Transcript UNCW SHARED SERVICES WORKSHOPS Sponsored by: UNCW Shared Services Steering Committee March 5, 2014 and March 14, 2014 Rev: H.

UNCW SHARED SERVICES WORKSHOPS
Sponsored by:
UNCW Shared Services Steering Committee
March 5, 2014
and
March 14, 2014
Rev: H
Workshop Agenda
Overview
Charlie Maimone
Chair Steering Committee
Data Collection JoAnn McDowell
and Review
Chair HR Workgroup
Workshop
Exercise
Steering Committee
UNCW Shared Services
“The transition we are making will not be easy.
As we face a future of increasingly limited
resources and even higher accountability for
our operational efficiency, it is a challenge we
must meet together, capturing ideas from all
who are responsible for UNCW's continued
excellence. We must collaborate as a campus,
not simply within our own units or divisions, to
put us in a greater position to capitalize on
existing resources .”
Gary L. Miller
Steering Committee
Charlie Maimone
Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs
Steve McFarland
Vice Provost & Senior Associate; Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs
Larry Clark
Dean, Cameron School of Business
Sharon Boyd
Associate Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs
Brian Victor
Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
David Glew
Department Chair, Management Cameron School of Business
Charge to Workgroups
Steering Committee
CHARGE:
Recommend an organizational model that
maintains or improves on our quality of services
while saving time and/or money for the university
Budget
Management
Human Resources
Management
Report Writing
Services
Work Groups
BUDGET
HR
REPORT
WRITING
Data
Gathering
Major
Processes
This is
what you
told us
• Need automated
• HR functions
• Grouping of
workflows
widely
reports with
• Subject matter experts
distributed
subject matter
• Less paper
• Compress &
experts
• Reduce redundancy
redistribute work • Standardization
• Remove functions from
by subject matter • Reduce inventory
employees who seldom
experts
by service type
preform them
• Increase use of
not departmental
technology
division
Unified Budget Committee
Review-Report Writing
• Endorse the Report Writing Shared Services as
a project worth investigation
• More analysis to determine the number of
individuals needed
University Budget
Committee Members
Denise Battles, co-chair
Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs
Charlie Maimone, co-chair
Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs
Maree de Angury, University Advancement
Jerry Brooke, Budget Office
Patricia Fox, Research Services
Mark Galizio, Psychology
Ann Glossl, Student Affairs
Mark Lanier, Chancellor's Office
Cindy Hucks, Budget Office
Mahnaz Moallem, Instructional Technology,
Foundations, and Secondary Education
Lori Messinger, School of Social Work
Cynthia Retchin, Business Affairs
Joe Pawlik, Biology and Marine Biology
Sarah Schaeffer, Budget Office
Bob Russell, Budget Office
Trini Marinello (student)
Rick Whitfield, Business Affairs
Report Writing Steering Committee
CHARGE:
Plan the Implementation of a single Shared Services
Reporting Center , inclusive of reporting
infrastructure
• The Report Center design should include
employee input
• Provide the following enhancements to
reporting…
Report Writing Steering Committee
Cont’d
• Improve data report integrity, availability and
flexibility
• Increase data report writing productivity
• Reduce fragmentation of work associated with
data report writing
• Eliminate duplicate data tracking and reporting
• Reduce the time required for accurate data
report development
• Include measurable outcomes
Unified Budget Committee
Review- Budget & HR
• Recommend both the Budget Management
and HR Shared Services Reports for further
review
• Recommended a blended HR & Budget work
group
• Identified several areas for further attention
and analysis
Steering Committee HR/Budget
CHARGE:
Appoint a blended work team to consolidate the Budget
and HR recommendations.
Shared Services Website
http://uncw.edu/sharedsvc/
Stay up to date on Shared Services at UNCW
Please feel free to contact Charlie Maimone directly at
[email protected]
Shared Services at a More Detailed Level
JoAnn McDowell
Interim Assoc. Vice Chancellor for HR
The Organizational Charge
Recommend an organizational model that
maintains or improves on our quality of
services while saving time and/or money
for the university
Process Steps
• Held 3 in-person data collection sessions with
300 staff:
– To understand distribution of administrative work
among 6 career bands
– To gather feedback for improved work processes
• Subject matter experts “mapped” 7 key HR
processes
– Identified inefficiencies and developed optimal
process flow recommendations
Processes Examined-HR
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
EPA Staffing
SPA Staffing
Temporary Employment
Classification
Supplemental Pay
Salary Administration
Onboarding *
Mapping process
included input from
over 30
customers/suppliers
of HR services
Processes Examined-Budget
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cost Shares
SCRI Flexes
Activity Codes
Position Control
Special Projects
Year End
Here is What You Reported
Distribution of Work (1)
Survey Results: # of Individuals "Touching" Unit Functions
350
296
300
250
229
226
205
200
242
199
171
150
100
50
0
Human Onboarding
Resources
Travel
Purchasing
Other
Business
Budget
Gen Admin
and Other
Self Reported Data
Distribution of Work (2)
Survey Results: # of Individuals "Touching" Various Functions
300
262
250
229
205
200
150
100
114
222
199
177
159
242
171
147
125
125
101
74
140
83
50
0
Self Reported Data
Here is What You Said
“...Admins across campus currently have some
of the same basic tasks which would be more
effectively and accurately performed if done
centrally.”
Here is What You Said
“There are folks doing similar tasks and none of
them are experts. Sometimes it seems more
time is spent locating the latest processes (and
possibly never finding them)…”
Visually………
Survey Results: Functional Breakdown
Reported by 300 Individuals
Human Resources
56.17
Travel 16.94
Gen Admin & Other
145.74
Purchasing 28.74
Human Resources 56.17
Travel 16.94
Purchasing 28.74
Other Business 25.59
Budget 23.98
Gen Admin & Other 145.74
Budget 23.98
Other Business
25.59
Self Reported Data
Current Staffing
Survey Results: Effort Utilized (FTE)
180
159
160
Total Touch
140
120
91
100
98.9
FTE to Support Department and
University Core Mission
80
60
FTE to Complete HR, Travel, Purchasing
48
54.47
40
30.63
20
60.1
36.53
17.37
0
SA
BA,C,UA
AA
Self Reported Data
Summary of Findings (1)
• Data collection:
– Work tasks fragmented among 300 individuals
– Work processes inefficient and inconsistent
– Huge inefficiencies due to central offices
interaction with 300 +/- individuals
Summary of Findings (2)
• Data collection (con’t):
– Limited Individuals with complete process
knowledge
– Process implementation not standardized
Summary of Findings (3)
• Process mapping:
– Lack of automation – redundant and error prone
procedures
– Time consuming loops exist
– Task fragmentation
– Inconsistent process implementation
– Excellent customer service is difficult
Next Steps
Designing for Success
Group1
Identify strategies to ensure open
communication and provide all
employees with input and feedback
opportunities.
Group 2
Identify strategies to evaluate baseline
knowledge and expertise needed by
employees and subject matter experts.
Group 3
Identify strategies to ensure excellent
customer service and accountability of
service providers.
Group 4
Identify strategies to maintain flexibility,
performance, workload management and
student services for departments;
ensuring work is distributed fairly throughout
the university.
All Groups
Identify strategies for how we can help
your colleagues feel more comfortable
and better understand the Shared
Services design process.
Please Provide Top 3-5 Strategies
Remember:
We are asking for STRATEGIES
not solutions!
What are the Dots For?
• Select best strategies
• Can distribute dots any way you choose
Shared Services Workshop
Sponsored by:
UNCW Shared Services Steering Committee
March 2014
Rev: H