Search Results

Market pressures and external demands to sustain access, improve cost management and accountability, and increase productivity continue to persist in departments and schools of kinesiology. Confidence in the sustainability of an institution’s business model is eroding. To address these challenges, one possible approach for enhancing institutional performance, accountability, and stability is to revise an institution’s management process or budgeting model. Indicators suggest that many institutions are changing budget models to an incentive-based budgeting (IBB) system (i.e., responsibility-centered management [RCM]). The management strategies reviewed in this article are important for higher education budget administrators that implement, or are considering implementing, an IBB system as a means for assessing outcomes or institutional decision-making.

Over the past decade, institutions of higher education have been forced to become more innovative and entrepreneurial, seeking creative solutions to budget challenges. This has been particularly important within kinesiology programs, which represent one of the largest growing sectors of higher education over the past 10–15 years. In preparation for the 2016 American Kinesiology Association (AKA) Leadership Workshop, a survey was administered by the AKA to capture key institutional classifications (i.e., Carnegie classification, institutional size, public vs. private designation) and department chair or designated administrator perceptions on entrepreneurial issues relevant to their unit. Sixty-eight of 881 units surveyed responded, yielding a response rate of 7.7%. The majority of respondents (67%) indicated a unit funding model that was based on the previous year’s level (i.e., historical budget model). While the majority of respondents reported that their unit is provided with “adequate to plentiful” resources (59%), this varied widely based on institutional classification. Specifically, baccalaureate institutions (Chi-square 18.054, p < .001) and institutions with < 5,000 students (Chi-square 10.433, p & .015) had the least favorable perceptions of unit resource allocation. For the majority of entrepreneurial activities and partnerships (5 of 8 targeted questions), ≥ 50% of the respondents reported “no involvement.” There was a significant mismatch between actual vs. expected time spent by the department chair on fundraising activities (Chi-square 4.627, p = .031), with higher expectations than actual time spent on fundraising. In summary, the AKA survey suggests that there is tremendous heterogeneity in perceptions of and participation in entrepreneurial activities within kinesiology, and that there remains strategic areas of opportunity within the field.

The decline in federal research grant funding and incentive-based budget models to support a university’s mission has necessitated a paradigm shift in the pursuit of available sources of funding. Programs built around federal funding are once again pursuing funding opportunities from industry. Universities are reevaluating their research funding models and career expectations (tenure, promotion) that support a researcher, laboratories, and a defined research agenda. Kinesiology departments are in a strong position to pursue industry funding for fitness, sports, and performance-related research. While grant funding focuses on empirical data-driven research, industry looks for product exposure, validation (empirical data to support claims), and commercialization. Industry partnerships can provide funding in supporting research, developing sponsor-named facilities that benefit both parties. With these cooperative efforts come some unique challenges (financial, proprietary, data interpretation, etc.) that must be addressed.