東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

An analysis of the effects of respon...

Strand, Larry D.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

An analysis of the effects of responsibility-centered budgeting on strategic planning in small private colleges and universities.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	An analysis of the effects of responsibility-centered budgeting on strategic planning in small private colleges and universities./
作者:	Strand, Larry D.
面頁冊數:	220 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-07, Section: A, page: 2416.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International67-07A.
標題:	Education, Finance. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3224172
ISBN:	9780542780608

An analysis of the effects of responsibility-centered budgeting on strategic planning in small private colleges and universities.
Strand, Larry D.

An analysis of the effects of responsibility-centered budgeting on strategic planning in small private colleges and universities. - 220 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-07, Section: A, page: 2416.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Pepperdine University, 2006.

The issue of strategic planning in many small private institutions of higher education has been a secondary activity to the expense driven budget process. The competitive forces of change in higher education call for innovation, flexibility, and participative management of their revenue. This study was conducted to gain more knowledge about the use of two types of budgets, namely responsibility-centered (RCB) and incremental expense budgets (IEB) and their impact on long-term strategic planning. A validated 30 item Likert scale, 2 ranking item plus 6 demographic item questionnaire was mailed to chief business officers and chief academic officers of 105 small and medium-sized private educational institutions. Their responses shed light on the benefits of the RCB model over the IEB process. CFOs (56% return) and CAOs (60% return) reported that 79% of respondents used IEBs and 21%, RCBs. However, 85% of both groups agreed that the IEP had constraints because these budgets tended to be year-to-year based on student tuition. Sixty-four percent indicated that their administration would not resist a change to a new budget process. Both CFOs and CAOs using either budget process favor the RCB model to increase innovation and creativity at the institution. All agreed that the RCB promoted greater participation in the budget process. To administer an RCB budget process, CFOs and CAOs ranked servant leadership, visionary, academic leader, and team player, respectively, as the top four leadership traits required by CAO to implement the RCB. However, for CFOs, both groups ranked servant leadership, team player, visionary, and change agent as the top four traits. Both groups indicated that the final authority of the budget process rested with the CFO, not the CAO. Both groups shared the view that there was competitive maneuvering among the senior administrators throughout either process. Future studies should address the dynamics of change before during and after implementing an RCB budget. In addition, a study should be conducted of required education and skills to lead the RCB process.

ISBN: 9780542780608Subjects--Topical Terms:

1020300
Education, Finance.

An analysis of the effects of responsibility-centered budgeting on strategic planning in small private colleges and universities.
LDR:02964nmm 2200253 4500 001 1834782
005 20071127121420.5
008 130610s2006 eng d
020 $a 9780542780608
035 $a (UMI)AAI3224172
035 $a AAI3224172
040 $a UMI $c UMI
100 1 $a Strand, Larry D. $3 1923417
245 1 3 $a An analysis of the effects of responsibility-centered budgeting on strategic planning in small private colleges and universities.
300 $a 220 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-07, Section: A, page: 2416.
502 $a Thesis (Ed.D.)--Pepperdine University, 2006.
520 $a The issue of strategic planning in many small private institutions of higher education has been a secondary activity to the expense driven budget process. The competitive forces of change in higher education call for innovation, flexibility, and participative management of their revenue. This study was conducted to gain more knowledge about the use of two types of budgets, namely responsibility-centered (RCB) and incremental expense budgets (IEB) and their impact on long-term strategic planning. A validated 30 item Likert scale, 2 ranking item plus 6 demographic item questionnaire was mailed to chief business officers and chief academic officers of 105 small and medium-sized private educational institutions. Their responses shed light on the benefits of the RCB model over the IEB process. CFOs (56% return) and CAOs (60% return) reported that 79% of respondents used IEBs and 21%, RCBs. However, 85% of both groups agreed that the IEP had constraints because these budgets tended to be year-to-year based on student tuition. Sixty-four percent indicated that their administration would not resist a change to a new budget process. Both CFOs and CAOs using either budget process favor the RCB model to increase innovation and creativity at the institution. All agreed that the RCB promoted greater participation in the budget process. To administer an RCB budget process, CFOs and CAOs ranked servant leadership, visionary, academic leader, and team player, respectively, as the top four leadership traits required by CAO to implement the RCB. However, for CFOs, both groups ranked servant leadership, team player, visionary, and change agent as the top four traits. Both groups indicated that the final authority of the budget process rested with the CFO, not the CAO. Both groups shared the view that there was competitive maneuvering among the senior administrators throughout either process. Future studies should address the dynamics of change before during and after implementing an RCB budget. In addition, a study should be conducted of required education and skills to lead the RCB process.
590 $a School code: 6009.
650 4 $a Education, Finance. $3 1020300
650 4 $a Education, Administration. $3 626645
690 $a 0277
690 $a 0514
710 2 0 $a Pepperdine University. $3 1020164
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 67-07A.
790 $a 6009
791 $a Ed.D.
792 $a 2006
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3224172