Information Systems & Services - WU's Deep, Dark Hole
Accountability for Promises Made
On June 21, 2000, the Washburn University Board of Regents approved the merger of the Academic Computer Center (ACC) and Administrative Data Processing (ADP). One of the goals of this plan was to achieve "long-term savings through economies of scale." Six years later, there is no evidence of any savings. Instead, this critical campus function has become a rather deep, dark hole that sucks up a tremendous amount of resources with limited benefits to the Washburn community as a whole.
Comparison of FY01 and FY07 Budgets
A comparison of the FY01 budgets for the combined academic and administrative computing services with the FY07 budget for what is now called Information Systems & Services shows an enormous growth in personnel and operating costs.
In just six years, the resources for these combined services have grown from $886,000 to $2,772,000. While the entire budget has more than tripled, the headcount has more than doubled, increasing from 18 to 37 full-time personnel, with most of that growth occurring on the administrative computing side of campus.
Comparison of FY01 and FY07 Budgets
| Type | Headcount | FY01 Budget | Headcount | FY07 Budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 18.0 | 648,736 | 37.0 | 1,775,759 |
| Other Operating (OOE) | 237,268 | 996,169 | ||
| Total Budget | 18.0 | $886,004 | 37.0 | $2,771,928 |
What Is Going On?
It appears that the implementation of the Banner administrative software is largely responsible for the bulging budget. Eight systems specialists and $308,000 in software maintenance fees have been added to the administrative budget to support the Banner installation.
When the Washburn University Board of Regents approved this $2.5 million capital project in 2001, they approved an unknown cost for additional personnel and $210,000 in additional operating costs for software maintenance. The administration assured the board that some positions would be reallocated and new positions would be brought to the Board for approval as required.
In the FY07 budget, $13,300 in education monies were moved from the School of Nursing budget to help fund a new institutional position, a computer service technician. At the same time, it appears that one reallocated employee and one new hire have performance problems, given the Tier 1 pay increase that these two individuals were given for FY07. Surely, there were enough institutional dollars to fund this new position without taking monies away from instructional budgets.
Still, it seems that these escalating costs merit a serious, independent review. Now that the system is fully operational and with a new director in place, it may be advisable to assess the ongoing needs for this service area.
Accountability for Promises Made
At a minimum, the administration should be asked to justify this exorbitant budget in light of the promises made of "long-term savings through economies of scale."