Otto
Looks good!
May I make a few minor comments (which you are free to reject if they are not to your liking)?
- Make "Surplus (or deficit)" "Estimated Surplus (or deficit)" [see note 1 below]. - Use the Roundup function on the break even number calculation. - Put the contingency on all of the expenses not just the variable income [see note 1 below]. - It might be worthwhile having two participant numbers: one for the full fee paying participants (or equivalent) and one for all participants - use the first in the income and the second in the costs. This may be complicating things too much and I'd be interested in feedback as to whether those numbers differ significantly.
Regards
Peter
Note 1 "Prediction is always hard, especially when it concerns the future" - Niels Bohr
-----Original Message----- From: Otto Spaniol [mailto:spaniol@informatik.rwth-aachen.de] Sent: 29 September 2004 08:05 To: ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: [ifip-tc6] (New) Accounting Information
Dear all,
the event request forms provided by IFIP are awful. This feeling is shared by everyone. Nobody is able to give half way correct information about the conference budget. This is a lot of unneccessary burden for TC and WG chairs.
I promised to simplify that scheme and the first result is found in the attachments.
There is: - an empty sheet (don't care about the #DIV!0 in the before last line; it will disappear when you fill the form) - and a virtual example.
You may and should play around with the forms and tell me whether you find them easy enough to use. WG chairpersons should give it to prospective conference organisors.
Some comments are in order: 1. The document has been kept as simple as possible (fool-proof, hopefully). You have to fill in only the figures in frames (light blue colours). The other figures (in light yellow) will then automatically be calculated. 2. A very crude approximation of registration fee is used: Only for full paying participants, no early bird registration, no special rate for members of diverse societies, no student fee etc. It would be impossible to have those concrete figures well before the event. Thus if you estimate for example that the total registration fee by students might be identical to, say, 10 full paying participants then you should increase the number of expected full paying participants accordingly. Similar for the variable expenses per participant. 3. "Contingencies" are meant to be a reserve just to be on the safe side. They are - according to IFIP - 10 percent of the variable cost per participant and could, of course, be already taken into account there. Nevertheless, since these costs are automatically calculated we can leave it in the document. 4. "Break even number of participants" should be clear but since I have been asked several times about this: This is the minimum number of full paying participants which will be needed if the conference should not make a deficit (and if all other parameters are valid). You will see that it is wonderfully easy to play around and to determine registration fees, fixed expenses,.. which are meaningful and which may end up with a reasonable surplus. It might be that the break even number will turn out to be negative! In that case you will have a serious problem with your budget: either the registration fee is too low or .... 5. I didn't nclude information about loan and grants (since IFIP says that in such a case "a more detailed budget information is needed). If you want I can add a few lines for that purpose (and also for different categories of registration but my first purpose was to keep the document as simple as possible). 6. Conferences (and the sponsorship fee to IFIP) are calculated in full days; thus if the conference lasts 2,5 days then the fee to IFIP will be calculated on a 3-day basis.
Now: Please check the new forms and give me your comments within the next two weeks (improvements, modifications, what is missing, what should be deleted,...). I would then formally approve the new sheets in Bangkok and tell IFIP secretariat that we will not any more use the old bullshit versions.
Best regards (and have fun with the new sheet) Otto
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
Dear Otto & Co.,
I like Peter's suggestion:
- It might be worthwhile having two participant numbers: one for the full fee paying participants (or equivalent) and one for all participants - use the first in the income and the second in the costs. This may be complicating things too much and I'd be interested in feedback as to whether those numbers differ significantly.
A further feature but further complication, too, would be to add one or more columns which would force the organizer to see what would happen if only a fraction of the hoped-for number of attendees actually appears. This could even be done automatically.
best wishes, Harry
Dear Harry, Peter and all,
I like Peter's suggestion:
- It might be worthwhile having two participant numbers: one for the full
fee paying participants (or equivalent) and one for all participants - use the first in the income and the second in the costs. This may be complicating things too much and I'd be interested in feedback as to whether those numbers differ significantly.
No problem (in principle) with the two numbers. But having the larger number (i.e. including the students) in the costs might be not that easy since very often the student don't get a copy of the proceedings, don' get access to the conference dinner. In most cases they just get a badge, some cups of coffee etc. Thus they don't contribute too much to the costs but in turn they don't provide too much income. Of course this differs from conference to conference.
A further feature but further complication, too, would be to add one or more columns which would force the organizer to see what would happen if only a fraction of the hoped-for number of attendees actually appears. This could even be done automatically.
In a way, this suggestion is already incorporated: Since the system calculates the beak even number you may easily see what happens: If you expect, for example, 50 full paying participants then your surplus might be quite high. And the break even number might show up in this case as 33 (figures are taken from an event which has already been calculated be the new sheet). Thus, continuing that example: if only 2/3 of the intended people would actually appear then the organisors would still be on the safe side. However, if less than 2/3 would be coming then the organisors would be in trouble.
Thanks for the comments received til now whioch demonstrate a. That the new sheet can be used very easily b. That there was an apparent need for it.
I continue to collect comments and I would finally discuss it in Bangkok where we might want to test some additional proposals on the spot.
Best wishes Otto
Otto,
Do you have the revised ERF? I'd like to start using it.
Best regards, Guy
At 17:46 +0200 30/09/04, Otto Spaniol wrote:
Dear Harry, Peter and all,
I like Peter's suggestion:
- It might be worthwhile having two participant numbers: one for the full
fee paying participants (or equivalent) and one for all participants - use the first in the income and the second in the costs. This may be complicating things too much and I'd be interested in feedback as to whether those numbers differ significantly.
No problem (in principle) with the two numbers. But having the larger number (i.e. including the students) in the costs might be not that easy since very often the student don't get a copy of the proceedings, don' get access to the conference dinner. In most cases they just get a badge, some cups of coffee etc. Thus they don't contribute too much to the costs but in turn they don't provide too much income. Of course this differs from conference to conference.
A further feature but further complication, too, would be to add one or more columns which would force the organizer to see what would happen if only a fraction of the hoped-for number of attendees actually appears. This could even be done automatically.
In a way, this suggestion is already incorporated: Since the system calculates the beak even number you may easily see what happens: If you expect, for example, 50 full paying participants then your surplus might be quite high. And the break even number might show up in this case as 33 (figures are taken from an event which has already been calculated be the new sheet). Thus, continuing that example: if only 2/3 of the intended people would actually appear then the organisors would still be on the safe side. However, if less than 2/3 would be coming then the organisors would be in trouble.
Thanks for the comments received til now whioch demonstrate a. That the new sheet can be used very easily b. That there was an apparent need for it.
I continue to collect comments and I would finally discuss it in Bangkok where we might want to test some additional proposals on the spot.
Best wishes Otto
ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
-
Guy Leduc -
Harry Rudin -
Otto Spaniol -
Radford, Peter