1 Italian Good Practice Projects Michela Arnaboldi and Giovanni Azzone.

1

Italian Good Practice Projects

Michela Arnaboldi and Giovanni Azzone

2

Agenda

• The context• The Target of GP projects• The Model • The main “products”• The general results for the Italian University system

3

The context

• Autonomy means:– Impact of central services on differentiation– Impact of central services on cost reduction

• But we need management tools consistent with the characteristics of central services

4

The target of Good Practice

– Identify performance indicators;– Identify good practices;– Understand key driver of good practice, in order to suggest

opportunities for improvement.

5

University GP GP2 GP3 GP 2003 GP 2005 GP 2007

1 Bari Politecnico X X2 BERGAMO X3 BICOCCA X4 Bologna X X X X X5 Calabria X X X X X6 Camerino X X7 Catania X X X X8 Ferrara X X X9 Firenze X X X X10 Foggia X X X11 Genova X X X X12 INSUBRIA X13 IUAV X14 L'Aquila X15 Lecce X X X16 Macerata X17 Messina X18 Milano Politecnico X X X X X19 Milano Università X X X20 Molise X21 Napoli Federico II X22 Napoli Parthenope X23 Padova X X X X24 Palermo X X X25 Pavia X X X X X26 Roma La Sapienza X X27 Salerno X28 Siena X X X29 TORINO X30 Torino Politecnico X X X X X31 Trento X X X X X32 Trieste X X33 Venezia X X X34 Verona X X

10 14 7 16 19 23

Th

e u

niv

ersi

ties

in

volv

ed

6

Resources

volume

Process

Activity quality

Volume

Quality

The Model: GP approach

7

The measures and area addressed

• The measurement system have included:– Efficiency indicators– Effectiveness indicators:

• Subjective quality• Objective quality

• The areas of the university included are:– Student support services– Accounting– Procurement and Logistics– Personnel management (humane resource)– Research support services – Information system services

8

The area addressed

Area GP GP2 GP3 GP 2003 GP 2005 GP 2007Accounting Efficiency Efficiency

Objective qualityEfficiencyObjective quality

EfficiencyObjective quality

EfficiencyObjective qualitySubjective quality

EfficiencySubjective quality

Student support services






Human resources Efficiency EfficiencyObjective quality





Procurement and logistics





Research support services

Efficiency EfficiencyObjective qualitySubjective quality


Information and computing services




9

The efficiency indicators

• The indicator used for measuring efficiency is the cost

• The model based on activity allows to measure: The total cost of the activities The unit cost per output of the activities

For example if we consider the matriculation activity:• Total cost for university A = 120,000€

• N. of matriculated students of A = 10,000 students

• The unit cost per output is 120,000€/10,000 = 12 €/matriculated student

ACTIVITYInput output

Cost

Output (or driver)

10

An example of activities and drivers

Activity Driver1 Prospective students support2 Information n. students3 Registration 1st year n. 1st year students4 Registration n. students5 Students cards management n. students6 Certification n. students7 Students programme

managementn. students

8 Graduation management n. graduations9 State exam management n. exam

10 Career management n. students11 Mobility management n. student in mobility12 PhD management n. PhD students13 Post-graduate school n. Post Graduate students14 Student Grant management n. grants15 Stage management n. stages

STUDENTS SUPPORT SERVICES

11

Effectiveness Indicators

• The effectiveness may be measured in two ways:– Objective quality:

• Objective indicators (e.g. delivery time; system availability; presence of controls)

– Subjective quality:• User perception

Output volume (Efficiency)

Output characteristics(Effectiveness)

Input

12

The main “products”

13

Accounting activities: total costs

A B C D E F G H I L M

Students tax management

82.715 37.239 23.709 98.653 29.885 24.834 32.471 12.021 24.826 36.434 18.084

Other incomes management

173.335 159.386 39.098 78.861 116.211 53.524 69.935 25.234 132.409 499.593 124.044

Expenses management 484.661 347.939 175.073 211.378 152.601 155.450 493.762 182.761 493.613 229.510 262.548

Fiscal management 246.493 158.354 74.360 80.449 87.062 146.924 192.121 48.234 71.881 231.718 175.239

Budget 195.640 133.411 83.993 124.791 124.185 107.877 76.648 34.285 263.986 186.338 144.866

Annual Financial Report 97.269 120.459 25.987 63.015 38.999 0 1.272 30.179 84.120 69.321 157.514

Cost accounting, monitoring and reporting

103.901 95.670 23.315 61.071 30.457 0 98.185 19.909 11.897 7.581 45.715Special entities management (e.g. consortium)

19.640 40.812 13.396 70.288 25.249 18.330 104.319 10.582 11.897 5.043 45.374

Other activities 855.340 128.319 48.893 139.621 87.592 286.096 587.107 70.698 103.926 25.109 154.964

TOTALE 2.258.994 1.221.588 507.823 928.127 692.241 793.034 1.655.820 433.902 1.198.555 1.290.648 1.128.348

14

Accounting activities: Unit costs of single activities

Attività A B C D E F G H I L M N

Students tax management €/student 0,85 1,25 2,33 1,55 1,85 0,41 0,80 0,95 0,63 0,57 0,30 0,33

Other incomes management €/000 € 0,24 0,68 0,72 0,25 1,53 0,11 0,18 0,41 0,35 0,81 0,21 0,24

Expenses management €/000 € 0,80 1,68 3,39 0,72 1,33 0,30 1,25 3,07 1,24 0,38 0,44 0,38

Fiscal management €/oper. 99,35 14,40 19,88 114,93 12,67 196,95 21,09 68,42 4,32 20,05 12,17 39,27

Asset Management €/oper. 4,44 40,15 22,84 14,87 81,08 nd 1,02 ND 70,81 46,21 2,43 0,64

15

Acccounting: the unit costs and the scale effect

y = 4725,4x-0,6245

R2 = 0,8153

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

0 100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

800.000

900.000

1.000.000

1.100.000

1.200.000

1.300.000

1.400.000

1.500.000

1.600.000

1.700.000

1.800.000

1.900.000

2.000.000

16

Variance from the curve

Actual Costs Actual Costs

A B C D E F G H I L

€/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl € €/mgl €

Cost/000 €0,91 1,99 3,86 1,09 2,81 0,50 1,24 2,59 1,28 0,98

Benchmark costs

A B C D E F G H I L


Costo di benchmark su curva di regressione 0,67 1,51 4,30 1,18 2,79 0,81 0,99 3,91 0,99 0,71

A B C D E F G H I L


Difference0,24 0,48 -0,44 -0,10 0,01 -0,32 0,25 -1,32 0,29 0,26

17

Variance from the curve

-0,24

-0,48

0,44

0,10

-0,01

0,32

-0,25

1,32

-0,29 -0,26

0,08

0,47

-0,02

0,29

-0,08

0,59

-0,6

-0,4

-0,2

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

Var

ian

ce f

rom

ben

chm

ark

18

Confronto dati 2001 - 2003

515,01

786,14

547,07

443,52

576,95

293,39

645,42

961,54

454,39

999,75

620,10

391,37

695,08

331,36

614,75

842,08

0

200

400

600

800

1.000

1.200

A B C E G I L N

€u

ro/p

res

on

GP 2001 GP 2003

The evolution of unit costs between two projects

19

D2 Comp etenza d el p ersonale

D3 Dispo nib ilità e co rtes ia

D4 Orari d i apertuare

D5 Org anizzazio ne seg reterie

D6 Durata d ell'at tesa allo sp o rtello

D7 Sp azi d i at tesa

D9 Mo dulis t ica semp lice e reperib ileD16 Interp retazio ne delle necess ità

D12 Info rmazioni co erent i co n la s tessa seg reteria

D13 Info rmazioni co erent i co n alt ri luog hi

D11 Ad eguatezza temp i svo lg imento p rat iche

media valutazione D2-D16 = 2,19

media soddisfazione D2-D16 = 0,48

1,5

1,7

1,9

2,1

2,3

2,5

2,7

0,22995 0,32995 0,42995 0,52995 0,62995 0,72995

Correlazione con la soddisfazione generale (D1)

Punte

ggio

med

io

Strenghts

Weaknesses

Too high investments

Low importance

Student Support Services: drivers of perceived quality

20

Student Suuport services: perceived quality and actual quality

0 ,0 0

0 ,1 0

0 ,2 0

0 ,3 0

0 ,4 0

0 ,5 0

0 ,6 0

0 ,7 0

0 ,8 0

0 ,9 0

1 ,0 0

0 ,0 0 0 ,2 0 0 ,4 0 0 ,6 0 0 ,8 0 1 ,0 0 1 ,2 0

Information: actual quality

Info

rma

tio

n:

pe

rce

ive

d q

ua

lity

Firenze

i

21

The relation between perceived quality and actual quality

Student Support Services: quality

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

Ca

lab

ria

Ca

tan

ia

Ge

no

va

Mila

no

Po

lite

cn

ico

Mila

no

Un

ive

rsità

Pa

do

va

Pa

via

To

rin

o

Po

lite

cn

ico

Tre

nto

Ve

ne

zia

University

Av

era

ge

wa

itin

g t

ime

Qualità percepita

Qualità oggettiva

Subjective quality

Objective quality

A B C D E F G H I L0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

Ca

lab

ria

Ca

tan

ia

Ge

no

va

Mila

no

Po

lite

cn

ico

Mila

no

Un

ive

rsità

Pa

do

va

Pa

via

To

rin

o

Po

lite

cn

ico

Tre

nto

Ve

ne

zia

University

Av

era

ge

wa

itin

g t

ime

Qualità percepita

Qualità oggettiva

Subjective quality

Objective quality

A B C D E F G H I L

22

The objective time for two accounting procedures

Accounting: actual quality

Tim e for getting reim bursem ent for travel in Italy

0

1

2

3

A D G H B E F L C I

Sc

ore GP2

GP 2003

ScoreWithin 15 days = 3Within 30 days = 2Within 60 days.= 1More than 60 days = 0

ScoreMonthly payments = 3Every 2 or 3 months = 2At the end of the year = 1After the year end = 0

Payment frequency for PhD Students

0

1

2

3

A C E F H B D G I L

Sco

re

GP2

GP 2003

Tim e for getting reim bursem ent for travel in Italy

0

1

2

3

A D G H B E F L C I

Sc

ore GP2

GP 2003

ScoreWithin 15 days = 3Within 30 days = 2Within 60 days.= 1More than 60 days = 0

ScoreMonthly payments = 3Every 2 or 3 months = 2At the end of the year = 1After the year end = 0

Payment frequency for PhD Students

0

1

2

3

A C E F H B D G I L

Sco

re

GP2

GP 2003

23

The integration of Efficiency and Effectiveness

0 ,0 0

0 ,5 0

1 ,0 0

1 ,5 0

2 ,0 0

2 ,5 0

0 ,0 0 0 ,2 0 0 ,4 0 0 ,6 0 0 ,8 0 1 ,0 0 1 ,2 0

Efficiency

Eff

ecti

ven

ess

Ateneo A

Ateneo O Ateneo B

Ateneo C

Ateneo D

Ateneo E

Ateneo F

Ateneo G

Ateneo H

Ateneo I

Ateneo L

Ateneo M Ateneo N

Ateneo P

24

The impact

• Common language• Community on performance measurement• Diffusion of practices

1 Italian Good Practice Projects Michela Arnaboldi and Giovanni Azzone.

Documents

effectiveness slide

actual quality slide

driver slide

curve slide

gp approach slide

giovanni azzone slide

scale effect slide

accounting activities