Cost Code style 1 or 2
Hi there,
Does anyone have experience moving from a per-year cost code to a multi-year cost code? We have recently had to add so many codes (co-op programs and now per-term graduate level codes). I noticed the other option in the manual to have a single code for multiple years - screenshot below - does anyone have any qualms or insight on what problems arise when you have multiyear codes? I'm wondering if it is more to manage with adding FT programs, academic progress, harder to read in the academic summary, etc. Photo of the manual to reference the two different styles:
58 Views
Based on my experience working with both York University (homegrown system) and Queen's University (PeopleSoft), I would recommend adopting a standardized and simplified cost code structure (Same Code- All Years).
Where possible, use a single base cost code (e.g., “FA”) rather than multiple numbered variants (e.g., FA1, FA2, FA3). I also recommend that you use codes that correspond with existing institutional codes that identify a student's program/plan.
If term-level differentiation is required, consider introducing clear, structured extensions, such as:
FA – Default (e.g., Fall/Winter academic year)
FAF – Fall term
FAW – Winter term
FAS – Summer term
1. Simplifies bulk processing and file creation Using a consistent code structure significantly reduces the need for manual manipulation when creating bulk upload files. This lowers the risk of errors and improves efficiency, especially in high-volume environments.
2. Improves usability for staff A standardized naming convention makes internal reference guides and documentation easier to maintain and interpret.
3. Avoids unnecessary front-end complexity In my experience, multiple variants such as FA1/FA2/FA3 do not reduce backend complexity—they simply shift that complexity to the user. A simplified front-end structure leads to better adoption and fewer processing errors. Either option will result in the same number of cost codes.
4. Maintains flexibility where needed Introducing optional term-specific extensions provides flexibility for institutions that require term-based costing, without overcomplicating the overall structure. No number, and instead an additional letter at the end of the cost code.