 |
OHIO BOARD OF REGENTS |
|
OHIO BOARD OF REGENTS |
The Resource Analysis Simulation Subcommittee was formed in November 1995. Eight colleges and universities agreed to participate. By March 1996, we had conducted three face to face consultations, established an e-mail alias for group communications, and produced a data submission document describing the data needed for the simulation.
The plan was to submit test data for the simulation by April 1996, using only data for the chemistry departments, so that any misunderstandings in the data details would not be too costly. Three of the eight colleges and universities had this data submitted by May 1996; in fact, one of the participants decided that it would be easier to submit data for the entire campus and did so at this time.
In May 1996, we conducted another face to face consultation to review the chemistry data, the computer algorithm for the simulation, and plan for the full simulation. The plan, at this time, was to have full data for the simulation by July 1996.
A second participant submitted complete data in May 1996, and a third in July 1996. By September 1996, we had complete data from a fourth participant. As of this writing, February 1997, a fifth participant is still working to submit their data. The sixth participant made considerable effort to supply the data, but could not complete the process due to problems on campus. Two of the eight participants submitted no data.
The data we needed was for one complete fiscal year and consisted of three files. A new version of Schedule 5 was to be organized in terms of the departmental structure of the campus, instead of the statewide taxonomy of Program Codes. A file of faculty salaries reported the salary of each instructor and linked it to the funding department. The final file reported which course sections each instructor taught, the portion of responsibility the instructor had for the course section, what department supported the course section, the Course Credit Hours and Student Credit Hours of the course section, and several characteristics of the course section such as its Subject Code, Level of Responsibility, and whether or not it was Individual Studies.
Data collection was confounded in at least three ways. The idea of linking instructors and course sections to a funding source via the organizational structure of the campus was confusing. Some campuses really have an academic structure that is not identical to their fiscal structure. Still, in the end, we concluded that organizing data the same as it is on campus is preferable to a statewide standard taxonomy of organizational structure such as the existing Program Code.
Secondly, data identifying each individual instructor’s part of the responsibility for each course section taught proved expensive to collect. One participant reported spending 100 hours determining the data for one year. Another member of the Faculty Data pilot project estimated that collecting such data would cost $10,000 per year. We conducted special simulations to determine if a simple assumption of equal distribution of responsibility among multiple instructors assigned to the same course section would have significant impact on the allocation of costs. We found that it would not, but cautioned that the same assumption in the calculation of instructional work loads might prove inaccurate.
Finally, our plan was to compare the simulation results to the UIS Resource Analysis cost allocations, by Level of Instruction, for the same fiscal year. The retrospective reconstruction of the data to balance with earlier UIS data submissions proved difficult for some participants. In preparing data for Regents, some institutions reorganize the data from their own database to conform to Regents standards, but maintain their own database in a different structure. Retrospective construction of the data organized according to Regents standards proved difficult. "Time and change will surely show." In one case we found that the data originally submitted to Regents was incorrect.
Current Status
As of this writing, about one year after the data submissions were defined, we have completely usable data from three of the eight participants, partly usable data from a fourth, and a fifth is still working on it.
Thanks for the Effort
One constant in the whole process is the significant amount of effort put into the data collection by all six of the colleges and universities who attempted to submit data. Thanks for that!
Return to Meeting Notes, April 18, 1997
http://regents.ohio.gov/hei/RA/notes/datacollectionprocess41897.html
Last updated August 19, 1997