ED 056 645

TITLE

INSTITUTION

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE

Project PRIME for Period July 1, 1970 -1971. Final Report.Minnesota Higher Education.CoordinatingSt. Paul.PRIME-16Oct 7161p.

002 644

June 30,

Commission,

MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29Administration; *Computer Oriented Programs; *HigherEducation; *Models; *Planning; Program Budgeting;*Program Planning; Systems Approach*Minnesotas Project PRIME

ABSTRACTProject PRIME (Planning Resources in Minnesota

Education) was a 1-year reEearch project that had as its primeobjective the test implementation of the CAMPUS model for highereducation administration and planning in Minnesota. This reportoutline the 13 specific objectives of the project and describes theresearch results. In addition, the report: (1) serves as a guide tomore detailed reports available from the project; (2) summarizesconclusions concerning the CAMPUS model and its applicability toMinnesota higher education in terms of the computer program, theconceptual model, the availability of data, and the value of asimulation model; and (3) presents recommendations for continueddevelopment of a planning, programming, and budgeting system for theStatels higher education system, and on the responsibility of theparticipating institutions, and a proposed budget. The enclosuresinclude: (1) an annotated bibliography of Project PRIME reports; (2)

summaries of 2 related studies; (3) program costing report; (4) anagenda for selected presentatir and (5) a report of expendituresby source of funds. (AF)

Project PRIME Repor+ No. 16

Final Report: Project PRIME

For Period July 1, 1970 - June 30, 1971

.Project Team:Gary M. Andrew, DirectorDavid C. Cordes, Associate Director

October 1971 Alden C. Lorents, Associate Director

Pv)ject PRIME Research Coordinated by theMinnesota Higher Education Coordinating Commissionin cooperation withLakewood State Junior College and the Minnesota State Junior College BoardBemidji State College and the Minnesota State College BoardSchoc. of Business Administration and the University of Minnesota

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-

DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM

THE PERSON ORORGANIZATION ORIG-

INATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN-

IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY

REPRESENT OFFICIALOFFICE 6F EDU-

CATION POSITION OR POLICY,

TAEJLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

PROJECT PRIME ADVISORY COMMITTEE, 1970-71 liT

FINAL REPORT - PROJECT PRIME 1-16

1.0 BACKGROUND

2.0 PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS

1

2

2.1 Model Conversion 2

2.2 Program Structure and Data Collection 3

2.3 Test Runs 3

2.4 Tes'.. implementation Documentation 3

2.5 Training 4

2.6 Compatible Planning Toois 5

2.7 Program Analysis and Faculty Activities . . . . . 5

2.8 Linking CAMPUS to Institutional InformationSystems 5

2.9 Problem Areas Requiring Future Research 5

2.10 Detailed Input Documentation , ..... . . . . 5

2.11 Additional Organizations 6

2.12 Model Improvements 6

2.13 Program Costing Module 6

3.0 PROJECT REPORTS 8

4.0 CONCLUSIONS 9

4.1 Conclusion-Computer Program 9

4.2 Conclusions-The Conceptual Model 10

4.3 Conclusions-The Availability of Data II

4.4 Conclusions-Value of a Simulation Model II

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 13

5.1 Recommendations on the Model 13

5.2 Recommendations on a Planning, Programmlng, andBudgeting System (PPBS) for Minnesota HigherEducation 13

5.3 Recommendations on the Institutions 14

6.0 INTERMEDIATE CONTINUATION 16

ENCLOSURES A THROUGH G Al-G3

i I

MINNESOTA HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING COMMISSION

Project PRIME Advisory Committee, 1970-71(Test Implementation of CAMPUS)

Raymond P. CarlsonDirector of Research and DevelopmentBemidji State College

Hale ChampionVice President for Finance Planning and OperationsUniversity of Minnesota

Carl R. Gerber, PresidentLakewood State Junior College

John E. HaugoDirector of Information SystemsMinnesota State College Board

Richard C. HawkExecutive DirectorMinnesota Higher Education Coordinating Commission

Fred C. McCormickDirector of ResearchMinnesota Higher Education Coordinating Commission

James R. ShermanAssistant to Chancellor for PersonnelMinnesota State Junior College Board

C. Arthur Williams, Jr.Associate DeanSchool of Business AdministrationUniversity of Minnesota

Gary M. Andrew, Project Director

3lit

Final Report - Pro)ect PRIME

This report has four goals:

(I) To describe the research results of a one-year project.

(2) To serve as an introduction to the more detailed reportsavailable from the project.

(3) To summarize conclusions concerning the CAMPUS model andits applicability to Minnesota higher education.

(4) To present the outlines of a plan for continued developmentof a planning, programming, and budgeting system for theMinnesota higher education system.

1.0 BACKGROUND

Project PRIME (Planning Resources in Minnesota Education) was ae-year research project jointly funded by the Minnesota State College

System, the Minnesota Junior College System, the University of Minnesota,the State of Minnesota, and the Hill Family Foundation. The res:;.arch

was coordinated by the Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Commission.Initial approval for the project's funding was based on a March 1970report entitled "Test Implementation of CAMPUS for Higher EducationAdministration and Planning in Minnesota."* This report outlined sixmajor objectives of the project, an impiementation schedule, responsi-bility of participating institutions, and a proposed budget. ProjectPRIME Report No. 14 described the progress on these six objectives throughDecember 30, 1970, ard indicated four additional goals which had arisensinc tbo. ^r7mla: ,A-op

*Available as Project PRIME Report No. I. EnclosJre A is an AnnotatedBibliography of the 16 PRIME Reports. Project PRIME Report No. 8describes the CAMPUS simulation model in detail.

4

2

2.0 PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS

Project PRIME'S initial objectives are discussed below. In orderto facilitate description, the original six objectives were expandedto nine (plus the four additional yielded 13 objectives). The project's13 objectives included:

(I) Converting the CAMPUS model from an IBM 360/85 to the Univer-sity of Minnesota's CDC 6600.

(2) Developing a program structure and a basic set of data ateach of three institutions (The Division of Behavioral Science,Bemidji State College; The School of Business Administration -University of Minnesota; and Lakewocl State Junior College).

(3) Training the participants on use of the model.

(4) Conducting a test simulation of each institution.

(5) Documenting the results of the test implementation at eachinstitution.

(6) Designing compatible planning tools.

(7) Researching program analysis and faculty activities.

(8) Studying the problems of linking CAMPUS to institutionalinformation systems.

(9) Highlighting problem areas requiring further re9arch.

As -- I I- the mid-term progress report, the project team feltriat - Aditi -9i objectives were deirable and feasible, including:

(10) Writing a detail input documentation manual.

(11) Adding t.,7, academic organizations - The Division of EducationalPsycholo_ . University of Minnesota; and Hopkins School Dis-trict. (SLice the mid-term progress report, Rochester StateJunior C)Ilege was also added.)

(12) Improvinr i e model.

(13) Converting the model to do program costing.

2.1 Model Conversion

Th3 model has successfully converted to the University of MinnesotaControl Data Corpo 6600 computer. To the best of our knowledge,no othe,- instituti:i in the United States has the model operating withactual institutionl data.

5

3

2.2 tragramata Collection

Each of the five institutions has a basic data deck describingits present operations. The state junior colleges are unhappy abouttheir program structure; however, they are instituting changes tocorrect the situation.

2.3 Test Runs

One year simu!ation runs were made at Lakewood State Junior College,Rochester State Junior College, The Educational Psychology Division,University of Minnesota, and Hopkins School District. The simulationruns at the School of Business Administration were more extensive andbest represent the model's capability. Basically three questions wereaddressed:

(1) An admissions question - what is the resource impact of thefollowina variation in projected student flow?

(a) 0% growth in graduate and undergraduate programs.(b) 4% growth in on_ly graduate programs.(c) 4% growth in both graduate and undergraduate programs.

(2) A curriculum question - what is the resource impact ofadopting one master's level degree (as opposed to the presentthree)?

(3) An organizational qu,istior - what is the resource impact ofsignificantly modifying the administrative structure of theschool from six academic departments and three researchcenters to four academic-research departments?

Simulation runs to address the latter two questions were run at 0%and 4% year student growth. Each simulation was run for ten years.Project PRIME Report No. 10 describes the results of these experiments.Also, Project PRIME Report No. 9 describes several other experiments runat the School of Business Administration, including: (I) A phase-outof the undergraduate program, and (2) A change of entrance requiremeni-s.Similar multi-year experiments were run at Bemidji State College and aredescribed in Project PRIME Report No. 15.

2.4 Test Implementation Documentation

Project PRIME Report No. 15 is a case study of the five testimplementations, written by a participant at each institution. A briefdescription of each institution and the participating personnel areincluded below:

State Csj19.21.1iyiLtn: Initially the plan was to do only theBehavioral Science Division of Bemidji State College, becaus.) of modelrestraints and the amount of data collection involved. During the lastfew months of the project, the total school was put on the model. Thiswas accomplished by aggregating courses, e.g., lower division English,upper division music, etc. Key personnel at Bemidji State Collegeinclude the President - who became quite interested, the head of theBehavioral Science department, and three people from the InstitutionalResearch department.

CC.

4

Junior College System: Initially the plan was to do only LakewoodState Junior College, however, after seeing the initial results, RochesterState Junior College was added. Plans are in progress to collect datafor all 18 state junior colleges. Key participants in this implementationwere the President of Lakewood State Junior College, the AssistantChancellor for Information Systems, and the Chancellor of the JuniorCollege System.

School of Business Administration (SBA), University of Minnesota:The initial data collection for the SBA was done by the voject team.Since the Business School is both a graduate and an undergraduate insti-tution, it was the most complete utilization of the model's capability.In conjunction with personnel from the Long Range Planning Committee,12 ten-year experiments were conducted, with various alternativeassumptions about the administrative structure, degree offerings, andstudent flow. A planning "calendar" was proposed compa'ible with thepresent University budgeting cycle.*

Division of Educational Psychology (EP), University of Minnesota;The EP implementation was not included in the original proposal, butwas attempted at the urging of the division head. He had the assistanceof two graduate students, plus support from a professor on sabbaticalleave. The latter professor was on leave to conduct a detailed reviewof the College of Education's curriculum (of which EP is a division).Plans are being laid to add the Educational Administration Division.Although EP did not conduct any exper!ments, considerable 'ime wasspent analyzing the significance and the impact of key inpir.' parameters.

Hopkins School District: Although not includet: tle originalproposal, project personnel worked wilt the Hopkins District.After determining that the model would simulate a complete school dis-trict, a three-year simulation was run on one high school. At thistime, the data has not been used by the district's personnel, but theyhave expressed interest in continued experimentation with the model.

2.5 TailLaa

The project proposal indicated that training would be offered atthree levels: (I) top administrative - for appreciation and inter-pretation of the model and its results; (2) second level administrative -for updating the structural espects of the model; and (3) data ahalystfor procedures on updating and maintaining the detailed data needed bythe mode!. The training would involve a thorough understanding of:(I) the concepts of planning, programming end budgeting systems (PPBS);and (2) the operational aspects of the CAMPUS model.

The following items contributed to accomplishing these traininggoals:

(I) Most of the institutional personnel associated with the pro-ject, including the Presidents of Bemidji State College andLakewood State Junior College, and the Dean of the BusinessSchool, attended a two-day "WICHE Management InformationSystems Program Training Seminar."

jiIMINIINI.

*See Project PRIME Report No. 10 for additional details.

5

(2) Two initial orientation seminars were held at Bemidji StateCollege and one at the Business School (with the faculty).

(3) Approximately 15 to 20 training sessions of from one to fourhours each were held with the four institutions to discussprogram structuring and data collection. (Recall that datacollection at the Business School was conducted by theproject team.)

(4) Presentations on the project's activities were made to theproject's Advisory Committee, the State Co/lege System staff,the Junior College System staff, the Higher EducationCoordinating Commission staff, as well as several Vice-Presidents of the University of Minnesota.*

(5) Presentations describing the project were presented to: TheMinnesota Dcpartment of Education, personnel from severalschool districts, representatives of the Educational ResearchDevelopment Lao, The University of Wisconsin, The Universityof New York (Stoney Brook), The University of Colorado,WICHE-MIS, Administrative Vice-Presidents of the State Colleges,and The State College Information Systems Advisory Group.*

2.6 Compatible Planning Tools

No effort was expended on this objective.

2.7 Program Analysis and Faulty Activities

A significant percentage of the project resources were expended ontwo Ph.D. dissertations. These are available as Project PRIME ReportsNos. 6 and 10. Enclosures B and C are a brief summary of each study.The projec:- team feels that participation in a project is an ideal wayto write a dissertation, and should be encouraged by the Higher EducationCoordinating Commission.

2.8 Linking CAMPUS to Institutional Information Systems

Little effort was planned on this objective, although the projectteam believes that this is one of the highest priority areas requiringfuture research and work. Project PRIME No. 7 does address the problemIn the context of a "Faculty Activity System."

2.9 Problem Areas Re uiring Future Research

These are explored in section 5.

2.10 Detailed Input Documentation

The documentation received from the Ford Foundation Project atToronto was incomplete. Three categories of documentation were added:(1) A user input manual - avai;able as Project PRIME Report No. 12;(2) Technical documentation - primarily comments in the computer code;and (3) User experimentation manual - documentation on how administra-tors can use the model is available as Project PRIME Report No. 9.

8*En,.:losure E contains the agendas for selected presentations made bythe project team.

6

2.11 Additional Or anizations

Macalester College, after expressing interest in participating Inthe project, withdrew-in anticipation of having more adequate resourcesto implement the model at a later date. Hopkins School District wasincluded because two of the project staff did the study as a cour-eproject In education administration (with the help from a HECC staffmember). The Division of Educational Psychology (EP) was added at theurc ng of the Division head. Although given little support from theproject team, the EP base data was simulated for one year and apparently"replicated" the 1969-70 budget. Other efforts at the EP involveddeveloping plans to add the Educational Administration Division,estimating the costs of doing the College of Education, and writing anoxcellent study on the implementation. (See Project PRIME Report No. 15.)

2.12 Model_improvements

Several changes were made to the model during the project. TheseInvolved:

(I) Improvements to the existing reports; e.g., correcting errorsand rounding problems;

(2) Additions to the existing reports - one was added to describethe relationship between degree-curricula-course;

(3) Modification to the student flow mcidel to improve thehandling of student transitions;

(4) Development of a sub-program concept and code. Basicallysub-programs are "minors" (in addition to the presentdegree-major orientation found in CAMPUS); and were addedto improve the "precision" of determining what courses arebeing taken by students.

2.13 Program Costing Module

The descriptive material from the University of Toronto on theCAMPUS model indicated that the computer code was capable of computingcosts both for programs and cost centers. However, the computer codewhich was released was incapable of computing program costs. The onlyreports available were "cost center" oriented.

In order to convert input-oriented department data into output-oriented program data, the project team designed a "program costingmodule."* The reports available from the program costing module enablean administrator to develop and analyze, in considerable detail, his"program budget."

Four processes are used by the module to handle the conversion:

(I) Service Department Process: A set of procedures to handlethe Staff, Space and Equipment.

9*Described in Project PRIME Report No. 5.

7

a) Activity/Curriculum Process: A conversion routine tohandle the six types of "direct cost" resources -(a) Academic Staff; (b) Academic Support Staff;(c) ClassrOom maintenance cost; (d) Lab space ma!n-tenance cost; (e) Special Lab Space maintenance andequipment operating costs; and (f) Teaching Equipmentcost.

(3) Non-Teaching Duty Process: A set of rules for convertingfaculty non-teaching duties to program elements.

(4) Academic Indirect Resources Process: An allocationte,:hnique for three types of "academic" indirect resources;non-academic support (e.g., secretaries); miscellaneousresources (e.g., supplies); and office space maintenancecost.

The individual application of these four processes to the CAMPUSV model results in a series of program-oriented reports. If all fourprocesses are applied, a series of summary reports (7.1-7.3) areavailable. A sample format for each of the available program reportscan be found in Project PRIME Report No. 10. Enclosure D describeseach program costing report.

For each program element, it is possIble to receive many of theabove reports for ten years, by quarter. Typically, a manager wouldnot want to look at this number of reports. To redress this situation,a series of "program" overtime reports were developed.* These reportssummarize various operating costs, by year, for a ten-year period, ina program format.

*Recall that the present CAMPUS V model has "cost center" overtimereports.

8

3.0 PROJECT REPORTS

Enclosure A is an annotated list of the reports prepared by theproject. Depending on the interest of the reader, several combinationsof reports are relevant:

POTENTIAL USER OF CAMPUS: Reports 2, 15 and 16.

INTERESTED IN PROJECT PRIME: Reports I, 2, 14 and 16.

USER OF CAMPUS: Reports 8 and 12.

PPB SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: Reports 3, 4 and 10.

FACULTY ACTIVITY ANALYSIS: Reports 6 and 7.

RESOURCE ANALYSIS & MODELLING: Reports 5, 8, 10 and 13.

EXPERIMENTATION WITH CAMPUS: Reports 9 and 10.

9

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

This section includes various comments and conclusions reachedduring the project. The next section (5.0) will present recommendations.

4.1 Conclusion-Computer Program

There are basically three problems in the existing CAMPUS computercoding -

(1) Excessive run time;

(2) Restrictions on institution size that can be handled;

(3) Limited reporting capability.

The CAMPUS computer code was written by several people over aperiod of six years. Because of this, the resul-h-it computer programis a "patchwork" of individual programs. The pat lork contributesto the fact that, although the project team ran tne model successfc lyapproximately 50 times, there were still situations when it was dif-i-cult to get the program to execute (oftentimes, hcwever, we found dataerrors). The "patchwork" also contributed to a lengthy running time,and the corresponding expense. Although difficult to estimate, therunning cost is primarily a function of: (I) the number of years in

the simulation; (2) the number of cost centers; and (3) the number of

reports. For the Business School version, which had ten cost centers,a ten-year simulation cost approximately $150.*

The second negative aspect of the CAMPUS computer program is therestricted size of institution that can be handled. The restrictionresults from two factors: (I) the level of detail (e.g., "course"level) accommodated in the model, and (2) the "core dependent" approachtaken in programming (e.g., all input data available to the model isstored in memory before the beginning of each simulation). Important

restrictions include:

(I) 25 cost centers: Only institutions with 25 or less departments(including support);

(2) 80_programs: Including both degrees and support programs;

(3) 1000 courses;

(4) 32 courses: per quarter, per- degree;

(5) 200 curriculum - a group of courses by quarter by degreecontribute a curriculum. If all degrees in an institutionon a quarter system are four years and each cirriculum is

unique, only 16 degrees can be run.

*Based on charges at the University of Minnesota's CDC 6600 as follows:Central Processor time = $12.50 per minutePeripheral Processor = $1.25 per mingePaper = $.02 per page 14;

1 0'

A third negative aspect of the CAMPUS computer program is theunavailability of certain reports, including:

(I) a-291m Oriented Reports - The addition of the programcostirg7a7dule and its 27 report formats has improved thissituation; and

(2) Academic Year ReRorts - All of the CAMPUS cost centerreports are for a simulation period (quarter or semesters);there are no annual reports.

4.2 Conclusions - The Conceptual Model

Three things make CPUS unique among th,,- egisting UniversityPlanning Models:* (I) Tne course-level deteil; (2) Student flowcaparility; and (3) the fact that it is operational.

The CAMPUS model provides predictions based upon resource informationat lie course level of detail. Also, student credits, student contacthours -. etc. are built up at the course level. This can be both a plusand minus. It is a mirjs because it requires a significant amount ofdata collection; and also because it does create additional detailed datafor the user - much of wh,ch he may not want or need. However, theadditional data is a plus because if resource data is available, it isusually available in this form. Also, the course level detail tends tomake the resource prediction more accunate.

The second unique factor in the CAMPUS model is its internalcapability to flow students.** CAMPUS accepts "freshmen" (first yearstudents) and flows them through the system - from freshmen tosophomores to juniors to seniors to graduation - automatically.CAMPUS does not predict how many students will be available in 1975to enter the system, but it will predict how many freshmen who enterin 1975 will graduate in 1979. Again, the student flow model has positiveand negative aspects. Negative - the student flow model contributesgreatly to the "downtime" problem mentioned previously and also to theexpense. Also from a conceptual view, the existing flow model could beimproved. In fact, the project team made several changes to the studentflow routine. Despite these negative comments, the student flow routinein CAMPUS is its greatest strength. Without it, the model would not beable to simulate the impact (through time) of various alternatives.

*Project PRIME 10 reviews approximately 50 University Planning models.

**Project PRIME Report No. 8 describes the student flow process in CAMPUS.

12

I I

4.3 Conclusions - The Availability of Data

CAMPUS requires a significant amount of data. For any operationaluse of CAMPUS, it is imperative that the institution's data base becapable of supplying the needed input. Although the requirements fordata are stringent there is only one type of data not readily availablein most institution's data bases: The difficult datum is termed the"participation rate." The participation rate is the probability thateach student in a degree major, in a particular quarter, in a particularcredit range (freshmen, sophomores, etc.) will select a certain course.,--'erhaps an example w!il aid the reader's understanding.

E losure F is a CAMPUS 'nput Data Report 3.1. The last column isleDelk.-- "participation rate Using the first participation rate as: exar -le (75%), we not.-- tha+- it is for credit year I, simulation period

proc am curriculum No. 16G, and Ac:Ivity Number Code 159. In other.rds, rlis indicates that course No. 159, offered in fall quarter 1969-, has a 75% probability of Deing taken by a first year MBA student.note that there are 78 "participation rates" for the MBA degree.t IrE-itutional data bases do not keep participation rates; however,bas c data is available bul not kept in a "machine-readable" form.

Pa ticularly relevant for the Minnesota higher education systemis the -hird unique characteristic of CAMPUS - it is operational.

In summary, it is the project team's opinion that, despite anylimitations of the computer code, the concept of the CAMPUS model(i.e., course level detail and student flow capacity) is excellent.Although noted above that most of the data are readily available, wedid not say "easily available." Most of the institutional data basesand reporting capabilities would have to be modified to utilize theCAMPUS model in a meaningful operational way.*

4.4 Conclusions - Value of A Simulation Model

It ls difficult to be definite because of the test implementationnature of the study; however, utilizing the CAMPUS model appears to bevaluable in several ways. First, it tends to structure the thinkingof people searching for data to be included in a data base. Alterna-tively stated, CAMPUS provides a good structure for a ManagementInformation System.

A second valuable feature of the CAMPUS model is that, once a setof data has been collected, it makes the generation of alternativesextremely easy and inecpensive (recall the various alternative con-figurations of the Business School described above). The ability toeasily generate alternatives should greatly improve analysis.

*The next section will discuss changes needed to the various Insti-tu-Monal data bases in Minresota.

12

. The ability to "m3del" meaningfully the institution is a thIrdvaluable feature of CAMPUS. Basically the model gives analysts andmanagers a common "language" to describe the institutic)n. Wordslike "proorams" and "curriculum" are quantified and have meaning.

The fourth valuable characteristic of the model is that it can beuseful fc- analyst in generating a "plan," but still maintainsenough det,111 to indicate the "budget" impact. In other words, "programbudgeting" Ts a meaningful word with the availability of the CAMPUSmodel. In -act, certain reports from the model are program budgetsfor a qua: for an academic year and for ten academic years by year(enclosure included sample "program budget" reports).

The fif-Th valuable asset of the CAMPUS model is that it representsan effective way to begin program budgeting in Minnesota. We haveadded the "ing" to indicate that program budgeting is a managementprocess, whereas a program budget is just one tool in the process.Other tools include a "calendar of events," program memoranda, and acommitment to analysis (particularly cost-benefit analysis).*

*Project PRIME Reports 4 and 10 describe these and other tools associatedwith program budgeting systems.

13

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

This section Includes recc.-.--mendation; for future action as itreW.es to the work of Project CRIME. Many of the items that wn,dhave been recommendations two r=withs ago are now in process (e., thework by Bemidji State College v*th a "foLow-on" proposal to studytheir "data base" and how it cal be modifled to utilize CAMPUS).

5.1 Recommendations on the Model

As noted previously, the -AMPUS V is an expensive, restrictivemodel with little flexibility its reporting ability. In order toimprove these factors, we felt that the model should be completelyrewritten, including the program costing module. Two comments aregermane: First, the rewriting is necessary to handle the largerinstitutions in the state and t: reduce the cost. Second, the pro-ject team considers CAMPUS VI (available from the Systems ResearchGroup in Toronto) as a good alternative to this rewriting, however,CAMPUS VI has two drawbacks - expense and availability on only IBMequipment. A detailed analysis comparing these two approaches isnecessary.

One aspect of the recommendation above is that it assumes thatrewriting CAMPUS V or purchasing CAMPUS VI is a better apporach thanusing any other available comprehensive model. Second, the recommenda-tion also assumes that a model is desirable and valuable in Minnesotahigher education and that a CAMPUS-type model is the best approach.

5.2 Recommendations on a Planning, Programming_sadiBulgeting System (PPBS)for Minnesota Higher Education

The original project proposal (PRIME Report No. 1) indicated thatthe "problem" we were addressing was "to link planning, budgeting, andoperations" in Minnesota higher education. Hopefully, this "linking"would improve the resource allocation process. Test implementingCAMPUS was only a first step, albeit an important first step, inestablishing a PPBS.

Why does Minnesota higher education need a PPB system? Withoutexploring all the reasons, several are immediately apparent:* (1) TheMinnesota Legislature wants a coordinated state-wide planning function;(2) Program review is facilitated by a PPB system; (3) The cry foraccountability from various publics, including students, legislators,taxpayers; (4) Rational planning and analysis for new institutions;and (5) Interest expressed by individual institutions to begin imple-mentation (e.g., Announcement by the University of a pilot, "programbudget" project).

Despite the apparent advantages, no state planning body or anyindividual institution has a completely operating PPB system. Why dowe think that Minnesota has a chance? Our optimism is primarily basedon the following factors: (I) Access to the CAMPUS model-converted to

*Project PRIME Report No. 4 gives seven advantages of a PPBS.

16

run on the University'implementing the CAMPUpersonnel; (4) Commi-;

in various positions;complete the project.

Dmpu -r; (2) Experience gained from test-odel- (3) Availability of trained, top-rateit and interest from several administrators1 (5) Likelihood of adequate funding to

14

The project taam h ieves that the Higher Education CoordinatingCommiss'3n should take e lead in a state-wide effort to implement aPPBS. However, corildE :ble thinking is needed on specifying:(I) exactly what a--ipec of PPB are relevant for the Minnesota highereducation system; (2) ' )w can implementation be facilitated by theuse of planning models ke C/ViPUS; and (3) who does what for a state-wide higher education -P2. systdm?

Specific task'. invcke: (I) determining an appropriate "calendar,"so that the "program budget" will he available for presenting thehigher education budget to the Legislature; (2) considering the prob-lems of relating the inchidual institution's PPBS to a state-widesystem; (3) working ACHEMS and various staffs (particularly HECC,SCS, JCS) on appropriat, cutDut indicators to be used in the PPB cycle;and (4) coordinating tt 3 education system with the State Department ofAdministration System; (5) establishing an advisory body and otheradministration structur( to oversee and accomplish the implementation.

5.3 Recommendations on the institutions

The recommendations contained in 5.1 and 5.2 have a significantimpact on two important aspects of each of the institutions of highereducation in the state - their information/decision structure and theirpeople. Using a model, within an explicit management process like aPPBS, is a different resource allocation procedure than the traditionalbudget process. This change, in order to be effective, requires under-standing and acceptance by the participants. In order to gain thisunderstanding and acceptance, two things are needed - time and training.Personnel responsible for implementing a PPBS must realize that: "thehopes and aspirations of program budgeting are not tied to a solutionof today's problems tomorrow, but rather to a pattern of continuous andtimely response to the diverse problems and environmental changes relent-lessly facing most organizations. Thus, the major benefits of programbudgeting involve the willingness of a decision maker to commit resourcesnow for benefits that may not come about for a number of years."*

PPBS is not a "thing" that can be implemented and then forgotten;it is a philosophy, an approach to management - a management process.Therefore, the project team recommends a program of continual trainingon the concepts and ideas associated a PPBS. Several levels of

training are desirable:

*Benton, J. B. and Tenzer, A. 0. Program _Bud9eting and ExecutiveCommitment, the RAND Corporation, P4I43 July 1969, 37 pp.

if

15

(I) The data base manager: Managers operating with a PPBS requirea significant amount of data - since open, explicit, verifiableanalysis of alternatives is the essence of a PPBS; training ontechniques and procedures for collecting, retrieving and main-taining this data is required.

(2) The planner/analyst: The data base for a PPBS is then approved plan." A PPBS utilizing the CAMPUS model wouldhave a CAMPUS "tape" as a significant part of the approvedplan.* The mission of the planning-analysis staff is toimprove and update this plan. Basically this is done bycost-benefit analysis of alternative programs that couldbe included in the "plan." Training is needed on how todo cost-benefit analysis of higher education programs.

(3) The manager-user: Analysis that does not have an impacton the actions of administration soon does not get done.A PPBS encourages, and in fact requires, analysis. However,administrators must be trained to ask meaningful questionsand to understand the role of analysis and analysts indecision aking.

Although continual training is important, a second recommendationby the project team is that a thorough study be made of the relation-ship between the CAMPUS input requirements and the existing institu-tional data base. Bemidji State College and the State College Boardhave already prepared a project to do such a study. A similar study isparticularly relevant in the Junior College System because of theirconversion to a "third generation" computer. The conversion representsa unique opportunity to insure that the junior college informationsystem is developed with compatibility and flexibility to (1) partic-ipate in NOHEMS at WICHE, (2) satisfy various government reporting(HEGIS), (3) utilize resource allocation models like those beingtested by PRIME, and (4) meet the reporting needs at the centraloffice.

The University of Minnesota's attempt at "zero-base budgeting"also would appear to require a similar study.

*Since CAMPUS requires a2umptions about course offerings, studentflow, faculty activities, organizational structures, degree require-ments, etc., it is definitely a plan. Project PRIME 10 furtherexplains this concept.

16

6.0 INTERMEDIATE CONTINUATION

The Commission (HECC) staff has been quite supportive of the CAMPUSefforts and encourage experimentdtion and implementation of it by insti-tutions and system within Minnesota.

As an interim measure, the budget on this project was controlledso that sufficient funds would be available for institutions to runthe model for one more year. This involves a part-time computerprogrammer/analyst who is sufficiently familiar with the model to makeruns for an institution and make any changes in the model necessitatedby computer center system changes. A small account is also availablefor supplies and computer time. Any extensive runs will requireadditional funds and/or a computer center grant.

19

ENCLOSURES LIST

PAGE

ENCLOSURE A Al

Project PRIME Reports, Annotated Bibliography

ENCLOSURE B B1

Summary of the Study: "Faculty Activity Analysisand Planning Models in Higher Education"

ENCLOSURE C CI

Summary of the Study: "Resource Analysis Modelingin Higher Education, A Synthesis"

ENCLOSURE D DI

Program Costing Reports

ENCLOSURE E El

Agenda for Selected Presentations

ENCLOSURE F Fl

Figure 111-13: Input Data Report 3.1Campus Instruction Process, University of Minnesota,School of Business, Session 1969-70

ENCLOSURE C GI

Report of Expenditures by Source of Funds7/1/70-6/30/71, Project PRIME

20

A I

ENCLOSURE A

21

Report

Number

Title

I.

Test Implementation of CAMPUS

(A Computer Based Simulation

Model) for Higher Education

Administration and Planning

in Minnesota, March 1970,

59 PP.

2.

An Introduction to Project

PRIME and CAMPUS-MINNESOTA,

November 17,

1970, 31 pp.

3.

PPBS in Higher Education:

An Annotated Bibliography,

May 1971, 248 pp.

4. A.,

PPBS in Education:

Concept,

nOperation, Status, and a

School of Business Adminis-

tration Example, March 1970,

61 pp.

5.

Program Costing with the

CAMPUS Simulation Model,

June 1971, 31 pp.

ENCLOSURE'A

Project PRIME Reports

Author

Andrew,

Cordes,

Lorents

Cordes

Cordes

Cordes

Cordes

Annotation

Initial proposal.

Describes in general CAMPUS inputs, processes and outputs

Also provides overview of Project PRIME and research in

progress.

Includes 325 annotated references, 100 carefully selected

annotated references from other sources, 50 author's

abstracts, 50 related bibliographies, and approximately

1,000 non-annotated references.

Establishes six conceptual processes to describe PPB

systems.

Using these six processes as a framework, the

Department of Defense's PPB system is then described in

detail.

After discussing the status of PPB in higher

education, an approach to applying the system a+

a School

of Business is explored.

Program costing is the conversion of input-oriented budge,

data into output-oriented program data.

The paper de-

scribes the philosophy of program costing, the mechanics

of conversion, and the resulting reports.

A comparison

of a course-oriented and a degree-oriented

program

structure is also presented (should be read in conjunctiot

with PRIME Report No. 8).

Report

Number

Title

6.

Faculty Activity Analysis

and Planning Models in

Higher Education, June 1971,

341 pp.

7.

A Faculty Activity Informa-

tion Subsystem and CAMPUS-

MINNESOTA, June 1971,

13 pp.

8.

Operational Overview of the

CAMPUS Simulation Model,

June 1971, 48 pp.

co

9.

Using a Planning Model

in

Higher Education, (in

progress).

Author

Lorents

Lorents

Cordes

Fisher

Annotation

A Ph. D. dissertation describing the use of a random

alarm mechanism for a self-work sampling study of the

University of Minnesota's School of Business Adminis-

tration faculty.

Describes a sample data base that could be used to

generate the staff inputs for the CAMPUS model.

Describes the inputs, process and outputs of the CAMPUS

model.

The process includes:

(I)

An instructional

process that "forces" the user to define his degree-

curriculum-course relationship; (2)

A student flow

process for transferring students from academic year to

academic year (e.g., freshmen to sophomore); (3)

A

non-teaching duty process that calculates individual

faculty activities (e.g., departmental research); (4)

A service department process that, enables the user to

replicate the support and research activities that are

accomplished by specific organizations; and (5)

A

misce( laneous resource process for handling the remaining

"line items" found in traditional budgeting

supplies, benefits, travel expenses).

Depicts how a planning model can be used within the

management process of a School of Business Administration

Also includes five case studies of experiments run at

the school.

Report

Number

Title

Resource Analysis Models

in Higher Education:

a

Synthesis (in progress).

11.

Converting CAMPUS V to

CAMPUS-M1NNESOTA (in

progress).

12.

CAMPUS-MINNESOTA User

Information Manual,

June 1971

13.

Applying 1nput/Output

Analysis and the ELFYD

Model to Higher Education,

(in progress).

Author

Cordes

Davitt

Andrew

Cordes

Annotation

A Ph. D. dissertation describing an approach to resource

analysis for higher education.

First, an integrated

management framework is developed primarily based on the

ideas associated with Planning, Programming and

Budgeting Systems (see PRIME 4).

Within this framework,

the author presents a scheme for doing resource analysis

based on three models:

(1)

CAMPUS; (2)

Program Costing

and (3)

Input-output (each of these models'are described

in other PRIME reports).

Three representative problems

are also presented:

(1)

Limiting admissions for an

undergraduate program; (2)

Establishing one master's

level degree, instead of the present three degrees; and

(3)

Reorganizing from a departmental organization with

six academic departments and three research centers to

a program organization with four research centers.

Describes the process of converting CAMPUS V from an IBM

360-85 to a CDC 6600.

The report is designed to aid the user in four specific

areas:

(1)

The conceptual modeling of the institution;

(2)

The preparation of machine readable input data; (3)

The preparation of simulation and report commands for the

model; (4)

The actual running of the program on a CDC

6600 computer.

Copies of the 75 input formats are

included.

Describes the use of input/output analysis in higher

education.

The application represents the third model

in the resource analysis scheme described in PRIME 10.

PRIME 8 and 5 should be read prior to reading this

report.

Report

Number

Title

14.

Mid-Year Progress Report,

January 1971, 10 pp.

15.

Case Studies of Resource

Simulation in Education

(A High School; A Junior

College; A State College

and Two Schools of a Large

University) (in progress).

16.

Final Report of Project

PRIME, October 1971.

Author

Andrew,

Cordes,

Lorents

Cordes

(Editor)

Andrew,

Cordes,

Lorents

Annotation

Includes a description of progress on the six original

project objectives.

Four additional goals that were

added to the project are also described.

Detailed

financial information on the project is also included.

Each case study is written by an individual within the

institution where the test implementation

was attempted.

Included are descriptions of data collection problems,

usefulness of model, and overall impressions of the

test implementation.

Includes (1) a summary of the project, and (2) conclusions

and recommendations about using CAMPUS in Minnesota

education.

BI

ENCLOSURE B

28

B2

ENCLOSURE B

Summary of the Study

"Faculty Activity Analysisand Planning Models in

Higher Education"

THE PROBLEMS: Chapter I discussed the problems higher education is facing.

These problems include dynamic student growth rates, rising costs, program

expansion, increasing comp/exity of the sys-ems and a growing dissatisfaction

with the ou7puts. The growth of students f7om 1940 to 1960 was 2 million

students, an increase of 133 per cent. Student enrollments are estimated to

climb to 10.3 million in 1980, an increase of 194 per cent over the 1960

enrollment of 3.5 mil!ior.

Increasing costs during this same period have compounded the problem. The

cost per student index rose 55 points during the ten-year period from 1955

to 1967, while the consumer price index rose less than 20 points. The

combination of these two factors, numbers of students and cost per student

both climbing rapidly have put higher education into a crisis situation.

Other factors are also adding to the problem. Proliferation of specialized

programs to meet the needs of growing problems in our society are adding

to the costs. Many of these programs have high start up costs and low numbers

of enrollees. Consequently, the cost per student is high. Coordinating bodies

are attempting to control these programs to eliminate duplication within

reasonable limits.

Probably one of the biggest factors adding to the overall problem is the

increasing complexity of higher education sysi---s iiniversitles have become

27

B3

very complex systems. There are hundreds of subsystems and hundreds of inter-

faces that make up the system. Coupled with this there is a 7:omplex form

of management (i.e., presid-lt, vice presidents, deans, department heads,

committees, and faculty) th__- is involied in the process of distributing

resources. This structure is complex oecause of the number of people,

objectives and sub-objectives involved. In order to ccntend with these

systems, universities must look toward more sophistica-A management tools.

Systems analysis, informatior systems, planning, programing, budgeting sys-

tems, and simulation are to'.1niques that can help define and structure the

university system FO that : -:an be managed and contro[Jed. These tech-

niques will aid in defininc -he relationships between inputs and outputs

of the system, so that university management can make decisions regarding

resource allocation that wil' produce outputs compatible to the objectives

and goals of the institution. Aggregate costs of inputs will be broken down

and associated with outputs so that decision making can proceed on the basis

of cost per output as well as cost per input.

THE IMPORTANCE OF FACULTY ACTIVITY ANALYSIS: implementing systems to aid the

decision making process in higher education requires that data be collected,

maintained and transformed so it can support the decisions that are to be

made. Data on how faculty time is allocated to the various programs and

processes of higher education represents the key factor. Over 80 per cent

of the resources used in the primary academic areas are in support of

faculty and staff activities. Consequently, decisions on alternatives

depend a lot on how it affects the draw on faculty resources. Analysis on

faculty activities s currently done in many forms across the country. Most

studies use surveys where the faculty estimate the amount of time they feel

they spend on various activities. There are many problems with these studies.

28

1'1'4

I. Activity Definitio'ns

2. Mensures of FactLty Activities

3. Forulation Proble-,s

4. Aczeptance by thE, 7aculty

5. Acl-uracy of Data ,o.lection Methods

This study is concerned pr -Erily with the last problem. There, Is a

general co,census among far_ ty and administrators that the estimating done

is not accu-ate enough to Le useful for planning models and systems to

support the decision makir- rrocess in higher education. The purpose of this

study was t ) explore a sEr 4-sampling method of collecting data on faculty am.

determine 14 there are sigr'-icant differences between the data collected via

sampling and the data colle=ed via estimating. Another purpose of the

study was to assess the feasibility of using self-sampling as a method of

collecting data.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The study was conducted as a part of Project PRIME (Planning Resources in

Higher Education). Project PRIME was a one-year project to test implement

the CAMPUS simulation model in three institutions of higher education in

Minnesota. Parameters relating faculty time to activities are key variables

in the CAMPUS model. Consequently, Project PRIME provided a unique environ-

ment to integrate a study on data collection relating to faculty activities.

THE STUDY

Thirty-four faculty from the School of Business at the University of Minnesota

participated in the study. They were asked to complete five tasks as a part

of the study.

29

B5

Estimate at the beginning of the quarter the time they -;-,(D

they wculd spend on each activity throughout the quarter

Estimates).

2. ,Sample their time over a period of the quarter (Experimer-

Ten faculty sampled all 12 weeks, four faculty sampled the -a-

six weeks, four faculty sampled the last six weeks, and IC -1=..ity

sampled four at a time for three weeks covering the entire -er.

3. Estimate at the end of the period the time they spent on

activity over the period sampled (Period Estimates).

4. Estimate at the end of the quarter the time they spent on EE:

activity over the entire quarter (Post Estimates).

5. Complete a survey pertaining to their reactions on using self-sampling.

The sampling study was conducted using a random signaler device that wculd

"beep" at random times during the day. The faculty member carrying the device

recorded what he was doing at the time of the beep. The total time that the

faculty member sampled during any sampling segment was distributed intc the

categories proportional to the number of points in each category. Time spent

on faculty activities not sampled was accounted for by logging the fr: -s into

each category.

C I

ENCLOSURE C

C2

ENCLOSURE C

Summary of the Study

"Resource Analysis Modelingin Higher Education

A Synthesis"*

The studyls objective was to describe an approach to resource analysis within

the framework of an integrated management system. The proposed management

system was primarily based on an interpretation and expansion of the literature

associated with Planning, Programming, and Budgeting Systems. Six interrelated

conceptual processes were described: (I) a structuring process to develop

a program structure; (2) an analyzing process to determine the resources

required and the benefits received from various alternative programs; (3) an

informing process to insure that participants in the manaaement system

receive information appropriate for their nole; (4) an administrating process

to "cement" the other processes by providing the procedures and forms for

insuring that: analysis is surfaced for review, debate, and decision; the

data base is maintained and modified to reflect decisions made, and the

decisions are communicated, to all concerned personnel; (5) an opera'ing

process to insure efficient transformation of input into output, and (6) a

controlling process to evaluate conformance of the operating process to plan.

A description of the tools and techniques used in each of the six processes

for an or)rational system, the Department of Defense, was provided. These

tools and techniques then formed a basis for designing a management system

for a School of Business Administration.

*The complete study is available as Project PRIME Report No. 10.

'01e,

C3

Within the framework of the proposed management system, the study concentrated

on the analyzing process, and more specifically on the resource analysis

portion. A theoretical synthesis for doing resource analysis in higher

education was proposed utilizing: (I) the data structuring Ideas associated

with mast structuring process; (2) the simulation and data manipulation

capabilities of the CAMPUS V model; (3) a program costing module; and (4) the

concepts of Input-Output Analysis.

The program costing module was designed using three assumptions about the

resulting program structure: maintenance of organizatioral identityl-

preservation of an ability to parametrically reconstruct all resources; and

restriction of allocation to that which is "generally accepted." These

assumptions were necessary to allow conversion of a medium range program

(i.e., a five-year program) into a short range plan (i.e., a budget).

The output from the program costing module is a series of program elements -

both primary and support. In order to utilize these program elements in

analysis, it is often necessary to do additional allocations. To facilitate

this allocation a framework based on Input-Output Analysis was proposed. A

computer program, ELFYD, was used to handle the required calculations.

The theoretical synthesis was then tested on three representative problems

at a School of Business Administration - a limiting of admissions; a restluc-

turing of degree offerings; and a reorganizing of the administrative structure.

For each representative problem, reports were presented from four perspectives:

(I) a budgetary/department orientation (CAMPUS V outputs); (2) a program

orientation, including both primary and support programs (outputs from program

costing module); and (3) a primary program orientation (outputs from ELFYD I/0

model); and (4) a unit output orientation.

3 3

0 I

ENCLOSURE D

EN

CLO

SU

RE

D

EXPE96NEmT A

SASE CASE

0 PERCENT STUDENT INCREASE

COST cENTER

LEVEL

.NO0E

3 sCHO

6 FINANCE/INS

,FFILIATED WITH

3 INSTRUCTION

WAV0 OF MINN-5CH OF BUS/NESS

D/RECT COST By ACTIVITY

(DOLLARS)

PROGRAM REPORT

1.1

SESSION

1969/70

SIMULATION PERIOD

iPAGE

1

ACTIVITY

HEGIS

**

SECTIONS

414,

ENROL, AVG,

STAFF

oi EQUIPMENT(1)0*

5PACE(2)

04

ACTY

COST

PER

COST

PER

COST

PER

0.

NAME

cODE

LEV

NO.

!MEW'

SIZE

PART

FULL

GENL SUPRT.

TEACH

SP.LAB

CLASS

LARS

Sp LAB

TOTAL

(4)

(5)

(6)

55

56

3000

3100

3 3

7 1

139

35

2035

n 0

0

1164

00

00

0 6

0 0

00

50

0 0

0

1175

3317

1:

."101.109

58

3300

31

35

35

11164

00

6f

05

00

1175

33.57

.47'

11.19

60

3400

3.

1e8

48

n1164

003

60

80

01178

24.54

.34

8.13

62

.3500

3I

33

A1164

00

60

30

01173

3A100

5,43.

130.33

64

8000

51

24

24

01164

00

60

40

01174

48,92

..68

16.31

55

8100

52

58

29

n2328

04

12

010

00

2350

40.52

56

13.051

61

8300

5,1

88

81164

00

60

30

01173

146.62

2.04

48087

77

8990

51

17

n216

00

00

00

0216

30.86

.64

10.29

78

B995

51

22

)216

00

00

00

0216

108.10

2.25

36.00

23

3100

32

232

116

12328

00

12

030

00

2370

10.22

14

3.41

24

3200

31

48

48

11164

00

60

80

01178

24.54

.34

8.18

137

8100

53

65

22

0342

00

18

011

00

3521

54.17

'75

1.8.06

140

8200

51

55

01164

00

60

30

01173

234.60

3.;:

72fA0

3000

32

g5

48

01164

00

60

80

01178

12.40

A

PL

823

33

I1

1782

00

00

00

01782

54.00

4.50

N/A

-129

DISS

87

71

0378

00

00

00

0378

54.00

4.50

6.00

335

EXAM

81

11

A54

00

00

00

054

54.00

4050

N/A

mow

.,ft

wm

ena

mm

.ow

67

845

12

n21270

00

96

098

00

21464

25.40

.48

9.85

=====

--=s- ===s

===m

====

:ve,cm

===s

120=2

C.,===w

(3)

(3)

(3)

(3)

;1)

66OPERATING COST ONO

!a)

6.ENROLLEE

:2)

66 MAINTENANCE COST ONLY

(5)

666STUDENT CONTAcT HOUR

:3)

.6 AVERAGE FOR THE COLUMN

(6)

-STUDENT CREDIT HOUR

N/A INDICATES VARIABLE CREDIT ACTIVITY

Oct

ober

7,

1971

COST CENTE0

LEVEL

NODE

3 SCHO

6 FINANCE/INS

FFILIATEO WITH

3 INSTRUCT/ON

ENCLOSURE

EXPERfNENT A

RASE CASE

0 PERCENT

STUDENT INCREASE

UN/V. OF MINN--SCH

OF RUSINESS

DIRECT COST 8Ymine LEVEL

(DOLLARS)

-

PROGRAM REPORT

14'

SESSION

1969/70

sImuLATtoN RgRzob

PAGE

1

COURSE LEVEL

1 2 3 4 5 9

TOTAL DIRECT

COST

9427

12037 A

21464

====m

:i0T4L ENROLLEES

6

635

211

845

X2=2

cOST

PER ENROLLEE

0.00

0,00

14.85

0.00

57,32

0.00

25,40.-

=====w

&)ST

PER STUDENT

CREDIT HOUR

0.00

0.00

5.82

0.03

21.12

0.00

9.80

r.rt

z=zi

s.

COST.'

PER STUDENTCONTaCT MOUR

_Lop

0.00

.29

0.00

.97

1-

0.00

.144'

cramaxt.

11)

(1) - AVERAGE

FOR THE COST

CENTER

COURSE LEVEL

NUmRER

13 PREPAToRY

2 = LOWER nIVISION

3 = UPPER

DyVISION

4 =

CONGINATION OFUPPER

DIVISION% ANDGR40o0TE

sGRADUATE ANO

PROFESSIONAL

4 * OTHER

(11

(1)

October 7, 1971

EN

CLO

SU

RE

p

EXPEOMENT 1

RASE CASE

n PERCENT STUDENT INCREASE

may. OF MINN--SCH OF BUSINESS

LIMMARy REPORT

DIRECT COST PY COST CENTER

PROGRAM ItEPORT

1.3

SESSION

1969/70

SIMULATION PERIOD

1

.PAGE

1

COST CENTER

COST CENTER

VITAL

TOTAL

COST

COST

COST

NUMBER.

NAME

DIREcT cOST

ENROLLEES

PER ENRoLLEE

PER STUDENT CREDIT HOUR

PER STUDENT CONTACT HOUR__

1RUSINESS SCHOOL

2OUTSIDE SBA

4BESE:RCH CENTERS'

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

DA

TA

3INSTRUCTION

n-41.

5ACCOUNTING

_.

6FINANCE/INS

7/NDAL RELATIONS

aMONT scIENcE

9mGMT/TRANS

10

MARKETING/BLAw

:11

GRANO TOTALS

2)

OVERALL AVERAGES

____

2144

845

25.40

900

648

798

23.75

11.30

.5S

6.(As

367 -

.40

10.98

-

.46

6.86

09

.7'

====mm

(11

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2./

Oct

ober

,19

71

EN

CLO

SU

RE

D

EXPERIMENT 0

RASE CASE

0 PERCENT STUDENT INCREASE

'JNIV, OF mINN--SCH OF RUSINESS

SUmMARY REPORT

DIRECT COST AY COURSE LEVEL

FOR

COST CENTERS

PRoGRAi4 REPORT-_ I949/70

SIMULATION PERIOD

I.--

PAGE

I

CoST

COST

COST

COURSE LEVEL

TOTAL DIRECT COST

ioTAL ENROLEES

PER ENROLEE

PER STUDENT cREGIT HOUR

PER STUDENT CONTACT HOUR

2 3 4 9

(I/

GRAND TOTALS

(2)

OVERALL AVERAGES

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

DA

TA

.

93=

=31

2

(I)

11)

(2)

12)

(2)

cOURSE LEVEL NumpER

3 PREPATORY

= LOMER DIVISION

3 3 uPPER DIVISION

4 3,COMDINATION OF UPPER

DIVISION AND GRADUATE

5 m GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL

9 3 OTHER.

2

Oct

ober

7, 1

971

0 Lfl

EN

CLO

SU

RE

EXPERIMENT 6

BASE CASE

o PERCENT sTUDENT.INCREAsF

PROGRAM

C'a

LEVEL

NODE

gZ'I pROG

11 BSB REGULAR

(oAFFILIATED WITH

7 UNDER GRADUATE

COST cENTER

5 ACCOUNTING

UNIV. OF MINN--Scm oF BUSINESS

DIRECT COST

PROGRAM / COST CENTER / ACTIVITY

DCLLARS)

pqmiltm REPORT

.1

SEsstcN

1969170

SIMOLATIoN PER/OD

1

PAGE

3

PAR

TIA

L R

EPO

RT

CREDIT RANGE

SIMULATION PERIOD

ACTIVITY

ACTIVITY

CALENDAR

NUMBER

COOE

1n24

1

CD

1025

2

1026

3

3255

SUBTOTAL - cOST CENTER

5

1 1

7671

2 1

4687

599

693 0

7673

0

654

1037

7673

4 1

7673

5 1

0 3 a

7673

6 1

0 0 0 0

7673

pow

TOTALS

4687

599

1347

1037

46038

COST CENTER

6 FINANCE/INS

CREDIT RANGE

24

pow

SIMULATION PERIOD

11

1TOTALS

ACTIVITY

ACTIVITY

CALENDAR

NUMBER

CODE

3100

56

A6

1074

00

1074

3300

58

aa

01074

0o

1074

3400

60

00

1178

00

1178

3100

123

1041

653

00

1694

3200

124

60

1178

00

1178

3000

273

843

00

0843

SUBTOTAL.- COST CENTER

67043

7043

704-Y

7043

7043

7043

42258

Oct

ober

7, 1

971

EN

CLO

SU

RE

D

EXPERIMENT 0

RASE CASE

0 PERCENT STUDENT INCREASE

PROGRAM

LEVEL

NODE

pROG

11 8S8 REGULAR

ILIATED WITH

7 UNDER GRADUATE

CREDIT RANGE

SIMULATION PERIOD

CENTER

5 ACCOUNTING

5s1 cENTER

6 F/NANcE/INs

-.:ST CENTER

7 /OA. RELATIONS

.:isT CENTER

6GMT SCIENCE

OST CENTER

9 MGMT/TRANS

:'ST CENTER 10 MARKETING/GLAW

)TAL PROG If GSB REGULAR

UNIV. OF MINNSCR OF RUSINESS

DIRECT COST

PROGRam / COST CENTER

!DOLLARS)

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

DA

TA

6ROW

TOTALS

PROGRAM REPORT

2.2

SESSION

I969/70

SImULATION PERIOD

I

PAGE

.1 O

ctob

er 7

, 191

EXPERiMENT n

RASE CASE

0 PERCENT STUDENT INCREASE

UNIV. OF MINNSCH OF BUSINESS

EN

CLO

SU

RE

D

SUMMARY REPORT

DIRECT cOST RY PROGRAM

(DOLLARS,

CREDIT RANGE

12

3_

aSIMULATION PERIOD

PROGRAM

BSB ACCOUNTING

PROGRAM II BSB REGULAR

PROGRAM i2 AGRI RUSINESS

PROGRAM i3 MBA DAY

PROGRAM i4 MBA EVEN.ING

PROGRAM 15 MA /R

TOTAL

ALL PROGRAMS

CO

NFI

DE

NT

IAL

DA

TA

PRoGRAm REPORT

2.3

sEsSION

1969/70

SPOLATI)" PERIOD

I

PAGE

I

PAR

TIA

L R

EPO

RT

6POW

TOTALS

Oct

ober

7, 1

971

PROGRAM

LEVEL

NODE

1 Kum

13 MaA DAY

=k-FPILIATED WITH

8 GRADUATE

STUDENT LEVEL-

(CREDIT RANGE)

2 3 4'

9

TOTALS

ENCLOSURE D

EXPERIMENT 0

BASE CASE

0 PERCENT STUDENT INCREASE

UNIV. OF MINN--scH OF BUSINESS

DIRECT COST

BT STUDENT LEVEL

/(DOLLARS)

TOTAL DIRECT cOST

(11 - AVERAGE FOR THIS PROGRAM

sTuDENT LEVEL UMBER

1 is PREPATORY

2 a LOWER D/v/SION

3UPPER DIVISION

4 a COMBINATION Of UPPER

DIVISION ANO GRADUATE

5 m GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL

9 a OTHER

COST

TOTAL ENROLLEES

PER ENROLLEE

11.(

10

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

DA

TA

PROGRAM REPORT

P.4

SESSION

Ig6S/TO

SIMULATION PER100

PAGE

I

COST

COST

PER STUDENT CREDIT HOUR

PER STUDENT comTACT HOUR

Cl,c

nI%

C 1

O1:

tobe

r 7,

197

1

.PROGRAM

LEVEL

ROG

ILIATED WITH

EXPERiMENT n

RASE CASE

0 PERCENT STUDENT INCREASE

NODE

II es8 REGULAR

7 UNDER GRADUATE

UNIV. OF MINN-°.SCH OF RUSINESS

ENCLOSURE D

DIRECT COST RY RUOGET CATEGORY

(UNITS (S NOTED)

PROGRAM REPoPT

SESSION

1969.A

SPULATI(IN PERIOD

?

PAGE

1

ACADEMIC

STAFF

04

ACADEMIC

SUPRT STAFF

** TEACH

** EQUIP

*0

CLASSROOM

4*

SPACE

0*ALL LABS

**

00 SP LARS

**

EQUIP

**

TOTALS

**

(1)

12)

I)

(3)

11)

11)

16)

(1)

(4)

(11

(11

zT CENTER

S ACCOUNTING

7606,

n,

0..

0,

.62,

o.0.

a.

0.

.ST CENTER

6 FINANCUINS

6955,

6,

Os

Os

36.

52,

D.

D.

D.

0.

7(144,

.ST CENTER

7 IND*L RELATIONS

50810

O.

Os

25.

37,

o.

0.

a.

I.5143,

A,T CENTER

8 MGMT SCIENCE

563.

Os

0,

3.

8,

o.

D.

0,

o.

574.

CENTER

MGMT/TRANS

11358.

O.

Os

42.

74,

a.

o.

0,

a.

11474.

OST CENTER 10 MARKETING/BLAW

6858.

Os

O.

Os

42e

58.

o.

o.

D.

0.

6959.

38422

n.

00

0.

153.

291.

o.

0.,

0.

38866.

imm=st

====21

=5=7.2

5C5311

====4

====3

=====

=====

=====

.n.

10. DOLLARS

.)

STAFFING UNITS / WEEK

).° CONTACT HOURS / WEEK

)SQUARE FEET

Oct

ober

7, 1

971

_

ExPERimENT n

BASE CASE

n PERCENT STUDENT /NCREASE

UNIV. OF MINNSCH OF BUSINESS

ENCLOSURE D

AFFILIATED ENROLLEES

PROGRAM SUMMARY

1ENROLLEES9 CONTACT HOURS, CREDIT

BY PROGRAM/

CREDIT RANGE

12

34

PROGRAM

CONTACT

CREDIT

ENROLLEES

NO.

NAME

HOURS

HOURS

5

PROGRAM REPORT

3.3

SESSION.

1969/70

SIMULAT/ON PERIOD

1

PAGE

1e4 2.

ROM

6TOTALS

qOTHER COLLUNDER

747

00

00

6747

13

1"

BSB ACCOUNTING

120

52

515

BSB REGULAR

06

0o

1163

0R

360

1411

196

00

12

AGRI BUSINESS

045

141

96

o0

1272

11

mBA DAY

415

240

00

00

655

14

MBA EVENING

57

100

145

00

P302_

le

MA IR

67

99

00

00

166

16

SPONSORED RES

oo

0.

0o

00

17

DEPT RESEARCH

oo

00

00

0

111

CEsU

00

oo

00

olq

in0

o0

0o

oo

2MIsRc

o0

0o

0o

21

5Um1AER RESEARCH

00

0o

00

o22

DEPT RESEARCH

n0

0o

00

0

21

BUSINESS EOUC

00

00

o0

0

P8A

?4

BUREAU BUS RES

oo

00

00

0

FAC PUHLIC SER

0o

oo

00

0

2',

COMPUTER CENTER

00

0D

0o

0___.

_

27

IR LIBRARY

o0

0o

o0

02A

BUSINESS REF

n0

00

00

0.,

2g

DEPT ADMIN

00

0o

oo

o30

PHD ACCOUNTING

0P0

13

00

041

3i

PHO FINANCE

17

60

00

14

31

PHO IMO RELATION

02

s_

00

_

33

PHD MANAGEMENT

59

6'

o0

020

34

PHD MIS

a10

30

00

21

35

PM0 MARKETING

3i

20

c0

636

PHD PRO()

00

3o

0o

3

37

PHD OUANITATIVE

0o

2o

06

23,1

PHD INSURANCE

no

20

00

2

30

PHD TRANS

i1

20

00

4.._________-

4n

mS AcCTING

20

30

o.

00

050

4i

mS FINANCE

13

31

00

00

44

47

MS IR

00

o0

0o

o41

mS MGMT

15

40

0.

00

0SS

44

MS MTS

30

46

00

00

76

45

MS MKT9

10

25

oo

0o

35

46

MS PROD

314

00

o0

17

_

47

mS GA

13

22

00

0o

35

A.R.

MS INSURANCE

10

23

00

o0

33

0. .._

Oce

aber

7,

1 9

7 1

EXPERiMENT o

BASE CASE

0 PERCENT STUDENT INCREASE

UNIV. OF MINNSCH OF BUSINESS

EN

CLO

SU

RE

D

AFFILIATED ENROLLEES

PROGRAM SUMMARY

1ENROLLEES, CONTACT HOURS, CREDIT HOURS BY PROGRAM)

PROGRAM REPORTM.--

SESSION

1969/70

SIMULATION PERIO0

1'

PAGE

2 4 It

PROGRf.M

NO,

NAME

CREDIT RANGE

CONTACT

CRED7T

HOURS

HOURS

1.

34

ENROLLEES

6

RmW

_TOTALS

)49

MS TR:AS

11

15

00

00

26

00

00

00

5i

0 00

00

00

57

00

00

00

051

00

00

054

00

00

00

055

00

oo

00

o56

00

oo

o57

00

o0

00

0sA

00

00

00

059

00

00

00

6n

PRE BUS COUNSEL

6t

GRAD STUDIES

0 0

0 0

0 0.

0 0

0 00_ 0

.0

-0

67

PLACEMENT

00

00

00

0141

61

COLLEGE 10MIN

00

00

00

0

(A 64

ADMIN So-NICES

00

00

00

06q

COMM'cOLL WIDE

o0

00

00

066

OTHER COLL.GRAD

105

00

00

0105

67

PROF DEVELOP

00

00

00

068

STU SUPPORT FAC

00

00

00

0

1111

1.11

.9.

61.1

00.

afR

ivie

41.0

Wal

-4 TOTAL

ALL PROGRAMS ****

1542

1260

2269

2307

0

ItS3111

M2=1.

11:2827

__ -

-__

____

__

_

PROGRAM

LEVEL

NODE

1 PROG

20 M/SRc

AFFILIATED WiTR

16 SPONSORED RES

ENCLOSURE D

EXPERimENT q

BASE ilASE

0 PERCENT STUDENT INCREASF

STAFF

UNIV. OF mINN-...SCH OF BUSINESS

SERVICE DEPARTMENT

REPORT BY PROGRAM

PRGGRAm REPORi

4.1

SESSION

1969/i0

SIMULATION PEe710D

1PAGE

1

TOTAL

TnTA,..

ToTAi:

CODE

TYPF OR R;NK

NUM8ER

COST

SPCE REQUIRED

MAINTENANCE COST

Sm0FT

(S)

c

7SEN SECTi

1.00

100

100

-0

5E..1'.*s1

3.00

4500

300

31

-17.

TFA ASST

8.00

12000

800

?1

)4t1

20

RFS ASSY

4.60

7200

400

41

CT

)21

ASST Dip

1.00

3000

100

14

SACE

8

EQUIPMENT AND

OTHFQ

CONF

crt

TERMINAL.'

.1000

1000

200

.26

TOTALS

.

V

V

V

30500.

1900

TOTAL NUMBEk OF SERViCE SiAFF.

17.06'

TOTAL SO.FT OF SPAiT

REQUi97D

lig

1900

TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS

30696

Oct

ober

7, 1

971

EN

CLO

SU

RE

D

EXPERIMENT

ARASE CASE

0 PERCENT STUOENT INCREASE

UNIV. OF MINN--SCH OF BUSINESS

PR0GRAm REPORi

5.1

SESSION

1969/70

SIMULATION PERIOD

NON-TEACHING DUTIES-ft-INDIVIDUAL FACULTY ACTIVITIES

PAGE

5

NON-TEACHING

DUTY

COST-CENTER

C..0

STAFFING-UNIT::

COST

PER

TOtAL

NAmE

CODE

NAME

NO,

REQUIRED

STAFFING UNIT

COST

STUDENT SUPPORT

5ACCOUNT/NG

5,15

70

1

PRORRAM

ELENENT

FiNANCE/INS

6'

21

70

1NAMF

CODE

INpoti. RELAT1OW-5

729

TO

2STU SUPPORT.FAO

68

.

mGMT SCIENCE

829

70

am6MT/TRANS

926

74

1

mARKETING/RLAW

10

39

70

2

'IOTA!.

-

162

700%;

Oct

ober

7, 1

971

ENCLOSURE 0

EXPERimENT A

BASE CASE

0 PERCENT STUOENT INCREASE

UNIV., OF mINN--sCH OF BUSINESS

PROGRAM REPORT

5.

SESSION

060,170

EXESS ACADEMIC STAFF TIME BY COST

SImuLATION PERIOD

1

PAGE

1

CENTER.SOMMARY

COST CENTER

COST CENiER

ST

AF

FIN

GTOTAL

CODE

NAME

UN

ITS

COST

1BUSINESS SCHOOL

2OUTSiOE SBA

4RESEARCH CENTERS

5ACCOUNTING

6FINANCE/INS

'7 8 9

END*L RELATIONS

mGmT SCIENCE

mGmT/TRANS

10MARKET/NG/SLAW

TO

TA

i:-1

161.

.1.1

)

Oct

ober

7',

1971

0

OG

CODE

N,wE

OTHER COLL-UNDER

8s8 ACcoUNTING.

RS8 REG0LAR

AGRI BUSI.1ESS

q3A DAY

8A EVENING

.

t.,ATR

SPONSORE! RES

DEPT RESEARCH

CES8.

1PC

-.0

mISRc

SUMmER PEEARC11

CE9T RESE0ACH

RUSINESs EOUC

BUREAU RUS RES

.

FAC PUBLIC SER

cOmPuTEo r',ENTER

!ODOR LIRPIRy

':5e.J3RUSINE5s REF

'-:90EPT ADMIN

-(3

PHD ACCo.INTING

.

PHO FINANCE

-2

PHO IND RELATION.

,aPHD MAAGEMENT

PHO MIS

PHO MARKETING

75

PHO PROO

PHO OUANITATIVE

PHD INSURANCE

pH() VRAmS

_MS ACCTTNG

FINANCE

-2

MS IR

-1

HS MGMT

-4

MS MIS

_5*

MS MKTG

6'!S PROD.

HS OA

MS INSURANCE

-

VS TRANS

ACAD

EXPER41ENT 0

BASE

case

0 PERCENT STUDENT INCREASE

UNIV. OF MINN-SCH OF RUSINESS

EN

CLO

SU

RE

TOTAL OPERATING COST

SUMMARY

...ALL PROGRAMS

STFF COSTS

EQUIPMENT COSTS

ACAO

NON-AcAD

SERV/CE

TEACHING

SP7

SPT

OEPT

sPEC

LABS

PROGRAM REPORT

7e3

SESSION

19704/71

SIMULATION PERIO0

4RAGE- 1

TOTAL.._

MA/NT

MISC

OPERATING

SERVICE

COST

DEPT

-'17,52

0.00

0,00

0.00

3253.08

5276,01

9909,39

682.94

-A1.34

0.00

0.00

n.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

^.00

21.76

153.81

4,58

125.63

39.55

35.08

0.00

4-00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00'

.

0.00

.0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00no

0.00

0.00.

0.00

0.00

,

0.00

004

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2000.00

no

152.66

4633.51

2n29A,52

_ _206.27.__ 7466.84_

3639

7.23

_426,38

1459c.50

60177,23

24.90

967.50

..

314.47

183.27

6437.n1

3865;.71

.7S,S6

3395.76

__2044A.55

45,39

1878.61

11714.52-

__

n.ao

.

220.O3

19714.10

139224,52

70.00._

7571,00_

290.00

n.00

4079n.00

190.00

.0.00

3o69n.00

_0.01,

000

n.00

0.00 ______,A.00

n.00..

;L390.-

3067,62

2625.54

0,00

1897.00

2807.25

1995.31

966,94

1443.40

2455.63

38E18,80

0Q

V,.

0,00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0,00

0.00

0,00 _

CO

NFI

DE

NT

IAL

DA

TA

518.12.

319.46

.

162.37

256.54

351.91

579,23

0.vu

0.00

-

0.00

0.00

0.00

4.4*.

9.52

18.42

1530.00

. nnn

304n.00

16'6159R.94

20637;00_

Oct

ober

7, 1

971

-,c.

00

CA

EXPERTMENT.(i

RASE CASE

o PERCENT STUDENT INCREASE

UNIV. OF mINN.-ScH OF eUSINESS

ENCLOSURE D

IOTA!. OPERATING COST .

SUMMARY

- ALL PROGRAMS

PROGRAM REPORT

7.1

SESSION _

SIMULATION PERIOD

4PAGE

2

STPF COSTS

EQUIPMENT COSTS

_ToriL___

-03

CODE

MAINT

MISC

.OPERATING

NAmE

ACAO

ACA0

NON-ACAD

SERVICE

TEACHING

SPEC

SERVICE'

COST

-

SPT

SPT

OEPT

LABS

DEPT

......

:0 2 :3

A. 59

:-1

A. 1

44, 5 7

'...3 /)T41.

' PPE RUS cOUNSEL

GPAO STUDIES

pLACENEvT

CoLLEGE 1DMIN

tr.MIN SERVICES

COMM COLL wIDE

iTHEP Co/L- SRAD

PPOF DETELOP

STU SUPPvT FAC

PROGRAm COST

0.00

0,00

0000

0.00

0.00

0,00

0.0

391

31,89

24300.00

12000.00

4B9874,R9

0.0.

0.00K

0,00:

0,00

0.00

000

0,00

0.00

000

0.00

0400

0,

0.00

0,00

0.00

70667

3RS9.40

3450,'.3

F32213.06

u.u0

0.00

8787.00

6200.00

6150.00

22300.00

10050,00

6150.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

167262,00

CO

NFI

DE

Nt I

AL

DA

TA

Jo_

,30

A.SD

565,1,5D

2n61.44

.....

G69230.97

tri

Oct

ober

7, 1

971

0

ExPERIMENT !!

8AS-E. CASE

0 PFRCEmT STUDENT INCREASE

PROGRAm

LEVEL

NOOF

UNIV.

uMINN--SCH OF HUSINESS

PROGRAM REPoPT

A.3

PRO(

1/ RS8 PFGULAR

SF$SIOm

)96.9/74

FILIATE0 w1Tm.

7 UmuFP GRADUATE

ENCLOSURE D

ST&ULATION PERIOD

30

PAGE

3- SY PRGGRAM

69/70

70/71

TUIAL oPERATING COST

71/72

72/73

73/74

4FF COSTS

_ AcA0 STAFF

126390.

124353.

128446.

134383.

iCAu SPT STAFF

P.

0.

0.

0.

SPT STAFF

33760.

3084;57.

30a47.

35044.

.EgvICE STAFF

e.

0.

0.

0.

SU8TOTAL

160158.

155240.

15/5693.

17b3?7.

.IPMENT COSTS

TEACHING EQuIPmENT

LA8S

DEPTS

74/75

7s/76

76/77

77/7A

78/79

CO

NFI

DE

NT

IAL

DA

TA

SU6TOTAL

INTENANCE COST

. 44. ..

.743o

2167.

P039.

2087.

209.

Fa

:S:CLLANEOuS COST

TOTAL.

3713.

520.

75371,

325201.

7c5A6.

31r.252.

7393k.

316551.

7324g.

323025. O

ctob

er 7

, 197

1

E I

ENCLOSURE E

E2

ENCLOSURE E

Agenda for Selected Presentations

Information on CAMPUS activities and progress was given in presentations to

participating institutions and agencies periodically throughout the project

year. A list of .)articipants and presentation dates is provided as follows:

I. Staff of Minnesota Higher EducationCoordinating Commission January 22, 1971

2. School of Business Administration,University of Minnesota January 25, 1971

3. Minnesota State College Board February 16, 1971

4. Minnesota State Junior College System February 17, 1971

5. Information Systems Advisory Committee,Minnesota State College System March 9, 1971

6. Administrative Staff, University ofMinnesota March 31, 1971

7. Administrative Staff, University ofWisconsin and Representatives of PublicSchool Districts April 26, 1971

8. State Department of Education May 7, 1971

9. Ben? 11 State College June 28, 1971

The agenda for these presentations is attached.

ENCLOSURE E

AgendaPresentation on CAMPUS-10I0E5OTA

and Project PRA

1.0 Background and History1.1 CAMPUS Development - Of Toronto/

Systems Research Group1.2 Project PRIME

2.0 Goals of PRIME2.1 Six Objectives2.2 Schedule2.3 Program Budget

3.0 The CAMPUS Model3.1 Inputs3.2 Process

(a) Activity - Curriculum(b) Service Department(c) Non-Teaching Duties

3.3 Outputs(a) Three categories I piirmod(b) Sample Outputs

Approx.Time

5

10

5

10

240

4.0 Model Uses 5

5.0 The Future 5

60 Minutes

E3

F I

ENCLOSURE F

55

PROS%N

Hon

13

.

cs.)

EN

CLO

SU

RE

F

Figure 111-13

INPUT DATA REPORT 3.1

CAMPUS IHS1RUMUN NKUUtS5

uN/v. oF mouSC OF RUSINESS

SESSON 1969-70

OGRAR CURRICULA AND ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION

/NPUT DATA qENP1T

301

snuRcE DocJMENTs

RR3sRIA4 01

PRO6PA4 oz

DRDGRA,A OS

oRDSPAN

DEFINE Os

PAOE 1N

.

PRocRAm

mAn. U.

CREDaT

SIMULATION

PROGRAM

ACTIVITY

ACTIVITY

ACTIVITY

PARTICIPATION

two:

.TEARS-CPEDITS

YEARS

PERIOD

CORICULUNI

NO. CODE

NUHdER

con

CALEOAR

CSDI.

TYPE

RAID 10

MCA DAY

27

11

160

159

161

41)

ft

:,if,

s005

[qt.()

LECTuwE1

LECTuRE1

LECIMICI

TS 75

ip

65

HI00

LEcTuRF1

10

33

8050

LEcTquEl

35

2,0

156

4161

so(11

LECTURE]

LECT4-"IFA

3$

30

64

Mqo

LECTUTtEl

10

2n

BOOD

LECTuRE1

.,

95

302

S032

pSyl

LECTUI1E1

LECTUgE1

10

10

300

ti3

EC11

BISO

LECIUNEI

LECTWIC1

10

:0

137

B100

LECTUr:El

30

2611

0154

LEcTuRE1

30

1a

In

162

0000

1.CCTuidE1

TS

163

ROIO

LECIIIPEI

A2h2

1064

LECIUwEl

10

205

W.7

LECTUI/E1

20

6S

'1100

1.EETuRF1

20

34

R0s1

LEcT4E1

35

RISR

LECTIME1

35

225

0150

LECTUREI

30

95

5D32

LECTURE%

10

304

'7',71

LECTUUE1

20

301 aj

:f,..)2

015'1

LEcTuRE1

25

20

ra

Cu

EN

CLO

SU

RE

F

Figure 111-13

INPUT DATA REPORT

3.1

.CAMPUS INSTRUCTION

PROCESS

uNly. OF mINN--.5OrtOF Rd51NES3

5t.55IO4 1S6V-70.

PROGRAM CURP1CULA AND

ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION

WO DATA RVOR7

snong: DocJimoT5

q:',511Am 01

0aRAm

02

P405144% oz

DR0GRAm 0.)

DEFINE OS

.PAGE 19

.PaOGIAK

PROGRAN

mAx. NO.

CREDIT

SIMULATIO4

PROGRAM,

ACTIvITY

ACTIVITY

ACTIVITy

PARTICIP4TI3N

LTD:,

'

vAtiC

.YE05-c2Cer75

YEARS

PER/00

cuARIc110.1.

NUNER

.CALENIDAR

roc

RATt., (()

'

NO. Co%

CODE

CDOE

.

302

PSY1

LECTUREI

20

3oo

ECD1

LFCIUPE1

20

3164

252

9150

LECTUPE1

75

13

901n

LECTuw.1

10

226

!floc)

LECTUuE1

20

13B

SIDI

LECTOW'l

20

262

3904.

LECTUwEl

20

99

5012

LEcTD0E1

20

SS

5032

LECTUr4E1

20

2954

4A14

20

S3

915R

LEC1IC1

20

V,

R000

LECTUREI

25

301

ECO2

%20

q:

322

t., 3

LECTURE3

10

323

D.-. 3

10

32

PLI 3

LECTURE3

15

325

,LI 3

10

326

0%.° 3

LECTUPE3

tO

327

PL4 9

.15

IS,:

900

LECTOEI

25

161

M004

tEOlvoEl

25

40

m260

LECTURE1

20

65

fllno

.

LECTUPE1

10

'204

0053

100

206

G053

100

EN

CLO

SU

RE

F

figure 111-13

INPUT DATA REPORT

3.1

CAMPUS INSTRUCTIONPROCESS

Onty. V7 mIqR.--5Cri OF AUS1NESS

I;ESSION 1969'70._

INPUT DATA RE)ORT

.391

SOUPCE 00C.PiEV.rs

;c1,53644

aGalot 02

pa35RAM 03

DAO5'Rtm or,

DETIRC

:mown conluLA A4D

ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION

PA6E

PnowIrm

PROMM

MAR. NO.

unty

51mMA1104

Pkunfo0

"ACTIVITY

,CTIQM

tCTIVITY

PAZ:11::.:P(17113.4

NODE

YEARS..CREDITS

YEARS

PERIOD

ORRICULft

WNE4

-CaEv/tR

1YPE

0. ODE

COOE

CDOE'

22,

163

322

PV R

LECTURE)

10

321

PL 3

10

3?4

Pv 3

LECTURE3'

)5

325

PLI3

10

324

DOS

LECTURE3

to

327

ot: 3

15

162

C009

LECTimE)

25

163

801(1

LECTuwEl

50

262

3064

LECTunEl

10

2u6

600

LECTuPEI

20

65

81)10

LEcTimr.1

10

205

053

LECTuRE1

50

285

D333

LECTURE)

.30

3-

165

322

Pt: 8

LECTURE).

10

3?3

PL.

?1lo

324

.Pt

: 4LECTUE3

15

325

ow

)0

'

326

Pt., 3

.

LFCTUPE1

40

327

.Pt.' 3

15

252

Alc,

Ltcru01

ts

163

0010

LECTupt

3D

226

5100

LECTU8,..1

10

138

8101

LECTUwE1

20

262

306

LECTuHEI

10

99

5012

LECTUREI,

20

206

G339

50

71

-N

GI

ENCLOSURE G

59

ENCLOSURE G

Report of Expenditures by

Source of Funds 7/1/70 - 6/30/71

Project PRIME

ITEM

HECC

GOVERNOR'S

COMPUTER

COMMITTEE

UNIVERSITY

OF

MINNESOTA

STATE

COLLEGE

SYSTEM

JUNIOR

COLLEGE

SYSTEM

HILL

FAMILY

FOUNDATION

TOTAL

Director

$16,000.00

$ 16,000.00

Associate Director (1)

$13,200.00

13,200.00

Associate Director (2)

11,550.00

11,550.00

Program Analyst

8,796.00

8,796.00

Program Analyst

7,660.00

7,660.00

Program Analyst

5,702.00

5,702.00

Data Analyst

250.00

150.00

400.00

Data Analyst

1,169.56

1,169.56

Clerical

$ 1,982.88

3,965.76

5,948.64

Keypunching

2,155.95

2,155.95

Fringe Benefits

4,346.22

4,346.22

Travel

1,594.01

1,594.01

Office Space

2,587.31

2,587.31

Commun., Sup., Eap. & Print.

7,907.47

$ 1,752.63

9,660.10

Computer

5,928.99

5,928.99

Tape Discs

255.00

255.00

At-Test Sites

Admin. (1)

Admin. (2)

$ 7,000.00

7,000.00

Admin. (3)

$ 7,000.00

7,000.00

L.; Data Anat. (1)

3,32A.nn

3,328,00

Data Anal. (2)

5,000.00

5,000.00

Data Anal. (3)

5,n00.00

5,000.00

TOTAL EXPENDITURES

16,482.62

28,965.76

11,009.62

12,000.00

12,000.00

43,823.78

124,281.78

TOTAL RESOURCES BUDGETED

14,400.00

30,000.00

23,000.00

12,000.00

12,000.00

45,644.00

137,044.00

TOTAL UNEXPENDED RESOURCES

(2,082.62)

1,034.24

11,990.38

1,820,22

12,762.22

*See attachment.

G3

ENCLOSURE G

Project PRIME 1970-71Budget Attachment

Proposed Budget for 7/1/71 - 6/30/72 for Continued Computer Capabilityto Run CAMPUS-M

Analyst (I) (1/2 time student) $ 3,442.08

Computer time (2) 500.00

Paper, tapes and other supplies 1,048.30

Total $ 4,990.38 (3)

(1) Mr. Raymond Pinson has been retained and is available to institutionsto run CAMPUS-M.

(2) Additional computer time may be needed if extensive running is required.Such time may be available through a Computing Center grant.

(3) These funds are in an account with School of Business Administration,University of Minnesota, and under the authority of Associate DeanC. Arthur Williams.