← Back to all processes

Clubs Budgets Approval Process – Student Fund & Student Activities

Institutional workflow for reviewing and approving student clubs’ budgets at KFUPM

1. Purpose of the Document

The purpose of this document is to define the institutional end-to-end workflow for reviewing and approving student club budgets. The process begins within Student Activities, proceeds to the Student Fund Department for financial validation, and—only when required—extends to the Dean & Student Fund Management Board for budget adjustment decisions.

This documentation ensures:

  • Clear understanding of responsibilities across all stakeholders throughout the process.
  • Accurate representation of conditional steps, including when financial analysis or escalation is required.
  • Clarity on evaluation criteria, decision gateways, and message flows between departments.
  • Proper alignment of parallel and multi-instance processes.
  • A unified reference for cross-departmental integration, training, and quality assurance.

This process is part of the overarching Student Club Budget Lifecycle and covers the flow from initial submission to final approval, including:

  • Initial intake and approval by Student Activities for all club budgets.
  • Financial aggregation by the Student Fund and direct approval when within limits.
  • Per-club financial and justification analysis when the total requested amount exceeds the available budget.
  • Adjustment cycles for clubs whose budgets are returned based on analysis findings.
  • Re-aggregation and final approval after Student Activities submits adjusted budgets.
  • Escalation to the Management Board only when the aggregated budget still exceeds the Student Fund limit after adjustments.

This structure ensures efficient processing when budgets are within limits and deeper financial analysis only when required.

Note

Use this section to clearly explain why the process exists and how it supports the broader goals of the Deanship of Student Affairs. In this case, the process clarifies the full institutional path from Student Activities’ initial approval to final institutional approval and escalation when needed.

2. Scope of This Process

Included

  • Initiation of the annual club budget cycle.
  • Submission and initial approval of club budgets within Student Activities.
  • Financial aggregation and validation by the Student Fund Department.
  • Per-club analysis when the aggregated budget exceeds available limits.
  • Return and revision cycles for clubs requiring budget modifications.
  • Re-aggregation and final approval by the Student Fund.
  • Escalation to the Dean & Student Fund Management Board when funding limits cannot be met.
  • Formal communication of approval outcomes back to Student Activities.

Not Included

  • Preparation of the budgets by club presidents (covered by the “Prepare and Approve Club Budget” call activity documentation).
  • Execution of approved budgets (spending and implementation of activities).
  • Post-approval financial controls, expenditure tracking, and auditing.

3. Actors & Responsibilities

Director – Student Activities Department

  • Initiates the annual clubs’ budget cycle.
  • Requests submissions from all club presidents.
  • Sends all initially approved budgets to the Student Fund Department.
  • Receives messages from the Student Fund regarding:
    • “All budgets approved”.
    • “Budgets returned for modification”.
  • Oversees budget revision processes with supervisors and club presidents.
  • Endorses updated budgets and resubmits them to the Student Fund after revision cycles.

Club Supervisors – Student Activities

  • Review returned budgets with club presidents and clarify required modifications.
  • Guide club presidents in implementing corrections based on Student Fund analysis.
  • Conduct the internal revision cycle:
    • Review the updated budget.
    • Approve the revision or return it to the club president with comments.
  • Ensure revised budgets meet Student Activities’ standards before submission.
  • Forward finalized revised budgets to the Director – Student Activities for endorsement.

Director General (DG) – Student Fund Department

  • Receives all clubs’ budgets from Student Activities.
  • Aggregates total club budget amounts and compares them against the annual allocation for clubs.
  • Decides whether to:
    • Approve all budgets directly (if within limit), or
    • Trigger detailed per-club financial analysis (if above limit).
  • Oversees staff-level analysis across all clubs.
  • Makes per-club evaluation decisions (accepted or returned based on reducibility and justification).
  • Initiates escalation to the Management Board when limits are exceeded even after adjustments.
  • Approves all budgets after re-aggregation and any required adjustments.

Student Fund Staff (Budget Analysts)

  • Perform detailed per-club financial analysis when triggered.
  • Assess justification strength and identify inflated or reducible items.
  • Prepare formal analysis reports with evidence-based recommendations for each club budget.
  • Submit analysis reports to the Director General – Student Fund for evaluation and decision-making.

Dean & Student Fund Management Board

  • Receive escalation requests from the Director General – Student Fund when the aggregated revised budgets still exceed the limit.
  • Review the Student Fund financial situation and competing priorities.
  • Decide whether to:
    • Reallocate funds within the Student Fund, or
    • Increase the Student Fund clubs’ budget allocation.
  • Issue an adjusted final allocation value to the Director General – Student Fund.

4. Detailed Process Description

Pool: Student Activities Department – Budget Cycle & Revisions

This pool represents the activities, responsibilities, and workflow performed by Student Activities from initiating the budget cycle, running the call activity for initial approval, and handling revisions after Student Fund analysis.

Lane A — Director – Student Activities
  1. Initiate the Budget Cycle
    The Director starts the official annual clubs’ budget cycle and issues a formal request to all club presidents to submit their budgets for the upcoming period.
  2. Run Call Activity – “Prepare and Approve Club Budget” (Parallel Multi-Instance)
    One instance of the “Prepare and Approve Club Budget – Student Activities” process runs in parallel for each club. The output of this call activity is:
    • Initially approved club budgets stored in the clubs’ budgets data store.
  3. Send All Club Budgets to Student Fund
    The Director consolidates all initially approved budgets and transmits them to the Student Fund Department.
  4. Event-Based Gateway – Await Response from Student Fund
    Student Activities waits for one of two possible messages from the Student Fund:
    • “All budgets approved”, or
    • “Budgets returned for modification”.
  5. Receive Message – Budgets Returned for Modification (If applicable)
    When budgets are returned, the Director:
    • Receives the consolidated list of clubs requiring modification.
    • Assigns respective supervisors to manage the revision cycle with clubs.
  6. Endorse Adjusted Budgets
    After revision subprocesses are completed, the Director:
    • Reviews all adjusted budgets.
    • Endorses them on behalf of Student Activities.
    • Sends a consolidated package of adjusted budgets back to the Student Fund Department.
  7. Receive Final Approval – “All Budgets Approved”
    When the final approval message is received from the Student Fund, the Director closes the cycle and communicates outcomes internally as needed.
Lane B — Club Supervisors
  1. Handle Returned Budgets
    Upon notification from the Director, supervisors identify which clubs’ budgets have been returned and obtain the associated Student Fund analysis reports.
  2. Revision Subprocess – Supervisor & Club President (Parallel Multi-Instance)
    For each returned club budget:
    • Supervisor reviews the analysis report with the club president.
    • Club president modifies the budget in line with the findings.
    • Club president resubmits the modified budget to the supervisor.
    • Supervisor reviews the updated budget.
    • XOR Gateway – Supervisor approves?
      • Yes: Approve & store the updated budget (subprocess instance ends).
      • No: Return the budget to the club president with comments and repeat the cycle.
    The output of this subprocess is a set of updated and finalized club budgets ready to be endorsed by the Director.
  3. Submit Finalized Budgets to Director – Student Activities
    Supervisors forward all approved revised budgets to the Director for endorsement and consolidation.
Lane C — Club Presidents (Revision Role)
  1. Review Analysis Feedback
    Club presidents receive and review feedback and analysis points communicated via their supervisors.
  2. Modify Budget
    Based on analysis findings, club presidents adjust their budgets (e.g., reduce inflated items, strengthen justifications).
  3. Resubmit Revised Budget
    The modified budget is resubmitted to the supervisor for re-evaluation and potential approval.

Pool: Student Fund Department – Aggregation, Analysis & Final Approval

This pool covers intake of club budgets by the Student Fund, aggregation and financial evaluation, detailed analysis when limits are exceeded, and issuing final approval after any necessary adjustments or escalations.

Lane A — Director General (DG) – Student Fund Department
  1. Club Budgets Received (Message Start Event)
    The DG receives the consolidated set of initially approved club budgets from Student Activities.
  2. Aggregate All Clubs’ Budgets
    Service task: Summation and compilation of all club budget values to determine the total requested amount.
  3. XOR Gateway — Exceed Clubs’ Budget Limit?
    The DG compares the total requested amount with the Student Fund’s annual allocation for clubs:
    • No (within limit): Proceed to direct approval of all club budgets.
    • Yes (exceeds limit): Trigger detailed per-club financial analysis.
  4. Approve All Budgets (Within Limit)
    If the limit is not exceeded, the DG approves all budgets as submitted and sends a “All budgets approved” message back to Student Activities.
  5. Forward Budgets for Detailed Analysis (When Limit Exceeded)
    If the limit is exceeded, the DG assigns Student Fund staff to perform detailed per-club analysis and waits for their reports.
  6. Per-Club DG Evaluation Subprocess (Parallel Multi-Instance)
    For each club budget, the DG:
    • Reviews the staff analysis report.
    • Evaluates reducibility and justification strength.
    • Applies the following decision logic:
      • Reducibility has priority.
      • If reducible (regardless of justification): Returned.
      • If not reducible and justified: Accepted.
      • If not reducible and not justified: Returned.
    • Records the decision as either:
      • Record budget as returned (with reason and reference to the analysis report), or
      • Record budget as accepted.
  7. Inclusive Gateway — Identify Accepted & Returned Budgets
    The DG identifies:
    • Clubs whose budgets are accepted.
    • Clubs whose budgets are returned for modification.
    • Both outcomes may exist simultaneously.
  8. Path A — Message: Budgets Returned for Modification
    The DG sends a consolidated message to Student Activities listing all clubs whose budgets require modification.
  9. Path B — Accepted Budgets (Internal Status)
    Accepted budgets are recorded as Accepted inside the Student Fund system but no message is sent at this stage. These accepted budgets will be merged later with adjusted budgets.
  10. Reaggregation & Second Evaluation
    After receiving adjusted budgets from Student Activities:
    • Adjusted budgets are received by the DG.
    • Inclusive gateway merges already accepted budgets with newly adjusted budgets.
    • All club budgets are aggregated again.
    • XOR Gateway – Exceed Clubs’ Budget Limit?
      • No: Proceed directly to final approval.
      • Yes: Escalate to the Dean & Student Fund Management Board.
  11. Final Approval
    After either:
    • Confirming the aggregated total is within the limit, or
    • Receiving an updated allocation from the Management Board,
    the DG approves all accepted and adjusted club budgets and sends the message “All budgets approved” to Student Activities.
Lane B — Student Fund Staff (Budget Analysts)
  1. Receive Budgets for Analysis
    Analysts receive all or a subset of club budgets from the DG when the aggregated amount exceeds the limit.
  2. Analyze Club Budgets (Parallel Multi-Instance)
    For each club, analysts:
    • Review the justification strength of requested items.
    • Identify inflated or reducible items and quantify potential reductions.
    • Provide evidence-based recommendations.
    Outputs are stored as:
    • Per-club analysis reports in the relevant data store.
  3. Forward Analysis Reports to DG
    All completed reports are sent to the DG for evaluation and decision-making.

Pool: Dean & Student Fund Management Board – Escalation & Allocation Adjustment

This pool represents the governance-level decision-making body that handles escalation requests when the total clubs’ budget exceeds the available Student Fund allocation even after adjustments.

Lane A — Dean & Student Fund Management Board
  1. Receive Escalation Request
    When reaggregated budgets still exceed the Student Fund limit, the DG requests an adjustment to the clubs’ budget allocation.
  2. Management Board Process
    The Board:
    • Meets to review the DG request and accompanying financial information.
    • Assesses the overall Student Fund financial situation and institutional priorities.
    • Decides whether to:
      • Reallocate funds, and/or
      • Increase the clubs’ budget allocation.
  3. Adjust Clubs’ Budget Allocation
    The Board issues an adjusted final allocation for clubs and sends a “Clubs’ budget adjusted” message back to the DG in the Student Fund Department.

5. Process Model

Below is the BPMN visual model for the “Clubs Budgets Approval Process – Student Fund & Student Activities”.

See a quick explanation of the symbols here: BPMN symbol legend

For the full BPMN 2.0 specification, see: Complete BPMN Symbol Reference .

6. Relationship to the Larger Workflow

This document describes the complete institutional approval process for student clubs’ budgets and relies on the “Prepare and Approve Club Budget – Student Activities” process as a call activity inside Student Activities.

Inputs from the call activity:

  • Initially approved club budgets (per club) sent from Student Activities to the Student Fund Department.

Outputs from this institutional process:

  • DG evaluation decisions for each club (accepted or returned).
  • Returned budgets that require modification, with documented reasons and analysis findings.
  • Final approved budgets stored in the clubs’ budgets data store after aggregation, adjustments, and any escalation.

This process forms a core part of the overarching Student Club Budget Lifecycle by ensuring that department-level approvals, financial validations, and governance-level decisions are consistent and traceable.

7. Inputs and Outputs

Inputs

  • Club budgets approved by Student Activities via the call activity.
  • Clubs’ budget analysis reports prepared by Student Fund staff.
  • Revised submissions from clubs after modification cycles.
  • Student Fund allocation limits for clubs.
  • Management Board decisions on reallocations or increased allocation.

Outputs

  • Final approved club budgets for all clubs in scope.
  • Returned budgets with documented reasons and analysis findings.
  • Adjusted institutional allocation for clubs (when escalation is required).
  • Consolidated budget totals and approval decisions communicated across departments.

8. Compliance Requirements

  • All justification and analysis requirements must be documented and retained (per club, per cycle).
  • All acceptance and return decisions by the DG must be recorded with reference to analysis reports.
  • Student Activities must maintain detailed revision records and communication logs with supervisors and clubs.
  • Budget aggregation must follow Student Fund financial rules, thresholds, and allocation policies.
  • Escalation decisions and Board outcomes must conform to institutional financial governance procedures.

9. Review Points for Departments

Departments and stakeholders should use this section to verify that the documented process matches actual practice. Points to review include:

  • Accuracy of cross-department message flows between Student Activities, Student Fund, and the Management Board.
  • Completeness and clarity of the DG evaluation logic (especially reducibility and justification criteria).
  • Clear and correct definition of roles and responsibilities for each actor and lane.
  • Alignment with KFUPM financial regulations and internal governance requirements.
  • Correct integration with the “Prepare and Approve Club Budget – Student Activities” call activity and the broader Student Club Budget Lifecycle.

↑ Back to top