Iowa Board of Regents UNI Town Hall Meeting October 6, 2014 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Iowa Board of Regents UNI Town Hall Meeting October 6, 2014 10/9/14

Table of Contents Table of Contents • Preface • Introduction • Business Case Summary • Business Case and Operating Model Overview • Individual Operating Models and Business Cases • Finance • Human Resources • Information Technology • Facilities • Implementation Roadmap 10/9/14

Preface 10/9/14

Understanding the context surrounding the business cases is important to inform the Board’s decision-making process This presentation is a deliverable output of Phase 2 of the Transparent, Inclusive Efficiency Review (TIER). It includes the business cases and operating models for selected Administrative areas. Phase 2 focused on conducting an analysis to quantify potential costs and savings associated with each chosen opportunity from Phase 1. The primary objective of this phase was to develop a business case for each of 12 prioritized administrative opportunities, and to identify operating model elements that may need to be established or modified to realize successful implementation. The Phase 2 analysis led to a more clear definition of the opportunities at each University. The analysis for Phase 2 for administrative areas was primarily conducted during June, July, and August of 2014 In some of the Phase 2 business cases, potential changes to the way work is performed could affect the organizational structure an staffing levels at individual universities. In these cases, it is important to note that there are many ways to realize these staffing changes, including by using natural attrition or phased retirements. If any of these business cases proceed into implementation, the decision about how to handle any staffing changes would be made by the Board and Universities Potential implementation activities and timelines are suggested for the Board’s consideration. The Board may decide, at its discreti which initiatives to pursue, the implementation timing, and implementation approach. This Business Case Discussion Document provides additional insight and analysis to help facilitate the Board’s decision-making process in assessing which opportunities to pursue and how to facilitate next steps 10/9/14

There were several inputs to the Phase 2 analysis including interviews, town hall meetings, sounding boards, and university provided data The analysis conducted during Phase 2 further refined the scope of opportunities identified during Phase 1. It also took into considerat the nuances and unique nature of different administrative functions across the three Universities. Inputs to the Phase 2 analysis includ the following: � Conducted hundreds of interviews with participants at all three universities, including administrative Vice Presidents and Directors, department administrators, academic leadership, faculty, and staff � Reviewed volumes of university-wide data including financial data, policies, human resources data, and systems data � Conducted open town hall meetings at each university for all community members to express ideas and ask questions � Conducted sounding board sessions at each university to share initial observations and obtain feedback. The sessions were held with faculty, staff, students, and union representatives � Met with VPs and other campus leadership to validate observations and assumptions 10/9/14

Phase 2 deliverables include business cases, operating models, and an implementation roadmap and action plan This presentation summarizes the Operating Model and Business Case items. The Implementation Roadmap and Action Plan is captured in a separate document: Business Case: Represents an analysis of a proposed opportunity to facilitate the decision of whether the projects should be undertaken and move into implementation. Operating Model: Represents how the universities operate currently and proposed changes in the future. Categories include: Governance; People, Process, Technology; Structure; and Performance Management. Implementation Roadmap and Action Plan: Represents a summary of how the opportunities cou be implemented over time along with a list of potential actions. 10/9/14

Phase 2 opportunities will be either University Driven, Consultant Coached, or Consultant Facilitated as they proceed into Implementation Opportunities fall into three categories for Implementation which are further defined below. Approach Description Primary Benefits When To Use � Less expensive from a funding � In-house skills exist Individual universities or the Board lead implementation perspective University or Board Driven � Internal capacity is available activities defined in the action plan � Builds internal ownership and � Defined path forward capability � Internal capacity is available � Builds internal ownership and Universities perform implementation activities, however a � Some internal skills are in capability consultant may play a defined role in coaching, or further place, but additional support o Consultant Coached � Incorporates outside supporting the opportunity insights are needed perspectives and practices � Requires deep expertise to � Provides access to outside implement a complex initiative skills and experience which � Internal capacity is not may not reside within the The consultant works with a university or Board sponsor, but available Consultant Facilitated implementation activities are largely performed or heavily universities or the Board � Sensitive initiative which may supported by a consultant � Assigns specific resources to have benefits to using a third the effort which limits internal party capacity concerns 10/9/14

The work undertaken during Phase 2 has helped to lay the groundwork for successful organizational change The interviews, discussions, and analysis conducted during Phase 2 have created positive momentum that will help lead to a more successful implementation. During this phase the following have occurred: � Developed a more comprehensive understanding of institutional priorities and opportunity areas � Engaged stakeholders in understanding their challenges which are driving the rationale for change � Built relationships with key stakeholders whose input will be critical during implementation � Developed a better understanding of resources being used to support certain functions � Increased alignment of leadership on where there are opportunities to improve efficiency 10/9/14

At the conclusion of Phase 2, additional work remains to collaboratively design and implement solutions Phase 2 focused on conducting an analysis to quantify potential costs and savings associated with each chosen opportunity from Phase 1. The outputs of Phase 2 represent estimates that will help inform the decision making process as to whether opportunities should move forward. The implementation activities that typically occur after a decision has been made to move forward with a specific opportunity are outlined below. Not all activities are required for all opportunities: Phase Phase Phase 1 2 3 Diagnostics / Implementation Business Case / Benchmarking Duration: Ongoing Detailed Analysis Common Implementation Tasks � Engage working groups in support of identifying people, process, � Prepare the university for organizational and/or operational and technology changes change � Develop process models and process descriptions � Develop and deliver training � Establish and implement key performance indicators, metrics, � Manage transition according to the phased implementation plan and measures � Communicate change to all affected constituencies � Design the functional organization structure � Roll-out new capabilities over a phased timeline � Develop job descriptions for new or changed positions � Perform system and/or process cutover � Revise high-level roles and responsibilities for staff if changes � Execute continuous improvement plan are made relating to how work is performed � Develop a detailed implementation plan for each opportunity 10/9/14

Introduction 10/9/14

The status quo may be unsustainable if Iowa’s public universities are to maintain their high standards of quality and affordability The TIER Project was formed in response to: � Higher education overall, and the three Iowa Universities, facing increased economic constraints � Board of Regents and University leadership wanting to help control student debt and ensure an affordable, high-quality public education for any Iowan who wants it � The Board of Regents and University leadership wanting to be positioned effectively for the future from both an operational and economic perspective � The desire to maximize university resources, reduce costs, and operate as efficiently and effectively as possible 10/9/14