Module Four: Exercise on financial m a n a g e m e n t Solutions
Y o u will find a computer print-out of the computer model (Finance.wkl) attached to this exercise. In this print-out you will find the results of the questions posed in Module Four. Since Module Four is self-explanatory in the sense that it provides an example of all the calculations to be done, it was not necessary to prepare a solution with examples and explanations.
Y o u will find the solutions to the shaded areas of the following tables:
Task 1 : Table 4 Task 2 : Table 6 Task 3 : Table 10 Task 4 : Table 12 Task 5 : Table 14 Task 6 ¡Table 18 Task 7 : Table 20 Task 8 : Table 22 Task 9 : Table 26 Task 1 1 : Table 30
M O D U L E 4 : Simulation exercise on strategic financial management
To input new parameters
1. Press F5 2 . Select INPUT To see financial results
1. Press F5 2 . Select T A B L E 2 8 To see performance indicators
1. Press F5 2. Select T A B L E 30
Table 1 Projected Qualified National Applicants (Government Plan), 1996-200 Year
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Projection 12500 13181 13900 14657 15456 16298 17186 18123 19110 20152 21250
Table 2 Percentage of Qualified National Applicants, 1996
Erehwon Utopia Old World N e w World Total
Med 2,5%
2,0%
3,0%
1,3%
8,8%
Sci/Technol 7,0%
5,0%
6,5%
5,0%
23,5%
S-Sci.
15,0%
17,0%
12,0%
17,0%
61,0%
Humanit.
12,0%
20,0%
13,0%
12,0%
57,0%
Total 36,5%
4 4 , 0 % 34,5%
35.3%
150,3%
INSTITUTIONAL- M A N A G E M E N T IN HIGHER EDI JCATION
Table 3 Admission Data, fcrehwon University, 1996
% of National Appl Applicants Admitted A p p / A d m Ratio Admission Rate Avg Entry Score
Med 2 , 5 %
313 90 3,48 2 8 , 8 %
29
Sci/Technol 7,0%
875 260 3,37 2 9 , 7 %
28
S-Sci 15,0%
1875 800 2,34 42,7%
24
Humanit.
12,0%
1500 600 2,50 40,0%
25
Total
36,5%
4 5 8 3 1750
2,61 3 8 , 4 % 25 Table 4 Admission Data, Erehwon University, 2001
% of National Appl Applicants Admitted A p p / A d m Ratio Admission Rate Avg.Entry Score
Med 2,5%
407 120 3,39 29,5%
28
Sci/Technol 7,0%
1141 350 3,26 3 0 , 7 %
28
S-Sci.
15,0%
2445 1050
2,33 42,9%
24
Humanit.
12,0%
1956 790 2,48 40,4%
25
Total
36,5%
5949 2310
2,58 3 8 , 8 %
25 Table 5 Student Enrolment and Graduates, Erehwon University, 1996
1st year 2nd year 3rd year final year Total U G Sts Grad Students Weight Weighted Sts U G Degree Grad Degree
Med 90 85 82 80 337 25 3 412 78 6
Sci/Technol 260 245 237 12 754 59 3 931 242 15
S-Sci 800 752 730 7 2289 143 1,5 2504 715 36
Humanit.
600 564 547 11 1722
54 1,5 1803 542 14
Total
1750 1646 1596 110 5102
281 5650 1577 71
Table 6 Student Enrolment and Graduates, Erehwon University, 2001
1st year 2nd year 3rd year final year Total U G Sts Grad Students Weight Weighted Sts U G Degree Grad Degree
Med I20 105 100 85 410 50 3 560 75 10
Sci/Technol 350 310 285 13 958 90 3 1228
272 20
S-Sci 1050
940 860 8 2858 220 1,5 3188 799 51
Humanit 790 710 655 12 2167
100 1,5 2317 608 25
Total
2310 2065 1900
118 6393
460 7293 1754
105
32
Table 7 Matrix of Average N u m b e r of Hours per Student Erehwon University, 1996
Teaching Receiving Medicine Sci/Technology Social Sciences Humanities Total
Med
750 0 0 0 750
Sci/Technol
50 700 0 0 750
S-Sci.
25 50 450 50 575
Humanit.
25 0 100 450 575
Total
850 760 550 600 2650
Table 8 Matrix of Required Student Hours, Erehwon University, 1996
Teaching Receiving
Medicine
% SciTechnology
% Social Sciences
% Humanities
% Total
%
Med
309000 88,2%
0 0,0%
0 0,0%
0 0,0%
309000 9,3%
Sci/Technol
20600 5,9%
651700 9 3 , 3 % 0 0,0%
0 0,0%
672300 2 0 , 2 %
S-Sci.
10300 2 , 9 % 46550 6 , 7 % 1126800 81,8%
90150 10,0%
1273800 3 8 , 3 %
Humanit.
10300 2,9%
0 0 , 0 % 250400
18,2%
811350 9 0 , 0 % 1072050 3 2 , 2 %
Total
350200 10,5%
698250 21,0%
1377200 41,4%
901500 27,1%
3327150 100,0%
Table 9 Matrix of Average N u m b e r of Hours per Student Erehwon University, 2001
Teaching Receiving Medicine Scirrechnoiogy Social Sciences Humanities Total
Med
750 0 0 0 750
Sci/Technol
40 700 0 0 740
S-Sci.
30 30 470 25 555
Humanit.
30 20 80 475 605
Total
850 750 550 500 2650
INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Table 10 Matrix of Required Student Hours, Erehwon University, 2001
Tea chi nq Receiving
Mediane
%
Sa/Technology
%
Scaal S a e n c e s
%
Humanities
%
Total
%
Med
420000 88,2%
0 0.0%
0 0,0%
0 0,0%
420000 9.7%
Sa/Technol
22400 4,7%
859600 93,3%
0 0,0%
0 0,0%
882000 20,5%
S-Sci
16800 3,5%
36840 4,0%
1498360 85,5%
57925 5,0%
1609925 37,4%
Humanit.
16800 3 , 5 % 24560 2 , 7 % 255040 14.5%
1100575 9 5 , 0 % 1396975 32,4%
™T<SaT
476000
14¿%
921000 27,7%
1753400 52,7%
1158600 3 4 , » » 4308900 100,0%
Table 11 Required and Available Teachers Erehwon University, 1996
Contact Hours Avg Class Size Req Teachers
Avail Teachers Professors Lecturers Lect/Prof Ratio
Balance Teachers
Med
180 15 1,4
101 23 78 3,39
-13
Sa/Technol
220 25 122
116
¿a 88 3,14
-6 S-Sci
280 35 130
155 ID 140 9,33
25
Humanit
350 35 88
84 I8 66 3,67
A Total
454 466 84 372
2
Table 12 Estimate of Required Teachers, Erehwon University, 2001
Contact Hours Avg Class Size Req Teachers
Lect/Prof Ratio Professors Lecturers
Med
185 20 114
4,00 23 91
Sa/Technol
235 30 125
4,00 25 100
S-Sci
285 40 141
8,00 16 125
Humanit
355 40 98
5,00 16 82
Total
478
80 398
Table 13 Required and Available Support Staff Erehwon University, 1996
Sup/Acad Ratio Req Support Avail Support Balance Support
Med
1,25 126 b5
•61
Sa/Technol
1,00 116 70
^16 S-Sci
0.25 39 60 21
Humanit
0,14 12 63 53
Total
293 260
^33
Table 14 Estimate of Required Support Staff, Erehwon University, 2001
Sup/Acad Ratio Req Support
Med
1,00 114
Sa/Technol
0,83 104
S-Sci
0,22 31
Humanit
0 14 14
Total
263
34
Table 15 Total N u m b e r of Staff, Erehwon University, 1996
Professors Lecturers Research Staff Support Staff
Teaching Staff Total Staff
Med
23 78 20 65
101 186
Sci/Technol
28 88 25 70
116 211
S-Sci
15 140 15 60
155 230
Humanit
18 66 15 65
84 164
Total
84 372 75 260
456 781
Table 16 Total N u m b e r of Staff, Erehwon University, 2001
Professors Lecturers Research Staff Support Staff
Teaching Staff Total Staff
Med
23 91 25 114
114 253
Sci/Technol
25 100 35 104
125 264
S-Sci
16 125 20 31
141 192
Humanit.
16 82 25 14
98 137
Total
80 398 106 262
478 845
Table 17 Staff Cost, Erehwon University, 1996
Med
Average Salar/ (S000) Professor
Lecturer Researcher Support Staff
Teach Salary (S000) Res Salar/ (S000) Support Salary ($000
Tot Staff Cost (S000)
120 80 60 40
9000 1200 2600
12800
Sci/Technol
110 75 60 40
9680 1500 2800
13980
S-Sci
100 80 55 40
12700 825 2400
15925
Humanit
90 65 55 40
5910 825 2600
9335
Total
107 76 58 40
37290 4 3 5 0 10400
62040
Table 18 Staff Cost, Erehwon University, 2001
Average Salary (S000 Professor
Lecturer Researcher Support
Teach Salary (S000) Res. Salary (SOOO) Support Salary (S000
Tot Staff Cost (SOOO) Med
135 90 65 45
11295 1625 5130
18050
Sci/Technol
125 85 65 45
11625 2275 4680
18580
S-Sci
115 90 60 45
13090 1200 1395
15685
Humanit
100 75 60 45
7750 1500 630
9880
Total
121 86 63 46
43760 6800 11835
62196
INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Table 19 Norvstafl Cost, Erehwon University, 1996
Teach Materials per a Hour ($) Teach Materials ($000|
Research Multiplie!
Research Cost ($000)
Overhead Multiplier Overhead Cost ($000)
Total Non-Stafl Cost ($000)
Med
0,30 93
0.50 600
0.50 6747
7440
Sa/Tech nol
0.25 168
0,40 600
0,50 7374
8142
SSrJ "
0,15 191
0.20 165
0,50 8141
8497 Humanit
0,10 107
0,10 83
0,50 4763
4953
Total
559
14«
27025
29032
Table 20 Non-stafl Cost, Erehwon Urtverslty, 2001
Teach Materials per St Hour ($) Teach Materials ($0O0)
Research) Multiplier Research Cost ($000)
Overhead Multiplier Oerhead Cost ($000)
Total Non-Staff Cost ($000)
Med
0,35 147
0,50 813
0.40 7604
8564
Sct/Technol
0,30 265
0.40 910
0,40 7902
9077 S-Sa
0,17 274
0,20 240
0,40 6480
6994 Humanit
0,12 168
0,10 150
0,40 4079
4397 Total
a«
2113
26065
29032
Table 21 Recapitulation oí Expenditures, Erehwon University, 1996
Salary Cnsis IS000I Professor Lecturer Research Staff Supper1. Sta"
Non-Staff Costs ($000) Teach Materials Research Cost Overhead Cost
Total ($000) per St (S)
Total ($000) per Si (S)
Total ($000) per St ($)
Med
2760 6240 1200 260O
93 600 6747
11693 28381
18440 44757
20240 49126
Sct/Technol
3080 6600 1500 2fW1
168 600 7374
12G40 13585
20022 21506
22122 23762
S-So
1500 11200 825 2400
191 165 8141
15291 6107
23432 9358
24422 9753
Humanit
1620 4290 825 2600
107 83 4763
8617 4779
13380 7421
14288 7925
Tota
8960 28330 43S0 10400
559 1446 27026
48249 8640
75274 13323
81072 14349
36
Table 22 Recapitulation of Expenditures, Erehwon University, 2001
Salary Costs (S0001 Professor
Lecturer Research Staff Support Staff
Med
3105 8190 1625 5130 Non-Staff Costs (S000)
Teach Materials Research Cost Overhead Cost Instructional Costs Total ($000) per St. ($) P r o g r a m m e Costs Total ($000) per St. ($) ExDenditure Total ($000) per St. ($)
147 813 7604
16572 29593
24176 43171
26614 47525
Sci/Technol
3125 8500 2275 4680
265 910 7902
16570 13493
24472 19928
27657 22522
S-Sci.
1840 11250 1200 1395
274 240 6480
14759 4630
21239 6662
22679 7114
Humanit.
1600 6150 1500 630
168 150 4079
8548 3689
12627 5450
14277 6162
T O W
9870 34090 6600 11836
854 2113 26065
56449 7740
82514 11314
91227 12509
Table 23 National Programme Cost, National Enrolment, and Degrees Awarded, Erehwon University, 1996
National P-Cost National W-St Degrees Awarded
Med 66126
2183 247
Sci/Technol 78927 4676 1167
S-Sci 101352
14305 3311
Humanit.
57123 12956 3009
Total 303528
34120 7734
Table 24 National Programme Cost, National Enrolment, and Degrees Awarded, Erehwon University, 2001
National P-Cost National W - S t Degrees Awarded
Med 76658
2840 296
Sci/Technol 91498 6082 1518
S-Sci.
117495 18608 4307
Humanit.
66221 16853 3914
Tota»
351872 44383 10035
INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Table 25 Income, Erehwon University, 1996
General Ine (S000)
Research Inc Mult Research Inc (S000)
Tuition Inc per St ($) Tuition (SOOO)
Other Income Mult, Other Income (S000) Total Income ($000)
Med 13481
1,50 5940
0 0
0,26 1754 21175
Sci/Technol 15881
1,50 6870
0 0
0,26 1917 24668
S-Sci.
18263
1,10 2558
0 0
0,26 2117 22938
Humanit 8210
1,05 2567
0 0
0,26 1238 12015
Total 55835
17935
0
7026 80796
Table 26 Income, Erehwon University, 2001
General Inc (S000)
Research Inc Mult Research Inc (S000)
Tuition Inc per St (S) Tuition (S000)
Other Inc Mult.
Other Inc (S0O0) Total Income (S000)
Med 14111
1,50 7095
0 0
0,26 1977 23183
Sci/Technol 16306
1,50 8100
0 0
0,26 2055 26461
S-Sci.
18169
1,10 3344
0 0
0,26 1685 23198
Humanit 8240
1,05 3255
0 0
0,26 1061 12556
Total 56026
2t794
0
6778 85398
Table 27 Balance, Erehwon University, 1996
Total Expend (S000) Total Income (S000) Balance (SOOO)
Med 20240 21175 935
Sci/Technol 22122 24668 2546
S-Sci.
24422 22938 -1484
Humanit 14288 12015 -2273
Total 81072 80796 -276
Table 28 Balance, Erehwon University, 2001
Total Expend (SOOO) Total Income (SOOO) Balance ($000)
Med 26614 23183 -3431
Sci/Technol 27657 26461 -1196
S-Sci 22679 23198 519
Humanit 14277 12556 -1721
Total 91227 85398 -5829
38
Table 29 Recapitulation of Basic Data and Performance Indicators Erehwon University, 1996
Input
A p p / A d m Ratio Avg. Entry Score Lect/Prof Ratio Sup/Acad Ratio
% Res Staff St/Teach Ratio Process Contact Hours Class Size Cost per St.(S) Output
Graduation Rate Cost per Grad ($)
Med
3,48 29 3,39 0,64 10,8%
4,08
180 17 49126
97,5%
240952
Sci/Technol
3,37 28 3,14 0,60 11,8%
8,03
220 26 23762
9 7 , 2 % 86078
S-Sci.
2,34 24 9,33 0,39 6,5%
16,15
280 29 9753
97,0%
32519
Humanit
2,50 25 3,67 0,77 9 , 1 % 21,46
350 36 7925
9 7 , 1 % 25698
Total
2,61 25 4,43 0,57 9,5%
12,39
14349
97,1%
49194
Table 30 Recapitulation of Basic Data and Performance Indicators Erehwon University, 2001
Input
A p p / A d m Ratio Avg Entry Score Lect/Prof Ratio Sup/Acad Ratio
% Res Staff St/Teach Ratio Process Contact Hours Class Size Cost per St (S) Output Graduation rate Cost per Grad (S)
Med
3,39 28 3,96 1,00 9,9%
4,91
185 20 47525
88,5%
312279
Sci/Technol
3,26 28 4,00 0,83 13,3%
9,82
235 30 22522
91,2%
94864
S-Sci.
2,33 24 7,81 0,22 10,4%
22,61
285 40 7114
92,0%
26703
Humanit.
2,48 25 5,13 0,14 18,3%
23,64
355 40 6162
91,1%
22560
Total
2,58 25 4,98 0,55 12,4%
15,26
12509
91%
49075
INSTITUTIONAL M A N A G E M E N T IN HIGHER EDUCATION
M o d u l e Seven: Utilization of staff time a n d the elaboration of a planning model and a practical exercise
Solutions T a s k l
1. Calculation of the total n u m b e r of hours used for teaching purposes in a year
Table 1. Total hours required for teaching by method
Method/Faculty
Engineering
Contact Auxiliary Total
1 11.454 35,966 47.420
2 21,568 57.155 78,723
3 9,467 16,473 25,940
4 15,739 29,904 45,643
5 2,112 2,154 4,266
6 0 0 0
7 0 0 0
Total 60,340 141,652 201,992
Example: For 1 contact hour, the number of auxiliary hours is 1.57 + 0.63 + 0.94 = 3.14.
For 11,454 contact hours, the number of auxiliary hours is 11,454x3.14 = 35,966.
Therefore, total teaching hours required for Method 1 are 11,454 + 35,966 = 47,420.
2. Calculation of the total n u m b e r of hours used for teaching and other activities in a year
Table 2. Hours for teaching activities (according to results of the survey)
Method/Activity Teaching
1 47,420
2 78,723
3 25,940
4 45,643
5 4,266
6 0
7 0
Total 201,992
Table 3 . Hours for all academic activities Teaching
Supervision Research Services Administration Total
201,992 3,648 2,736 2,964 16,415 227,982'
Remember: T h e total teaching hours you calculated above represents only 88.6 per cent of all working hours used for academic activities. In order to obtain the hours needed for all activities, you have to add time for thesis supervision (1.6 per cent), research (1.2 per cent), services (1.3 per cent) and administration (7.2 per cent). W e have 201,992 as total teaching hours. This constitutes 88.6 per cent of all the working hours used.
Therefore, total number of working hours used - 201,992 227,982 .886
Example: Thesis supervision uses 1.6 per cent of the total number of working hours used.
Therefore 'Thesis supervision' takes 227,982 x .016 - 3,648.
3 . Calculation of the utilization rate of academic staff time The Faculty of Engineering utilizes 227,982 hours of academic staff time.
The available time depends upon the number of staff (239) and the total number of working hours per F T E staff m e m b e r (1,680):
2 3 9 x 1 , 6 8 0 - 4 0 1 , 5 2 0 .
1. Discrepancy of total and s u m of the activities is due to rounding.
INSTITUTIONAL M A N A G E M E N T IN HIGHER E D U C A T I O N
This m e a n s that the overall utilization rate of academic staff (according to the results of the survey) is:
227,982
56.8%
2 3 9 x 1 , 6 8 0
Remember: T h e utilization rate of academic staff time is total hours worked divided by total hours available.
Task 2
1. Rationale of the n o r m s proposed by the Faculty Board
Comment : It is obvious that the results of the survey demonstrate a very high proportion of time allocated to teaching. This is largely due to the significant amount of time needed for preparation, counselling and examination.
The management of the institution should reflect o n whether the efficiency of the teaching process could be improved and the auxiliary hours needed per classroom teaching hours reduced. O f course this would need to be discussed within the academic decision-making bodies. In order to achieve a balance in the mix of academic activities, more time needs to be given to other academic activities at University 'X', such as thesis supervision, research and services. A s a consequence, the n e w profile reflects the objective of allocating less time to instruction (maintaining it, however, as the major task of the university), and developing research and service activities. It is not enough to establish norms. It is crucially important to create an appropriate environment, such as increasing the resources dedicated to research and service activities.
T h e introduction of a n e w category of time use concerned with professional development of academic staff takes account of the fact that there is an overall strategy at University 'X' concerned with the improvement of academic quality at die institution in both the teaching and research area.
Task 3
1. Calculation of the total n u m b e r of hours needed for each task The calculations below follow the logic you used in the first two questions in Task 3 above.
Table 4 . Hours for various activities (according to norms) Method/Activity
Teaching
1 50,398
2 100,507
3 31,998
4 50,522
5 6,294
6 0
7 0
Total 239,719
Table 5. Hours for various academic activities Activity
Teaching Supervision Research Services Administration
Professional development Total
Total 239,719
11,064 36,880 36.880 25,816 18,440 368,799
INSTITUTIONAL M A N A G E M E N T IN HIGHER EDUCATION
2. Calculation of the utilization rate of academic staff
The calculations below follow the logic you used in the third question in Task 1 above.
368,799
91.9%
239 x 1 6 8 0 Task 4
1. Needs for F T E academic staff of the Faculty of Engineering in 1999
Table 6. Fixed F T E needs and variable F T E needs (Engineering Faculty) for 1999
Faculty
Engineering
Hours of teaching 239.719
Student numbers 4.565
Large groups 50.398
Fixed F T E staff needs
30.0
Small groups 189.321
Variable F T E per student
0.026
Variable F T E staff needs
119
Given that, according to norms, w e need 50,398 hours for teaching activities under Method 1, w e divide this number by the yearly working hours available per staff (i.e. 1,680) and obtain a need for 30 F T E staff to cope with the fixed teaching load.
50,398 30 1,680
T o calculate the staff needs for the variable load, w e multiply the projected student numbers for 1999 by the factor f. The factor f is obtained by dividing the variable teaching load by the yearly working hours of an academic staff m e m b e r and by the number of students in 1996, i.e. 4,302.
189,321
/ 4 , 3 0 2 - 0 . 0 2 6 1,680
A s a consequence the staff needs for the variable load in 1999 are:
4 , 5 6 5 x 0 . 0 2 6 - 1 1 9 .
The total of staff needs for all teaching activities is: 30 + 119 - 149.
A s teaching represents only 65 per cent of all staff needs, a further 35 per cent needs to be added, which brings the staff needed for all academic activities to 229.
Remember: In order to m a k e projections of staff needs, w e calculate the total number of hours needed for teaching per year in a given Faculty. W e then m a k e a distinction between the fixed load (hours used for teaching Method 1), which does not change with varying student numbers, and the variable load (hours used for teaching Methods 2-7) which increases w h e n student numbers increase.
Table 7. Projection of F T E staff needs for the years 1997-2001
Faculty
Engineering
Students F T E Teachers Others Total
<(99£) (4,30V
143 96 239
1997 4,388
145 78 223
1998 4,476
147 79 226
(19991
¿4,565^) 149
80 229
2000 4,657 152
82 234
2001 4,750
154 83 237
Comment: This table provides you with the full picture of staff projections for the period 1997 to 2001. At present the Faculty of Engineering is over-staffed. This means that more time is available for other academic activities than teaching.
The Faculty could think of giving more time to research and service activities.
INSTITUTIONAL M A N A G E M E N T IN HIGHER E D U C A T I O N
A decision might be m a d e to freeze employment at the Faculty for a while or even, if this is possible, to m a k e s o m e academic staff redundant.
Task 5
1. Calculation of the n u m b e r of F T E staff at each level of the academic hierarchy
For 1 full professor, there are 1.5 associate professor, 2 assistant professors, 2 instructors level 1,1 instructor level II, 1 instructor level HI. For a total of 8.5 F T E staff, there is 1 full professor. For 229 F T E , there are:
1
-— x229 8.5
Table 8 presents projections of academic staff needs at the different levels of the academic hierarchy of University 'X'.
Table 8. Distribution of academic staff by level
Full Prof.
Assoc. Prof.
Assist. Prof.
Instr-I Instr-II Instr-III Total
1 1.5
2 2 1 1 8.5
1996 28 43 56 56 28 28 239
1997 26 39 53 53 26 26 223
1998 27 39 53 53 27 27 226
1999 27 40 54 54 27 27 229
2000 28 42 55 55 28 28 234
2001 28 41 56 56 28 28 237
Comment: The norm of 1:1.5:2:2:1:1 reflects a pre-established structure of academic tasks at different administrative levels.
Regarding die professorial level, a smaller number of top- level academics are necessary for the co-ordination and supervision of the traditional academic tasks, which explains w h y there are fewer academics at the top level than at the lower levels. With respect to the instructors, it is understood that those at the two lower levels still need supervision from their seniors and that they should not be too numerous for that reason.
INSTITUTIONAL M A N A G E M E N T IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Module T e n : Space management in higher education Solutions
T a s k l
1. Calculation of the n u m b e r of F T E students at University 'X' 1,410 F T E + 200 * 0.22 F T E - 1,454
In 1990, the University had an enrollment of 1,454 students.
Remember. Part time students cannot be counted as full time students.
Y o u have to apply a norm in order to transform them to full time equivalent students. In the case of University 'X' each part time student is counted as 0.22 of a full time student.
2. Calculation of the enrolment capacity according to Method A 1 2 , 6 0 0 / 9 - 1 , 4 0 0
According to Method A (calculation of approximate notional capacity), the enrolment capacity is 1,400 students.
Remember: Method A consists of dividing the gross floor area of all buildings by a norm area per F T E student.
3. Calculation of the enrolment capacity according to M e t h o d B Departments
Arts
Law
Science Classrooms Total
Workplaces according to area norms
685 149 959 404
2,197
Workplaces as per site inspection
680 132 940 400
2,152
N B : The capacity of the Assembly Hall has not been taken into account, since this is a space which is rarely used for teaching activities.
Example: For the Arts, the following calculation must be m a d e to determine the workplaces according to area norms:
220/1 + 220/1 + 60/1 + 60/1 + 60/1 + 65/1 - 685
Remember: In order to obtain the number of workplaces according to area norms, you have to divide the area of the site ( m2) by the area n o r m ( m2) per type of accommodation.
Comment: A s the University w a s still relatively n e w in 1990, it is not surprising that the difference between both ways of calculating under Method B (comparing workplaces according to area norms and workplaces as per site inspection) is relatively low (45 workplaces). W e assume that the scope for modifying the existing infrastructure is relatively small. A s a consequence, w e use the n u m b e r of workplaces as per site inspection for the calculation of the overall capacity of the University. This capacity is obtained by multiplying the number of workplaces as per site inspection by the utilization standard of 6 4 % (80%
frequency rate multiplied by 8 0 % occupancy rate):
INSTITUTIONAL M A N A G E M E N T IN HIGHER EDUCATION
2 , 1 5 2 * 0 . 6 4 - 1 , 3 7 7
According to Method B , the number of students that can be accommodated is 1,377.
4. A comparison of the results obtained
Comparing the calculations according to Methods A and B , w e find that the difference between the cruder Method A and the more refined Method B is relatively small:
1,400 - 1,377 - 23 F T E students.
Comment: In comparison with actual student numbers, i.e. 1,454, this means that the university is accommodating slightly more students than its planned capacity allows. However, since there is also an Assembly Hall (which has not been taken into account for calculating the capacity according to Method B ) , w e can assume that it might be used for one or even more groups of students, in order to accommodate the actual number of students.
Task 2
1. Calculation of the frequency and utilization rates Space
Assembly Hall Arts Lecture Theatre A Arts Lecture Theatre B Arts Lecture R o o m 1 Arts Lecture R o o m 2
Frequency rate 46%
83%
83%
21%
60%
Utilization rate 55%
88%
77%
19%
56%
Example: Frequency rate of the Assembly Hall 22
46%
48
Remember: The frequency rate is defined as hours used divided by hours available.
Example: Utilization rate of the Assembly hall 0 . 4 6 * 1.20 = 0.55
Remember: Utilization rate - Frequency rate multiplied by occupancy rate (average seats used divided by average seats available).
2. Calculation of the m e a n utilization rates by type of space Assembly hall
Lecture theatres Lecture rooms Classrooms Laboratories
55%
69,6%
40%
37,1%
20,4%
Example: Lecture theatres
(220 x 87.5) + (220 x 76.67) + (120 x 63.2) + (120 x 64.8) + (60 x 39.4) + (65 x 34) 220 + 2 2 0 + 1 2 0 + 1 2 0 + 60 + 65
- 69.6%
Remember: In order to obtain the mean utilization rate of a given type of space, (for instance, lecture theatres) you have to calculate the weighted average of the utilization rates of space, i.e.
£ Student capacity * utilization rate¡
£ Student capacity
i - i"1 space belonging to the given space
INSTITUTIONAL M A N A G E M E N T IN HIGHER E D U C A T I O N
Comments: The University has a reasonable m e a n utilization rate for the Assembly Hall and the Lecture Theatres. The authorities in charge of space management at University 'X' should be concerned with identifying the reasons for the low utilization rates of the Lecture rooms, the Classrooms and the Laboratories and should consider methods to improve them.
Incompatibilities in group size and space size might be at the origin of the problem. Also, the high specialization of space at University X is certainly problematic and puts constraints on a university-wide use of specialized classroom and laboratory space. T h e fact that only classrooms are administered centrally, contributes to a relatively inflexible system of using space. A s a consequence, one might consider putting more space into a pool to be administered centrally. Changes in scheduling classes, such as offering classes on Wednesday afternoons, would increase the potential to accommodate students. Then, it might also be necessary to redeploy some space with an abnormal low utilization rate so that it could be used and possibly be shared by several faculties or departments.
T a s k 3
1. Calculation of the current global utilization rate 1 4 9 , 1 4 8 / 3 , 0 0 4 = 4 9 . 6 5 %
Remember. In order to calculate the current global utilization rate (i.e.
average of all utilization rates weighted by the student capacity of each space), the student capacity of each space has to be multiplied by its utilization rate and then divided by the overall student capacity of all spaces (cf. Module 10, Table 2).
2. Calculation of the hypothetical n u m b e r of students that could be accommodated
1,454 x 0,4965 0,60
1,454
* 0 , 6 0 - x 0,4965
1 , 7 5 7 - x
Remember: Y o u have calculated a 49.65% overall m e a n utilization rate for all spaces available at University 'X' which allows you to accommodate 1,454 students. In order to obtain the student numbers that could be accommodated with a 6 0 % utilization rate, w e apply the rule of three and operate the above-mentioned arithmetic transformation.
3. Potential changes in the management and organization of the timetable
In order to achieve a 60% utilization rate, all management strategies considered in Part IV of Module Nine can be considered. However, given the particularly low utilization rates of some spaces, it might be advisable to also consider some modification/redeployment of space.
INSTITUTIONAL M A N A G E M E N T IN HIGHER E D U C A T I O N
Task 4
1. Workstations that need to be created if 2,314 students were to be accommodated
3,004 x
1,757 2,314 3,004
* 2 , 3 1 4 - x 1,757
3,956 - x
Remember: Assuming that w e will achieve a 6 0 % utilization rate, w e would be able to accommodate 1,757 students with the 3,004 workstations currently available. If w e want to accommodate 2,314 students assuming the same utilization rate, w e apply the rule of three and d o the above-mentioned arithmetic transformation.
In order to accommodate 2,314 students, a total of 3,956 places must exist. Since the existing capacity is 3,004 places, 952 places still need to be constructed1.
l. The above-mentionned figures are slightly different from the figures you will find in the computer simulation (i.e. space.wkl or space.xls) since the percentages used above are rounded values.