Traditional conceptions of faculty and program productivity typically emphasize in varying degrees teaching, research, publication, creative work, service to the university, and service to the community. Evaluation of these areas and the relative weights assigned to them varies greatly from unit to unit within a university and even more so among universities. Moreover, without measurable weights assigned to each activity, it becomes more difficult to make planning decisions ranging from funding new positions to posttenure review of faculty. The lack of data also makes a more objective evaluation of faculty and program performance much less likely. Thus, it is no surprise that decisions about teaching load, class size, curriculum, programs, and faculty appear to be driven more by polemics than by analysis. In truth all faculty activities create value and entail costs for universities. Although the authors strongly do not believe that all programmatic and faculty activity can be reduced to financial considerations, they also believe that financial considerations must play an important part in evaluating how resources are invested by the university and if those investments are in the best interests of the students, the faculty as a whole and the short- and long-term goals of the university. In this article, the authors discuss the use of a return on investment models for higher education institutions. They describe a model for Texas that focuses on the revenue streams and expenditures for different areas of a university, makes use of data routinely available in a university's databases, and takes into account the percentage of time to which a faculty member is assigned or is engaged in varied activities. (Contains 6 figures and 3 tables.)