RCM At Rutgers: A Five-Year Review - Rutgers University
RCM at Rutgers: A Five-Year ReviewThe report of the committee conducting the five-year reviewof the responsibility center management budget model atRutgers, The State University of New Jersey.June 20211
AcknowledgementsThis five-year review of the university’s budget model would not have been possiblewithout meaningful and substantive contributions from hundreds of people acrossRutgers. We would like to thank the many people who contributed their questions,comments and ideas at meetings with faculty councils, the University Senate, deans’meetings, through the Administrative Council, and dozens of individual conversationswith faculty and administrators. Many more filled out surveys and wrote emails directlyto the committee to call attention to specific challenges and to share perspectives.The committee would like to express its gratitude for the rigorous analysis of survey dataprovided by Rob Heffernan, Vice President for Institutional Research, and his team.This review could not have been completed on its ambitious timeline without theexceptionally efficient and thoughtful support provided by Andrew Gootman, ProjectManager, and Kristen Baker, Senior Project Coordinator. Erin Johnson, InterimDirector for Strategic Initiatives, carried this report over the finish line with acollaborative editorial process that greatly sharpened and refined the final product.2
RCM Review CommitteeMonica AdyaDean and Professor, School of Business–CamdenTaja-Nia HendersonDean, Graduate School–Newark andProfessor of LawWanda BlanchettDean and Distinguished Professor,Graduate School of EducationPaul JargowskyDirector, Center for Urban Research andEducation and Professor of Public Policy,Rutgers University–CamdenKathleen BramwellSenior Vice Chancellor for Finance andAdministration and Chief Business Officer,Rutgers Biomedical and Health SciencesRomayne Botti (Co-Chair)Vice Chancellor for Finance and ChiefBusiness Officer, Rutgers University–NewBrunswickJolie CizewskiDistinguished Professor of Physics, Schoolof Arts and SciencesAdam DayAssociate Vice President and AssociateTreasurer, University Finance andAdministrationRobert JohnsonDean, New Jersey Medical School andInterim Dean, Robert Wood JohnsonMedical SchoolLaura LawsonInterim Executive Dean, School ofEnvironmental and Biological Sciences andInterim Executive Director, New JerseyAgricultural Experiment StationGwendolyn MahonDean and Professor, School of HealthProfessionsPeter MarchExecutive Dean, School of Arts and Sciencesand Distinguished Professor of MathematicsErnesto DiSandroAssociate Vice President and UniversityController, University Finance andAdministrationJacqueline MattisDean and Professor, School of Arts andSciences–NewarkXinQi DongDirector, Institute for Health, Health CarePolicy and Aging Research and HenryRutgers Distinguished Professor ofPopulation Health ScienceAshwani Monga (Co-chair)Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor ofRutgers University–Newark; Professor ofMarketing, Rutgers Business School–Newark and New BrunswickJeetendra EswarakaAssociate Vice President for Animal Care,Office for ResearchDavid MooreAssociate Vice President and Chief BudgetOfficer, University Finance andAdministrationLarry GainesSenior Vice Chancellor for Administrationand Finance and Chief Business Officer,Rutgers University–CamdenMichele NorinSenior Vice President and Chief InformationOfficer, Office of Informational Technology3
Michael PalisProvost and Executive Vice Chancellor,Rutgers University–Camden and Professorof Computer ScienceDenis ParéDirector, Center for Molecular andBehavioral Neuroscience and DistinguishedProfessor, Rutgers University–NewarkAmber RandolphSenior Vice Chancellor for Administrationand Economic Development and ChiefBusiness Officer, Rutgers University–NewarkDipak SarkarBoard of Governors Professor andDistinguished Professor, School ofEnvironmental and Biological Sciences,Rutgers University –New BrunswickMenahem SpiegelProfessor, Rutgers Business School–Newarkand New Brunswick; University SenateMemberAnn StockAssociate Director, Center for AdvancedBiotechnology and Medicine andDistinguished Professor, RutgersBiomedical and Health SciencesHenry VelezVice President of Business Services,Institutional Planning and OperationsRCM Steering CommitteeBrian Ballentine (Chair)Senior Vice President, Office of UniversityStrategyAntonio CalcadoExecutive Vice President and ChiefOperating Office, Institutional Planning andOperationsNancy CantorChancellor, Rutgers University–NewarkMichael GowerExecutive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer, University Finance andAdministrationMargaret MarshInterim Chancellor, Rutgers University–CamdenPrabhas MogheExecutive Vice President, Office ofAcademic AffairsChristopher MolloyChancellor, Rutgers University–NewBrunswickBrian StromChancellor, Rutgers Biomedical and HealthSciencesStaff SupportKristen BakerSenior Project Coordinator, Office ofUniversity StrategyAndrew GootmanProject Manager, University Finance &AdministrationErin JohnsonInterim Director of Strategic Initiatives,Office of University Strategy4
ContentsExecutive Summary6Charge8Governance Structure10Methodology10Challenges and Recommendations12Align the Budget Model with University Priorities13Centering Academic Excellence and the Public Mission13Articulating Priorities and Creating Incentives14Support Interdisciplinary Activities and Collaboration15Supporting Teaching and Learning across Schools and Campuses15Facilitating and Supporting Research16Promote Transparency and Clarity16Enabling Transparency of Central Costs and Services17Improving Communication, Training, Terminology18Communicating Priorities and Methodologies18Clarifying Responsibility for Physical Space Costs and Debt Service19Closing21Appendix A: Recommendations List23Appendix B: Subcommittee Recommendations27Appendix C: Survey Results from the 5-Year RCM Review44C.1. Preliminary Survey of the Administrative Council45C.2. Preliminary Survey of Faculty and Staff65Appendix D: Meeting Dates1215
Executive SummaryIn November 2020, a universitywide committee began a five-year milestone review of its budgetmodel, the quantitative system that underpins the University budget and manages funds flowinternally and externally. The budget model used at Rutgers since 2016 is Responsibility CenterManagement (RCM). The Committee’s charge was to examine the impact and performance ofRCM since its adoption, with a particular focus on: Assessing how effectively the current RCM model is being used to support institutionalpriorities, such as academic excellence; public mission; diversity, equity, and inclusion;and strategic clarityReviewing RCM formulas and allocation methodologies to assess how the university’scampus and school-level needs are balanced against strategic and discretionary fundingRecommending improvements in the mechanics of RCM that would help achieve desiredinstitutional outcomesDevising strategies to make the mechanics of the model transparent to stakeholders andfacilitate communication and open dialogue between units across the universityThe 27-person committee, divided into five subcommittees for examination of these key areas offocus, conducted its work over the course of six months.Four of the subcommittees examined the impact of the model and related practices, policies, andprocedures on four institutional domains: graduate education, undergraduate education, healthcare and the academic health enterprise, and the research enterprise. A fifth subcommitteeundertook the charge of considering the specific challenges and concerns 0f units anddepartments that are categorized as “cost centers” within the RCM framework.In addition to conducting its own work, the Committee also sought out feedback andrecommendations from other sources, including each of the faculty councils, the UniversitySenate, the University Committee on Academic Planning, Auxiliary unit leaders, universityfinance officers, the results of faculty and staff surveys, and other faculty and staff groups thatprovided input through informal means.During the review, the Committee identified areas where the design of the current budgetmodel appears to discourage desired behaviors or impede mission-criticalprograms and initiatives, including those that relate to Ph.D. education, arts and humanities,diversity, equity, and inclusion, and those that support students or further the University’s publicmission.The Committee uncovered instances, from across the campuses, schools, departments, and unitswhere a lack of understanding of the design of the current budget model seemed tohinder interdisciplinarity and collaboration across budget lines, making it difficult forfaculty to collaborate on courses that cross schools or chancellor-units, creating unnecessarycompetition for students, and complicating efforts to build inter-unit research collaborations.The Committee also identified areas of significant confusion within the Rutgerscommunity over the mechanics of the current budget model, and related policies,6
practices, and procedures, including the use of service level agreements, the role of advisorycommittees, how budget priorities are communicated, and the terminology used.To address these challenges, the Committee developed the series of recommendations listed inthis report, which call for creating stronger and more effective alignment between the budgetmodel and academic excellence as well as the public mission, and by creating clear priorities andappropriate incentives to reinforce this alignment. The recommendations also introduce ways toimplement adjustments that will foster and facilitate interdisciplinary activities and collaboration,and they provide guidance for how the university can introduce greater transparency into thedesign and operation of the budget model and related practices and decision-making processes.While some of the recommendations generated by the committee call for specific, mechanicaladjustments to the budget model, most point to larger questions about goals and priorities for theuniversity. To ensure that the budget model is working in the service of the university, there is aneed for deliberate, intentional, and difficult work to more clearly establish the priorities that thebudget model must support.7
ChargeA budget facilitates planning for and executing an organization’s mission by outlining expectedrevenues and planned expenditures and cataloguing other available resources. Because resourcesare finite, determining how and where to invest them requires tradeoffs. For this reason, budgetsare often described as a reflection of an organization’s priorities.Underlying the budget and planning process is the budget model, a quantitative system thatmanages funds flow both internally and externally through a set of principles, rules, formulas, andpolicies.In 2016, Rutgers adopted a Responsibility Center Management budget model (RCM). Generallyspeaking, RCM is a decentralized model that is popular in higher education because it alignsresources with the units that generate them. These units control their own revenues and directcosts (salary, space, etc.) and take on a share of indirect costs (universitywide and shared serviceslike the library, enrollment management, purchasing, etc.).By assigning responsibility of revenues and costs in this way to units known as “responsibilitycenters,” RCM is intended to increase transparency by illuminating direct and indirect costs, andto encourage units to increase revenues and reduce costs in alignment with the UniversityMission. Since the RCM model requires unit-level control, it also encourages those units todevelop multi-year budget plans, which facilitates the coordination that is critical to successfuloperation of the university as it fulfills its public mission.Prior to the adoption of RCM, Rutgers employed an all funds budgeting (AFB) model. In theRutgers AFB model, the intention was to facilitate more strategic resource allocation decisionsand drive control and accountability to lower levels of the organization. However, a percentage oftuition and other unrestricted revenue was directed to support central and local administrationcosts rather than, as happens under RCM, algorithmically allocating those costs directly to theacademic units. Units associated with UMDNJ used a different, RCM-like model. After themerger, RCM was adopted as the budget model for all of Rutgers.Budget models require regular review. Rutgers committed to conducting a review of RCM fiveyears after implementation. Accordingly, the RCM Review Committee was appointed in the Fall of2020 and charged with addressing the following aspects of RCM: Assess how effectively the current RCM model is being used to support institutionalpriorities such as academic excellence; public mission; diversity, equity, and inclusion; andstrategic clarity; Review RCM formulas and allocation methodologies to assess how the university’s campusand school-level needs are balanced against strategic and discretionary funding; Recommend improvements in the mechanics of RCM that would help achieve desiredinstitutional outcomes; Devise strategies to make the mechanics of the model transparent to stakeholders andfacilitate communication and honest dialogue between units across the university.8
The Committee charge included an expectation of the following deliverables and outcomes: Produce a concise, actionable report by the end of June 2021 that makes concreterecommendations in the areas above. Some recommendations may be implemented for theFY23 budget cycle, while others may need further review or/and take longer to implement; Increase the understanding of RCM and instill a greater sense of ownership over thebudget and planning process among Rutgers leadership through an open and transparentprocess; Develop a model for future RCM reviews at Rutgers and institutionalize a process forcontinuous assessment; Track issues for future consideration.9
Governance StructureTo ensure broad engagement, the RCM Review was conducted by a committee comprised ofacademic leaders, including deans, directors, faculty, and financial leaders from across theuniversity. Their work was supported by a steering committee that provided overarching guidanceon the charge, structure, and scope of review, including the identification of the reviewcommittee, and the project management support of University Finance & Administration and theOffice of University Strategy. During its review, the RCM Review Committee engaged additionalmembers of the Rutgers community through subcommittees.Steering Committee Comprised of chancellors and senior leaders Providing guidance to the structure and scopeof reviewReview Committee Comprised of deans, faculty, center directorsand budget officers Leading the work of the assessment, reviewand drafting recommendationsAdvisory Groups Senate Budget and Finance Committee Faculty Councils Administrative CouncilCommunity Input Community-wide RCM perceptions surveysent to all faculty and staff Survey of deans and administrative leaders On-going dialogue with faculty, staff,leadershipFigure 1 RCM Review StructureMethodologyThe Review Committee met eight times, beginning on November 17, 2020.The first committee meeting included a detailed discussion of the charge, information that wouldneed to be gathered, and the process by which feedback and broad community input could besolicited. The committee agreed to divide into four subcommittees, on undergraduate education,graduate education, health care, and research, with each subcommittee being chaired by anacademic leader with support from one of the chief budget officers. In January, a decision wasmade to form a fifth subcommittee tasked with formulating recommendations on cost centers.10
After the first meeting, a detailed survey related to the strengths and weaknesses of the currentbudget model was fielded to the roughly 100 members of the Administrative Council. The resultsof this survey are included in the appendix. Because many of the survey questions were openedended, the Office of Institutional Research and Academic Planning provided support by codingthe responses to questions according to emerging themes.In December, the Committee devoted time to holding a detailed discussion of the construction ofthe cost pools and the formulae and allocation models that underpin them. Results of theadministrative council survey were shared, and planning began for a universitywide faculty andstaff survey to further document perceptions of strengths and weaknesses in the budget model.In January, the community survey was fielded for a 10-day period, garnering roughly 1,500responses. These responses were segmented by how respondents identified their level ofengagement with the budgeting process—no direct engagement, some engagement, and highengagement. The responses from this survey are included in the appendix.Also in January, additional faculty members were added to the committee in response tosuggestions from the Senate Executive Committee that greater faculty engagement wouldfacilitate a strong and fair review. Additional plans were confirmed to engage each of the facultycouncils in formulating areas for review and possible recommendations, and two meetings withthe Senate’s Budget and Finance Committee were planned. The review plan and preliminarysurvey analysis were shared with the Senate. The co-chairs also received feedback andrecommendations from a group of endowed professors.February and March entailed ongoing subcommittee discussions, and committee meetings werededicated to developing themes. President Holloway joined the March meeting to discuss areas ofimportant consideration and strategic needs for the university, encouraging the review committeeto consider how the budget model could be adjusted to best support these needs.To help ensure consistency of approach for recommendations, the subcommittees were asked todraft their recommendations using a template. The template called for explication of challenges,evidence of the challenges, and specific recommendations to address them. The full subcommitteereports are shared in the appendix.In April and May, the Committee moved to synthesizing and merging the subcommitteerecommendations based on major themes. Grouping the recommendations by themes recognizesthe cross-cutting nature of many of the major challenges. It also ensures alignment ofrecommendations with broad areas of the university’s mission.Because many beyond this committee have thought deeply about the budget model, thecommittee included recommendations shared by the Senate Budget and Finance Committee andthe Committee on Academic Planning in its deliberations on recommendations.Finally, May and June were used to hone recommendations and to socialize and vet them beforefinalization. This process included sharing draft recommendations with the AdministrativeCouncil, the Senate, and the Business Leadership Team—which includes finance experts fromacross the university.11
Challenges and RecommendationsThe RCM Review Committee’s final recommendations are adjustments and improvementsdesigned to improve day-to-day operation and collaboration within and across academic andadministrative units, general clarity, and alignment with university mission and goals.Subcommittee reports are included as an appendix.Recommendation SourcesThe following committee recommendations arise from the work of five subcommittees of theRCM Review Committee: Cost Center SubcommitteeGraduate SubcommitteeHealth Care SubcommitteeResearch SubcommitteeUndergraduate SubcommitteeThe committee also drew from past recommendations of the budget model that have taken placeboth in the University Senate and through the Committee on Academic Planning.RecommendationsThe RCM Review Committee recommendations, which are described in further detail in thisreport, are organized under the following broad headers:Align the Budget Model with University Priorities Centering academic excellence and public missionArticulating priorities and creating incentivesSupport Interdisciplinary Activities and Collaboration Teaching across schools and campusesInterdisciplinary researchPromote Transparency and Clarity Enabling Transparency of Central Costs and ServicesImproving Communication, Training, TerminologyEstablishing Principles for Budget Governance/Near-term Mechanical AdjustmentsClarifying Responsibility for Physical Space Costs and Debt Service12
Align the Budget Model with University PrioritiesRutgers, The State University of New Jersey, has “the threefold mission of providing for theinstructional needs of New Jersey’s residents through its undergraduate, graduate, andcontinuing education programs; conducting the innovative research that contributes to themedical, environmental, social, and cultural well-being of the state, as well as aiding the economyand the state’s businesses and industries; and performing public service in support of the needs ofthe residents of the state and its local, county, and state governments.”Committee analysis revealed the widespread belief that the current budget model designprioritizes revenue generation over academic mission, highlighting a need to create stronger,clearer alignment between academic priorities, mission, and planning, with the budget modelreflecting the outcomes of the planning process. The prevailing view is that the budget model isdictating academic strategy, which is an inversion of the desired relationship.Centering Academic Excellence and the Public MissionChallenge. The current budget model appears to prioritize revenue generation over academicexcellence and the public mission. This is particularly concerning for units that are dependent onuniversity and chancellor-level budget support.The Committee found that the design of the current budget model and the metrics used forcertain calculations appear to encourage behaviors that favor revenue generation over othercontributions, disadvantaging many non- or low revenue generating units that play a critical rolein the university’s public mission and hindering some important academic and mission-criticalstrategic initiatives.Recommendations Create clear mechanisms for distributing strategic funding or budget allocations toresponsibility centers specifically for the support of mission-critical programs andactivities, such as Ph.D. education and research. Similarly, explore ways to account formission-centered outcomes, like teaching excellence and public engagement in teachingand research. Recognize the need to allocate funding for student support services, particularly in thoseareas where higher proportions of students are using those services.13
Articulating Priorities and Creating IncentivesChallenge. The budget model is not perceived to reflect institutional priorities or createappropriate incentives for behaviors related to those priorities, particularly as it relates tofacilitating appropriate levels of support for programs and initiatives that are deemed critical tothe University’s mission and the pursuit of academic excellence.The Committee found that the design of the current model creates a dynamic in which funding forthe delivery of non- or low-revenue generating programs and initiatives must constantly beweighed against their effect on the “bottom line” and the potential revenue-generatingperformance of other programs within the same unit. Basing funding decisions on these factors,rather than on a strategic prioritization of programs and initiatives that is based on the pursuit ofacademic excellence and support of the public mission, leads to unnecessary tension withinresponsibility centers and may disincentivize development and support for vital activities.Recommendations Introduce incentives for allocations that reward areas critical to academic excellence andthe public mission of the university, including diversity, equity, and inclusion, Ph.D.education, interdisciplinarity, public engagement and positive student academic outcomesand experiences. Create a practice of regularly communicating and reviewing incentives associated withacademic excellence to ensure alignment with strategic priorities.14
Support Interdisciplinary Activities and CollaborationInterdisciplinarity and collaboration are critical to the day-to-day operations of the university, theexecution of the institution’s mission, and the success of many of its schools, departments,programs, centers, and strategic initiatives. Many of today’s most pressing questions requireinterdisciplinary approaches to research and students who are trained to work across traditionaldiscipline boundaries.Committee work identified several instances where the current budget model does not provide aclear path for interdisciplinary collaboration in teaching, learning, research, and publicengagement, complicating decisions related to course delivery (e.g., which courses to offer orstudents to enroll, as well as staffing and academic support decisions) and program composition(e.g., which programs, initiatives, and research projects to start or sustain).Supporting Teaching and Learning across Schools and CampusesChallenge. The current budget model and related policies and practices can be significantbarriers to fostering teaching and learning, which are inherently interdisciplinary and involvecollaboration across programs, departments, schools, and campuses.The Committee catalogued elements of the current budget model and related administrativerequirements that limit the pursuit of interdisciplinary initiatives and cross-unit collaborations. Ithighlighted the impact of these elements on the operations of interdisciplinary or inter-unitacademic programs and departments; partnerships and projects with interdisciplinary and interunit research centers and institutes; and decisions related to course offerings and teachingassignments across all levels and campuses. The Committee also called attention to the ad hocadministrative nature of much interdisciplinary collaboration and the lack of consistentframeworks to navigate budget considerations.Recommendations Establish a practice of periodically reviewing, assessing, and if necessary, modifying, thetuition split formula, including the use of headcount and FTE metrics within it, to ensurealignment with academic priorities and strategic goals since the tuition split formula iscentral to cross-school collaboration. In New Brunswick, centralize student aid to eliminate this form of competition amongschools for students. Create mechanisms, incentives, or strategic funding allocations for interdisciplinaryactivities to encourage cross-school and cross-faculty collaboration and to supportprograms that are interdisciplinary by design. Establish formal processes, tools, templates, or administrative support to smooth out theadministrative coordination of collaborations between responsibility centers for teachingefforts.15
Facilitating and Supporting ResearchChallenge. The current budget model and related policies and practices are perceived todiscourage pursuit of certain types of grants and hinder collaboration with interdisciplinary orinter-unit research centers. The current model does not fully or appropriately account for thediversity of grant-funding at Rutgers.The Committee called attention to the ways the current budget model impacts interdisciplinary,collaborative, and inter-unit research and associated grant funding, especially in relation to costsharing, revenue attribution, staffing, effort reporting, and the identification, designation, andsupport of principal investigators (PIs).The Committee also identified complications stemming from the “one size fits all” approach togrants. The current methodology applies to different types of grants equally, without regard to oradjustment for the goals, origin, beneficiary, or associated facilities and administrative (F&A)rates associated with each individual grant. Relatedly, the absence of an established process todetermine the distribution of F&A recovery and the assignment of charges leads to ad hocsolutions that take time and result in inconsistent outcomes. The challenges faced by universityresearch centers, including consideration of how they are classified within the model and how thefunding they receive connects to faculty reporting lines and F&A recovery, were also examined.Recommendations Adjust the formula for allocating research administration support costs to units to includegrant expenditures proportionally to the F&A rate associated with the grant. Recognize the larger contribution of training grants to the University Mission and excludethe associated grant expense from the cost allocation formula. Exclude expenditures from equipment grants that do not require the university to incuracquisition costs or provide other ongoing support. Establish formal processes and provide tools, templates, or administrative support thatfacilitate the administrative coordination of research collaborations between responsibilitycenters.Promote Transparency and ClarityThe Committee found that the current design of the budget model and many of the relatedpolicies and practices need greater clarity around the distribution of revenues and allocation ofcosts. They also noted the need for better training, communication, and terminology, and calledfor increased focus on governance related to the design and management of the budget model. Inparticular, the Committee examined the experience of campus units designated in the model as“cost centers,” focusing on the interactions between those units and their customers and16
highlighting specific challenges related to obtaining detailed information about cost centerbudgets, services provided, and service level agreements.Enabling Transparency of Central Costs and ServicesChallenge. Current structures for man
merger, RCM was adopted as the budget model for all of Rutgers. Budget models require regular review. Rutgers committed to conducting a review of RCM five years after implementation. Accordingly, the RCM Review Committee was appointed in the Fall of 2020 and charged with addressing the following aspects of RCM:
CHAPTER 4. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF A RELIABILITY-CENTERED MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Objectives of RCM 41 4-1 Applicability of preventive maintenance 4-2 4-1 Failure 4-3 4-2 Reliability modeling and analysis 4-4 4-3 CHAPTER 5. THE RELIABILITY-CENTERED MAINTENANCE PROCESS Overview 5-1 5-1 C4ISR candidates for RCM analysis 5-2 5-1 RCM data sources 5-3 5-2
Unless the context indicates otherwise, references in this Annual Report to "R1 RCM," "R1," the "Company" or "company," "we," "our" and "us" mean R1 RCM Inc. and its subsidiaries. Item 1. Business Overview R1 is a leading provider of technology-enabled revenue cycle management ("RCM") services to healthcare providers, including health systems and
Johnson, et.al (2002) cited that RCM benefits fall into 2 categories: risk reductions and cost savings. RCM can reduce the maintenance expense on equipment or plant without reducing its reliability. In addition to reducing maintenance costs, RCM also can reduce business risks. The business risks consist of safety, environmental and operational .
Other resourceful websites 16 Website Purpose sims.rutgers.edu/rosters Online roster sis.rutgers.edu/soc Schedule of classes ctaar.rutgers.edu Instructor rating surveys Website Purpose classrooms.rutgers.edu Classroom Information libraries.rutgers.edu Library Services rutgersfaculty.bncollege.com Order
Rutgers Business School: Undergraduate-Newark Rutgers Business School: Undergraduate-New Brunswick Rutgers Business School: Graduate Programs-Newark and New Brunswick In general, use "Rutgers Business School-Newark and New Brunswick." You may use the formal nomenclature if preparing a formal report for a chancellor or vice
Hyperion Planning/Budget and Strategic Finance Align current budget planning tool with RCM Provide tools for “what-if” analysis Overall economic model Hyperion Profitability and Cost Management Automate RCM cost allocations (statistics, bases, multiple v
Rutgers Business School 3.6 CEUs 36 CPEs Cost: 4,995 includes all instructional materials and fees Ask about team discounts and Rutgers Alumni discount Faculty: Leading professors from Rutgers Business School, the School of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers Law School, and industry experts in the areas of Biotech and Pharmaceuticals
1.2 The modelling is intended to inform an investment strategy based on an active asset management approach where the Council seeks to make investment decisions that are informed by an understanding of the financial performance of the stock, and the extent to which it delivers the Council’s social housing objectives. In this way decisions can strengthen the Business Plan and contribute to .
