Revising the budgeting model: challenges of implementation at a university

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review the challenges of implementing a new activity-based budgeting model in a university setting. Design/methodology/approach The authors have conducted heuristic inquiry and content analysis to provide an in-depth examination and overview of the process of budget change at a not-for-profit institution. Findings Despite attempts to design a process where resource allocation is guided by principles of revenue generation, cost attribution, measures of quality and fit with strategic plan, overarching issues such as complexities of implementation and a lack of continuity of key personnel made it difficult to implement a new budgeting system. Research limitations/implications As it is a single case study, there may be some concerns regarding reliability and replicability. Subsequent work on a larger scale may mitigate some of these concerns. Practical implications The study demonstrates the challenges of implementing a new budgeting system where strategic choices may differ from revenue generating opportunities and when there has been significant turnover in personnel. The authors provide a perspective on how budgeting can be used to support an organization’s mission in addition to supporting revenue generating prospects, the empirics reinforce the implementation challenges and the need for continuity of key employees to implement change effectively. Originality/value The study suggests a new approach to incentive-based budgeting where resource allocation is informed by a number of activities (revenue generation, cost attribution, fit with strategic goals and quality of programs). It is not formula-driven and it stresses the importance of judgment to determine final resource allocation. Furthermore, the authors provide some support for the change management literature for implementing change in a complex organization.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.