UNIVERSITY OF EXETER
EARNED INCOME TASK AND FINISH GROUP, 01 October 2010
Present: David Allen (Chair), Shaun Curtis, Stuart Franklin, Mark Goodwin, Susie Hills (Vice-Chair), Nick Kaye, Jeremy Lindley, Linda Peka, Michele Shoebridge, Geoff Pringle, Jill Williams (Secretary)
Apologies: Nick Talbot
1. Introduction and Context Setting
David Allen welcomed members and set out the context for the group as discussed at the SMG residential. The context for this group was considered in light of the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review and the need for the University to become less reliant on government sources of income. It was noted that the HEFCE grant now made up only 27% of the University’s income and the target should probably be to reduce this to under 20%.
2. Review of Terms of Reference and Membership
The terms of reference for the group were reviewed and agreed.
The membership of the group was also discussed and the following suggestions for additional members were proposed:
· James Hutchinson
· Patrick Kennedy
· Representative for the Cornwall campus
The core group of alumni advisors was noted and it was suggested that Deborah Meaden, an honorary graduate of the University, might also be a valuable advisor.
3. Communication and Messaging
Stuart Franklin presented a paper setting out proposed key messages for developing earned income across the University. The following points were noted during discussion of the paper:
· What does the university mean by ‘earned income’? Do staff know what earned income means? Any activities undertaken should be chasing profit not turnover and income should provide resource for investment.
· The reference to ’25-40%’ of cutbacks in public funding should be replaced by an adjective such as ‘massive’.
· The reference to tuition fees should note that they will become a ‘crucial’ source of income for the University.
· The messaging should include reference to Exeter as a ‘destination University’.
· The messaging should be positive for staff; we have every confidence that staff can contribute to greater earned income and we can now release staff to do it.
· It must be clear that even without massive cuts the University would want to reduce its reliance on the Government / HEFCE; phrases such as ‘independent of HEFCE / the State’ or ‘no longer funded for teaching’ (Humanities) were suggested. The message that ‘if you don’t earn it it’s not coming from anywhere else’ is also very important to communicate.
· Staff need to know that the University has the reputation, brand and resources to deal with the cuts that are coming.
· The message about the University being ‘businesslike’ is very important.
· Messages should also be developed for students. Each College should be able to say what is unique about the experience in their College; this would include selling the life after their degree.
· Staff should be encouraged to come forward with ideas and have an opportunity to respond.
· Case studies should be developed from Colleges / Services showcasing staff who have brought in income from different sources.
· The University intranet could include pages about earned income with case studies.
· It might be useful for Jeremy Lindley to deliver the ‘How Finances Work’ presentation more widely.
Stuart agreed to refine the messaging based on this feedback for the Vice Chancellor’s open meetings in late October / early November.
4. Where are we now?
Jill Williams tabled a number of spreadsheets that set out the University’s current earned income data against its top 10 competitors and more generally amongst the sector.
The data was reviewed and the outliers within each earned income source were briefly considered. Members were asked to review the data in more detail outside of the meeting and consider any competitors / other institutions that might provide useful benchmarks / case studies for further investigation.
Geoff Pringle was asked to provide an overview of the University’s current conference / residence / catering offering. The following key points were noted:
· The University provides a traditional package of services. Outside of Oxbridge, Exeter has one of the most robust welfare packages but without differentiating its price.
· There are opportunities for differential pricing with estates.
· There are limited opportunities for developing conferencing – mainly at Easter and Christmas – and it is not hugely profitable for the University. A better model would be needed; this could include learning holidays and academic conferences.
· There is no all-year-round bedspace available on campus
· Catering brands could be brought on to campus
· Being competitive in the local market is difficult because of the employment terms offered to staff. The University is looking at different models to manage this.
5. What does ‘outstanding’ look like?
Susie Hills introduced the brainstorming session and asked members to consider how the University could identify new or increase current sources of earned income. This was done through members asking questions. The following questions were noted:
Questions noted:
1. If we had all our space used all year round, what would it be used for?
2. I wonder if we could buy more space to utilise?
3. I wonder if we should teach 2 year degrees and teach all year round?
4. What does the death of research intensity mean for our business?
5. Why do we allow private consultancy?
6. Why don’t we make our learning materials available – at a price?
7. Why don’t we have a ‘store’ in the city (engage more with the city) and online store?
8. Why do we allow the Guild to retail?
9. What if we set ROI targets for academic programmes?
10. What can we learn from the way INTO do business?
11. Why do we let the Guild do the Welcome Week packs etc?
12. Why don’t we have Exeter summer schools in other locations (outside Exeter)?
13. Why don’t we have a London base?
14. How can we generate income from activities that are linked to regional events/ tourism etc?
15. How do we institutionalise individual staff links/ consultancy?
16. What services could we hire/ contract out to others/ externals companies?
17. How do we become more successful at spin out companies?
18. Are we thinking enough about commercialising The Forum?
19. What should we do with St Lukes?
20. Are there things we should get out of?
21. Should there be a threshold ROI?
22. Should we outsource more? Everything except core business?
23. If resource for research is limited, how do we maximise output now whilst investing for the future? More of a US style system? Earning the right to do research? Distinction between staff – but of an equal value, using different talents?
24. Could we create blocks of teaching and free up space?
25. Is there an opportunity to make money from research?
26. Do we need to flex resources in Professional Services?
27. Should we have a longer teaching day?
28. How can we get value out of the paintings/ art work we have across campus?
Ideas noted:
1. Introduction of 52 week leases for residences
2. Developing offers for local businesses to use our space
3. More Continuing Professional Development (CPD) – creating a mixed economy.
4. Market our specialist facilities, making more of our botanical gardens etc.
5. Markets
6. Validation of outside CPD
7. Capitalise on other institutions’ failure – revenue streams
8. Develop a ‘Year in the Life’ on campus
9. Maximising entertainment spaces – e.g. Great Hall and LEH
6. Objectives for Next Meeting
It was agreed that Susie Hills and Jill Williams would review the brainstorming list and establish groupings and priorities for members to consider at its next meeting.
7. Date of Next Meeting
Thursday 11th November, 2pm John Usher, Northcote House
1