In response to increasing budget complexity and the need to understand budget allocations better, York University undertook a Budget Process Review (BPR) in 2006. The review concluded that York’s centralized budget model was complicated, historically-based, poorly understood, informal, disconnected and resource intensive. The importance of ensuring a sustainable budget model to align resources with strategic priorities as articulated in planning documents was stated as an imperative.
Beginning in September 2007, the University implemented a fully Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) framework and in 2009, the University underwent an intensive planning phase culminating in the White Paper and a new University Academic Plan 2010 – 2015 (UAP).
To ensure that adequate supports were in place for the successful implementation of the UAP, the President charged the Provost and Vice President Academic, and the Vice President Finance and Administration to conduct a comprehensive Budget Resources Review (BRR) to examine institutional and divisional level revenue and expenditure processes and practices. This process expanded into the Process Re-engineering and Service Enhancement (PRASE) project and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) was hired to assist York in identifying challenges and opportunities for advancing institutional goals.
The Working Group on Budget Models (WGBM) was thus created in the summer of 2011 to undertake Stage 1: Explore alternative budget model approaches and make a recommendation. At the conclusion of Stage 1, the WGBM recommended a new budget model, SHARP, for York University with the following principles:
1. Support the academic goals of the institution through the alignment of resources to priorities as outlined in our planning documents (the White Paper, University Academic Plans/School Plans, IR Plans)
2. Be transparent
3. Provide for a predictable and sustainable framework for budget planning
4. Provide performance incentives and ensure accountability
5. Provide for clear and straight forward allocation methodologies.
For details on the WGBM recommendations see Report of the Working Group on Budget Modeling Stage 1
Following community consultation and approval of the WGBM’s Stage 1 Report, and as stated in the WGBM TOR, subsequent work would include:
Stage 2: Design the conceptual model for the recommended approach
Stage 3: Model the results and develop a transition
Stage 4: Model implementation, training and shadow budget
Benefits of SHARP
• Is fully transparent
• Facilitates greater alignment of resources with priorities
• Provides faculties with greater control over the revenue they generate
• Provides faculties with greater control over the costs they incur
• Creates incentives for faculties to seek out new opportunities for revenue growth and cost control
• Is based on clear and agreed upon allocation methodologies
• Provides a predictable and sustainable framework for budget planning
• Clearly identifies accountability
• Supports better understanding of budgets
• Highlights costs of operating and opportunities to improve service