Transcript hrweb.stanford.edu

DRAFT
DRAFT
Stanford University
Centers of Expertise
Project Update
November 3, 2010
1
1
© Huron Consulting Services LLC. All rights reserved.
DRAFT
Preliminary Interview Observations
Huron’s interviews with the HR Task Force, HRMs, HRAs and other key constituents
revealed common observations across the five critical organizational elements.
Observations
Organization
Structure
 The ‘dotted’ line reporting structure is subject to interpretation and may limit central
HR’s ability to influence directly.
 Every department or school’s HR support is different at Stanford.
– Number of HRAs by department varies, as does HRA roles and
responsibilities.
People
 Each HRM’s responsibilities are different based on individual’s experience level as
well as the local unit and school’s managers’ HR skills.
 There is no defined expectation or competency model for the HRMs and HRAs.
Business
Processes
 Due to the decentralized nature of the current HR community, business processes
vary by schools and units as well as people.
Technology
 Current central HR’s PeopleSoft technology support (Help Desk) is well received by
the HR community.
 Historical HR operational and employee performance data are not readily available.
 Some have expressed concerns around data integrity in certain PeopleSoft areas,
such as the STARS reports/data and Time and Labor data.
– Users may trust their shadow system data more than associated/
comparable PeopleSoft data.
Performance
Measurement
 Schools and units that have more available HR resources are generally satisfied with
the current HR organizational setup.
 The current error report is not viewed as an effective vehicle for root cause analysis.
In addition to anecdotal evidence, Huron will utilize data to support observations and identify other areas of
focus.
2
DRAFT
Interview Themes – org structure
Ambiguous reporting relationships and lack of defined responsibilities between central
and local HR often result in confusion and mistrust.
CoE Function
General
Observations
 Overall, central HR is perceived to be understaffed to provide day to day advisory and counsel to the local
HRMs.
 Every department or school’s HR support is different at Stanford.
– Number of HRAs by department vary, as does HRA roles and responsibilities.
 The ‘dotted’ line reporting structure for most the HRMs and HRAs limits central HR’s ability to influence
directly.
 There’s a lack of forum for the HR community to share information and learn from each other.
Recruiting and
Hiring Support
 The fees for service structure deters potential users from utilizing central recruiting services.
– In addition to financial constraints, many view fees for service as contrary to the university’s mission.
 OSE is viewed as understaffed to handle campus-wide recruiting needs.
– The resource shortage at OSE is one of the main reasons for the lack of confidence from the HR
community.
Employee and
Labor Relations
 Central HR is sometimes viewed as the ‘approver’ of HRMs’ actions rather than a business partner.
– Most HRMs feel that they are equipped to handle Employee Relations related issues and will only involve
central ER if the issue is expected to be escalated.
 The Employee Relations function is currently separated between academic and non-academic units which
may limit cross functional training opportunities.
 Inconsistencies of opinions and guidance on any given issue were cited by the HRMs.
Transactions and
Data Management
3
 Many view the local managers’ access to the HRAs an important part of delivering successful HR services.
– The local HRMs and HRAs have built a level of trust with the department managers.
DRAFT
Interview themes – business processes
Business processes across HR functions vary widely between different schools and
departments.
CoE Function
General
Observations
 Due to the decentralized nature of the current HR community, business processes vary by schools and units as well
as people.
 Multiple employee types at Stanford present added levels of complexity in managing business processes.
Recruiting
and Hiring
Support
 Once engaged, the Office of Staff Employment (OSE) has defined and robust processes to support local units and
schools to identify and bring in potential candidates.
Employee
and Labor
Relations
 The majority of HRMs appreciate having a sounding board to bounce off ideas in dealing with Employee Relations
issues.
 Due to limited resources, certain departments do not use OSE services, and in some cases have been turned away
due to limited OSE capacity.
 The lack of standard policies and procedures results in confusion and inconsistency on how Employee Relations
issues are handled.
– The Administrative Guideline is thought to be “flexible”, allowing users to interpret different action courses, and does
not provide a set of definitive operating procedures.
 There’s no standard protocol as to when central Employee Relations should be contacted, besides prior to
termination.
– HRMs have developed different internal calibrations as to when to involve central HR.
Transactions
and Data
Management
 The web forms provide a control mechanism for information to be entered into PeopleSoft HR.
– Different business processes involving submittal of web forms for entry into PeopleSoft varies by department.
 The PeopleSoft online tutorial is viewed as an effective basic training tool.
 Schools and units with multiple employees types may require more resources to manage the associated transactions.
– Bargaining unit employees present additional transactional complexity as union stipulated requirements will need to
considered.
– Casual and student employees present additional challenges for some units as these employee groups tend to be
employed in large numbers throughout different times of the year.
4
DRAFT
Interview themes – people
The lack of a defined competency model, training, and accountabilities for HR
professionals does not promote role effectiveness.
CoE Function
General
Observations
 Each HRM’s responsibilities are different based on individual’s experience level as well as the local unit and
school’s managers’ management skills.
 There is no defined expectation or competency model for the HRMs and HRAs.
Recruiting and
Hiring Support
 OSE’s current staffing level does not provide adequate coverage for campus wide recruiting efforts.
– The perceived inadequate staffing level serves as the first deterrent to accessing central recruiting services.
– Many HRMs feel they can support the hiring managers’ needs as effectively as the central recruiting staff.
 Functional expertise of each OSE recruiter is not known to the HR community, and therefore may result in
limited use of recruiting services.
– Hiring managers do not feel comfortable utilizing OSE for specialty positions such as IT, research personnel,
lab technicians…etc.
– Maintaining a current candidate pool for both internal and external candidates is a desirable service from the
HR community.
Employee and
Labor Relations
 Each HRM’s experience and comfort level in handling Employee Relations issues is different which can
result in HR policies interpretation inconsistencies.
 Central HR’s varying levels of Employee Relations philosophy contributes to inconsistent messaging and
guidance to the HR community.
Transaction and
Data Management
 HR related transactions are not always entered and processed by an HR professional.
– Some schools and departments utilize financial analysts or administrative assistants to enter HR related
data.
 Transactional errors, very often, are byproducts of the school or unit’s culture as opposed to the data
processor/HRA’s oversight.
5
DRAFT
Interview themes – technology
Users believe the University’s HR systems provide adequate technology for the day to day
HR activities but also expressed the desire for improved services in some areas.
CoE Function
General
Observations
 Current central HR’s of PeopleSoft technology support (Help Desk) is well received by the HR community.
 The current active functions of PeopleSoft are deemed adequate by the HR community.
 Some express concerns over PeopleSoft data integrity in the following areas:
– STARS report (certification data), HR organization data (Report To field), periodic Time and Labor data.
 Historical HR reports are not readily available to the HR community from a central location.
Recruiting and
Hiring Support
 Trovix is perceived as an adequate software for posting job openings and receiving resumes but may not
be as user friendly.
 There’s currently no talent pool database that is shared with the HR community.
– A talent pool database that contains both internal and external candidates can streamline and shorten the
recruiting process.
Employee and
Labor Relations
 There’s currently no technological tools to help HRMs keep track of cases.
– Central ER tracks number of reported incidents only.
– When cases are tracked at the local level, individual HRMs utilize MS-Excel (which lacks business
continuality).
 A central performance management system is needed as a data repository and for historical record
keeping.
– Even through ePerformance is being piloted, it is not widely known to or used by the HR community.
Transactions and
Data Management
6
 Historical reports are not retained by central HR unless it is actively saved by the local HRMs.
 The workflow process over web form approval may be redundant in some departments as the HRAs have
the ability to both create and approve web forms.
DRAFT
Interview themes – performance measures
Besides the current transactional error report, there’s no other defined performance
measures for the HR functions.
CoE Function
General
Observations
 Schools and units that have more available HR resources are generally satisfied with the current
organizational setup.
 The current error report is not viewed as an effective vehicle of communication for root cause analysis or
improvement.
Recruiting and
Hiring Support
 OSE’s performance measures should be reexamined.
– OSE’s currently being evaluated on the surplus it generates on an annual basis.
– Based on the HR community’s general negative sentiment on fees and lack of confidence in OSE, the current
performance metrics need to be reconsidered to align with HR’s mission.
 OSE should be driven by customer satisfaction and need instead of a ‘profit’ like driven organization.
Employee and
Labor
Relations
 There is no clear performance measure on how well an HRMs handles Employee Relations cases.
Transactions
and Data
Management
 The error report should contain additional information to help the HRMs investigate and understand the cited
incidents.
– The current error report is perceived as a ‘gotcha’ mechanism especially considering some of the reasons for
the errors are out of the HRM’s controls and are more system based limitations.
– It is important to understand the root cause of errors and work with the local HRMs to address repeat issues.
 In additional to the current reports in ReportMart, the HR community should define a set of reports for
central HR to create and distribute on a periodic basis.
– Some of the HRMs and HRAs create monthly reports utilizing data retrieved from various data sources
(PeopleSoft HR, Time and Labor, Payroll..etc).
– This is viewed as a key function that can be centralized to yield productivity as well as consistency across the
HR community.
7
DRAFT
Next steps
For the next few weeks, Huron will perform intensive data analysis to gain a deeper
perspective of the current HR operations.
 Perform data analysis
– PeopleSoft transaction volume distribution across campus
– General HR support ratios across campus
– New hire and recruiting transactions analysis
 Perform selective process mappings
 Evaluate pros and cons of various operating models
– Validate services suitable for centralization by center
– Estimate potential resource requirements
 Develop high level implementation recommendations
– Identify potential Service Level Agreements
– Identify potential governance structures
– Communication support
8
Appendix
DRAFT
Interview List
The following interviews have been completed to date, and incorporate both current state
and future state analysis.
Central HR
HR Steering Team and HR Council (Including some HRMs)
Keith Copeland
Associate Vice President, Recruiting and
Talent Management
Masi Amianda
Director HR, Residential and Dining
Enterprises
Linda Faris
Associate Vice President, Employee and
Management Services, HR
Lois Benzel
Associate Director Comp & Employment
Associate Vice President, Employee and
Management Services, HR
Cori Bossenberry
Executive Director HR, School of Medicine
David Jones
Susan Calendra
Senior Associate Vice President, Finance
Marcia Cohen
Senior Associate Dean, Finance and
Administration, School of Medicine
Adam Daniel
Senior Associate Dean, Finance and
Administration, School of H&S
Megan Davis
Associate Vice President - Finance and
Administration, LBRE
Suzanne Ferris
Director HR, OOD, Alumni and Public Affairs
Susan Hoerger
Deputy Director HRG/Dir. of HR Compliance
Jennifer St. John
Director HR, School of Humanities and
Sciences
Scott Levoy
Director HR, Graduate School of Business
Tim Warner
Vice Provost for Budget and Auxiliaries
Management
Cindy Martin
Manager, HR Information Systems
Diane Peck
Vice President of Human Resources
Sharon Shea
Human Resource Administration
Patti Smilovitz
Manager, HR Data Services
Vicky Tran
HRIS Business Analyst
Other Stanford Stakeholders
Ganesh Karkala
Randy Livingston
Sameer Marella
10
Associated Vice President for Administrative
Systems
Vice President of Business Affairs & CFO
Technical Director of Administrative Systems
DRAFT
Interview List (continued)
The following interviews have been completed to date, and incorporate both current state
and future state analysis.
Additional HRMs
Angela Arroyo
Leona Bassi
Russ Whiteford
Nilda Bonet
Helen Corrales
Elizabeth Wolffe
Rene Cortinaz
Lisa Guadagna
Martha Wood
Laura David
Dorothy Justen
Chris Yam
Catherine Dowley
Cheryl Miller
Marian Naaf
Gary Harris
Larry Niemeyer
Eileen O’Rourke
Rita Hernandez
Catalina Rodriguez
Charnette Richard
Jennifer St. John
Jen Trimble
Wendy Steele
Maria Li
Sharys Wheeler
Emily Tunteri
Michele Armstrong
Pat White
HRAs
11
Christina Ansel
Maria Huerta
Megan Berki
Amy Hornibrook
Roxanne Braafladt
Colleen Liguori
Christine Brown
Iva Messy
Sean Bywaters
Al Roa