Implementing Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing for Unused Capacity Measurement in Local University

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In conclusion, studies supporting the results of the study should be included.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please refer to my comments in the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is interesting. But I find the analysis incomplete – and troublesome.  It appears to be built on the premise that activities within academia can be “standardized.” However, the case that can be done for academic pursuits is never made.

For example, the “Hours/Round” appears to be the average of how long was spent in an activity -- computed by taking the total hours spent in an activity and dividing it by the number of persons who did this.  However, the assigned number of hours per course – 14 – seems low as it matches the number of weeks in a semester at UMP. That would imply that all course preparation, teaching, and grading takes up only one hour per week.   Factors such as expected number of contact hours, how often an instructor has taught the course, number of students in a course, and complexity of the subject matter could all influence how long someone spends in “teaching” a course. None of those potential variables seem to be addressed in establishing the benchmarking teaching hours per course.

There are other places where the discussion needs more detailed. For example, there is no time period is placed on the “basic salary” of RM1,200. (It appears this is the former national minimum salary -- which increased to RM1,500 mid-2022).

Also, Figures 1, 2 3, and 5 could not be read in my copy of the paper as part of each flowed out of the righthand side of the page.  (The images are there but they need to start closer to the left margin rather than substantially indented toward the center of the page). 

I agree that it is important to know where there is excess capacity. However, many activities associated with faculty are not as simple as production or service provision found in other endeavors.  There are a great number of factors that must be addressed in trying to come up with standard expectations to see if someone has too little – or too much – work assigned to them.  Unfortunately, this methodology treats everything as an average process – and for much of the work discussed, it has been my experience that there is too much variation for an average to be meaningful for such an analysis.  The methodology needs to be revisited to address this issue before the paper can go forward.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

My comment is sufficiently addressed. 

Author Response

The authors have answered all the questions as requested

Reviewer 3 Report

You have addressed some of my points. But I still have some questions.

I raised the issue that the number of hours per course (14 in the original) seemed low. It is now listed as 18. But I still am unsure how that was calculated.  That may be because of my unfamiliarity with how courses are taught at UHP. That number may be correct for that setting -- but it also does not match the experience of other institutions. So how it was derived must be explained.

For example, a semester-long, three-credit course in a US university typically has over 40 contact hours during the 15-week term. This does not include course preparation time or grading or meeting with students.  So the 18 seems low in that context - so it needs more explanation.

Additionally, while you explained where the source of the salary data, it still appears as if monthly base pay is being treated as annual wages. On page 13, new text in Section 4.3.1 divides the RM3,070 was divided by the expected work year of 1,920 hours.  From my understanding, that should have been RM36,840 as the numerator in the equation. (And this does not appear to add in bonuses which appear to be somewhat common, based on a review of third-party sites).  If there is a reason to set up the equation this way, it needs to be explained.

Finally, I have two other points to raise. The first is that I am surprised that you did not note the origin of the time-and-motion study concept its origins in Scientific Management (Fredrick Taylor). 

More importantly for the study, the time used reported in the samples for the DS51/52 shows too much variation to be instructive -- or valid.  For example, Sample 1 liseds 8,650 hours used. There are only 8,760 total hours in a year. So if I am interpreting the data correctly, the person is reported working 166 hours per week -- or more than four times the expected capacity.  If I saw such an obviously erroneous outlier reported, it would make me doubt all of the findings of the study that listed it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

I had three major concerns in the previous version. All have been resolved. 

The biggest of these issues was concerning the time allocations for teaching courses. While it is different from my experience, I appreciated the explanation from the author on how this was derived -- as well as the change in the notation in the charts in the paper.  I would like to have seen some of these details in the paper. (But I will not hold up publication for that reason.) 

The other concerns involved the rate of pay - listing the annual rather than the monthly salary - and the data sample - correcting an erroneous listing.

At this point, I am ready to recommend publication.