Description
Management means directing and controlling a group of one or more people or an organization to reach a goal.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PHASE 1 REPORT TO: PROCESS IMPROVEMENT TASK FORCE and PROJECT TEAM
Presented By
April 23, 2010
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Project Purpose and Goals ....................................................................................................................... 4 Project Governance ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Approach......................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Phases.......................................................................................................................................... 5 Process Selection Rationale ...................................................................................................................... 6 Project Activities ...................................................................................................................................... 6 As Is Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Themes .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Metrics .................................................................................................................................................... 9 To Be Process Design ..................................................................................................................................11 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................11 To Be Enablers ........................................................................................................................................11 Process Improvements ............................................................................................................................12 Quick Hits................................................................................................................................................13 Organizational Impact .............................................................................................................................13 Information Technology and Systems ........................................................................................................14 Current status .........................................................................................................................................14 Potential software solutions ....................................................................................................................14 Communications ........................................................................................................................................15 Implementation Plan..................................................................................................................................15 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................15 Governance ............................................................................................................................................16 Preparation for Phase 2...........................................................................................................................16 Appendix ....................................................................................................................................................17 Project Governance Structure .................................................................................................................17 Communication Plan as of April 20, 2010 ................................................................................................18
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 2
Executive Summary
The first phase of the Administrative Process Improvement Project has been extremely successful. The project has been conducted on schedule and the planned activities completed. The main focus of the project has been on the Graduate Assistant Appointment process. The purpose of this scope is to serve as a pilot for planning and implementing a specific area of improvement in a representative process. Highlights of the progress made by the participants in Phase 1 include the following: 1. An enthusiastic level of commitment to introducing improvements with a high degree of expectation that the improvements are feasible and will “save you time” in a direct way for many participants in the process 2. Identification and communication of the importance of the key enablers that will allow the changes to be successful and sustained 3. An awareness that a sense of urgency is important, along with the key enablers, to succeed in introducing improvements and sustaining their benefits 4. Identification of quick hits that will also “save you time” in the immediate or near term 5. Excellent participation in workshops to identify ways to improve, including an openness to accept and respond to ideas about improvements from colleagues. This project, and the approach followed by the team, has contributed to an increased readiness to change and the awareness of how to approach future process improvement initiatives. The following pages summarize the work performed to date (Phase 1).
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 3
Introduction
The report summarizes the activities and findings arising from the execution of Phase 1 of the Administrative Process Improvement Project. It also outlines a proposed Implementation Plan for Phase 2, subject to clarification of certain details that are being addressed at the time of this report.
Project Purpose and Goals
University President Dr Shirley Raines announced an Administrative Process Improvement Initiative in a December 3, 2009 email to the University community. In summary, the initiative is aligned with one of the Six Strategic Goals of the University: Service Excellence. Its purpose is to implement process and service efficiencies across the whole institution. The outcomes of the process and service improvements will significantly advance the University’s strategic goals and objectives. In addition to the specific immediate outcomes, the process itself should foster a culture of enhanced institutional flexibility and adaptability, so that the University of Memphis can better anticipate and more rapidly respond to changes in the external environment on an on-going basis, whether those changes are in customers’ needs, competitors’ actions, economic fluctuations, or development opportunities.
Project Governance
TSI proposed, and the Evaluation Committee accepted, the following Project Governance Structure. The roles and responsibilities were detailed in the Project Kick Off meeting on April 5, 2010. The slide presentation is available on the Project Shared Drive. Details of University personnel involved in the PITF and Project Team are in the Appendix. 1. Project Leadership – Provost, CIO and CFO 2. Process Improvement Task Force – Led by Dr Teresa Hartnett and Dr Tom Nenon 3. Project Team – Led by Melissa Buchner. In addition, approximately 15 administrative assistants from various academic departments were engaged with the project team either by way of participation in various workshops or in separate information gathering sessions. Their contributions and insights were extremely helpful to the process.
Project Approach
This particular project was designed to address the requirements above by: 1. Conducting a selected process improvement project in the area of Temporary Appointments and Hires. This covers the process improvement exercise itself, communication and change management activities and piloting the implementation of a selected process in its improved form.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 4
2. Training University staff from a broad range of units in the methodology and tools used to conduct process improvement projects so that the University could sustain further improvements by adopting the same methodology and tools in further initiatives.
Project Phases
The project plan was created in two phases. Phase 1 focused on the analysis of the current (“As Is”) state of the selected processes, the development of the proposed (“To Be”) processes and a review of current technology in use at the University. Phase 2 will address the pilot implementation of a selected process, as well as the delivery of Process Improvement training and tools to enable the University to continue making further improvements in administrative processes. The following diagram (which was presented at the Project Kick off meeting on April 5) provides an overview of the key components of the project work plan. The completed activities are marked ? .
?
?
?
?
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 5
Process Selection Rationale
Temporary Appointments and Hires at the University include the following categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. Adjunct Faculty Appointments Graduate Assistantship Appointments Student Worker Hires Temporary Employee Hires
In discussion with the PITF Leaders, it was determined that the best category to select was the Graduate Assistant category and more specifically the “appointment” steps within this process. The appointment steps were considered to be very paper based, impacted a broad cross section on campus, including students themselves, and are likely to show early benefits from improvement. The project team was guided through TSI’s Process Improvement Methodology to conduct a detailed analysis of this process. For the remaining three categories, the project team conducted informationgathering workshops to document the current pains and issues encountered in those categories.
Project Activities
The following is a summary of the principal project activities conducted in Phase 1: 1. A Project Kick Off meeting on April 5, which included messages of support from the Provost, CIO and CFO. This was attended by the PITF members, Project Team members and a number of observers from various University departments 2. A Business Context Work Session that clarified various strategic factors that served as the lens through which this project was viewed. This session was attended by the Leadership Team, PITF members and the Project Manager. 3. A Process Orientation Workshop for the Project Team (with PITF members as observers). This session introduced various process improvement concepts in preparation for the following workshops. 4. Process Mapping and Analysis workshops for the Graduate Assistant appointment process, which identified the “As Is” process steps, pains, issues and their root causes 5. Information gathering workshops with some 15 administrative assistants to learn more about the roles they play in the process and their ideas on process improvement 6. Information gathering workshops for Adjunct Faculty, Student Workers and Temporary Employees at which administrative staff and project team members outlined current pains and issues encountered in the process. 7. Creation of a set of assumptions (“To Be” Process Enablers) that was reviewed with the project team, PITF and discussed with the Leadership team who confirmed their agreement with, and support for, these assumptions. 8. A review of software capabilities to determine the extent to which the improved process can be supported. The Project Shared Drive directory contains copies of the process maps and other project documents and can be accessed there.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 6
As Is Findings
Introduction
The current GA appointment process makes no real distinction between new appointments and re-appointments. In reality, the annual reappointment rate ranges between 50% and 80% of all forms processed, averaging approximately 67-70%. There are 1600 forms processed each semester, all are paper based and involve printing, manual signatures, copying and filing in various departments on campus. Overall, the current GA appointment process (and re-appointment) is a paper-based, labor-intensive process that: 1. 2. 3. 4. Contains a high rate of data errors Often moves slowly and inefficiently Is often left to the last minute (e.g. end of July logjam) Includes steps with little or no value to the process (e.g. handing off a paper application to another department for Banner update which could easily be done by the first department) 5. Includes “safety net” steps due to a “risk avoidance perspective,” non-compliance with policy, or overly-forgiving support on the part of several administrative offices.
Themes
Summarized below are the themes regarding the findings developed during the GA appointment process analysis work: # Theme Impact 1 Paperwork errors occur approximately 30% of HIGH – creates extra work. Training has not the time- the most frequent errors are in always resolved this. FOAPAL codes and Pay Rate/Pay Period information Forms are not designed for optimal input. The paper forms require redundant data (e.g. They are all paper based, many copies are student address) and many are filled in by hand, made, filed and routed around campus increasing illegibility rate. 2 The vast majority of GA re-appointments are HIGH – creates end of July logjam, affects GA confirmed well before Spring term ends, yet the class assignment, student registration and People ? Process ? Technology
?
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final
7
# Theme paperwork flow is often bundled and held back until late July. Summer absences off campus by students and faculty exacerbate the delay. 3 The use of budget reports and tools to establish funding of appointments varies greatly
4 Appointment forms are submitted and checked for each semester, even though the intent is for at least the full academic year 5 Academic Credentials are reported on all GA Appointment forms and checked each semester 6 The $100 late fee imposed on a GA student for late GA processing creates discord with the student and adds to the workload in Financial Aid and Bursar; but it also does not result in Financial Aid implemented a step to estimate earlier processing by the departments the fee waiver to reduce risk of incorrect disbursements (a “safety net” step) 7 Temporary Employee renewals are sent to HR MEDIUM – this is an unnecessary step when Compensation to sign off even when there is no there is no change to compensation change in compensation 8 Deadline dates are frequently not adhered to HIGH – the commitment to the student (e.g. Aug 1 for paperwork, 15th of the month for forces certain departments to work extra to payroll updates) compensate for earlier inefficiencies 9 New Student Worker forms are created for GA LOW/MEDIUM – the forms are not required student Instructors who work in another role by HR but are created due to a perception during summer that summer work requires a new form of appointment
Impact financial aid corrections. Budget uncertainty (e.g. grants) can delay some appointments, but many can be processed earlier HIGH - Adds to delay in prompt processing of appointments (note: training to be addressed separately) HIGH – the paperwork process and signoffs are essentially duplicated each semester (a “safety net” step) HIGH – to identify GA Instructors whose GPA is too low (a “safety net” step) HIGH – for affected students and admin functions (Financial Aid, Bursar, HR etc)
People
Process
Technology
?
?
?
? ?
?
?
?
?
Detailed examples of the pains and issues are contained in the GA As Is Process map file and the Other Hires Current Pains and Issues file located in the Project Shared Drive directory.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final
8
Metrics
Annual volumes in Temporary Appointments and Hires: The following chart reflects the approximate mix between new appointments/hires and re-appointments/re-hires for the current academic year (note: Temporary Employee data is only for the period Jan-Mar 2010).
FAC = Adjunct Faculty GA = Grad Assistant ST= Student Worker TE = Temp Employee
The key message from this chart is that the real activity is in re-appointments and re-hires. That means that the University already has a significant amount of information about the person, thus the re-appointment should be relatively easier than a new appointment.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 9
Estimated Effort of Certain Tasks: The following key activities in the As Is Process were evaluated to estimate the effort consumed in performing them. While departments may have different experiences due to the nature of their GA appointments, these estimates are reasonable indicators of the current process:
The key issue behind this table (and the 154 days wasted) is that it indicates examples of how a new process can “save you time.” This opportunity to “save you time” appealed strongly to participants in the workshops and information gathering sessions. There is a clear recognition that elimination of wasted efforts (such as above) would improve the quality of their work time, improve service levels and allow them to spend the time saved on more relevant duties. The costs of photocopies, paper and duplicated record keeping (across departments) has not been estimated.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final
10
To Be Process Design
Introduction
The design of the To Be process for GA appointments began with the development of “To Be Enablers,” a set of key assumptions regarding the way in which people, process (including policy) and technology would be organized in future to complete the appointment. TSI also noted during Phase 1 that there was a significant interest in maintaining a sense of urgency and all round commitment to introducing improvements, as the workshop participants saw clear, direct benefit to themselves and their departments arising from the proposed processes. TSI recommends that this sense of urgency and commitment be sustained as it has a key influence on achieving change within the University.
To Be Enablers
The following text was developed with the Project Team and PITF and then reviewed with the Project Leadership, who also confirmed their agreement with, and commitment to, its contents: This (document) contains the key assumptions that are critical to “enable the “To Be” process to become a reality. While the prime focus of this project is on GA Appointments and Re-appointments, some assumptions may apply to other processes, including the temporary hiring of Adjunct Faculty, Student Workers and Temporary Employees. Context The University of Memphis will utilize the ARRA time period to implement process and service efficiencies across the whole institution that will continue to benefit the University after that time period. The outcomes of the process and service improvements will significantly advance the University’s strate gic goals and objectives. In addition to the specific immediate outcomes, the process itself should foster a culture of enhanced institutional flexibility and adaptability, so that the University of Memphis can better anticipate and more rapidly respond to changes in the external environment on an on-going basis, whether those changes are in customers’ needs, competitors’ actions, economic fluctuations, or development opportunities. Policy and Procedure 1. In the spirit of achieving Service Excellence, we will strive to make the administrative processes as simple as possible, while adhering to best practices, policy and regulatory requirements. 2. All participants in a process, across the institution, will adhere to the relevant policies and to the agreed process steps, including published deadlines. 3. Participants in the process will respect the process and will trust it. Roles will be defined and people will follow the processes assigned to their role. 4. Incorrect or incomplete forms will be returned for prompt correction and resubmission. 5. At all levels of management, managers will support these policies and will foster a culture of service excellence by their staff, both internally (between units) and to outside constituents. 6. The fact that a process is critical to student service is not grounds for expecting colleagues to make good on your errors and omissions.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 11
7. The University will inform all employees (including students) to ensure their personal biographic, demographic and contact details are always updated in the U of M system of record. They will be responsible for any consequences arising from outdated information. 8. Departments re-appointing GA’s will submit accurate and complete re-appointment forms without delay for HR processing. Where position funding is pending or undetermined, hiring managers will liaise with their Chairs and Deans promptly and regularly to avoid delays. 9. Hiring managers will become familiar with, and adhere to, HR policies regarding acceptable methods of employment and will not commit the University to any terms that conflict with TBR/U of M policy or with laws. HR will continue to use various channels to communicate policy and HR practice updates to keep hiring managers informed. 10. It is the obligation of each person at the University to make full use of the resources (including training) provided to help them perform better; it is also the obligation of each manager to ensure their staff receives appropriate training to use these resources. 11. The University will inform all employees and Graduate Assistants to check their U of M email or MyMemphis portal for official communications and to update their personal information. They will be responsible for any consequences arising from failure to respond in a timely manner. 12. The University will assess the improvements in any process at regular intervals to identify opportunities to further refine and improve the process, identify policy changes and continue the process improvement. Technology 1. The process will be supported by using available technologies that include online form entry, document scanning, workflow based approvals that will help reduce errors through system controls, links to other systems and ease of use. The new paradigm is one that emphasizes electronic content/data over paper 2. Participants in the process will make optimal use of software to reduce the creation of paper based processes and will make every effort (including training)to exploit the functionality of the software The success of the new process pilot and its continued use/improvement depends heavily on these To Be Enablers and their support from all levels of the University. They represent, in simple terms, the terms by which all will participate in the design and execution of improved administrative processes that meet the strategic goal of Service Excellence.
Process Improvements
The following are the key improvements proposed in the new GA appointment process: 1. The process is electronic with minimal data entry and approval; people are responsible for timely and accurate data entry and execution of their step(s) in the process 2. Appointments are normally for a year and thus no spring semester processing is required unless there are changes 3. A steady flow of appointments from departments will be maintained to reduce the end of July logjam in the administrative areas 4. The re-appointment process will be streamlined to deal only with changes that are necessary from one year to the next (no full appointment paperwork process). The detailed Process Maps and related documents are available in the Project Shared Drive directory.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 12
Quick Hits
Apart from the redesign of the process, the project team was able to identify a number of opportunities to implement “quick hits” that could provide immediate or near term savings in time. The following is a summary of the opportunities identified and acted on: 1. As some appointments are committed early in the Spring term, these should be submitted as soon as possible (some departments felt they should accumulate files and submit them close to the deadline date) 2. Certain schools and colleges plan to no longer require the Dean to approve all GA contracts; the responsibility for insuring funding is available, academic credentials are valid (for instructors) and other approvals is that of the Chair of the department making the appointment (Note: this will also form part of the pilot phase of this project) 3. There is no need to complete, copy, file and forward page 1 of the re-appointment form 4. An exception report will be run for all GA students to identify class assignments that are not undergrad level (for attention of the relevant Dean and the Director of Graduate School Services) 5. Clarify the summer employment terms for GA’s (does not require a change in appointment form to set up the student as a Student Worker). In an email to all employees (dated April 22, 2010 “Process Improvement Quick Hits”), the Provost has communicated these quick hits and requested immediate implementation of the changes.
Organizational Impact
The most important impact of the new design for GA Appointments is the ability to “save you time” for all participants in the process. The elimination of processes, the conversion to a workflow system and the adherence to the “To Be Enablers” will allow people to allocate their time to more important tasks. In the longer term, University Leadership will need to address the resources demands to continue the guidance of future initiatives. If the demand for urgent improvements increases, it may be necessary to devote certain key personnel fulltime to the PITF to allow the University to succeed. Outside the direct scope of this project, TSI notes from discussions with project participants that the hiring and appointment of various categories of people is current conducted in various departments, e.g. Faculty Administrative Services, HR, Student Employment (within Financial Aid). This dispersion of similar functions may be a candidate for a process improvement review.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 13
Information Technology and Systems
Current status
The current processes make little use of software other than to create or update a student record in the Banner system (the updates normally are recorded in Student, HR or Payroll). Some forms (e.g. W4, I-9, GA Appointment, Academic Credentials Verification) are available as fillable/printable forms on various University Websites. They become paper-based forms once completed. The PeopleAdmin application (WorkForum) is used for the appointment of Regular Faculty and fulltime employees only. It automates many steps in the process, from data capture to forms uploading to online approvals. However, once an appointment/hiring is confirmed, the resultant Banner HR record is created manually because there is no vendor-supplied interface yet available to integrate WorkForum with Banner HR. PeopleAdmin indicates this enhancement may be released towards the end of 2010.
Potential software solutions
After the “To Be” GA Appointment process workshops, a small group of the Project Team (including representatives from various departments, ITD and B&F Support Services) met to explore the capability of PeopleAdmin to support a GA Appointment process. In summary, the software can be configured to create GA Appointment workflows that would support the proposed process. The key elements of this process would include: Initiating the GA appointment process within an academic department, uploading a signed GA Appointment contract, approving it and forwarding it via Graduate School Services, HR and Bursar for appropriate verification/approval and updating (manually) into Banner Student and HR/Payroll. This software also can be configured to appoint GA’s as research assistants, instructors, assistants to instructors and other roles. PeopleAdmin could also be configured further to support Adjunct Faculty appointments as well as administer the hiring of Student Workers and Temporary Employees. The advantage of this approach is that the same software could be configured to support a variety of appointment and hiring activities through the use of separately configurable workflows to suit each scenario. This reduces the complexity of training, software proficiency and support. Banner HR and the Banner workflow tool have the potential to provide similar functionality; however, the notable difference is that users in certain areas would need to perform essentially similar processes in two different systems (PeopleAdmin for Regular Faculty and fulltime Employees, Banner HR/Workflow for temporary appointments and hires). That is not as desirable as using one application. TSI recommends that review of the Banner HR/Workflow option be tabled until the outcome of the PeopleAdmin review. The review of PeopleAdmin is currently addressing how it can be deployed as a separate solution from WorkForum.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 14
Communications
There have been a number of important communications conducted thus far. They include both formal events and activities such as the Project Kick Off, Business Context and Process Orientation Workshops, updates on the Project website, informal discussions with various groups, including Project Leadership and campus wide communications (e.g. Quick Hits email from the Provost). These events and activities have been successful in explaining the change implications of the To Be Enablers and the new processes on the organization. There has been a solid commitment at all levels within the project organization and University Leadership to maintaining the momentum developed thus far and to emphasize the benefits in terms of “saving you time” and alignment with the Service Excellence strategy. The detailed Communication Plan as of April 20, 2010 is in the Appendix.
Implementation Plan
Introduction
The implementation phase (phase 2) of this project encompasses the following main activities: 1. 2. 3. 4. Conduct Process Training classes for University staff Conduct a Change Management Leadership workshop and develop a plan for change Plan for and conduct a pilot implementation of the GA Appointment process Transition the project to the University team
The Process Training classes are designed to provide the University with methods and tools to sustain process improvement in other administrative functions on campus. They can be conducted independently of the other components of this phase. In accordance with TSI’s response to the RFP, these classes should be conducted back-to-back for up to 20 participants per one day class. The University should identify the class candidates as soon as possible so that the training schedule can be set. At the completion of the training, the University PITF should be able to: 1. Assign the existing project team to examine other temporary appointment and hiring processes (this could include International GA appointments if the pilot solution focuses on domestic students) 2. Establish other project teams to examine other processes. The PITF should therefore identify now which processes it wishes to examine and prioritize them in the light of available resources, the academic calendar and the potential for significant quick hits in the area
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 15
Governance
TSI recommends that the existing Governance Structure be retained for the GA Appointment process and for the other three temporary staff categories. As with phase 1, the project team should include other University staff in specific sessions (e.g. Student Employment Services staff for the Student Workers process) to insure proper input and buy-in from these functional areas.
Preparation for Phase 2
The following activities should be worked on in preparation for Phase 2: 1. Finalize re-design of the GA Appointment form (including the GA contract, academic credentials and other optional fields) for use in the new GA Appointment process 2. Confirmation of the PeopleAdmin option to support the new GA Appointment process 3. Identification of participants for the Process Improvement training class 4. Confirmation of the Phase 2 timetable
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 16
Appendix
Project Governance Structure
Project Leadership 1. Dr Ralph Faudree, Provost 2. Dr Doug Hurley, CIO 3. David Zettergren, CFO This group provides overall sponsorship, vision and guidance. They address issues of strategy and policy, make key decisions regarding organizational changes and ensure changes are successfully communicated and achieved. The Leadership will also prioritize future process improvement projects proposed by the Process Improvement Task Force below. Process Improvement Task Force (PITF) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Dr Teresa Hartnett, Director Business and Finance - Leader Dr Tom Nenon, Vice Provost - Co-leader Moira Logan, Associate Dean-College of Communication and Fine Arts Sheri Lipman, Legal Counsel Jan Brownlee, Director of Graduate School Services Ellen Watson, Associate VP – ITD Sheila Mathis, Senior HR Analyst
The PITF will become the internal UM Process Consulting team; a core team that may rotate members based on the process area to be covered. Learns the process in this project, provides leadership on future projects, adherence to best practices, consistency in methodology and overall alignment with UM strategy. Identifies and recommends future process improvement projects to UM Leadership. Project Team 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Melissa Buchner, Project Manager (College of Arts and Sciences) Jan Brownlee (Graduate School) Margaret Ann Jarred (HR) Karen Smith (Financial Aid) Collette Williams (ITD) Danny Linton (B&F Support Services) Debbie Wooddell (B&F Support Services) Danielle Hillman (Bursar)
This team is led by a project manager and comprised of subject matter experts (from the functional areas and ITD) who have sound analytical skills and a desire to improve processes. Note: The project team above was also supported by some 15 administrative assistants from various departments who process GA appointments.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 17
Communication Plan as of April 20, 2010
Continued next page…
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final
18
END.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final
19
doc_460319719.pdf
Management means directing and controlling a group of one or more people or an organization to reach a goal.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PHASE 1 REPORT TO: PROCESS IMPROVEMENT TASK FORCE and PROJECT TEAM
Presented By
April 23, 2010
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Project Purpose and Goals ....................................................................................................................... 4 Project Governance ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Approach......................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Phases.......................................................................................................................................... 5 Process Selection Rationale ...................................................................................................................... 6 Project Activities ...................................................................................................................................... 6 As Is Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Themes .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Metrics .................................................................................................................................................... 9 To Be Process Design ..................................................................................................................................11 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................11 To Be Enablers ........................................................................................................................................11 Process Improvements ............................................................................................................................12 Quick Hits................................................................................................................................................13 Organizational Impact .............................................................................................................................13 Information Technology and Systems ........................................................................................................14 Current status .........................................................................................................................................14 Potential software solutions ....................................................................................................................14 Communications ........................................................................................................................................15 Implementation Plan..................................................................................................................................15 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................15 Governance ............................................................................................................................................16 Preparation for Phase 2...........................................................................................................................16 Appendix ....................................................................................................................................................17 Project Governance Structure .................................................................................................................17 Communication Plan as of April 20, 2010 ................................................................................................18
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 2
Executive Summary
The first phase of the Administrative Process Improvement Project has been extremely successful. The project has been conducted on schedule and the planned activities completed. The main focus of the project has been on the Graduate Assistant Appointment process. The purpose of this scope is to serve as a pilot for planning and implementing a specific area of improvement in a representative process. Highlights of the progress made by the participants in Phase 1 include the following: 1. An enthusiastic level of commitment to introducing improvements with a high degree of expectation that the improvements are feasible and will “save you time” in a direct way for many participants in the process 2. Identification and communication of the importance of the key enablers that will allow the changes to be successful and sustained 3. An awareness that a sense of urgency is important, along with the key enablers, to succeed in introducing improvements and sustaining their benefits 4. Identification of quick hits that will also “save you time” in the immediate or near term 5. Excellent participation in workshops to identify ways to improve, including an openness to accept and respond to ideas about improvements from colleagues. This project, and the approach followed by the team, has contributed to an increased readiness to change and the awareness of how to approach future process improvement initiatives. The following pages summarize the work performed to date (Phase 1).
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 3
Introduction
The report summarizes the activities and findings arising from the execution of Phase 1 of the Administrative Process Improvement Project. It also outlines a proposed Implementation Plan for Phase 2, subject to clarification of certain details that are being addressed at the time of this report.
Project Purpose and Goals
University President Dr Shirley Raines announced an Administrative Process Improvement Initiative in a December 3, 2009 email to the University community. In summary, the initiative is aligned with one of the Six Strategic Goals of the University: Service Excellence. Its purpose is to implement process and service efficiencies across the whole institution. The outcomes of the process and service improvements will significantly advance the University’s strategic goals and objectives. In addition to the specific immediate outcomes, the process itself should foster a culture of enhanced institutional flexibility and adaptability, so that the University of Memphis can better anticipate and more rapidly respond to changes in the external environment on an on-going basis, whether those changes are in customers’ needs, competitors’ actions, economic fluctuations, or development opportunities.
Project Governance
TSI proposed, and the Evaluation Committee accepted, the following Project Governance Structure. The roles and responsibilities were detailed in the Project Kick Off meeting on April 5, 2010. The slide presentation is available on the Project Shared Drive. Details of University personnel involved in the PITF and Project Team are in the Appendix. 1. Project Leadership – Provost, CIO and CFO 2. Process Improvement Task Force – Led by Dr Teresa Hartnett and Dr Tom Nenon 3. Project Team – Led by Melissa Buchner. In addition, approximately 15 administrative assistants from various academic departments were engaged with the project team either by way of participation in various workshops or in separate information gathering sessions. Their contributions and insights were extremely helpful to the process.
Project Approach
This particular project was designed to address the requirements above by: 1. Conducting a selected process improvement project in the area of Temporary Appointments and Hires. This covers the process improvement exercise itself, communication and change management activities and piloting the implementation of a selected process in its improved form.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 4
2. Training University staff from a broad range of units in the methodology and tools used to conduct process improvement projects so that the University could sustain further improvements by adopting the same methodology and tools in further initiatives.
Project Phases
The project plan was created in two phases. Phase 1 focused on the analysis of the current (“As Is”) state of the selected processes, the development of the proposed (“To Be”) processes and a review of current technology in use at the University. Phase 2 will address the pilot implementation of a selected process, as well as the delivery of Process Improvement training and tools to enable the University to continue making further improvements in administrative processes. The following diagram (which was presented at the Project Kick off meeting on April 5) provides an overview of the key components of the project work plan. The completed activities are marked ? .
?
?
?
?
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 5
Process Selection Rationale
Temporary Appointments and Hires at the University include the following categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. Adjunct Faculty Appointments Graduate Assistantship Appointments Student Worker Hires Temporary Employee Hires
In discussion with the PITF Leaders, it was determined that the best category to select was the Graduate Assistant category and more specifically the “appointment” steps within this process. The appointment steps were considered to be very paper based, impacted a broad cross section on campus, including students themselves, and are likely to show early benefits from improvement. The project team was guided through TSI’s Process Improvement Methodology to conduct a detailed analysis of this process. For the remaining three categories, the project team conducted informationgathering workshops to document the current pains and issues encountered in those categories.
Project Activities
The following is a summary of the principal project activities conducted in Phase 1: 1. A Project Kick Off meeting on April 5, which included messages of support from the Provost, CIO and CFO. This was attended by the PITF members, Project Team members and a number of observers from various University departments 2. A Business Context Work Session that clarified various strategic factors that served as the lens through which this project was viewed. This session was attended by the Leadership Team, PITF members and the Project Manager. 3. A Process Orientation Workshop for the Project Team (with PITF members as observers). This session introduced various process improvement concepts in preparation for the following workshops. 4. Process Mapping and Analysis workshops for the Graduate Assistant appointment process, which identified the “As Is” process steps, pains, issues and their root causes 5. Information gathering workshops with some 15 administrative assistants to learn more about the roles they play in the process and their ideas on process improvement 6. Information gathering workshops for Adjunct Faculty, Student Workers and Temporary Employees at which administrative staff and project team members outlined current pains and issues encountered in the process. 7. Creation of a set of assumptions (“To Be” Process Enablers) that was reviewed with the project team, PITF and discussed with the Leadership team who confirmed their agreement with, and support for, these assumptions. 8. A review of software capabilities to determine the extent to which the improved process can be supported. The Project Shared Drive directory contains copies of the process maps and other project documents and can be accessed there.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 6
As Is Findings
Introduction
The current GA appointment process makes no real distinction between new appointments and re-appointments. In reality, the annual reappointment rate ranges between 50% and 80% of all forms processed, averaging approximately 67-70%. There are 1600 forms processed each semester, all are paper based and involve printing, manual signatures, copying and filing in various departments on campus. Overall, the current GA appointment process (and re-appointment) is a paper-based, labor-intensive process that: 1. 2. 3. 4. Contains a high rate of data errors Often moves slowly and inefficiently Is often left to the last minute (e.g. end of July logjam) Includes steps with little or no value to the process (e.g. handing off a paper application to another department for Banner update which could easily be done by the first department) 5. Includes “safety net” steps due to a “risk avoidance perspective,” non-compliance with policy, or overly-forgiving support on the part of several administrative offices.
Themes
Summarized below are the themes regarding the findings developed during the GA appointment process analysis work: # Theme Impact 1 Paperwork errors occur approximately 30% of HIGH – creates extra work. Training has not the time- the most frequent errors are in always resolved this. FOAPAL codes and Pay Rate/Pay Period information Forms are not designed for optimal input. The paper forms require redundant data (e.g. They are all paper based, many copies are student address) and many are filled in by hand, made, filed and routed around campus increasing illegibility rate. 2 The vast majority of GA re-appointments are HIGH – creates end of July logjam, affects GA confirmed well before Spring term ends, yet the class assignment, student registration and People ? Process ? Technology
?
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final
7
# Theme paperwork flow is often bundled and held back until late July. Summer absences off campus by students and faculty exacerbate the delay. 3 The use of budget reports and tools to establish funding of appointments varies greatly
4 Appointment forms are submitted and checked for each semester, even though the intent is for at least the full academic year 5 Academic Credentials are reported on all GA Appointment forms and checked each semester 6 The $100 late fee imposed on a GA student for late GA processing creates discord with the student and adds to the workload in Financial Aid and Bursar; but it also does not result in Financial Aid implemented a step to estimate earlier processing by the departments the fee waiver to reduce risk of incorrect disbursements (a “safety net” step) 7 Temporary Employee renewals are sent to HR MEDIUM – this is an unnecessary step when Compensation to sign off even when there is no there is no change to compensation change in compensation 8 Deadline dates are frequently not adhered to HIGH – the commitment to the student (e.g. Aug 1 for paperwork, 15th of the month for forces certain departments to work extra to payroll updates) compensate for earlier inefficiencies 9 New Student Worker forms are created for GA LOW/MEDIUM – the forms are not required student Instructors who work in another role by HR but are created due to a perception during summer that summer work requires a new form of appointment
Impact financial aid corrections. Budget uncertainty (e.g. grants) can delay some appointments, but many can be processed earlier HIGH - Adds to delay in prompt processing of appointments (note: training to be addressed separately) HIGH – the paperwork process and signoffs are essentially duplicated each semester (a “safety net” step) HIGH – to identify GA Instructors whose GPA is too low (a “safety net” step) HIGH – for affected students and admin functions (Financial Aid, Bursar, HR etc)
People
Process
Technology
?
?
?
? ?
?
?
?
?
Detailed examples of the pains and issues are contained in the GA As Is Process map file and the Other Hires Current Pains and Issues file located in the Project Shared Drive directory.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final
8
Metrics
Annual volumes in Temporary Appointments and Hires: The following chart reflects the approximate mix between new appointments/hires and re-appointments/re-hires for the current academic year (note: Temporary Employee data is only for the period Jan-Mar 2010).
FAC = Adjunct Faculty GA = Grad Assistant ST= Student Worker TE = Temp Employee
The key message from this chart is that the real activity is in re-appointments and re-hires. That means that the University already has a significant amount of information about the person, thus the re-appointment should be relatively easier than a new appointment.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 9
Estimated Effort of Certain Tasks: The following key activities in the As Is Process were evaluated to estimate the effort consumed in performing them. While departments may have different experiences due to the nature of their GA appointments, these estimates are reasonable indicators of the current process:
The key issue behind this table (and the 154 days wasted) is that it indicates examples of how a new process can “save you time.” This opportunity to “save you time” appealed strongly to participants in the workshops and information gathering sessions. There is a clear recognition that elimination of wasted efforts (such as above) would improve the quality of their work time, improve service levels and allow them to spend the time saved on more relevant duties. The costs of photocopies, paper and duplicated record keeping (across departments) has not been estimated.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final
10
To Be Process Design
Introduction
The design of the To Be process for GA appointments began with the development of “To Be Enablers,” a set of key assumptions regarding the way in which people, process (including policy) and technology would be organized in future to complete the appointment. TSI also noted during Phase 1 that there was a significant interest in maintaining a sense of urgency and all round commitment to introducing improvements, as the workshop participants saw clear, direct benefit to themselves and their departments arising from the proposed processes. TSI recommends that this sense of urgency and commitment be sustained as it has a key influence on achieving change within the University.
To Be Enablers
The following text was developed with the Project Team and PITF and then reviewed with the Project Leadership, who also confirmed their agreement with, and commitment to, its contents: This (document) contains the key assumptions that are critical to “enable the “To Be” process to become a reality. While the prime focus of this project is on GA Appointments and Re-appointments, some assumptions may apply to other processes, including the temporary hiring of Adjunct Faculty, Student Workers and Temporary Employees. Context The University of Memphis will utilize the ARRA time period to implement process and service efficiencies across the whole institution that will continue to benefit the University after that time period. The outcomes of the process and service improvements will significantly advance the University’s strate gic goals and objectives. In addition to the specific immediate outcomes, the process itself should foster a culture of enhanced institutional flexibility and adaptability, so that the University of Memphis can better anticipate and more rapidly respond to changes in the external environment on an on-going basis, whether those changes are in customers’ needs, competitors’ actions, economic fluctuations, or development opportunities. Policy and Procedure 1. In the spirit of achieving Service Excellence, we will strive to make the administrative processes as simple as possible, while adhering to best practices, policy and regulatory requirements. 2. All participants in a process, across the institution, will adhere to the relevant policies and to the agreed process steps, including published deadlines. 3. Participants in the process will respect the process and will trust it. Roles will be defined and people will follow the processes assigned to their role. 4. Incorrect or incomplete forms will be returned for prompt correction and resubmission. 5. At all levels of management, managers will support these policies and will foster a culture of service excellence by their staff, both internally (between units) and to outside constituents. 6. The fact that a process is critical to student service is not grounds for expecting colleagues to make good on your errors and omissions.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 11
7. The University will inform all employees (including students) to ensure their personal biographic, demographic and contact details are always updated in the U of M system of record. They will be responsible for any consequences arising from outdated information. 8. Departments re-appointing GA’s will submit accurate and complete re-appointment forms without delay for HR processing. Where position funding is pending or undetermined, hiring managers will liaise with their Chairs and Deans promptly and regularly to avoid delays. 9. Hiring managers will become familiar with, and adhere to, HR policies regarding acceptable methods of employment and will not commit the University to any terms that conflict with TBR/U of M policy or with laws. HR will continue to use various channels to communicate policy and HR practice updates to keep hiring managers informed. 10. It is the obligation of each person at the University to make full use of the resources (including training) provided to help them perform better; it is also the obligation of each manager to ensure their staff receives appropriate training to use these resources. 11. The University will inform all employees and Graduate Assistants to check their U of M email or MyMemphis portal for official communications and to update their personal information. They will be responsible for any consequences arising from failure to respond in a timely manner. 12. The University will assess the improvements in any process at regular intervals to identify opportunities to further refine and improve the process, identify policy changes and continue the process improvement. Technology 1. The process will be supported by using available technologies that include online form entry, document scanning, workflow based approvals that will help reduce errors through system controls, links to other systems and ease of use. The new paradigm is one that emphasizes electronic content/data over paper 2. Participants in the process will make optimal use of software to reduce the creation of paper based processes and will make every effort (including training)to exploit the functionality of the software The success of the new process pilot and its continued use/improvement depends heavily on these To Be Enablers and their support from all levels of the University. They represent, in simple terms, the terms by which all will participate in the design and execution of improved administrative processes that meet the strategic goal of Service Excellence.
Process Improvements
The following are the key improvements proposed in the new GA appointment process: 1. The process is electronic with minimal data entry and approval; people are responsible for timely and accurate data entry and execution of their step(s) in the process 2. Appointments are normally for a year and thus no spring semester processing is required unless there are changes 3. A steady flow of appointments from departments will be maintained to reduce the end of July logjam in the administrative areas 4. The re-appointment process will be streamlined to deal only with changes that are necessary from one year to the next (no full appointment paperwork process). The detailed Process Maps and related documents are available in the Project Shared Drive directory.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 12
Quick Hits
Apart from the redesign of the process, the project team was able to identify a number of opportunities to implement “quick hits” that could provide immediate or near term savings in time. The following is a summary of the opportunities identified and acted on: 1. As some appointments are committed early in the Spring term, these should be submitted as soon as possible (some departments felt they should accumulate files and submit them close to the deadline date) 2. Certain schools and colleges plan to no longer require the Dean to approve all GA contracts; the responsibility for insuring funding is available, academic credentials are valid (for instructors) and other approvals is that of the Chair of the department making the appointment (Note: this will also form part of the pilot phase of this project) 3. There is no need to complete, copy, file and forward page 1 of the re-appointment form 4. An exception report will be run for all GA students to identify class assignments that are not undergrad level (for attention of the relevant Dean and the Director of Graduate School Services) 5. Clarify the summer employment terms for GA’s (does not require a change in appointment form to set up the student as a Student Worker). In an email to all employees (dated April 22, 2010 “Process Improvement Quick Hits”), the Provost has communicated these quick hits and requested immediate implementation of the changes.
Organizational Impact
The most important impact of the new design for GA Appointments is the ability to “save you time” for all participants in the process. The elimination of processes, the conversion to a workflow system and the adherence to the “To Be Enablers” will allow people to allocate their time to more important tasks. In the longer term, University Leadership will need to address the resources demands to continue the guidance of future initiatives. If the demand for urgent improvements increases, it may be necessary to devote certain key personnel fulltime to the PITF to allow the University to succeed. Outside the direct scope of this project, TSI notes from discussions with project participants that the hiring and appointment of various categories of people is current conducted in various departments, e.g. Faculty Administrative Services, HR, Student Employment (within Financial Aid). This dispersion of similar functions may be a candidate for a process improvement review.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 13
Information Technology and Systems
Current status
The current processes make little use of software other than to create or update a student record in the Banner system (the updates normally are recorded in Student, HR or Payroll). Some forms (e.g. W4, I-9, GA Appointment, Academic Credentials Verification) are available as fillable/printable forms on various University Websites. They become paper-based forms once completed. The PeopleAdmin application (WorkForum) is used for the appointment of Regular Faculty and fulltime employees only. It automates many steps in the process, from data capture to forms uploading to online approvals. However, once an appointment/hiring is confirmed, the resultant Banner HR record is created manually because there is no vendor-supplied interface yet available to integrate WorkForum with Banner HR. PeopleAdmin indicates this enhancement may be released towards the end of 2010.
Potential software solutions
After the “To Be” GA Appointment process workshops, a small group of the Project Team (including representatives from various departments, ITD and B&F Support Services) met to explore the capability of PeopleAdmin to support a GA Appointment process. In summary, the software can be configured to create GA Appointment workflows that would support the proposed process. The key elements of this process would include: Initiating the GA appointment process within an academic department, uploading a signed GA Appointment contract, approving it and forwarding it via Graduate School Services, HR and Bursar for appropriate verification/approval and updating (manually) into Banner Student and HR/Payroll. This software also can be configured to appoint GA’s as research assistants, instructors, assistants to instructors and other roles. PeopleAdmin could also be configured further to support Adjunct Faculty appointments as well as administer the hiring of Student Workers and Temporary Employees. The advantage of this approach is that the same software could be configured to support a variety of appointment and hiring activities through the use of separately configurable workflows to suit each scenario. This reduces the complexity of training, software proficiency and support. Banner HR and the Banner workflow tool have the potential to provide similar functionality; however, the notable difference is that users in certain areas would need to perform essentially similar processes in two different systems (PeopleAdmin for Regular Faculty and fulltime Employees, Banner HR/Workflow for temporary appointments and hires). That is not as desirable as using one application. TSI recommends that review of the Banner HR/Workflow option be tabled until the outcome of the PeopleAdmin review. The review of PeopleAdmin is currently addressing how it can be deployed as a separate solution from WorkForum.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 14
Communications
There have been a number of important communications conducted thus far. They include both formal events and activities such as the Project Kick Off, Business Context and Process Orientation Workshops, updates on the Project website, informal discussions with various groups, including Project Leadership and campus wide communications (e.g. Quick Hits email from the Provost). These events and activities have been successful in explaining the change implications of the To Be Enablers and the new processes on the organization. There has been a solid commitment at all levels within the project organization and University Leadership to maintaining the momentum developed thus far and to emphasize the benefits in terms of “saving you time” and alignment with the Service Excellence strategy. The detailed Communication Plan as of April 20, 2010 is in the Appendix.
Implementation Plan
Introduction
The implementation phase (phase 2) of this project encompasses the following main activities: 1. 2. 3. 4. Conduct Process Training classes for University staff Conduct a Change Management Leadership workshop and develop a plan for change Plan for and conduct a pilot implementation of the GA Appointment process Transition the project to the University team
The Process Training classes are designed to provide the University with methods and tools to sustain process improvement in other administrative functions on campus. They can be conducted independently of the other components of this phase. In accordance with TSI’s response to the RFP, these classes should be conducted back-to-back for up to 20 participants per one day class. The University should identify the class candidates as soon as possible so that the training schedule can be set. At the completion of the training, the University PITF should be able to: 1. Assign the existing project team to examine other temporary appointment and hiring processes (this could include International GA appointments if the pilot solution focuses on domestic students) 2. Establish other project teams to examine other processes. The PITF should therefore identify now which processes it wishes to examine and prioritize them in the light of available resources, the academic calendar and the potential for significant quick hits in the area
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 15
Governance
TSI recommends that the existing Governance Structure be retained for the GA Appointment process and for the other three temporary staff categories. As with phase 1, the project team should include other University staff in specific sessions (e.g. Student Employment Services staff for the Student Workers process) to insure proper input and buy-in from these functional areas.
Preparation for Phase 2
The following activities should be worked on in preparation for Phase 2: 1. Finalize re-design of the GA Appointment form (including the GA contract, academic credentials and other optional fields) for use in the new GA Appointment process 2. Confirmation of the PeopleAdmin option to support the new GA Appointment process 3. Identification of participants for the Process Improvement training class 4. Confirmation of the Phase 2 timetable
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 16
Appendix
Project Governance Structure
Project Leadership 1. Dr Ralph Faudree, Provost 2. Dr Doug Hurley, CIO 3. David Zettergren, CFO This group provides overall sponsorship, vision and guidance. They address issues of strategy and policy, make key decisions regarding organizational changes and ensure changes are successfully communicated and achieved. The Leadership will also prioritize future process improvement projects proposed by the Process Improvement Task Force below. Process Improvement Task Force (PITF) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Dr Teresa Hartnett, Director Business and Finance - Leader Dr Tom Nenon, Vice Provost - Co-leader Moira Logan, Associate Dean-College of Communication and Fine Arts Sheri Lipman, Legal Counsel Jan Brownlee, Director of Graduate School Services Ellen Watson, Associate VP – ITD Sheila Mathis, Senior HR Analyst
The PITF will become the internal UM Process Consulting team; a core team that may rotate members based on the process area to be covered. Learns the process in this project, provides leadership on future projects, adherence to best practices, consistency in methodology and overall alignment with UM strategy. Identifies and recommends future process improvement projects to UM Leadership. Project Team 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Melissa Buchner, Project Manager (College of Arts and Sciences) Jan Brownlee (Graduate School) Margaret Ann Jarred (HR) Karen Smith (Financial Aid) Collette Williams (ITD) Danny Linton (B&F Support Services) Debbie Wooddell (B&F Support Services) Danielle Hillman (Bursar)
This team is led by a project manager and comprised of subject matter experts (from the functional areas and ITD) who have sound analytical skills and a desire to improve processes. Note: The project team above was also supported by some 15 administrative assistants from various departments who process GA appointments.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final 17
Communication Plan as of April 20, 2010
Continued next page…
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final
18
END.
TSI Univ of Memphis Phase 1 Report final
19
doc_460319719.pdf