Description
OBFS Revenue Contract Approval (through Purchasing)
2006 UIC Leadership Retreat
Breakout Group Summary
Group 3 OBFS Revenue Contract Approval (through Purchasing)
Summary of flow chart
• Group used flow chart provided by advisor and did not produce an original flow chart
Purpose
• Support and promote entrepreneurial (revenue-generating) activities in an efficient,
effective and appropriate manner.
• Timeliness of process
• Viewed as a resource (legal counsel, etc.)
Estimate of Annual Person Hours
• Current – average time for approval – ex. 37 days / 11 months / 9 months. Leads to loss
of vendors/revenue/business.
• New process goal is completed approval in 10 days
Conclusions
1. Group 3 concluded that due to the significance of this process ot the financial health of
the campus that it needs to be reconceptualized and redesigned (see recommendations)
Recommendations
1. One leader responsible for process with co-location
• Campus/corporate level
• Crosses barriers
• Office for Business Advancement
2. Bring in consultant to assess and make suggestions for process
3. Person needs to be empowered to say yes, incentivized to profice answer
4. Redesign responsibility needs to be identified
5. Benchmark and learn then implement
Notes from Discussion
• Comprehensive process vs. linear process
• Current process:
• (non-healthcare) – standard, no changes, 4-5 days for approval
• Issue – adequate staffing; knowledge of process/time to approval
• Revised [process]
• More resources
• Type categorization
• Up-front assessment/triage
• Look at best practices
• User-friendly approach
• Access to expertise
• Get basics down and then move on
• Activities
• Healthcare (purchase) – educational, non-educational
• Non-healthcare (purchase) – educational, non-educational
• Needs
1. Knowledge of time for approval (timeliness is essential. Ideal =immediate/24
hour)
2. Knowledge of time expense/staff resources
3. Ability to assess/track contract in process
4. Template? – elements, process resources for knowledge, scope of service
5. Checklist/FAQS, basic parameters (assists in negotiation, etc.)
• Also contact info for more complicated questions (“virtuoso” in revenue
contracts)
• Outline of sensitive points/areas of issues (benefits – cuts time off
process)
• Understanding of the flexibilities available in entrepreneurship/revenue
generating activities
• (ideal goal =be a resources, not a barrier)
6. Streamlining
7. Understand mission and where activities may fit (competition with community
issues, etc.)
• Clear identification, definition, process to resolve it if conflict/issues
8. Classification system for contracts – common types – renewing, etc.
Additional Analysis & Observations
• Issue arose about delays in the search process, although this was not the topic of the
session.
Other observations and analysis
• Until several years ago there was no formal organizational home for these contracts and
that, after some discussion, Purchasing agreed to take responsibility for them.
• The review and approval process is different for health care and non-health care
endeavors.
• Various templates for specific kinds of revenue producing business have been
developed over time, e.g. one for education services, and one for educational services
delivered to Chicago Public Schools.
• Problems with current process include the time taken for processing, lack of
predictability in timing (essentially identical contracts can take greatly variable
processing time), and the relationship of Legal Counsel to the contract approval process.
• All six (?) university attorneys work on these contracts. OBFS intends to hire an attorney
whose sole responsibility would be to work on contracts. However, Legal Counsel still
wishes to review and approve contracts that been reviewed by the OBFS attorney.
• The group called for urgent redesign of the process with the new process having the
following characteristics:
a. Vastly shorter turnaround on contracts; 24-hour turnaround was proposed by one
college
b. The creation of an office of “business advancement” whose responsibility it would be
to manage the entire revenue producing contract process.
c. Ultimate control over the process should be in one person’s hands, and at a high
administrative level
d. Even if the various staff required to review and approve contracts had different
reporting lines--legal, purchasing, etc. -- they should be “co-located” to ensure
expeditious communication among the critical staff.
e. Because the process is an integral part of entrepreneurial activity, responsibility for
the process should not reside in a unit whose function is largely regulatory; it should
instead reside with a unit with incentive to expedite review and approval.
doc_597308806.pdf
OBFS Revenue Contract Approval (through Purchasing)
2006 UIC Leadership Retreat
Breakout Group Summary
Group 3 OBFS Revenue Contract Approval (through Purchasing)
Summary of flow chart
• Group used flow chart provided by advisor and did not produce an original flow chart
Purpose
• Support and promote entrepreneurial (revenue-generating) activities in an efficient,
effective and appropriate manner.
• Timeliness of process
• Viewed as a resource (legal counsel, etc.)
Estimate of Annual Person Hours
• Current – average time for approval – ex. 37 days / 11 months / 9 months. Leads to loss
of vendors/revenue/business.
• New process goal is completed approval in 10 days
Conclusions
1. Group 3 concluded that due to the significance of this process ot the financial health of
the campus that it needs to be reconceptualized and redesigned (see recommendations)
Recommendations
1. One leader responsible for process with co-location
• Campus/corporate level
• Crosses barriers
• Office for Business Advancement
2. Bring in consultant to assess and make suggestions for process
3. Person needs to be empowered to say yes, incentivized to profice answer
4. Redesign responsibility needs to be identified
5. Benchmark and learn then implement
Notes from Discussion
• Comprehensive process vs. linear process
• Current process:
• (non-healthcare) – standard, no changes, 4-5 days for approval
• Issue – adequate staffing; knowledge of process/time to approval
• Revised [process]
• More resources
• Type categorization
• Up-front assessment/triage
• Look at best practices
• User-friendly approach
• Access to expertise
• Get basics down and then move on
• Activities
• Healthcare (purchase) – educational, non-educational
• Non-healthcare (purchase) – educational, non-educational
• Needs
1. Knowledge of time for approval (timeliness is essential. Ideal =immediate/24
hour)
2. Knowledge of time expense/staff resources
3. Ability to assess/track contract in process
4. Template? – elements, process resources for knowledge, scope of service
5. Checklist/FAQS, basic parameters (assists in negotiation, etc.)
• Also contact info for more complicated questions (“virtuoso” in revenue
contracts)
• Outline of sensitive points/areas of issues (benefits – cuts time off
process)
• Understanding of the flexibilities available in entrepreneurship/revenue
generating activities
• (ideal goal =be a resources, not a barrier)
6. Streamlining
7. Understand mission and where activities may fit (competition with community
issues, etc.)
• Clear identification, definition, process to resolve it if conflict/issues
8. Classification system for contracts – common types – renewing, etc.
Additional Analysis & Observations
• Issue arose about delays in the search process, although this was not the topic of the
session.
Other observations and analysis
• Until several years ago there was no formal organizational home for these contracts and
that, after some discussion, Purchasing agreed to take responsibility for them.
• The review and approval process is different for health care and non-health care
endeavors.
• Various templates for specific kinds of revenue producing business have been
developed over time, e.g. one for education services, and one for educational services
delivered to Chicago Public Schools.
• Problems with current process include the time taken for processing, lack of
predictability in timing (essentially identical contracts can take greatly variable
processing time), and the relationship of Legal Counsel to the contract approval process.
• All six (?) university attorneys work on these contracts. OBFS intends to hire an attorney
whose sole responsibility would be to work on contracts. However, Legal Counsel still
wishes to review and approve contracts that been reviewed by the OBFS attorney.
• The group called for urgent redesign of the process with the new process having the
following characteristics:
a. Vastly shorter turnaround on contracts; 24-hour turnaround was proposed by one
college
b. The creation of an office of “business advancement” whose responsibility it would be
to manage the entire revenue producing contract process.
c. Ultimate control over the process should be in one person’s hands, and at a high
administrative level
d. Even if the various staff required to review and approve contracts had different
reporting lines--legal, purchasing, etc. -- they should be “co-located” to ensure
expeditious communication among the critical staff.
e. Because the process is an integral part of entrepreneurial activity, responsibility for
the process should not reside in a unit whose function is largely regulatory; it should
instead reside with a unit with incentive to expedite review and approval.
doc_597308806.pdf