indicators
• The effectiveness may be measured in two ways:– Objective quality:
• Objective indicators (e.g. delivery time; system availability; presence of controls)
– Subjective quality:• User perception
Output volume (Efficiency)
Output characteristics(Effectiveness)
Input
13
Accounting activities: total costs
A B C D E F G H I L M
Students tax management
82.715 37.239 23.709 98.653 29.885 24.834 32.471 12.021 24.826 36.434 18.084
Other incomes management
173.335 159.386 39.098 78.861 116.211 53.524 69.935 25.234 132.409 499.593 124.044
Expenses management 484.661 347.939 175.073 211.378 152.601 155.450 493.762 182.761 493.613 229.510 262.548
Fiscal management 246.493 158.354 74.360 80.449 87.062 146.924 192.121 48.234 71.881 231.718 175.239
Budget 195.640 133.411 83.993 124.791 124.185 107.877 76.648 34.285 263.986 186.338 144.866
Annual Financial Report 97.269 120.459 25.987 63.015 38.999 0 1.272 30.179 84.120 69.321 157.514
Cost accounting, monitoring and reporting
103.901 95.670 23.315 61.071 30.457 0 98.185 19.909 11.897 7.581 45.715Special entities management (e.g. consortium)
19.640 40.812 13.396 70.288 25.249 18.330 104.319 10.582 11.897 5.043 45.374
Other activities 855.340 128.319 48.893 139.621 87.592 286.096 587.107 70.698 103.926 25.109 154.964
TOTALE 2.258.994 1.221.588 507.823 928.127 692.241 793.034 1.655.820 433.902 1.198.555 1.290.648 1.128.348
14
Accounting activities: Unit costs of single activities
Attività A B C D E F G H I L M N
Students tax management €/student 0,85 1,25 2,33 1,55 1,85 0,41 0,80 0,95 0,63 0,57 0,30 0,33
Other incomes management €/000 € 0,24 0,68 0,72 0,25 1,53 0,11 0,18 0,41 0,35 0,81 0,21 0,24
Expenses management €/000 € 0,80 1,68 3,39 0,72 1,33 0,30 1,25 3,07 1,24 0,38 0,44 0,38
Fiscal management €/oper. 99,35 14,40 19,88 114,93 12,67 196,95 21,09 68,42 4,32 20,05 12,17 39,27
Asset Management €/oper. 4,44 40,15 22,84 14,87 81,08 nd 1,02 ND 70,81 46,21 2,43 0,64
15
Acccounting: the unit costs and the scale effect
y = 4725,4x-0,6245
R2 = 0,8153
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
0 100.000
200.000
300.000
400.000
500.000
600.000
700.000
800.000
900.000
1.000.000
1.100.000
1.200.000
1.300.000
1.400.000
1.500.000
1.600.000
1.700.000
1.800.000
1.900.000
2.000.000
16
Variance from the curve
Actual Costs Actual Costs
A B C D E F G H I L
€/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl €
Cost/000 €0,91 1,99 3,86 1,09 2,81 0,50 1,24 2,59 1,28 0,98
Benchmark costs
A B C D E F G H I L
€/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl €
Costo di benchmark su curva di regressione 0,67 1,51 4,30 1,18 2,79 0,81 0,99 3,91 0,99 0,71
A B C D E F G H I L
€/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl €
Difference0,24 0,48 -0,44 -0,10 0,01 -0,32 0,25 -1,32 0,29 0,26
17
Variance from the curve
-0,24
-0,48
0,44
0,10
-0,01
0,32
-0,25
1,32
-0,29 -0,26
0,08
0,47
-0,02
0,29
-0,08
0,59
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
Var
ian
ce f
rom
ben
chm
ark
18
Confronto dati 2001 - 2003
515,01
786,14
547,07
443,52
576,95
293,39
645,42
961,54
454,39
999,75
620,10
391,37
695,08
331,36
614,75
842,08
0
200
400
600
800
1.000
1.200
A B C E G I L N
€u
ro/p
res
on
GP 2001 GP 2003
The evolution of unit costs between two projects
19
D2 Comp etenza d el p ersonale
D3 Dispo nib ilità e co rtes ia
D4 Orari d i apertuare
D5 Org anizzazio ne seg reterie
D6 Durata d ell'at tesa allo sp o rtello
D7 Sp azi d i at tesa
D9 Mo dulis t ica semp lice e reperib ileD16 Interp retazio ne delle necess ità
D12 Info rmazioni co erent i co n la s tessa seg reteria
D13 Info rmazioni co erent i co n alt ri luog hi
D11 Ad eguatezza temp i svo lg imento p rat iche
media valutazione D2-D16 = 2,19
media soddisfazione D2-D16 = 0,48
1,5
1,7
1,9
2,1
2,3
2,5
2,7
0,22995 0,32995 0,42995 0,52995 0,62995 0,72995
Correlazione con la soddisfazione generale (D1)
Punte
ggio
med
io
Strenghts
Weaknesses
Too high investments
Low importance
Student Support Services: drivers of perceived quality
20
Student Suuport services: perceived quality and actual quality
0 ,0 0
0 ,1 0
0 ,2 0
0 ,3 0
0 ,4 0
0 ,5 0
0 ,6 0
0 ,7 0
0 ,8 0
0 ,9 0
1 ,0 0
0 ,0 0 0 ,2 0 0 ,4 0 0 ,6 0 0 ,8 0 1 ,0 0 1 ,2 0
Information: actual quality
Info
rma
tio
n:
pe
rce
ive
d q
ua
lity
Firenze
i
21
The relation between perceived quality and actual quality
Student Support Services: quality
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
Ca
lab
ria
Ca
tan
ia
Ge
no
va
Mila
no
Po
lite
cn
ico
Mila
no
Un
ive
rsità
Pa
do
va
Pa
via
To
rin
o
Po
lite
cn
ico
Tre
nto
Ve
ne
zia
University
Av
era
ge
wa
itin
g t
ime
Qualità percepita
Qualità oggettiva
Subjective quality
Objective quality
A B C D E F G H I L0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
Ca
lab
ria
Ca
tan
ia
Ge
no
va
Mila
no
Po
lite
cn
ico
Mila
no
Un
ive
rsità
Pa
do
va
Pa
via
To
rin
o
Po
lite
cn
ico
Tre
nto
Ve
ne
zia
University
Av
era
ge
wa
itin
g t
ime
Qualità percepita
Qualità oggettiva
Subjective quality
Objective quality
A B C D E F G H I L
22
The objective time for two accounting procedures
Accounting: actual quality
Tim e for getting reim bursem ent for travel in Italy
0
1
2
3
A D G H B E F L C I
Sc
ore GP2
GP 2003
ScoreWithin 15 days = 3Within 30 days = 2Within 60 days.= 1More than 60 days = 0
ScoreMonthly payments = 3Every 2 or 3 months = 2At the end of the year = 1After the year end = 0
Payment frequency for PhD Students
0
1
2
3
A C E F H B D G I L
Sco
re
GP2
GP 2003
Tim e for getting reim bursem ent for travel in Italy
0
1
2
3
A D G H B E F L C I
Sc
ore GP2
GP 2003
ScoreWithin 15 days = 3Within 30 days = 2Within 60 days.= 1More than 60 days = 0
ScoreMonthly payments = 3Every 2 or 3 months = 2At the end of the year = 1After the year end = 0
Payment frequency for PhD Students
0
1
2
3
A C E F H B D G I L
Sco
re
GP2
GP 2003
23
The integration of Efficiency and Effectiveness
0 ,0 0
0 ,5 0
1 ,0 0
1 ,5 0
2 ,0 0
2 ,5 0
0 ,0 0 0 ,2 0 0 ,4 0 0 ,6 0 0 ,8 0 1 ,0 0 1 ,2 0
Efficiency
Eff
ecti
ven
ess
Ateneo A
Ateneo O Ateneo B
Ateneo C
Ateneo D
Ateneo E
Ateneo F
Ateneo G
Ateneo H
Ateneo I
Ateneo L
Ateneo M Ateneo N
Ateneo P