View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Copyright © 2016 by The Segal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
UA RECOMMENDATIONS
Statewide Transformation Team Advancement
University of Alaska System
2
Process and Working Team Approach
Definitions and Terminology Used
Recommendations
Appendix
3
Based on input from Statewide direct reports, key staff, and employees, working teams were formed to advance the initial recommendations of the Statewide Transformation Team
Each of the six teams met 2-3 times in person (and virtually as needed) between early December and mid-February to review the transformation team work to date, explore and assess various alternatives, and refine recommendations for implementation
A team leader (or co-leaders) was established for each team to communicate with leadership and maintain consistency with other teams
The team leader was tasked with ensuring the team supports the goals and objectives of the initiative
Each team was comprised of 7-10 members who were responsible for developing plans and strategies that will allow UA to realize its vision
Recommendations were compiled and refined to determine commonly impacted areas across each of the functional groups
Four themes emerged from all of the team’s recommendations, resulting in the categories presented in this report
Process
4
Working Team Approach
Phase 1
Where Are We Today First Meeting
Phase 2
Where Do We Want to Be Second Meeting
Phase 3
How Will We Get There Third Meeting
• Objective: gain a shared view of the current state of the functional area assigned to each Committee
• Review existing service delivery model and its strengths and weaknesses
• Review preliminary recommendations from Statewide Transformation Team
• Review leading practices
• Understand and confirm the case for change
• Objective: Create a high level plan to implement the recommended organizational and service delivery model
• Identify required investments and develop timelines, milestones , tasks and activities required to support the implementation of the new model
• Identify the imperatives for success in developing and delivering the change
• Objective: Develop a recommendation for improving the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of services in the functional area assigned to each team
• Explore alternative delivery models
• Assess operational, organizational, financial and cultural risks , benefits and impacts of each model
• Recommend a definitive model
• Create a high level business case for change
Communication Team Integration Project Management
5
Process and Working Team Approach
Definitions and Terminology Used
Recommendations
Appendix
6
New Term Used Definition
UA System New term to describe the previously-named University of Alaska
State Wide Organization (“SW”)
Universal Technologies (“UT”) The centralized IT organization responsible for the continuation
of the Enterprise-wide systems
University or Universities Refers to the larger entities within the UA System (UAA, UAF, or
UAS)
Campuses Refers to the satellite campuses (i.e. Kenai, Kodiak, Prince
William Sound, etc.)
Functional Area Organizations like Finance, HR, IT, etc. The working teams are
each made up of one or more functional areas
OIT No longer exists in the new structure. This falls under the newly-
termed Universal Technologies
Common Terminology Across Report1
1 These terms are utilized for consistency within this report, but can be changed to better fit the definition as determined by the President or working teams
7
For each recommendation, the working teams conducted a RACI analysis to determine the following:
Responsible (also Recommender): Those who do the work to achieve the task. There is at least one role with a participation type of responsible, although others can be delegated to assist in the work required.
Accountable (also Originator, Approver or final approving authority): The one ultimately answerable for the correct and thorough completion of the deliverable or task, and the one who delegates the work to those responsible. In other words, an accountable must sign off (approve) work that responsible provides. There must be only one accountable specified for each task or deliverable.
Consulted: Those whose opinions are sought, typically subject matter experts and with whom there is two-way communication.
Informed (also Informee): Those who are kept up-to-date on progress, often only on completion of the task or deliverable; and with whom there is just one-way communication.
RACI Analysis
8
Process and Working Team Approach
Definitions and Terminology Used
Recommendations
Appendix
9
The following concerns emerged as potential barriers to successful implementation and progress:
Lack of accountability
Culture of data ownership
Risk aversion
Lack of collaboration
Lack of trust
Separate accreditation structures
UA System vs. Universities competitive mentality
Lack of data-driven decision-making
Low levels of morale and engagement
Recommendations
An active communication plan and cultural management system should be instituted to mitigate employee concerns regarding the changes
Ensure effective change management with input from all affected stakeholders to increase levels of morale and engagement
Instill a culture of accountability for improved employee performance
Establish a culture of trust and collaboration across all University of Alaska entities
Address accreditation structure and risk aversion as a barrier to collaborative implementation of initiatives
While maintaining unique strengths of universities, eradicate competitive mentality between UA System and Universities/Campuses
Culture
10
Four themes emerged from all of the team’s recommendations, resulting in the categories presented in this report:
Strategy: Overarching recommendations that impact multiple stakeholders
Governance: Who/Where the responsibility lies for carrying out processes, functional operations, and decision-making
Operational Efficiencies & Process Redesign: Areas in which opportunities exist for gained efficiencies and/or economies of scale
People: Job placement, cultural issues, and staffing levels
Recommendation Themes
11
Strategy Recommendations
Team Recommendations Who is Responsible? Timeline
TechnologyImplement needed enterprise systems Requirements: CMT, Implementation:
UT LeaderJune-September
Enterprise Systems
Management
Empower University-led systems development Universities June-December
Administration
Create a long-term Land Management strategy Director of Land Management March-June
Create a business-center model for the UA System Office Controller’s Office, UA System Executives and Supervisors
March, April
Finance
Develop a Banner training plan Controller, AVC’s UA System Financial Services
April-June
Develop a University and Foundation investment strategy Chief Treasury Officer/Foundation Treasurer
April-June
Develop succession planning within Finance and Investing Chief Treasury Officer March-December
Develop a procurement strategy Interim Chief Procurement Officer March-December
Refine Finance and Administration work to align with UA System Office Controller July-December
12
Strategy Recommendations continued
Team Recommendations Who is Responsible? Timeline
HumanResources
Shift UA System to a strategic advisory role UA System HR Ongoing
Ensure effective implementation of recommendations UA System Senior Leadership May-August
Academic Affairs &
Research, UR, UA Foundation
Develop a strategic enrollment strategy and plan UA System Leadership May; Ongoing
Clearly define role, strategies, and goals of research UA System Leadership May; Ongoing
Establish an E-Learning vision and strategy System-Wide Academic Council June-August
Align UA Foundation accountabilities and results UA Foundation, Universities May; Ongoing
Clarify the mission and vision of University Relations VP for University Relations, AVP for Public Affairs
March-May
Align Student and Enrollment Services with UA System priorities N/A Already being Implemented
Eliminate the Squire Patton Boggs Federal Relations contract N/A Already being implemented
Align Efforts with SPB and AAR TBD May-July
13
Governance Recommendations
Team Recommendations Who is Responsible? Timeline
Technology
Determine University-level support model Host University Ongoing
Establish a UAF University-level support model UAF CIO March-July
Centralize enterprise-wide technology functions Initially: CMT, Then: Universal Technologies Leader
April-July
Enterprise Systems
Management
Centralize Banner maintenance and upgrades Universal Technologies March-July
Coordinate data sharing Data Stewards March-July
Administer University access and security controls management at Universities Universities May-September
Administration
Move public record requests to University Relations University Relations March-April
Use the UA System Emergency Manager for business continuity Business Continuity Manager, Chief Risk Officer
March-June
Move responsibility for managing insurance claims to Finance & Administration Chief Risk Officer, CFO March-June
Retain existing structure for College Savings Plan and Scholars Plan N/A March
Continue to route the Anonymous hotline to Audit N/A N/A
Finance
Create a technology governance structure VP of Finance and Administration April-June
Confirm Records Management location within Finance and Administration VP of Finance and Administration April-June
Confirm OnBase location N/A April-June
14
Governance Recommendations continued
Team Recommendations Who is Responsible? Timeline
HR
Maintain HR reporting structure UA System Leadership April, May
Maintain policy-related functions across the system, Keep Labor Relations at UA System Office
UA System Leadership, HR April-June
Move most operational HR Services to the Universities UA System Leadership April-June
Maintain role as custodian of data definitions UA System Leadership, HR Council April, May
Transition Enterprise Management Operations to Universal Technologies, Ensure collaboration with Universal Technologies
CHRO and HR Directors/HR Council; UT
May, June
Move Banner security and access management to Universities and UT CHRO and HR Directors/HR Council; UT
May, June
Analyze manual processes to determine feasibility for moving payroll to the universities
UA System and University HR June, July
Move UA tax accounting to Finance Function UA System leadership; Subject Matter Experts
September-November
Maintain oversight for classification and compensation at UA System UA System/University HR, HR Council
April, May
Move recruitment functions to the Universities UA System leadership April-June
Maintain Benefits Management, Plan Design, and Communication at UA System Office
HR Council; CHRO May-July
Partner with Universities for required training, with only subject matter training at UA System as needed
CHRO and HR Directors May-July
15
Governance Recommendations continued
Team Recommendations Who is Responsible? Timeline
Academic
Maintain leadership of educational policy at UA System UA System Leadership Ongoing
Transition K-12 Outreach and Workforce Development Programs to Universities
UA System Leadership Ongoing
Maintain UA System Workforce Development relationships UA System Leadership Ongoing
Maintain leadership for UA System industry-related policy decisions UA System Leadership Ongoing
Assess student-related services, campaigns and communications UA System Leadership Q3, Q4
Utilize SES to facilitate UA System Student Scholarship & Tuition Policy Development
UA System Leadership June-August
Maintain location of Alaska Scholars Program N/A N/A
Locate FERPA policy development at UA System Office, Manage FERPAcompliance at Universities
TBD May-June
Maintain system governance UA System Leadership Ongoing
Transition Enterprise Management Operations to UT and project management/system enhancements to Universities
UA System and UT Leadership June-August
Move Banner security and access management to Universities and UT UA System Leadership Ongoing
Move AVP State Relations to Office of Strategy, Planning and Budget N/A Already being Implemented
Reassign Shaping Alaska’s Future office to Public Affairs N/A Already being Implemented
16
Operational Efficiencies and Process Redesign Recommendations
Team Recommendations Who is Responsible? Timeline
TechnologyDefine Centers of Excellence to support Universities and Campuses CIO’s May-July
Continuously evaluate economies of scale CMT April; Ongoing
Enterprise Systems
Management
Consistently identify appropriate sourcing of IT functions University CIOs and UT Leader March-December
Administration
Redesign contracting processes General Counsel’s Office March-May
Review and assess Institutional Research processes and policies UA System IR March-June
Review process for issuing land permits Project Steering Committee March
Finance
Redesign financial reporting processes Controller, AVC’s, Banner Governance Group
Ongoing
Charge PCI governance committee to define processes VP Finance & Administration, PCI Governance Committee Leader
April-June
Develop adjudication process for procurement disputes Interim Chief Procurement Officer April-June
HR
Redesign key HR processes and transactions UA System Leadership, UT, HR June, July
Inventory strengths and best practices, Leverage experts across system UA System and University HR leaders; HR Council
April, May
Develop a self-service system for key HR transactions UA System Leadership, UT, HR/HR Council
June, July
Explore outsourcing options of some HR processes/transactions UA System leadership; Subject Matter Experts
September-November
Develop a standard curriculum across the system HR & UA System Directors; CHRO June-August
Academic Ensure easy and efficient data access Universal Technologies Ongoing
17
People Recommendations
Team Recommendations Who is Responsible? Timeline
TechnologyRe-define organizational structures CMT March-May
Develop a needed system for cultural management UA System Executive Leadership Ongoing
Enterprise Systems
Management
Administration
Hire a skilled Chief Human Resources Officer CHRO Hiring Committee March, April
Retain the Associate Vice President for State Relations AVP for State Relations March, April
Fill vacant Chief Risk Officer Position President’s Office, HR March, April
Eliminate UA System EH&S Positions Interim Chief Risk Officer March, April
FinanceExamine current staff resource levels Controller April-June
Evaluate the number of senior leadership positions VP Finance and Administration March-June
18
People Recommendations continued
Team Recommendations Who is Responsible? Timeline
HR
Regularly assess compensation and conduct market analyses CHRO and HR Council, UA System HR
May-July
Utilize collaborative hiring with Universities and UA System UA System and University HR Already being Implemented
Establish a culture of trust and collaboration UA System and University HR leaders; HR Council
April, May
Academic
Create and fill a new AVP Public Affairs and/or Federal Relations Position N/A Already beingImplemented
Assess the ability of a single position to manage federal relations, public affairs, and budget; Consider eliminating VP UR position
UA System Leadership June
Eliminate UR administrative support position N/A Already being Implemented
Clarify role of University Relations with respect to Federal Government VP for University Relations, AVPfor Public Affairs
March-May
Address accreditation structure as a barrier to collaboration System Wide Academic Council (VP AAR), Faculty Alliance
September; Ongoing
19
Appendix
Recommendations by Theme
Technology Team Recommendations
Enterprise Management System Team Recommendations
Administration Team Recommendations
Finance Team Recommendations
Human Resources Team Recommendations
Academic Affairs & Research, University Relations and UA Foundation Team Recommendations
20
Recommendations by Theme
Strategy
-Implement needed enterprise systems
-Empower University-Led systems development
-Create a long-term Land Management strategy
-Create a business-center model for the UA System Office
-Develop a Banner training plan
-Develop a University and Foundation investment strategy
-Develop succession planning within Finance and Investing
-Develop a procurement strategy
-Refine Finance and Administration work to align with UA System office
-Shift UA System to a Strategic Advisory Role
-Ensure effective implementation of recommendations
-Develop a Strategic Enrollment Strategy and Plan
-Clearly define role, strategies, and goals of research
-Establish an E-Learning vision and strategy
-Align UA Foundation accountabilities and results
-Clarify the mission and vision of University Relations
-Align Student and Enrollment Services with UA System priorities
-Eliminate the Squire Patton Boggs Federal Relations contract
-Align Efforts with SPB and AAR
Legend:
Technology Team= Green
Enterprise Management Systems Team= Orange
Administration Team= Purple
Finance Team= Grey
HR Team= Red
Academic Affairs & Research, UR, & UA Foundation Team= Blue
21
Recommendations by Theme
Governance
-Determine University-level support model
-Establish a UAF University-level support model
-Centralize enterprise-wide technology functions
-Centralize Banner maintenance and upgrades
-Coordinate data sharing
-Administer University access and security controls management at
Universities
-Move public record requests to University Relations
-Move responsibility for managing insurance claims to Finance &
Administration
-Use the UA System Emergency Manager for business continuity
-Create a technology governance structure
-Confirm Records Management location within Finance and Administration
-Confirm OnBase location
-Maintain HR reporting structure
-Maintain policy-related functions across the system, Keep Labor Relations
at UA System Office
-Move most operational HR Services to the Universities
-Maintain role as custodian of data definitions
-Transition Enterprise Management Operations to Universal Technologies,
Ensure collaboration with Universal Technologies
-Move Banner security and access management to Universities and UT
-Analyze manual processes to determine feasibility for moving payroll to the
universities
-Move UA tax accounting to Finance function
-Maintain oversight for classification and compensation at UA System
-Move recruitment functions to the Universities
-Maintain Benefits Management, Plan Design, and Communication at UA System
Office
-Partner with Universities for required training, with only subject matter training at UA
System as needed
-Maintain leadership of educational policy at UA System
-Transition K-12 Outreach and Workforce Development programs to Universities
-Maintain UA System Workforce Development relationships
-Maintain leadership for UA System Industry-related policy decisions
-Assess student-related services, campaigns and communications
-Utilize SES to facilitate UA System Student Scholarship & Tuition Policy
Development
-Maintain location of Alaska Scholars Program
-Locate FERPA policy development at UA System, Manage FERPA compliance at
Universities
-Maintain system governance
-Transition Enterprise Management Operations to UT and project
management/system enhancements to Universities
-Move Banner security and access management to Universities and UT
-Move AVP State Relations to Office of Strategy, Planning and Budget
-Reassign Shaping Alaska’s Future office to Public Affairs
Legend:
Technology Team= Green
Enterprise Management Systems Team= Orange
Administration Team= Purple
Finance Team= Grey
HR Team= Red
Academic Affairs & Research, UR, & UA Foundation Team= Blue
22
Recommendations by Theme
Operational Efficiencies & Process Redesign People
-Define centers of excellence to support Universities and Campuses
-Continuously evaluate economies of scale
-Consistently identify appropriate sourcing of IT functions
-Redesign contracting processes
-Review and assess Institutional Research processes and policies
-Review process for issuing land permits
-Redesign financial reporting processes
-Charge PCI governance committee to define processes
-Develop adjudication process for procurement disputes
-Redesign key HR processes and transactions
-Inventory strengths and best practices, Leverage experts across system
-Develop a self-service system for key HR transactions
-Explore outsourcing options of some HR processes/transactions
-Develop a standard curriculum across the system
-Ensure easy and efficient data access
-Re-define organizational structures
-Develop a needed system for cultural management
-Eliminate UA System EH&S positions
-Hire a skilled Chief Human Resources Officer
-Retain the Associate Vice President for State Relations
-Fill vacant Chief Risk Officer Position
-Examine current staff resource levels
-Evaluate the number of senior leadership positions
-Regularly assess compensation and conduct market analyses
-Utilize collaborative hiring with Universities and UA System
-Establish a culture of trust and collaboration
-Create and fill a new AVP Public Affairs and/or Federal Relations
Position
-Assess the ability of a single position to manage federal relations, public
affairs, and budget; Consider eliminating VP UR position
-Eliminate UR administrative support position
-Clarify role of University Relations with respect to Federal Government
-Address accreditation structure as a barrier to collaboration
Legend:
Technology Team= Green
Enterprise Management Systems Team= Orange
Administration Team= Purple
Finance Team= Grey
HR Team= Red
Academic Affairs & Research, UR, & UA Foundation Team= Blue
23
Appendix
Recommendations by Theme
Technology Team Recommendations
Enterprise Management System Team Recommendations
Administration Team Recommendations
Finance Team Recommendations
Human Resources Team Recommendations
Academic Affairs & Research, University Relations and UAFoundation Team Recommendations
24
The Technology Team was tasked with further developing recommendations regarding technology infrastructure and organizational structure
The Technology Team shared certain recommendations with the ESM Team and worked towards consistent outcomes
Included in team’s discussions were:
Define IT Infrastructure
UAF & UA System Services Reorganization
Empowering UA System to be a Strategic Partner
Gaining Economies of Scale
Redefining Organization Structure
Clarifying Reporting Relationships
Cultural Change to Support University’s Mission
Technology Team Scope
25
Jerry Domnick, Manager Local Area Network, Kuskokwim Campus
Tom Langdon, Manager, Customer Support Services, OIT
Colleen McKenna, MIS Associate Professor, UAS
Martha Mason, CIO, UAF (Team co-leader)
Kenrick Mock, Professor of Engineering, UAA
Pat Shier, Associate VC & CIO, UAA (Team co-leader)
Mona Yarnall, IS Manager, UAS
Nathan Zierfuss, Chief Information Security Officer, OIT
Technology Team Members
26
Recommendation
The operational information technology functions for UAF and UA System should be managed by the UAFCIO. UA should move to a model where host-universities provide all basic IT support services to any UA System level staff.
Additional Narrative
This recommendation is shared between the Enterprise Systems Management team and the Technology team. Agreed that IT services could be provided by the local university, but UAF & SW members of the team felt the fiscal and cultural risks were too service impacting to be warranted to address perceived confusion, that can be addressed through education and transparency efforts.
TechnologyDetermine University-Level Support Model
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Allows UT to focus on core operational decisions instead of needing to create an organization to support their user technology concerns
2. UAF would be more in control of basic IT support assets
2. UT can be more efficient3. Universities can easily
accommodate more users
1. May require increase in financial investment
2. Net value proposition from eliminating shared service has not been identified
3. UAF leadership un-engaged to date on process implications
1. Determine if/how to transition these services to universities
2. Assure that university IT organizations are properly staffed to manage additional users
R ESPONSIBLE
Host University
A CCOUNTABLE
UAF CIO
C ONSULTED
Host university leadership
I NFORMED
Universal Technologies
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Governance
27
Recommendation
Determine what services UAF CIO’s organization should provide to its UAF, UA System and Universal Technologies customers including how to resource this appropriately.
Additional Narrative
UAF CIO is accountable for UAF Service Catalog.
TechnologyEstablish a UAF University-Level Support Model
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Allows for “Centers of Excellence” to remain intact
2. Transparent and well-defined organizational structure will eliminate confusion around leadership approach and management structure
1. Ability to attract and retain staff
2. Potentially disruptive to higher performing IT units
3. Determining the optimal support staff size
4. Organizational changes alone don’t address root cause cultural issues.
5. May require increase in fiscal investment.
1. UAF CIO determine what resources are needed to support the services
R ESPONSIBLE
UAF CIO
A CCOUNTABLE
UAF CIO
C ONSULTED
UAF and UA System Leadership
I NFORMED
CMT
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X X
Governance
28
Recommendation
Further all discussions considering what services might best be provided by UAA, UAS or UAF on behalf of the UA System where expertise exists should also be considered. Continue any exploration of outsourcing as an option.
Additional Narrative
Some services operating out of “Centers of Excellence” may not make sense to dismantle. Shared services can work, but remains difficult because the campuses can view each other as competitors and the current structure is blended and perceived as being unclear. A more defined and transparent structure could be beneficial.
TechnologyDefine Centers of Excellence to support Universities and Campuses
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Provides necessary assistance to UT
2. Allows for “Centers of Excellence” to remain untouched
3. Transparent and well-defined organizational structure to eliminate confusion
1. Shared service implementation can be difficult
2. Distributed accountability makes strategic change difficult
1. Identify what support UT needs and where it can come from
2. Define current “Centers of Excellence”
R ESPONSIBLE
CIO’s
A CCOUNTABLE
CMT
C ONSULTED
Campuses and UA System
Leadership
I NFORMED
CMT
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
Operational Efficiencies
and Process Redesign
29
Recommendation
Redefine the IT organization(s). Each university (UAF, UAA & UAS) to provide localized operational services for their university, including expanded roles for data access, system access and enterprise systems development. University CIOs to report directly to Chancellor. Creation of a Universal Technologies organization for core, enterprise-wide systems and creation of an Office of the CTO for strategic & non-operational aspect for IT leadership.
Additional Narrative
Unclear organizational lines and a complicated financial/expense model, across the system, amplify the need for overall clarification in structure and expense distribution/reporting. For campuses, it can be difficult to see where OIT’s appropriation translate to OIT’s service catalog and whether they are equivalent near-market rates, including their relative unit costs for per campus usage. For strategic leaders, it can be default to achieve strategic impacts without authority to execute.
TechnologyRe-define Organizational Structures
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Clearly defined new organizational lines will limit confusion
2. Shared services (UT) provide economies of scale
3. Clearer lines promote fiscal transparency for campuses and lines of service
1. Not attracting and retaining required talent to manage each org
2. Making sure the new system does not fall victim to the same downfalls as current model (system culture)
3. Failure of collaboration & transparency
1. Define/finalize the IT organization structure as well as CMT governance
2. Enable new structure3. Establish accounting
protocols to capture and report based upon services, the model of service and the new organization model
R ESPONSIBLE
CMT
A CCOUNTABLE
President
C ONSULTED
Finance Resources & Summit Team
I NFORMED
IT Staff, Governance Groups, IT
Consumers
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X People
30
Recommendation
Create a “Universal Technologies” organization to centralize some technology functions within “a centralized unit” in an effort to simplify and add consistency to technology system management for enterprise-wide systems.
Additional Narrative
Centralize enterprise-wide technologies for economies of scale, where a centralization model provides the proper amount of services and support . Centralization does not necessarily require geographic centralization of people, but instead placing the right person in the right role. Current enterprise OIT roles and IT roles distributed at SW outside of OIT should be centralized.
TechnologyCentralize Enterprise-wide Technology Functions
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Keeps economies of scale
2. Simplifies IT structure throughout SW
3. Increases consistency and reduces inefficiencies
4. Could enable common focus instead of competing interests
5. Fosters a culture of collaboration and accountability
1. Not choosing the appropriate technologies to be centralized
2. Not finding the right leader of the centralized IT function (responsibility w/o accountability)
3. Resourcing conflicts may still remain
4. May not enable common focus
1. Identify employees who should reside in the UT group, including leadership
2. Define the leadership position responsibilities
3. Define the mission of the UT organization
Step 2 - Identify which technology functions should be centralized and from where and to where
R ESPONSIBLE
Initially: CMT Then: Universal
Technologies Leader
A CCOUNTABLE
CMT
C ONSULTED
Campus Functional Leadership +
UA System (SW) Leadership
I NFORMED
Application Stakeholders
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X XGovernance
31
Recommendation
Regularly and rigorously review each IT organization’s service catalog for the optimal mix of service provisions where economies of scale may exist for the UA System.
Additional Narrative
What would a decision engine look like? Should a recharge model be explored as a viable option? Would there be any efficiencies of organizationally having them centralized, but physically diverse locations? To what degree is one institution willing to rely on a competitor institution for day to day necessities?
TechnologyContinuously Evaluate of Economies of Scale
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Opportunities for synergies given the reorganization
2. Cost savings3. Standardize on best
practices4. Alignment of processes5. Streamline service
offerings and simplify support
1. Many moving parts and involved parties
2. Need for some Universities to compromise
3. Possible reduction of services or flexibility
1. Explore further options including, university HelpDesk
2. Consolidate LMS –Blackboard Learn
3. Develop a strategy of potential consolidation
R ESPONSIBLE
CMT
A CCOUNTABLE
OoCTO
C ONSULTED
Stakeholder groups
I NFORMED
Chancellors
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Operational Efficiencies
and Process Redesign
32
Recommendation
Move forward with evaluation and an implementation of a common UA System enterprise-wide solution for email & calendaring.
Additional Narrative
The Enterprise Systems Management team should include these types of enterprise-wide applications within their scope. The first step in determining email/calendaring solutions will revolve around a strategy for delivery of student services for these types of needs.
TechnologyImplement Needed Enterprise Systems
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Enterprise systems can help provide unity and efficiencies across campuses
2. Streamline administrative processes
3. Standardized user experience
4. Simplifies user & support experiences
1. Fear of losing campus individuality
2. Cultural issues3. Poor execution4. Effort and costs of
change
1. Develop email/calendaring implementation plan and requirements (student & admin)
2. Work with the ESM team and their definition of Enterprise Systems
3. Consider the outsourcing of it all (implementation and on-going support)
R ESPONSIBLE
Requirements: CMT
Implementation: UT Leader
A CCOUNTABLE
CMT
C ONSULTED
All Stakeholders
I NFORMED
Summit Team
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X
Strategy
33
Recommendation
Move forward with actively managing SW and System wide culture.
Additional Narrative
All proposed organizational change will fall short of any desired effects without changing and continuing to manage organizational culture at both SW, Campuses and System wide.
TechnologyDevelop a Needed System for Cultural Management
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Enabling a culture of accountability
2. Higher levels of service at all organizations
3. Decreases value lost to mistrust
4. Create shared purpose and unified approach to UA mission
1. High levels of belief bias to overcome
2. Failure to execute, risks all other recommendations
3. Poor execution and adoption
4. Lack of commitment
1. Develop cultural management plans at SW level and System level
R ESPONSIBLE
System-wide Exec. Leadership
A CCOUNTABLE
President
C ONSULTED
All Stakeholders
I NFORMED
Summit Team
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X X X X X X X X X X ->
Culture
34
Pro’s
Elevates voices of the campuses
University-level CIOs are the direct link to universities for all operational aspects of the university (direct reporting relationship to Chancellors)
Creates consistency
Creates an opportunity for a culture of accountability
Campuses are responsible for local user services
Con’s
All structures may increase costs
Adds complexity of coordinating 5, instead of the current 4, IT organizations at UA
System-wide IT governance linked to the business is still undefined
Pro’s & Con’s of All of the New Organizational Structures
No proposed organizational structure enjoyed unanimous support
35
President
Chancellor UAA
UAA CIO
Chancellor UAF
UAF CIO
Chancellor UAS
UAS CIO
Office of CTO
Universal Technologies
Enterprise Systems Management
Others (e.g. WAN)….
CMT
Organization Structure As Related to IT FunctionsOption #1
Pro’s Con’s
1. Creates a CMT that allows for OoCTO to be included
2. OoCTO is more strategic and does not have operational responsibilities
1. UT reporting relationship is to a committee and will be challenging to execute and manage
36
President
Chancellor UAA
UAA CIO
Chancellor UAF
UAF CIO
Chancellor UAS
UAS CIO
Office of CTO
Universal Technologies
Enterprise Systems Management
Others (e.g. WAN)….
Organization Structure As Related to IT FunctionsOption #2
Pro’s Con’s
1. UT reporting relationship is to a UA System office appropriate to its scope of responsibility
2. Clear reporting line
1. Goes counter to a UA Systems organization that does not have operational aspects
CMT
37
President
Chancellor UAA
UAA CIO
Chancellor UAF
UAF CIO
Chancellor UAS
UAS CIO
Office of CTO
Universal Technologies
Enterprise Systems Management
Others (e.g. WAN)….
Organization Structure As Related to IT FunctionsOption #3
Pro’s Con’s
1. UT has an active voice in the CMT
2. UT CMT participation helps isolate CTO from operational duties
1. Goes counter to a UA Systems organization that does not have operational aspects
2. Similar to current structure
CMT
38
Collaborate with University leadership for UA System-wide initiatives:
Set policy, provide legal interpretation and system-level risk assessments
Be a steward for shared strategic resources and oversee assets like the UA network and Enterprise systems
Establish system-level strategic direction/vision, fostering collaboration to achieve UA mission, and leadership to address conflicting objectives
Canvas the market for new and emerging IT opportunities to further the mission of the UA system
Provide support and a single-system voice when needed for external relationships
Foster innovation & collaboration within the UA System
Ensures adoption of industry best practices across the UA System
Champion the UA System level IT culture
The following responsibilities were hotly contested / not unanimously supported:
Ensures alignment of IT and UA strategy
Establishes and chairs IT governance
No operational aspects / duties
Primary Responsibilities of the Office of the CTO
39
University specific & localized operational IT services for students, faculty and staff
User services
AV
Desktop
Call center
Computer labs
All application privilege approval & granting
Infrastructure
Data center operations
Telecommunications
Server administration
Local Area Network operations & engineering
Messaging / Directory
Application modifications & development
Coordination and decision-making implementation via CMT
CIO’s Champion University IT Culture
Primary Responsibilities of University CIOs / IT services
40
Enterprise Systems Management
Upgrades and Maintenance
UA System-wide large enhancements
Application Administration (technical not functional)
Bug Fixes
Security Role Definitions
Database Management
Back up and Recovery
Development Standards Creation
Promote to Production Environments
Training (train the trainer)
Server Administration
Disaster Planning and Recovery
Service Level Agreements
Large Procurements / Purchases (e.g. Symantec)
WAN
Network security
Main data center operations
Coordinate with the businesses/Universities
Primary Responsibilities of Universal Technologies
41
Make enterprise wide decisions
Develop plans / operationalize the choices made in the strategic decision making process
Be the voice of all IT concerns across the Universities
UT Leadership is very actively consulted, but not a voting member of the team (this was hotly contested by members of the team as to whether this responsibility is dependent on the organizational model chosen or not)
Primary Responsibilities of the CIO Management Team (CMT)
42
Appendix
Recommendations by Theme
Technology Team Recommendations
Enterprise Management System Team Recommendations
Administration Team Recommendations
Finance Team Recommendations
Human Resources Team Recommendations
Academic Affairs & Research, University Relations and UA Foundation Team Recommendations
43
The Enterprise Systems Management Team was tasked with further developing recommendations regarding data concerns, project management and other enterprise-wide topics
The ESM Team shared certain recommendations with the Technology Team and worked towards consistent outcomes
Included in team’s discussions were:
Establish Data Definitions
Data Security and Integrity
Coordinate Data Sharing
Assure Access to Systems
Centralize Banner
Campus-Led Project Management
Outsourcing Opportunities
Enterprise Management System Team Scope
44
Brian DeZeeuw, Financial Systems, UAA
Tom Dienst, Business Office, UAS
Mike Earnest, Registrar & Enrollment Services, UAF
Vickie Gilligan, Finance, SW
Erin Holmes, Institutional Research, UAA (Team Leader)
Mark Hopson, IT Security Officer, UAS
James Milburn, Enterprise Applications Services, OIT
Ian Olson, Institutional Research, UAF
Enterprise Management System Team Members
45
Enterprise Systems Policy
Interpret UA policies/ State & Federal regulations – i.e., identify if FERPA applies
Identify where there are gaps in policies
Recommend policy revisions, additions, deletions
Establish ESM policies
Part of these individuals duties / responsibilities would include:
Business Practice
Understand policies & document their practices
Ensure separation of duties
Request clarification to ESM policies
Consult with those in the Procedure group
Coordinate and collaborate for data definitions
Involved with determining the calendar for ES updates
Develop and approve a test plan
Procedure/Action
Define, assign, and revoke roles
“Doer” level
They follow the procedures to do the work
Universities are responsible for making sure the procedures are followed
Policy StructureESM Responsibility—Conceptual Model
Enterprise
Systems
Policy
Business Practice
Procedure / Action
UA Policies, State &
Federal Regulations
46
Introduction
Currently too many layers of approval have asserted themselves into the process of securing and maintaining Banner and other enterprise wide systems. Approval for access to Banner, its data tables and other enterprise wide systems should move to the universities. Second layer of approval should be removed. UA System and functional areas would be required to define rules and create a culture of data stewardship.
This future state would allow work to move forward that meets the needs of the students and universities more efficiently. The move to a collaborative culture would foster shared effort and allow institutions to act on priorities.
Definitions
Enterprise Wide Systems or Enterprise Systems: Any software that allows UA to address a universal or common university business process. It can be a commercial product such as Banner or a locally developed product such as ELMO.
Data Stewardship: Shared responsibilities associated with managing, collecting, viewing, storing, sharing, disclosing or making use of educational information. These responsibilities apply to all levels of data handling and all systems within the UA system.
Enterprise Systems ManagementIntroduction and Definitions
47
Enterprise Wide Systems or Enterprise Systems are systems:
Used across all universities
Used as the default system of record
Which require centralized administration for it to be feasible
Where one university cannot opt out without any issue to the remaining
Where one university cannot manage some data independently of the others
Which have a single instance at the application-level
Where interdependencies exist between universities
That natively supports multiple institutions (its architecture doesn’t prohibit this)
Where a single identity is used across universities (for example: sign-on, the data within)
Where identical branding is not important
That uses a common database across the same application
Where there is a need for common data definitions and management reporting across the entire UA system
Where only a single set of rules need to be applied across universities
Where changes have a universal impact or effect
Whose purpose is unique (it does not do the same thing that another application already does)
That possess financial economies of scale (purchase and support)
Where the number of contracts with the vendor and any inter-connected across universities supports a single instance
The judgment as to whether an application is an Enterprise System is based on how well the application match these characteristics, not whether it meets all of them.
Enterprise Systems Determining Characteristics
48
Enterprise-wide Applications
Seem to Meet Minimum Characteristics
Banner
- HR, Finance & Student
- RPTP – Data repository
- DegreeWorks
- Banner workflow
- TEM: Travel & Expense Management
- UA Online: Banner self-service
On-Base: document imaging BlackBoard
- Learn
- Connect: Emergency management system
- Transact : ID cards
PeopleAdmin / Page-Up Active Directory Enrollment Rx (UAA & UAF)
EDIR – Enterprise Directory THD – The Housing Directory VistaPlus: Data store (finance & HR)
Touchnet – payment gateway for credit Zuausr - Banner & On-Base security
management
AIM – Facilities tool
ELMO – Easy Management Login Option Enterprise E-mail & calendaring (none in
place)
Microsoft productivity applications
Video conferencing VOIP WAN
Considered But Do Not Seem to Meet Minimum Characteristics
Lumens Grants application CourseLeaf- catalogue & curriculum
management
Millennium UAA Door access Maxient – Title IX compliance (further
determination needed)
49
Enterprise Systems ManagementCentralize Banner Maintenance & Upgrades
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Achieves Economies of scale
2. Fosters Operational efficiencies
3. Removes most operational needs from a SW organization and creates better alignment with the four Core values
4. Allows universities to be a consumer of ESM as a utility
1. Failure to maintain audit requirements and separation of duties
2. Failure to keep functional areas fully informed
3. Failure of leadership in UT-ESM to support cultural change
4. Failure to appropriately resource activities
1. Continue to review resource requirements for adequacy
2. Develop a thorough roles & responsibilities matrix for upgrade and maintenance activities
3. Evaluate any Banner infrastructure changes required to support this recommendation
Recommendation
Maintenance and upgrade functions for Banner should be centralized under “a centralized IT unit”
(Universal Technologies) and moved out of other UA System functional areas where this exists. Enterprise-
wide systems other than Banner should also be considered under this model.
Additional Narrative
Demand for the function could reside in the functional area, but the technical implementation should be
managed from a central unit “Universal Technologies”. Final testing and approvals must be performed by the
functional areas.
R ESPONSIBLE
Universal Technologies
A CCOUNTABLE
Universal Technologies
Leader
C ONSULTED
Functional areas &
universities
I NFORMED
University CIOs
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X X Governance
50
Recommendation
Coordination of data definitions and data quality standards should be managed by the data stewards in the respective functional areas from each university and the respective UA System functional area for data consistency and integrity.
Additional Narrative
Universities were frustrated with not being involved in data management, quality and definitions. Creating a collaborative process not perceived to be owned by one person or department would be beneficial. There have been different approaches to how data definitions are established by function, causing inconsistencies. Institutional Research could lead the system-wide coordination and governance process for data definitions and documentation.
Enterprise Systems ManagementCoordinate Data Sharing
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Increases data sharing
2. Regulates data
governance
3. Creates clear and common
data definitions
4. Encourages a culture of
collaboration and
coordination
5. Fosters transparent
governance process
6. Avoids redundancy
1. Failure to move from
culture of data ownership
to data stewardship
2. Failure to adopt newly
established data
definitions
3. Failure of governance and
compliance
4. Failure to have appropriate
coordination with UT-ESM
1. Consult universities to
identify and prioritize
needs
2. Identify and publish the
new data definitions and
quality standards
3. Create and publish ESM
data stewardship
responsibilities as well as
the data stewards
4. Leverage IData Cookbook
5. Consider hiring a resource
to jump-start the
documentation effort
R ESPONSIBLE
Data Stewards
A COUNTABLE
Data Stewards
C ONSULTED
Functional areas, universities
& UT
I NFORMED
University CIOs
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X X
Governance
51
Enterprise Systems ManagementAdminister University Access and Security Controls Management at University Level
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Allows universities to easily apply access
2. Removes unnecessary administrative burden
3. Provides for OoCTO to define broad, consistent security policy
4. Creates an environment when data are more accessible, transparent and consistent
1. Failure to maintain separation of duties
2. Failure to ensure that data stewards collaborate with universities and functional areas
3. Failure to properly manage data access
1. Decide how access is granted at university level
2. Ensure process is in place to balance security and compliance
3. Coordinate a process between data stewards and UT-ESM to redesign & pre-define security roles and publish security role definitions
4. Define an audit procedure for security
5. Review all security classes to allow for more viewable access
Recommendation
Enterprise system access control and security provision/management should be administered at the university level.
Additional Narrative
This should be handled at the university/function, but base security provisions should be initially established by the data stewards (in collaboration with UT-ESM) and must coordinate between all functional areas. There should be a small number of people granting access who know enough about separation of duties, functional knowledge and the existing security roles as well as new role creation. Overtly state that the policy aspect should come from OoCTO, but granting of access will be at a university level. Additional resources initially needed to review security to simplify all classes.
R ESPONSIBLE
Universities
A CCOUNTABLE
University CIO’s
C ONSULTED
Universal Technologies
I NFORMED
University data security
individual(s)
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X X
Governance
52
Enterprise Systems ManagementEmpower University-led Systems Development
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Empowers universities to meet their own needs
2. Increases capacity for projects
3. Allows for UT dollars to be spent solely for cross-university needs
1. No assurance the project would benefit all universities
2. Lack of communication results in no group collaboration
3. Inability of universities to implement development due to resource constraints
4. Increase reverse integration costs as other universities adapt new development
5. Failure to share solutions
1. Develop framework to determine if a project is university specific or enterprise-wide
2. Determine which projects currently in queue are universally important
3. Determine governance model for universal projects
4. Examine what is needed to give university development access in a safe environment
Recommendation
Projects and system enhancements should be encouraged. Individual universities and UA System functions should be empowered to innovate, initiate and/or lead projects and system enhancements. To enable that innovation, the universities and UA System will be given the access to development tools to build solutions. Universities and UA System will collaborate on any projects and/or system enhancements.
Additional Narrative
Policy is set and the universities are empowered to develop and implement enhancements and solutions within the parameters of the policy. There are too many projects in the queue that are not getting done. If universities could coordinate efforts, they could move faster because currently they wait for SW assistance to get the projects off the ground. Universities can spearhead projects. Universal Technologies would only take on projects (outside of upgrades and maintenance) that benefit all universities. If there was a shared service alternative it would be worth considering.
R ESPONSIBLE
Universities
A CCOUNTABLE
University CIO’s
C ONSULTED
Universal Technologies
I NFORMED
IT Project Managers +
Functional Areas
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X X X X X X X XStrategy
53
TechnologyCampus Support Model (aka Universal Technologies as a Strategic Partner)
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Allows UT to focus on core operational decisions instead of needing to create an organization to support their user technology concerns
2. UT can be more efficient3. Universities can easily
accommodate more users
1. Change from SW providing support to UAF and fear of losing a centers of excellence model
2. Recommendations may not be supported by key leadership at UAF
3. Could lead to duplication or increased management
1. Determine how to transition these services to universities
2. Assure that university IT organizations are properly staffed to manage additional users
Recommendation
The operational information technology functions for UAF and SW should be managed by the UAF IT organization (lead by the UAF CIO). UA should move to a model where host-universities provide all basic IT support services to any UA System level staff.
Additional Narrative
This recommendation is shared between the Enterprise Systems Management team and the Technology team. Agreed that IT services should be provided by the local university.
R ESPONSIBLE
Host university
A CCOUNTABLE
Host university IT
C ONSULTED
Host university CIO
I NFORMED
Universal Technologies
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
54
Enterprise Systems ManagementOIT Business Office
Benefits Risks Actions
1. These are functions that do not need to be done by IT employees
2. Decreases administrative burden
1. Losing the opportunity to have an IT person knowledgeable about these functions
1. Follow up with Administration team to determine next steps
Recommendation
Evaluate the OIT Business Office to see if SW can achieve more value if these areas have the potential to
serve all of SW as part of a shared service model for administration.
Additional Narrative
Moved to Administration team – to be addressed by other SW Business Office consolidations.
R ESPONSIBLE
Administration Team
A CCOUNTABLE
TBD
C ONSULTED
IT
I NFORMED
IT
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
55
Enterprise Systems ManagementConsistently Identify Appropriate Sourcing of IT Functions
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Possible cost savings2. Certain functions or areas
within functions could be outsourced for economies of scale
1. Outsourcing can be controversial
2. System governance would need to be very strong to introduce outside parties
3. May not be the most cost effective
1. Review current functions to look into opportunities to appropriately source
Recommendation
Continue to look at the appropriate sourcing for IT functions or contracted/hosted services strategically in an
ongoing manner.
Additional Narrative
Will look for individual opportunities where outsourcing makes good business sense.
R ESPONSIBLE
University CIOs & UT Leader
A CCOUNTABLE
CMT
C ONSULTED
Functional Areas
I NFORMED
Chancellors and President
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Operational Efficiencies
and Process Redesign
56
Appendix
Recommendations by Theme
Technology Team Recommendations
Enterprise Management System Team Recommendations
Administration Team Recommendations
Finance Team Recommendations
Human Resources Team Recommendations
Academic Affairs & Research, University Relations and UA Foundation Team Recommendations
57
The Administration Team was tasked with reviewing the Transformation Team’s recommendations and further developing recommendations regarding the UA System and individual Universities
The team was comprised of members from the following functional areas:
General Counsel's Office
Strategy, Planning, Budget
– Associate VP for State Relations
– Institutional Research
– Land Management
Risk Services
Included in team’s discussions were recommendations regarding:
Operational Efficiencies and Process Redesign
Strategy
People
Administration Team Scope
58
Sacha Layos, SW General Counsel’s Office
Alesia Kruckenberg, SW Budgeting/Planning
Debbie Carlson, SW Finance
Jennifer Harris, UAF SFOS (Team Leader)
Wendy Miles, Ketchikan
Talis Colberg, Mat-Su College
Larry Foster, UAA Mathematics Professor
Administration Team Members
59
AdministrationHire a skilled Chief Human Resources Officer
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Consolidation of HR duties in one place
2. Strengthens UA System HR function to be a better resource for University HR departments
3. General Counsel’s Office will spend less time involved with collective bargaining and labor relations cases
4. Increased effectiveness of General Counsel’s Office ability to contribute value
5. Reduction in external legal costs
6. Reduction in individual workloads for HR Directors at each University
1. Historical tension between SW HR and University HR departments could be exacerbated if the CHRO is seen as directive rather than collaborative
2. Degree of collective bargaining and labor relations knowledge of new CHRO hire
3. Potential to increase overall costs to University if costs savings are not realized through General Counsel's increased effectiveness and reduced outside legal costs
1. Review CHRO job description to ensure it properly captures all knowledge and skill requirements
Recommendation
Employ a Chief Human Resources Officer with the ability to assume traditional HR responsibilities currently performed by the General Counsel.
Additional Narrative
R ESPONSIBLE
CHRO Hiring Committee
A CCOUNTABLE
CHRO Hiring Committee
CONSULTED
President, General Counsel,
University HR Directors
I NFORMED
System-wide Executives
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
In addition to reducing the burden on legal counsel for matters related to employee relations, this position will provide strategic leadership for all HR offices across the UA System. Recent reductions in state funding will create an even greater need for a strong system-wide approach to handling all employee-related matters.
People
60
AdministrationMove public record requests
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Reduction in redundant workload
2. Increased efficiency of responses
3. Early assessment of reputational risk or impact
4. Allows University Relations to have early access to potential issues
1. Fear of releasing wrong documents or not releasing in a timely manner
2. Additional workload placed on University Relations
3. Overemphasis on reputational issues vs. legal/compliance risks
1. Develop guidelines for responding to requests, and guidelines for escalating issues to General Counsel or others
2. Develop communication plan, including a communication loop
3. Redesign/realign website to communicate change
Recommendation
Assign the responsibility for responding to routine public records requests to University Relations.
Additional Narrative
R ESPONSIBLE
University Relations
A CCOUNTABLE
General Counsel’s Office
CONSULTED
Public Affairs
I NFORMED
UA System leadership,
University leaders, marketing/
communications department
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
Matters that are not deemed or considered “routine public records requests” would continue to be managed
by the Office of General Counsel.
Governance
61
Administration Redesign contracting processes
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Streamlined processes and reduced cycle time for managing/developing/ approving contracts
2. Standardized contract review process
3. Increased awareness of risks associated with contracts at individual University-level
4. Reduction of contracting costs by 10%-30%
1. Loss of knowledge 2. Loss of checks and
balance3. Universities may not
understand legal implications of nuanced contract terms
1. Develop boiler plate language
2. Develop a contract training module and provide proper resources
Recommendation
Redesign roles, responsibilities, processes and technology used to facilitate contracting processes.
Additional Narrative
The creation of a contracting instruments catalogue was introduced as a specific process redesign to gain
efficiencies and is tentatively targeted for implementation by July 1, 2017.
R ESPONSIBLE
General Counsel’s Office
A CCOUNTABLE
General Counsel’s Office
CONSULTED
Procurement, facilities, and risk
offices
I NFORMED
All employees with purchasing
power
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
Operational Efficiencies
and Process Redesign
62
AdministrationRetain the Associate Vice President for State Relations
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Clear updates of happenings/activities in the Legislature to the UA system
2. Shared knowledge, continuity and back up for AVP State Relations
3. Retention of Historical data for research
4. Back-up support for AVPPublic Affairs & Federal Relations
1. University employees may not see benefit of the position due to budget restrictions and lost positions
1. Add additional duties such as assist/back up AVP Public Affairs and Federal Relations with Federal contact and communications
2. Retain all working papers, notes, contacts, and documents prior and current
3. Market this position to all employees
Recommendation
Retain the Associate Vice President for State Relations as a full-time position.
Additional Narrative
The current resource is considered to be strong and a meaningful asset. The University should consider
alternative approaches, including outsourcing, part-time role, etc., if the position becomes vacant.
R ESPONSIBLE
AVP for State Relations
A CCOUNTABLE
VP Strategic, Planning and
Budget
CONSULTED
AVP Public Affairs & Federal
Relations, System Executives,
President
I NFORMED
Board of Regents and
Management
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
People
63
AdministrationReview and assess Institutional Research processes and policies
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Enhanced efficienciesleading to cost savings
2. Delivery of Project Management’s value to the entire system versus
3. Efficient delivery of Board of Regents’ requests
4. Create data continuity and consistency across the system
1. Skewing of data, if Universities do not use the same parameters when pulling data
1. Review and assess of operational process and services
2. Develop guidelinesdocuments prior and current
3. Review, assess and update current systems, tools and training
4. Review, assess and evaluate transferring "Project Management" from Universal Technologies to UA System Institutional Research
Recommendation
Conduct a detailed review and assessment of Institutional Research processes, policies, practices, structures, tools, systems, and training and explore opportunities to gain efficiencies and potential cost savings.
Additional Narrative
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System Institutional Research
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System Institutional Research
CONSULTED
University Institutional Research
offices and Universal Technologies
Offices; UA System Strategy,
Planning, and Budget Office
I NFORMED
All employees requesting
Institutional Research services
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X
The review should be conducted system-wide with the participation of all Institutional Research offices. In order to gain efficiencies and potential cost savings, it is further recommended that data deficiencies and inconsistencies be identified, prioritized, and have a corrective action plan established.
Operational Efficiencies
and Process Redesign
64
AdministrationCreate a long-term Land Management strategy
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Potential to generate additional revenue
2. Clarity of purpose3. Alignment to institutional
goals and objectives
1. Short-sighted strategy could waste limited land resources
1. Develop cost-benefit analysis of land strategy options
Recommendation
Create a long-term land management strategy for the University.
Additional Narrative
The team believes that value will be created by having a long range strategic view and plan relative to the
use of University owned or controlled land resources.
R ESPONSIBLE
Director of Land Management
A CCOUNTABLE
Director of Land Management
CONSULTED
Strategy, Planning, and Budget
Office, President, individual
Universities
I NFORMED
Board of Regents
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X
Strategy
65
AdministrationReview process for issuing land permits
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Reduction in processing timelines at UA, state and federal levels
2. Supports compliance with state, federal and local regulations
3. Partnering with outside agencies may provide benefits that include a better understanding of research, development of relationships
4. Potentially saves .5 FTE across the system after a blanket contract is in place
5. Lower frustration levels
1. Streamlining the process could result in non-compliance if reviews are reduced or eliminated
2. Fines3. Potential long-term and
expensive clean up4. If the change is not
supported by the users, some users may decide to operate outside the system
5. DNR and UA System Office may not be able to reach an agreement suitable to both parties
1. Review analysis and report completed by the Land IT team
2. Education of users and reviewers on the updated process
Recommendation
Determine the most effective and efficient process and location for issuing and administering land permits
consistent with the soon to be developed analysis and process improvement report.
Additional Narrative
VP for UA Relations has contacted DNR to begin the process.
R ESPONSIBLE
Project Steering Committee (VP
Michelle Rizk and UAF VCR
Larry Hinzman)
A CCOUNTABLE
Project Steering Committee
CONSULTED
VC of Research, Researchers,
Admins associated with research
grants/permits, EHSRM, Legal
I NFORMED
Chancellors of each University
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X
Operational Efficiencies
and Process Redesign
66
AdministrationCreate a business center model for the UA System Office
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Creates a clear expectation thatadministrative/ transactional duties are shared across departments
2. Cross-training reduces knowledge loss
3. Provides robust support within department
4. Alleviates potential back up workload falling on one staff member
1. Potential that some departments may choose the same back-up staff
2. Increase in organization coding errors, as the back-ups would have a larger pool of organizations
3. Potential to reduce output of department function duties and responsibilities
1. Formalize the existing administrative support back-ups as a team with formal title
2. Create guidelines and expectations for the back-up process
3. Place lists of back-upadmins on Controller web site
4. Review and add back-up duties to Job Descriptions
5. Retain all back-ups within their respective departments
Recommendation
Explore and develop opportunities for creating a place-based business center model to formalize support
backup and to address transactional needs of the UA System office.
Additional Narrative
R ESPONSIBLE
Controller’s Office, Statewide
Executives and Supervisors
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System Executives
CONSULTED
Supervisors of administrative
support staff
I NFORMED
Staff
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
This recommendation is limited to administrative resources working within UA System offices.
Strategy
67
AdministrationFill vacant Chief Risk Officer position
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Direct control of responsibilities/decisions
2. Provides the leadershipnecessary for toughpolicy decisions
3. Provides additional support to UAA, UAF and UAS to develop EHSRM policies
4. Reduces the need for additional development and management of training
5. Cost savings associated with EHS position eliminations
1. Less personnel to share the workload
2. Potential for knowledge loss
1. Change direct report from General Counsel to President
2. Review and assess CRO job description to align with the management and operation of Risk strategies
3. Create policy that requires SW employees to take safety training at their physical locations
4. Retain current admin staff as part of the backup team to support ChiefRisk Officer and Business Continuity Manager
Recommendation
Fill the role of Chief Risk Officer for the University of Alaska, which will report to the President.
Additional Narrative
R ESPONSIBLE
President’s Office and Human
Resources
A CCOUNTABLE
President’s Office
CONSULTED
General Counsel, Chancellors,
University EHSRM Directors,
UA System Executives
I NFORMED
Board of Regents, UA System
employees
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
Filling this position will allow for the elimination of the two UA System EH&S positions and will support a
more effective risk management strategy going forward.
People
68
AdministrationUse the UA System Emergency Manager for business continuity
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Business continuity for all Universities and campuses
1. Lack of sufficient input during development
1. Review and assess Emergency Manager’s job description to clearly align with the management and implementation of a continuity plan
2. Provide a technical person for support that is shared with the Chief Risk Officer
Recommendation
Use the SW Emergency Manager for Business Continuity purposes.
Additional Narrative
Align this position to report to the President. Practices and operations of continuity plan will be delegated to
the Universities and campuses. (i.e. no single person will be entirely responsible for business continuity for
the University system).
R ESPONSIBLE
Business Continuity Manager
and Chief Risk Officer
A CCOUNTABLE
Business Continuity Manager
CONSULTED
Chancellors, Vice Chancellor for
Academic Services, Vice
Chancellors for Research,
Provost
I NFORMED
Board of Regents, HRM A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X
Governance
69
AdministrationEliminate UA System EH&S positions
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Ensures there is someone on the ground to plan for and respond to events on campus
2. Assists with Risk coordination,correspondence, contracts, and finances
3. Reduces each University’s financial allocation obligation of UA System Risk
4. Knowledge sharing could provide efficiencies for managing individual Universities’ issues
5. Cost savings
1. Meetings do not occur 1. Terminate all UA System EHS and EM positions, as responsibilities and operations will be assumed by eachUniversity
2. Assist and support terminated staff in transferring to vacant positions
3. Appoint a team leader from the University EHSDirectors to coordinate and lead the meetings
Recommendation
Eliminate the two UA System EH&S positions.
Additional Narrative
This recommendation will allow for cost savings and more effective localized risk strategies. EH&S campus
Directors will meet on a regular basis to discuss EHS issues.
R ESPONSIBLE
Interim Chief Risk Officer
A CCOUNTABLE
Interim Chief Risk Officer
CONSULTED
President, Chancellors
I NFORMED
Human Resources, Risk staff
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
People
70
AdministrationMove responsibility for managing insurance claims to Finance & Administration
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Aligns with Finance function
2. May provide additional job advancement and cross-training opportunities
1. Claims information to Chief Risk Officer could be delayed
1. Move all insurance claims (both workers and non-workers compensation claims) to Finance
2. Ensure that claims information is provided to the Chief Risk Officer for risk assessment
Recommendation
Workers and non-workers compensation insurance claims should be managed by Finance and
Administration.
Additional Narrative
This consolidation should lead to cost savings by reducing staff resource needs in the future.
R ESPONSIBLE
Chief Risk Officer, Chief
Financial Officer
A CCOUNTABLE
Chief Financial Officer
CONSULTED
Finance department and Risk
Services
I NFORMED
Human Resources and Risk
Services
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X
Governance
71
Appendix
Recommendations by Theme
Technology Team Recommendations
Enterprise Management System Team Recommendations
Administration Team Recommendations
Finance Team Recommendations
Human Resources Team Recommendations
Academic Affairs & Research, University Relations and UA Foundation Team Recommendations
72
The Finance Team was tasked with reviewing the Transformation Team’s recommendations and further developing recommendations regarding the UA System and individual Universities
The team was composed of members from the following functional areas:
Controller
Finance & Investment Management
College Savings Plan
Procurement
Cash Management
Audit
Records
Included in team’s discussions were recommendations regarding:
Operational Efficiencies and Process Redesign
Strategy
People
Governance
Finance Team Scope
73
Tammi Weaver, SW Finance
Tanya Hollis, SW Finance
Myron Dosch, SW Finance – Controller (Co-Team Leader)
Dave Read, UAF GI Business Manager
Roxy Felkl, UAS Budget Director
Jodi VanKirk, UAS General Ledger
Sandi Culver, UAA Financial Service (Co-Team Leader)
Soren Orley, UAA Accounting Professor
Finance Team Members
74
FinanceRedesign financial reporting processes
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Increased efficiency,
standardization, and
reliability of data
2. Improved access to data
3. Streamlined reporting
4. Improved distribution of
processes and roles
5. Elimination of shadow
systems
1. Insufficient resources
provided to fully address
the needs
2. Reporting gaps during
transition period
1. Identify reporting needs
and reports that can be
standardized
2. Create standardized
reports, where feasible
3. Develop a plan that
leverages technology to
improve the reporting and
financial analysis
capabilities, including a
comprehensive
assessment of various
tools and technology
available, such as an
appropriate data
warehouse systems
4. Develop training for
report automation
Recommendation
Redesign financial reporting system, process, structures, roles, and responsibilities.
Additional Narrative
Please see next slide.
RESPONSIBLE
Controller, AVC’s, Banner
governance group
ACCOUNTABLE
Controller
CONSULTED
Banner finance users, SW
Financial Systems, Universal
Technologies, Ellucian
I NFORMED
Banner finance users
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Operational Efficiencies
and Process Redesign
75
FinanceRedesign financial reporting processes continued
Recommendation
Redesign financial reporting system, process, structures, roles, and responsibilities.
Additional Narrative
This recommendation was considered to be of the highest priority and necessary to support
systemic transformational change.
Some members of the Finance Team have strongly indicated that the Banner redesign will likely need to
involve more than a few minor changes. In order to properly redesign Banner, a significant, one-time
investment will be required. This is necessary due to over-customization in the past, leading to a lack of
uniform standard practices. Upon completion, comprehensive financial data will be available at the
operational level, to the point where each University and campus will have the capability of producing their
own full financial data.
Other members of the Finance Team have indicated that the Banner redesign may be smaller in nature, but
these team members have acknowledged that the redesign may, indeed, require substantial investment.
Operational Efficiencies
and Process Redesign
76
Finance Develop a Banner Training Plan
Benefits Risks Actions
1. More effective and
efficient use of staff time
2. More reliable data
3. Consistency in
applications
4. Full utilization of Banner
functionality
5. Reduction in processing
times and error rates
6. "Train the Trainer" model
will be more cost effective
and will provide a closer
point of contact
1. Insufficient funding
available to trainers
2. Developing inconsistent
training standards
1. Identify specific training
needs
2. Fill vacant positions and
evaluate need for
additional positions
dedicated to training
3. Develop “Train the
Trainer” plan, which will
exist at the SW Office,
and University training
schedules
Recommendation
Develop a plan to enhance training on Banner, financial systems, and processes.
Additional Narrative
In conjunction with the Banner redesign recommendation, it will be critical to develop a training program and
standardized system-wide processes to fully leverage the new Banner ERP configuration.
R ESPONSIBLE
Controller, AVC’s, UA System
Financial Services
A CCOUNTABLE
Controller
CONSULTED
Vice President of Finance and
Administration, President,
Deans and Directors of Major
Budget Units
I NFORMED
Vice Chancellor of Administrative
Services, Provosts
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X Strategy
77
FinanceCreate a technology governance structure
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Enhanced prioritization
and more effective use of
resources
2. Increased accountability
3. Improved decision
making process
4. Broader understanding
of key decisions
5. Chaos reduction
None identified 1. Establish an IT
governance group that
has a broad
representation from user
group, business process
owners, etc.
2. Establish a group charter
defining roles,
responsibilities and scope
in consideration of
Ellucian
recommendations
Recommendation
Create and implement a comprehensive technology governance structure that establishes
system/technology strategies, resources, and management oversight policies for the future.
Additional Narrative
The team recognizes that the technology team will advance this objective but wants to emphasize the
importance of having a clear and rational technology governance structure.
R ESPONSIBLE
Vice President of Finance and
Administration
A CCOUNTABLE
Vice President of Finance and
Administration
CONSULTED
VCAS, President, Chief
Information Technology Officer
I NFORMED
Finance and IT communities
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X Governance
78
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Clarity in roles and
responsibilities
None identified 1. Confirm that Records
Management functions
best resides in Finance
and Administration for
strategic alignment
Recommendation
Confirm that Records Management policies and compliance (student, HR, finance, etc.) should remain within
Finance and Administration.
Additional Narrative
R ESPONSIBLE
Vice President of Finance and
Administration
A CCOUNTABLE
Vice President of Finance and
Administration
CONSULTED
President, Records
Management Director
I NFORMED
System-wide communityM A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
FinanceConfirm Records Management location within Finance & Administration
Governance
79
FinanceConfirm OnBase location
Benefits Risks Actions
Recommendation
There are alternative views relative OnBase governance. One view is to maintain the oversight and
management of OnBase within UA System Finance and Administration. A second view is to delegate
responsibility for oversight and management of OnBase to the individual Universities. The Team could not
reach agreement on this recommendation.
Additional Narrative
R ESPONSIBLE
A CCOUNTABLE
CONSULTED
I NFORMED
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
Team leaders are prepared to outline the benefits and risks of the alternative approaches and share their
perspectives with the President or his designee.
Governance
80
FinanceCharge the PCI governance committee to define processes
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Improved understanding
of risk and implications of
noncompliance
2. Mitigated risk of
noncompliance with PII,
PCI, red flag, etc.
None identified 1. Consider the need for a
dedicated Compliance
Officer position
responsible for PCI, red
flag, OFAC and other
related regulations
2. To the degree that it is
determined a need for a
Compliance Officer,
decide where Compliance
Officer best resides for
strategic alignment
Recommendation
Charge the PCI governance committee to define policies, strategies, roles, processes, and systems that will
add value to the PCI administration and reduce institutional risk.
Additional Narrative
The time commitment for PCI responsibilities is considerable.
R ESPONSIBLE
Vice President of Finance and
Administration, PCI governance
committee leader
A CCOUNTABLE
PCI governance committee
leader
CONSULTED
Records Management manager,
Controller, PCI committee
I NFORMED
University finance staff
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X XOperational Efficiencies
and Process Redesign
81
FinanceDevelop University and Foundation investment strategy
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Decreases the risk of
noncompliance with
investment policies and
regulations
2. Maintains confidence in
stewardship of financial
resources
None identified 1. Analyze management
needs within acceptable
risk levels for oversight
and due diligence of UA
and Foundation
investment portfolios
Recommendation
Analyze level of management needed for development and oversight of prudent University and Foundation
investment strategy.
Additional Narrative
This recommendation was developed by the Transformation Team and is endorsed here.
R ESPONSIBLE
Chief Treasury Officer /
Foundation Treasurer
A CCOUNTABLE
Chief Treasury Officer /
Foundation Treasurer
CONSULTED
Foundation Investment
Committee, UA CFO, Chief
Investment Officer
I NFORMED
UA President, Foundation
President
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
Strategy
82
FinanceDevelop Succession planning within Finance and Investing
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Mitigated risk of
knowledge loss
None identified 1. Develop succession plan
for key functions
2. Develop plan to increase
expertise and knowledge
base among existing
personnel
Recommendation
Develop comprehensive succession plans to mitigate risk of knowledge loss.
Additional Narrative
Succession planning is under recognized and failure to plan for the future places the University at great risk
of losing critical intellectual capital.
R ESPONSIBLE
Chief Treasury Officer
A CCOUNTABLE
Chief Treasury Officer
CONSULTED
Vice President of Finance and
Administration, Foundation
Investment Committee, Chief
Investment Officer
I NFORMED
UA President, Foundation
President
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X X X X X X X
Strategy
83
FinanceDevelop a procurement strategy
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Clarification of roles &
responsibilities
2. Cost savings across the
UA System
1. If Chief Procurement
Officer is moved to a
University, the University
may not establish a high
priority for system-wide
responsibilities
1. Assess potential cost
savings through
enhanced procurement
practices
2. Evaluate best
organizational structure
for efficiencies, cost
savings and alignment of
procurement functions
across the UA System
2. Develop a plan for
moving the effort forward
Recommendation
Convene a team of procurement and other leaders to evaluate the Jim Lynch reorganization recommendations;
develop a procurement strategy and plan that defines a future vision for procurement and that defines roles,
responsibilities, structures, systems, and processes for the delivery of procurement services across the University.
Additional Narrative
Other universities and systems that have embarked on similar efforts have realized tremendous cost savings
through leveraged buying, eProcurement strategies and systems, and other leading procurement practices.
R ESPONSIBLE
Interim Chief Procurement Officer
A CCOUNTABLE
Interim Chief Procurement Officer
CONSULTED
University procurement directors,
University Construction Division
heads, VCASs, Vice President
Finance and Administration
I NFORMED
University and external
procurement community, VP
Budget and Planning
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X X X X X X X X X
Strategy
84
FinanceDevelop adjudication process for procurement disputes
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Clarification of roles &
responsibilities
None identified 1. Document procurement
adjudication process
Recommendation
Develop an appropriate procurement adjudication process, and identify a UA System Office resource to
adjudicate procurement disputes.
Additional Narrative
R ESPONSIBLE
Interim Chief Procurement Officer
A CCOUNTABLE
Interim Chief Procurement Officer
CONSULTED
General Counsel, Vice President
of Finance and Administration
I NFORMED
University procurement offices
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X Operational Efficiencies
and Process Redesign
85
FinanceRetain existing structure for College Savings Plan and Scholars Plan
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Best alignment of
expertise and capacity
None identified None identified
Recommendation
Retain existing organization structures and reporting lines for the administration of the College Savings Plan
and UA Scholars Program.
Additional Narrative
R ESPONSIBLE
None identified
A CCOUNTABLE
None identified
CONSULTED
None identified
I NFORMED
None identified
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X Governance
86
FinanceContinue to route Anonymous hotline to Audit
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Best professional
capacity to administer
2. Independence
None identified None identified
Recommendation
Continue to route the Anonymous Hotline to Audit. Do not move to HR or elsewhere.
Additional Narrative
R ESPONSIBLE
None identified
A CCOUNTABLE
None identified
CONSULTED
None identified
I NFORMED
None identified
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Governance
87
FinanceExamine current staff resource levels
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Optimal staffing levels at
acceptable level of risk
2. Improved automation and
report design ultimately
requiring fewer resources
to manipulate data for
reporting requirements
3. Adequate resources to
meet the reporting needs
and University priorities
1. Insufficient funding
available to adequately
resource the risk
1. Make recommendation
for resource realignment
Recommendation
Examine current level of risk for some specific reporting functions and related staffing including effort/time
dedicated to some tasks – determine if UA System Office is over-resourcing some functions (or under-
resourcing).
Additional Narrative
R ESPONSIBLE
Controller
A CCOUNTABLE
Controller
CONSULTED
Statewide Transformation Team
I NFORMED
Vice President of Finance and
Administration, President
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
This recommendation was developed by the Transformation Team and is endorsed here.
People
88
FinanceRefine Finance and Administration work to align with UA System Office
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Better alignment of
resources
2. Economies of scale
3. Efficiencies in delivery
1. Function is not performed
well or diligently
2. Function is not prioritized
or funded at the
Universities
3. Possible loss of
consistency
1. Transition Banner
security access and
property reconciliation to
Universities
2. Review all operational
functions and transition
appropriate functions to
Universities
3. Transition spouse/
dependent tuition waiver
to Universities
Recommendation
Refine Finance and Administration work to align with governance/policy role of UA System Office, moving
operational functions to the Universities or other UA System offices where operational functions overlap.
Additional Narrative
This recommendation was developed by the Transformation Team and is endorsed here.
R ESPONSIBLE
Controller
A CCOUNTABLE
Controller
CONSULTED
Vice President of Finance and
Administration, UA System
finance department heads,
University finance staff
I NFORMED
University and UA System
finance staff
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X X XStrategy
89
FinanceEvaluate number of senior leadership positions
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Optimal organizational
structure
2. Potential cost savings
1. Overburden leadership
2. Loss of institutional
history and depth
1. Identify senior leadership
positions and possible
restructuring
Recommendation
Evaluate the number of senior leadership positions.
Additional Narrative
R ESPONSIBLE
Vice President of Finance and
Administration
A CCOUNTABLE
Vice President of Finance and
Administration
CONSULTED
President, VCAS
I NFORMED
UA System Finance and
Administration community
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X
This recommendation was developed by the Transformation Team and is endorsed here.
People
90
Appendix
Recommendations by Theme
Technology Team Recommendations
Enterprise Management System Team Recommendations
Administration Team Recommendations
Finance Team Recommendations
Human Resources Team Recommendations
Academic Affairs & Research, University Relations and UA Foundation Team Recommendations
91
The Human Resources Team was tasked with further developing recommendations regarding the UA System Human Resources unit and those at the Universities
Included in team’s discussions were:
UAF & UA System Services Reorganization
Gaining Economies of Scale
Redefining Human Resources Strategies
Clarifying Responsibilities for Labor Relations
Exploring Operational Efficiencies and Cost Savings
Reviewing HR Systems
Ensuring support from OIT
Employee and Student Payroll
Reviewing Compensation/Classification and Recruitment Practices, as well as Benefits Management, Plan Design, and Communication
Developing a plan for training at UA System and University levels
Encouraging Cultural Change to Support the UA System’s Mission
Human Resources Team Scope
92
Matt Cooper, SW Legal Counsel
Tara Ferguson, Compensation Director, SW Human Resources (Team Leader)
Brad Lobland, Director, UAF Human Resources
Margo Griffith, Sr. Consultant, UAF Human Resources
Gail Cheney, Director, UAS Human Resources
Nicole Rogers, Sitka Human Resources
Ron Kamahele, Director, UAA Human Resource Services
John Dede, Special Assistant to the Senior Vice Provost, UAA
Human Resources Team Members
93
Human ResourcesRedesign Key HR Processes and Transactions
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Significant cost savings in
staff required to support
manual processes (HR
and University
departmental staff)
2. Reduce bottlenecks and
bureaucratic processes
3. Reduce costly errors (as
high as 90%) and
reworks
4. Reduce number of
unnecessary policies and
regulations that inhibit
effective and efficient
processes
5. Improved service levels
6. Economies of scale
1. Potential cost of
automation
1. Quantify cost of University FTEs
currently supporting manual HR
Processes
2. Establish a process to audit
processes, workflows, policies
and regulations
3. Form a cross-University task
force to guide effort
4. Assess and modify authority level
requirements
5. Leverage UA technology and
automation solutions
6. Map processes and workflows
7. Identify technology solutions
8. Redesign/reengineer workflows
and process
9. Ensure proper investment,
technology support, and
alignment with all functional areas
Recommendation
Launch a comprehensive effort to redesign and automate key HR processes and transactions.
Additional Narrative
This recommendation is critical to reducing overall cost structures, gaining efficiencies, and creating capacity for HR staff to
shift its focus to more value-added, strategic and consultative HR services. Processes should include employment/job
change status and time /attendance.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System Leadership, UT, HR
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System Leadership, UT, HR
CONSULTED
University HR staff, Others
impacted by changes
I NFORMED
University HR staff, Others
impacted by changes
Operational Efficiencies
and Process Redesign
94
Human ResourcesEstablish a culture of trust and collaboration
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Higher levels of
collaboration and
coordination
2. Improved overall
performance of HR
function
3. Reduced silos
1. Establish a formal HR council
structure that includes directors and
UA System officers/CHRO to lead
effort
2. Elevate levels of trust in University HR
leaders and staff
3. Shift perception of UA System HR
from controller to collaborator
4. Reduce silos
5. Address restrictive culture of heavy
compliance and assess risk tolerance
6. Establish mechanisms for effective
two way communication
7. Review and revise regulations to
ensure clarity on various HR roles and
responsibilities
8. Ensure role clarity and accountability
for all involved (UA System &
University)
Recommendation
Establish a culture of trust and collaboration between UA System HR and University HR functions.
Additional Narrative
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System and University HR
leaders; HR Council
ACCOUNTABLE
UA System and University HR
leaders; HR Council
CONSULTED
UA System and University
Human Resources
I NFORMED
UA System and University
Human Resources
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
Culture
95
Human ResourcesShift UA System to a Strategic Advisory Role
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Free up capacity of UA
System HR to focus on
strategic/consultative
functions
2. Enhanced services to
Universities
3. Reduced duplication of
manual transactional
activities across the
system
1. Universities absorb too
many HR responsibilities
without sufficient
resources/staffing
1. Clearly define mission,
vision, and strategic
objectives for HR
2. Clearly define HR roles
across the system
3. Educate leaders, faculty
and staff across the
system on what HR does
4. Shift core functions to
Universities and redesign
and automate core HR
processes (see specific
recommendations)
Recommendation
Shift UA System focus from transactional HR to a strategic advisory role responsible providing value-added
services.
Additional Narrative
Online recruiting platform is already underway. Some of the transactional automations have already begun.
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System HR
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System HR
CONSULTED
UA System HR, UA System
leaders, and University HR
I NFORMED
University HR and overall faculty
and staff
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X
Strategy
96
Human ResourcesInventory Strengths and Best Practices, Leverage Experts
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Reduction of duplicate
efforts
2. Sharing and adoption of
best ideas and practices
across the system
1. University & UA System
HR Directors conduct an
inventory of best
practices
2. Council to identify
process to gather and
share practices,
approaches, and
programs
Recommendation
Inventory strengths and best practices across the system. Triage HR issues at the University level and
leverage experts across the system.
Additional Narrative
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System and University HR
leaders; HR Council
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System and University HR
leaders; HR Council
CONSULTED
UA System and University
Human Resources
I NFORMED
UA System and University
Human Resources
Operational Efficiencies
and Process Redesign
97
Human ResourcesDevelop a self-service system for key HR transactions
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Gain efficiencies of HR
staff
2. Faster and more efficient
service for employees
3. Increased capacity of HR
and University staff (FTEs)
4. Reduced lost paperwork
5. Shorten time delays in
providing information to
insurance company
6. Reduced duplication
7. Consistency in processing
transactions
8. Establishes a common
employee data set
1. Potential cost of self-
service technology
1. Assess and identify
technology solutions
2. Leverage UA technology
solutions where possible
Recommendation
Develop a self-service system for key HR transactions.
Additional Narrative
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
Opportunities include benefit elections, open enrollment, changes in life events, beneficiary information,
training enrollment (PageUp), and others.
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System Leadership, UT,
HR/HR Council
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System Leadership, UT,
HR/HR Council
CONSULTED
University HR staff, others
impacted by changes
I NFORMED
University HR staff, others
impacted by changes
Operational Efficiencies
and Process Redesign
98
Human ResourcesExplore outsourcing options
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Reduced costs
2. Gain in process
efficiencies
3. Increased capacity of HR
staff (FTEs)
4. Consistency in
processing transactions
5. Reduced liability
6. Reduced error rates in
transactions
1. Outsourcing may be
more costly
1. Identify potential
providers
2. Analyze costs
3. Ensure effective
communication with
Council and HR Directors
Recommendation
Explore outsourcing of some HR processes/transactions.
Additional Narrative
Opportunities include FMLA, tax accounting (international & out-of-state), employment verification, Sikuliaq,
and others.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System leadership; Subject
Matter Experts (short-term task
forces)
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System leadership; Subject
Matter Experts (short-term task
forces)
CONSULTED
University HR staff, others
impacted by changes
I NFORMED
Council, HR Directors, Human
Resources, others impacted by
changes
Operational Efficiencies
and Process Redesign
99
Human ResourcesEnsure Effective Implementation of Recommendations
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Realization of cost
savings and efficiencies
2. Improved HR structure
and services
1. Cost of implementing
recommendations
1. Identify and commit to
needed investments in
automation and
technology
2. Ensure accountabilities
for implementation and
follow through
3. Engage an external
partner to support and
guide implementation
phase
4. Provide regular project
status updates
Recommendation
Ensure follow though and implementation of Team’s recommendations in next phase of planning.
Additional Narrative
Previous planning efforts have lacked sufficient follow through and implementation of changes. The Team
believes effective implementation is critical to success.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X X X X
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System senior leadership
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System senior and HR
leadership
CONSULTED
Human Resources; HR STT
Members
I NFORMED
Human resources; HR STT
Members
Strategy
Copyright © 2016 by The Segal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
UA System Transformation Team Recommendations
Original Recommendations
University of Alaska
101
Human ResourcesMaintain HR Reporting Structure
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Structure could prevent HR
from evolving and becoming a
strategic HR organization
2. Potential reduction of HR focus
on value-added HR services,
people and culture; too much
emphasis on transactional/
administrative HR, processes,
and compliance (Risk of
workforce being managed as a
financial commodity vs. a
people and culture-oriented
function)
3. Potential loss of HR voice and
influence at UA System
leadership level
4. Further negative impact on HR
morale
1. Complete pending searches
2. Finalize structure
Recommendation
Consider moving HR under FA as this is an administrative function. If moved, consider appropriate level for current Chief Human Resource Officer (CHRO) position. If not moved, streamline with a policy-level focus.
Team Considerations
The Team disagrees with this recommendation, and believes that the moving HR under Finance will reinforce the perception that HR is an administrative, not a strategic function. If HR is moved under the Finance function, the team believes the ability for HR to become a strategic function must somehow be preserved.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System leadership
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System leadership
CONSULTED
Human Resources; University
Employees
I NFORMED
Human Resources; University
Employees
Governance
102
Human ResourcesMaintain policy-related functions across the system, Keep Labor Relations at UA System Office
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Greater alignment of LR
strategies and activities
to broader HR vision and
strategies
1. Establish process to
ensure University input
into the bargaining
process
2. Assess risk tolerance and
modify as appropriate
3. HR council will help to
ensure strong policies
that are consistent across
the system
Recommendation
Maintain those functions that are policy-related or require consistency across the system (e.g. labor negotiations, job family structure/market analysis, compensation, health benefits). Ensure Labor Relations function remains in State Wide Human Resources, rather than in General Counsel.
Team Considerations
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
Team agrees, with some modifications. The team recommends that recruitment policies, system data,
system maintenance, training and shared resources be added to the list. The team also recommends that
labor negotiations be changed to ‘labor relations’.
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System leadership; Human
Resources
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System leadership; Human
Resources
CONSULTED
University HR
I NFORMED
University HR
Governance
103
Human ResourcesMove most operational HR Services to the Universities
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Potential efficiencies and
cost savings (reduce
duplication)
2. More streamlined
services across the
system
1. Could result in
inconsistent
administration of
programs and policies
2. May result in diminished
sense of affiliation with
the system office/team
1. If implemented, the
team’s technology
recommendations would
reduce operational HR
services
Recommendation
Universities can provide operational HR services for UA System staff located in their operating areas (Recruitment and Onboarding transactions, data entry).
Additional Narrative
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
There was broad team consensus agreeing with this recommendation, but not complete agreement across
the team. Ensure that a review of Orientation processes occurs separately, given that it is not strictly
operational/transactional and is a “high touch” HR service.
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System leadership
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System leadership
CONSULTED
UA System and University HR
I NFORMED
HR staff and broader faculty and
staff
Governance
104
Human ResourcesMaintain role as custodian of data definitions
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Allow HR access to the
data it needs
1. Inability to get the data
that HR needs
1. Confirm roles and
responsibilities for data
definitions
Recommendation
Maintain a role as custodian of UA HR institutional data definitions; however, discussion is needed regarding who holds responsibility for data integrity and data definitions –is it at UA System, the universities, or shared in an equal partnership?
Team Considerations
Team believes that HR should have responsibility for data definitions. This becomes increasingly important
as recommendations for automation are considered.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System leadership, HR
Council
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System leadership, HR
Council
CONSULTED
UA System HR, UA System UT
I NFORMED
UA System HR, UA System UT
Governance
105
Human ResourcesTransition Enterprise Management Operations to Universal Technologies, Ensure Collaboration with Universal Technologies
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Cost Savings
2. Reduced duplication of
services/streamlined
technology services
3. Improved consistency
1. Tables are highly
specialized and require
HR knowledge
2. HR may get lost in the
system when requesting
services if knowledge and
understanding of HR is
insufficient
1. Maintain knowledge resource in HR
(i.e. tables)
2. Establish HR analytics reporting
and dashboards
3. Ensure HR component as part of
the Enterprise Management Team
5. Leverage UA databases and
systems across all Universities
where possible
6. Ensure HR analytics tools and
capabilities
7. Ensure a strong partnership exists
between universities and Statewide
HR/UT
8. Define UT governance structure
and approach
Recommendation
Transition enterprise management operations to OIT and project management and system enhancements access/controls to the universities, with UA System HR serving as a collaborative partner rather than a system or data owner. Support for this recommendation is contingent upon addressing the risks and concerns outlined below.
Team Considerations
Updated with Benefits/Risks/Actions below. A sufficient level of competency, knowledge and understanding of HR must be ensured in UT in order for this recommendations to be successful.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
R ESPONSIBLE
CHRO and HR Directors/HR
Council; UT
A CCOUNTABLE
System Wide Leadership;
CHRO and HR Directors; UT
CONSULTED
UT and Human Resources
Leaders
I NFORMED
UT and Human Resources Staff
Governance
106
Human ResourcesMove Banner security and access management to Universities and UT
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Build flexibility
2. Cost Savings
3. Reduced licensing costs
4. Easier access to data
5. Reduce duplication of
efforts and data
1. HR may get lost in the
system when requesting
services
1. Maintain knowledge
resource in HR (Tables)
2. Establish HR analytics
reporting and dashboards
3. Make HR part of the
Enterprise Management
Team
4. Leverage UA databases
and systems across all
Universities where
possible
Recommendation
Move Banner/other HR system security and access management to the universities and OIT. Coordination and collaboration among the three universities and UA System should be used to manage this. Support for this recommendation is contingent upon addressing the issues outlined below.
Team Considerations
Updated with Benefits/Risks/Actions below. A sufficient level of competency, knowledge and understanding of HR must be ensured in UT in order for this recommendations to be successful.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
R ESPONSIBLE
CHRO and HR Directors/HR
Council; UT
A CCOUNTABLE
System Wide Leadership;
CHRO and HR Directors
(Council); UT
CONSULTED
UT and Human Resources
Leaders
I NFORMED
UT and Human Resources Staff
Governance
107
Human ResourcesAnalyze manual processes to determine feasibility for moving payroll to the universities
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Based on size,
outsourcing of payroll
would be costly
2. Even if outsourced, would
still need subject matter
experts to answer
questions and deal with
manual processes/
exceptions
* See Team’s
recommendation on
process redesign
Recommendation
Move Employee and Student Payroll to universities or consider outsourcing.
Team Considerations
Prior to moving to universities, manual processes/exceptions should be analyzed to determine feasibility and potential for automation. Remove “consider outsourcing” from initial recommendation, as this was determined not cost effective.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System and University
Human Resources
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System and University
Human Resources
CONSULTED
UA System and Universities
Leadership
I NFORMED
UA System and Universities
Staff
Governance
108
Human ResourcesMove UA tax accounting to Finance Function
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Unclear *See Team’s
recommendations on
broader process redesign
and outsourcing in previous
section
Recommendation
Move UA tax accounting for out-of-state and international students and employees to FA.
Team Consideration
This recommendation as constructed by the STT may simply result in cost shifting.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System leadership; Subject
Matter Experts (short-term task
forces)
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System leadership; Subject
Matter Experts (short-term task
forces)
CONSULTED
University HR staff, others
impacted by changed
I NFORMED
Council, HR Directors, Human
Resources
Governance
109
Human ResourcesMaintain oversight for classification and compensation at UA System
Benefits Risks Actions
1. HR Council to help lead
and provide clarity where
needed for roles and
authorities, reviewing
regulations
Recommendation
Maintain oversight role for classification and compensation at UA System, but work to improve transparency
to foster equity and consistency across the system.
Team Consideration
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
Team agrees.
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System HR, Universities HR,
HR Council
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System HR, Universities HR,
HR Council
CONSULTED
Broader Human Resources Staff
(Both UA System and
Universities)
I NFORMED
Broader Human Resources Staff
(Both UA System and
Universities)
Governance
110
Human ResourcesRegularly assess compensation and conduct market analyses
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Enhanced consistency in
compensation practices
2. Greater alignment of
compensation planning
and philosophy to
broader HR strategies
1. Identify process
2. Develop an approach to
share job descriptions
across Universities
3. Utilize a systematic
method to ensure
consistency (analytics)
Recommendation
Regularly review compensation across job families and between universities including criteria for determining placing executive and senior administrative staff, and conduct market analyses on a scheduled interval, providing this information to the President and the universities.
Team Considerations
Team agrees.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
R ESPONSIBLE
CHRO and HR Council, UA
System HR
A CCOUNTABLE
CHRO and HR Council, UA
System HR
CONSULTED
UA System and Universities
Leadership
I NFORMED
UA System and Universities
Staff
People
111
Human ResourcesUtilize collaborative hiring with Universities and UA System
Benefits Risks Actions
This is already being done
Recommendation
Consider collaborative hiring—involve university staff on hiring committees for UA System positions, this may
increase awareness of services/needs across university boundaries and build relationships.
Team Considerations
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Team agrees.
R ESPONSIBLE
A CCOUNTABLE
CONSULTED
I NFORMED
People
112
Human ResourcesMove recruitment functions to the Universities
Benefits Risks Actions
1. May help to reduce siloes2. Free up some resources
at UA System3. Gain efficiencies and
reduce duplication
1. Potential loss of employee affiliation with UA System
1. UA System senior leadership to decide next steps
Recommendation
Move recruitment functions to universities with each university providing recruitment support to UA System
departments in their geographic area.
Team Considerations
F M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
The team had broad consensus in support of this recommendations but not complete agreement.
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System leadership
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System leadership
CONSULTED
UA System and University HR
I NFORMED
HR staff and broader faculty and
staff
Governance
113
Human ResourcesMaintain Benefits Management, Plan Design, and Communication at UA System Office
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Consistency across the system
1. Structure could prevent HR from evolving and becoming a strategic HR organization
2. Potential reduction of HR focus on value-added HR services, people and culture; too much emphasis on transactional/administrative HR, processes, and compliance (Risk of workforce being managed as a financial commodity vs. a people and culture-oriented function)
3. Potential loss of HR voice and influence at UA System leadership level
4. Further negative impact on HR morale
1. Determine structure for UA System HR
2. Ensure collaboration between HR Council/CHRO and the Joint Healthcare Committee
Recommendation
Maintain responsibility for health insurance, wellness program, benefit accounting, supplemental benefits design/procurement, and retirement compliance at UA System, but consider moving to FA.If maintained in a standalone HR department, look for opportunities to streamline.
Team Considerations
Team disagrees with moving to FA, but agrees with maintaining at UA System. The Team recommends focusing on broader HR process improvement, rather than streamlining or moving.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
R ESPONSIBLE
HR Council; CHRO
A CCOUNTABLE
HR Council; CHRO
CONSULTED
University HR Leaders
I NFORMED
UA System and Universities
Human Resources Staff
Governance
114
Human ResourcesPartner with Universities for required training, with only subject matter training at UA System as needed
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Reduced cost2. Reduced duplication with
University training efforts
1. Transition remainingcentral training functions
Recommendation
Eliminate function from UA System and partner with universities for needed training.
Team Considerations
The Team agrees with this recommendation and believes UA System should provide subject matter training in specific areas by HR staff members in those individual departments as needed, but that a dedicated UA System training function or office is not needed.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
R ESPONSIBLE
CHRO and HR Directors
A CCOUNTABLE
CHRO and HR Directors
CONSULTED
UA System HR Staff
I NFORMED
UA System and Universities HR
Staff
Governance
115
Human ResourcesDevelop standard curriculum across the system
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Cost savings and
efficiencies
May be addressed by
PageUp
1. If items are not
addressed by PageUp,
ensure that Team’s
recommendation to
inventory and leverage
best practices/expertise
across system is utilized
Recommendation
If system standardization is required for particular curriculum, use staff at a lead university to develop. Agreement will be needed among universities to adhere to this standard and track employee training in a consistent (preferably automated) manner.
Team Considerations
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
Team agrees—PageUp may solve this issue.
R ESPONSIBLE
HR & UA System Directors;
CHRO
ACCOUNTABLE
HR & UA System Directors;
CHRO
CONSULTED
UA System HR Staff
I NFORMED
UA System and Universities HR
Staff
Operational Efficiencies
and Process Redesign
116
As an action item in the “Redesign Key HR Processes and Transactions” recommendation, the team recommends that cost-savings be quantified in order to serve as a case for change for automation of certain processes. The following is a draft example of cost-savings projections from an automation of a manual process. This is a high level review of a single process, and could be used as an example for projecting cost-savings of similar manual processes.
This brief analysis is a case study of the benefit of automating personnel actions. There are many personnel actions which are transacted using the paper-based job form. Despite many hours devoted to training of staff in departments whose job it is to fill out job forms, it is still a time-consuming and error-prone means of conducting business. The Contract Extension (CONX) was selected for this analysis because it’s among the highest frequency of all personnel action types and is a relatively simple action.
Our experience tells us that automated personnel actions, foremost being Web Time Entry, results in error rate and processing time decrease. The aim of this analysis is to quantify and project cost savings derived from automating a typical personnel action.
HR Automation Costing Example
117
CONX = Contract Extension
The Contract Extension transaction is a very common maintenance type of personnel transaction. It is performed to extend the contract period for assignments that have an end date; such as, temporary assignments and regular term assignments (typically grant funded positions).
The process requires a paper job form and appointment letter to be prepared at the department level then routed to HR for data entry and filing.
Last year there were 1,300 CONX processed UA system wide.
At best, it takes 5 hours of staff-time (department and HR) to process one CONX. This estimate includes rework-time (errors and incomplete work).
The average hourly rate (with benefits) for staff-time is $36.63.
Cost to process one CONX is $183.15.
Cost to process 1,300 CONXs in a year is $238,095.
Current State
118
EPAF = Electronic Personnel Action Form
EPAF removes the paper job form from the process. EPAF electronically routes the transaction through approvers to HR. EPAF also reduces the instances of error and incomplete work. In the case of contract extensions, the department would still need to prepare and submit an appointment letter to HR.
EPAF can cut from 30 to 120 minutes from processing times, largely due to reducing rework-time. If on average a 60 minute reduction in processing time is realized, that would result in a 20% reduction in personnel time-cost.
Future State—Automated CONX EPAF
CurrentCut 30
minutesCut 60
minutesCut 120minutes
Average Total Time to Process a CONX 5 4.5 4 3
# Process per Year 1300 1300 1300 1300
Average Hourly Rate (incl. benefit rate 50%) $36.63 $36.63 $36.63 $36.63
Total Cost for one CONX $183.15 $164.84 $146.52 $109.89
Total Cost per year: $238,095.00 $214,285.50 $190,476.00 $142,857.00
Cost savings $23,809.50 $47,619.00 $95,238.00
Percent savings 10.00% 20.00% 44.44%
119
Appendix
Recommendations by Theme
Technology Team Recommendations
Enterprise Management System Team Recommendations
Administration Team Recommendations
Finance Team Recommendations
Human Resources Team Recommendations
Academic Affairs & Research, University Relations and UA Foundation Team Recommendations
120
The Academic Affairs and Research, University Relations, and UA Foundation Team was tasked with further developing recommendations regarding the Academic Affairs and Research Unit, University Relations, UA Foundation, UA Scholars, Branding, and Federal Relations
Included in team’s discussions were:
Establishing Academic Planning and University Relations/Foundation Strategies
Defining the role and key strategies for research
Exploring data collection and utilization efficiencies
Defining the role that E-Learning should play at UA
Clarifying Workforce Development Program Uses and Efficiencies
Developing a plan to best establish and utilize a centralized UA System Campaign
Ensuring strong marketing and communication engagement and support
Exploring the best methods to leverage alumni for fundraising support
Encouraging Cultural Change to Support the UA System’s Mission
Academic Affairs and Research, University Relations, and UA Foundation Team Scope
121
Saichi Oba, SW SES
Lael Oldmixon, UA Scholars
Megan Reibe, UA Foundation
Mark Kreta, UAF Director of Admissions
Doug Goering, UAF Dean College of Engineering and Mines (Team Leader)
Keni Campbell, UAS Chancellor’s Office
Jill Dumesnil, UAS Associate Dean School of Arts and Sciences
JoAnn Bartley, UAA Assistant Professor/Chair, Human Services
Rachel Morse, UAA Assistant VC, Alumni Relations
Jeff Woods, UA Student, System Governance Council Representative
Academic Affairs and Research, University Relations, and UA Foundation Team Members
122
Academic Affairs & ResearchDevelop a Strategic Enrollment Strategy and Plan
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Clarity and direction of
student enrollment
strategies, goals and
objectives
2. Clarity and direction of
student retention
strategies, goals and
objectives
4. Increased enrollment
5. Improved retention
6. Reduced duplication of
efforts
1. Develop a process and
approach for Universities
to maintain responsibility
for high-school Junior
year students and higher,
and for the UA System to
maintain responsibility for
younger populations and
parents
2. Benchmark other system
models (Cal, SUNY)
3. Establish strategic
marketing strategy at UA
System with university
input and clear objectives
and expectations
Recommendation
Develop a strategic enrollment strategy and plan, that includes recruitment, retention, and completion that
can be used to inform roles and responsibilities of UA System and Universities.
Additional Narrative
Universities carry the main responsibility for developing and acting (implementation and tactical initiatives) upon the action
items in the strategy and plan, in partnership with the UA System (UA System to help create overarching goals and serve as
resource for resource for university planning). Potential resource constraints at the University level need to be considered.
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System Leadership
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System Leadership
CONSULTED
Universities
I NFORMED
Stakeholders impacted by
recommendation
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Ongoing
X X
Strategy
123
Academic Affairs & ResearchAddress accreditation structure as a barrier to collaboration
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Greater alignment and
synergies across
Universities
2. Reduced competition for
students
3. Improved ability for
students to transfer
4. Enhanced student
retention
1. Accreditation continues to
be a barrier (or excuse)
to collaboration
1. Address transfer issues and
challenges
2. Establish a common
vocabulary in lead
university/strategic
pathways planning
3. Review and reconcile
university degree levels
where possible (Math,
English)
4. Assess structures and
approaches of other
systems
5. Address siloes and
competition among
Universities
Recommendation
Address accreditation structure as a barrier to collaboration and consistency across Universities.
Additional Narrative
The Team recommends that the Universities maintain control of programs. In addition, faculty must remain in control of the
curriculum. Ensure effective change management and communication around changes. It is important that UA does not allow “risk
to accreditation” to be a conversation stopper. Potential areas to lead conversation include: Faculty Alliance, Coalition of Student
Leaders, and System Wide Academic Council. Faculty Alliance to take a larger role in aligning changes where occurring.
R ESPONSIBLE
System Wide Academic Council
(VP AAR), Faculty Alliance
A CCOUNTABLE
Faculty Senates, Faculty at
Universities
CONSULTED
Faculty at Universities
I NFORMED
Faculty at Universities
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Ongoing
X X
Culture
124
Academic Affairs & ResearchClearly define role, strategies, and goals of research
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Clarity and alignment of
priorities, goals, and
objectives
2. Establish research as a
main focus in future
academic vision and
strategy
3. Alignment of investments
in research
4. Increased research
funding for UA
1. Identify the appropriate
structure and approach to
support the research
vision.
2. Examine, define, and
clarify the roles, structure,
and responsibilities in
light of the lead
universities/strategic
pathways
3. Maintain UA System
Federal Relations
function to support
research and
development
Recommendation
Clearly define the role of research and define key strategies and goals.
Additional Narrative
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System Leadership
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System Leadership
CONSULTED
Research Infrastructure at
University Level
I NFORMED
Research Faculty
StrategyM A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Ongoing
X X
125
Academic Affairs & ResearchEstablish an E-Learning vision and strategy
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Improved student access
2. Greater flexibility for students
3. Increased competitiveness
for students out of state and
in remote locations
4. Increased enrollment
5. Revenue generation
6. Greater alignment of
eLearning goals and activities
across Universities
1. Insufficient technology or
inconsistent systems will
negatively impact
administration of eLearning
and the student experience
2. Loss of face to face learning
experience for students
3. Potential investment/cost in
improved technology
1. Establish consistency across all
Universities (UA System serves as
enabler, with programs and
departments residing at the
Universities)
2. Standardize/Streamline
blackboard, voice threads, Google
docs, and video conferencing for
cost savings and efficiencies
3. Assess system wide business
functions and tools and share
services where efficiencies can be
gained (i.e. procurement, email,
transfer system, etc.)
4. Ensure sufficient onsite support for
students in online courses
5. Clarify degree requirements across
Universities. (Determine if
emphasis should be on programs
or courses.)
7. Establish a revenue model that is
incentivized and promotes
collaboration
Recommendation
Establish an E-Learning vision and strategy.
Additional Narrative
The goal should be to have aligned offerings across Universities. Team notes that collaboration for
technology infrastructure is necessary, with flexibility of how courses are presented.
R ESPONSIBLE
System Wide Academic Council
A CCOUNTABLE
System Wide Academic Council;
E-learning offices at University
level
CONSULTED
Faculty
I NFORMED
Faculty; Students
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Ongoing
X X X X
Strategy
126
UA FoundationAlign UA Foundation accountabilities and results
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Increased fundraising and
revenue generation
2. Enhanced accountability
for fundraising
1. Examine the structure and
leverage the full potential (i.e.
maximize focus on major gifts
and development)
2. Clarify roles and responsibilities
between UA UR, the
Universities, and the Foundation
3. Assess where the responsibility
and accountability for major gifts
should lie
4. Enhance the culture of giving
though increased education and
accountability for fundraising
across all leaders and faculty
5. Establish consistent position
descriptions with consistent
performance expectations
Recommendation
Align University accountabilities and results (particularly with regard to Prospect Management). Examine
structure and accountabilities to leverage the full potential of major gift fundraising.
Additional Narrative
Team notes that it is imperative as a condition for success that sufficient resources be assessed and provided to
carry out the recommendation. Ensure sufficient marketing and communications support for UA Foundation.
R ESPONSIBLE
UA Foundation, Universities
A CCOUNTABLE
UA Foundation
CONSULTED
Universities
I NFORMED
President, Boards
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Ongoing
X X
Strategy
127
University RelationsClarify the mission and vision of University Relations, Clarify role of University Relations with respect to Federal Government
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Enhanced fundraising and
revenue generation
2. Strong support for
successfully executing
against the campaign
3. Enhanced alumni
engagement
4. Well-designed and
consistent approach to
federal government relations
(impact on grants and
contracts)
1. Cost of additional
resources
1. Establish clear strategies, goals and
objectives for UA System marketing and
communications
2. Identify, market, and communicate the
objectives and benefits of a central UA
campaign
3. Tie marketing and communications
efforts to specific goals and outcomes
4. Establish a UA System communication
plan and strategy with consistent
messaging to the broader alumni
community while keeping university
identities
5. Explore partnerships in joint messaging
across universities and across
stakeholder groups
6. Ensure sufficient support and
communication to include and engage
universities
Recommendation
Clarify the overarching mission and vision of the University Relations function, as well as the role of
University Relations with respect to the Federal Government.
Additional Narrative
Ensure sufficient marketing and communications support for University Relations. Partner with Universities in this effort.
Maintain sufficient alumni communication at the university level, ensuring that communication to alumni has alma mater
recognition and branding—even if part of an overall UA System campaign and overall UA System messaging.
R ESPONSIBLE
VP for University Relations, AVP
for Public Affairs
A CCOUNTABLE
VP for University Relations
CONSULTED
Communication Team
Leaders/University Relations
Directors at Universities
I NFORMED
Communication Team
Leaders/University Relations
Directors at Universities
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Ongoing
X X X X
Strategy/
People
128
Academic Affairs & ResearchEnsure easy and efficient data access
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Ability to make data-
driven decisions
2. Improved ability to
measure outcomes
1. Ensure proper tools and
data are available in order
for the University to make
data-driven decisions (i.e.
dashboards, common
databases, effective
enterprise management
systems)
Recommendation
Ensure easy and efficient access for data to better develop and implement strategic priorities.
Additional Narrative
These needs are broader across Banner and other systems across the UA System and Universities, but are
particularly important for Stakeholders. Data quality, access, and usability often surfaced during team
discussions of other recommendations.
R ESPONSIBLE
UT
A CCOUNTABLE
UT
CONSULTED
Stakeholders impacted by
recommendation
I NFORMED
Stakeholders impacted by
recommendation
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Ongoing
X
Operational Efficiencies
and Process Redesign
Copyright © 2016 by The Segal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
SW Transformation Team Recommendations
Original Recommendations
University of Alaska
130
Academic Affairs & ResearchMaintain leadership of educational policy at UA System, Transition K-12 Outreach and Workforce Development Programs to Universities, Maintain UA System WD Relationships, Maintain leadership for UA System Industry-related policy decisions
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Gain efficiencies
2. Leverage strong
relationships at UA
System
1. May create a potential
resource issue for
universities/may result in
an unfunded mandate for
universities
1. Ensure alignment of priorities
and university needs
2. Clarify if university programs
will be cut given budget
constraints, and if the move
will result in an unfunded
mandate for universities.
3. Ensure effective
communication and
collaboration between UA
System and the universities,
with an alignment to program
utilization and needs
4. Address silos across
universities
Recommendations (a-e)
Maintain leadership of educational policy issues at SW. Assess where it is best located.Transition K-12 Outreach to the universities. Streamline where appropriate.Move workforce development programs to the universities.Maintain system-level workforce development relationships (e.g. Alaska Workforce Investment Board) at SW to ensure
alignment with Shaping Alaska’s Future. Clarify, remit and assess proper palcement of functionMaintain leadership role for system-level industry-related policy decisions at SW.
Team Considerations
The Team Agrees with these recommendations, with the considerations and conditions outlined below.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System Leadership
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System Leadership
CONSULTED
Stakeholders that are impacted
by recommendations
I NFORMED
Stakeholders that are impacted
by recommendations
Governance
131
Academic Affairs & ResearchAlign Student and Enrollment Services with UA System priorities
Benefits Risks Actions
Already being
implemented
Recommendation (f)
Change focus of Student and Enrollment Services to align with essential roles of SW and consider changing the name to Student and Enrollment Strategy (SES), as the term/name “services” implies operational responsibility.
Team Considerations
The Team agrees with this recommendation-this is already occuring and the Team supports the change.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
R ESPONSIBLE
N/A
ACCOUNTABLE
N/A
CONSULTED
N/A
I NFORMED
N/A
Strategy
132
Academic Affairs & ResearchAssess student-related services, campaigns and communications
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Cost savings
2. reduction of
duplication
1. Misalignment across
Universities
2. Reduced services to
students
3. President/Board of
Regents determining
necessary student
outreach that
universities do not
implement
4. Early outreach stops;
reduction in Alaska's
college going rate
and UA's first time
freshmen
5. Reduction in student
course loads;
reduction in
graduation rate
1. Further assess structure and potential impacts
2. Establish clear roles, objectives, and expectations for
UA System and Universities
3. Ensure that Universities have sufficient resources to
support activities
4. Establish process for Universities to take responsibility
for Junior year high-school students and higher (with
the exception of UA Scholars Program coordination with
Universities), and UA System take responsibility for
younger populations and parents
5. Assess/benchmark other system structures (Cal, SUNY)
6. Clarify and define roles of UA System vs. Universities
7. Monitor retention and ensure proper resources at the
University level
8. Communicate & share the work being done with the
College Savings Plan
9. Ensure flexibility of roles for urgent demands of the
President & Regents
10.Establish strategic marketing strategy at UA System
level with university input and clear objectives and
expectations
11.Develop a more uniform message that includes all
university logos equally
Recommendation (g)
Move student-related services, campaigns and communications to the universities. The team recommends further assessment before implementation.
Team Considerations
The Team believes a more uniform communications strategy is needed that includes input from the Universities and UA System. The team agrees that there still is a role for these services at the UA System level.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System Leadership
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System Leadership
CONSULTED
Stakeholders that are impacted
by recommendations
I NFORMED
Stakeholders that are impacted
by recommendations
Governance
133
Academic Affairs & ResearchUtilize SES to facilitate UA System Student Scholarship & Tuition Policy Development
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Gain efficiencies 1. Establish a process to
ensure sufficient
University input into
policy development
2. Establish a process to
ensure sufficient advance
communication and
engagement of students
3. Consider establishing
multi-year set tuition to
prevent blindsiding
students
4. Establish a working group
led by SES with
representatives from
colleges within the
universities
Recommendation (h)
Utilize newly-named SES to facilitate system-level student scholarship, and tuition policy development.
Team Considerations
The Team agrees with this recommendation with the considerations and conditions outlined below.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System Leadership
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System Leadership
CONSULTED
Stakeholders that are impacted
by recommendations; Students;
UA Foundation
I NFORMED
Stakeholders that are impacted
by recommendations; Students;
UA Foundation
Governance
134
Academic Affairs & ResearchMaintain location of Alaska Scholars Program
Benefits Risks Actions
1. May not result in
efficiencies or cost
savings
2. May not improve program
for students
1. Formalize a strong
connection to SES with
effective communication
and collaboration
2. Ensure link of Scholars
Program to the strategic
enrollment plan
Recommendation (i)
Move Alaska Scholars outreach and external relationships to AAR/SES.
Team Considerations
Team does not agree with the recommendation and believes there are no meaningful efficiencies can be
gained from the recommended model.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
R ESPONSIBLE
N/A
ACCOUNTABLE
N/A
CONSULTED
N/A
I NFORMED
N/A
Governance
135
Academic Affairs & ResearchLocate FERPA policy development at UA System, Manage FERPA compliance at Universities
Benefits Risks Actions
Recommendation (j)
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) policy development should be held at SW and be housed in AAR/SES. FERPA compliance should be managed at the universities.
Team Considerations
The Team agrees with this recommendation.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
R ESPONSIBLE
TBD
A CCOUNTABLE
TBD
CONSULTED
TBD
I NFORMED
TBD
Governance
136
Academic Affairs & ResearchMaintain system governance
Benefits Risks Actions
Recommendation (k)
Maintain system governance as it is currently structured and located.
Team Considerations
The Team agrees with this recommendation.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X X
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System Leadership
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System Leadership
CONSULTED
Stakeholders Impacted by
Recommendation
I NFORMED
Stakeholders Impacted by
Recommendation
Governance
137
Academic Affairs & ResearchTransition Enterprise Management Operations to UT and project management/system enhancements to Universities
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Cost savings/efficienies 1. May result in inconsistent
practices
2. Decisions that are UT-
centric and not student-
centric
3. Authority transfer from
university enrollment
managers to UT
4. Potential fracturing of the
cohesive Banner team
structure that is critical to
running a single instance of
Banner across a multi-
university environment
1. Sync and align with other
team recommendations
2. Align overarching plans and
strategies of the
UT/Enterprise Management
teams with the broader team
recommendations
3. Leverage purchasing power
by aligning systems and
licenses across universities
4. Clarify stakeholder input
and needs
5. Ensure a centralized
process with coordinated
points of decisions-making
6. Ensure UT
recommendations are
student user-based
Recommendation (l)
Transition enterprise management operations to OIT and project management and system enhancements access/controls to the universities, with SW SES serving as a collaborative partner rather than a system or data owner.
Team Considerations
The Team agrees with this recommendation provided stakeholder input is clear and there is a centralized process and effective coordination of priorities and decision-making.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System and UT Leadership
A CCOUNTABLE
UT Leadership
CONSULTED
Academic Affairs
Representative, Stakeholders
I NFORMED
Stakeholders/Users
Governance
138
Academic Affairs & ResearchMove Banner security and access management to Universities and UT
Benefits Risks Actions
*Team did not feel
comfortable commenting
on this recommendation
without comprehensive
understanding of
technologies
Recommendation (m)
Move Banner/other student system security and access management to the universities and OIT. Coordination and collaboration among the three universities and SW should be used to manage this.
Team Considerations
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
The purpose and/or impact of this recommendation is not fully understood. Recommendation needs to be
aligned with the work of the Technology and Enterprise Management Teams.
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System leadership
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System leadership
CONSULTED
Stakeholders impacted by
Recommendation
I NFORMED
Stakeholders impacted by
Recommendation
Governance
139
University Relations/FoundationMove AVP State Relations to Office of Strategy, Planning and Budget
Benefits Risks Actions
Already being
implemented
Recommendation (a)
Move AVP State Relations under the Office of Strategy, Planning and Budget (SPB).
Team Considerations
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Recommendation is already being implemented. This should be considered as part of the University
Relations Strategy.
R ESPONSIBLE
N/A
A CCOUNTABLE
N/A
CONSULTED
N/A
I NFORMED
N/A
Governance
140
The Team agrees with this recommendation. This should be considered as part of the University Relations
Strategy.
University Relations/FoundationEliminate the Squire Patton Boggs Federal Relations Contract
Benefits Risks Actions
Already being
implemented
Recommendation (b)
Eliminate the Squire Patton Boggs Federal relations contract.
Team Considerations
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
R ESPONSIBLE
N/A
A CCOUNTABLE
N/A
CONSULTED
N/A
I NFORMED
N/A
Strategy
141
University Relations/FoundationCreate and fill a new AVP Public Affairs and/or Federal Relations Position
Benefits Risks Actions
Already being implemented
Recommendation (c)
Create and fill a new AVP Public Affairs and/or Federal Relations position. Note: Upon retirement of VP UR, this position to report to the UA President.
Team Considerations
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
This recommendation is already being implemented. This should be considered as part of the University
Relations Strategy.
R ESPONSIBLE
N/A
A CCOUNTABLE
N/A
CONSULTED
N/A
I NFORMED
N/A
People
142
Team recommends that an assessment be done to determine if a single resource can sufficiently support and manage both federal relations and strategy, public affairs, and budget for the University. This should be considered as part of the University Relations Strategy.
University Relations/FoundationAssess the ability of a single position to manage federal relations, public affairs, and budget; Consider eliminating VP UR position
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Cost savings 1. May be too much work
for one person to
support/manage
2. Reduced ability to interact
at the Federal level
1. Assess workload and
responsibilities of single
role to detrmine if the
structure will sufficientloy
support demand
Recommendation (d)
Eliminate VP UR position (will occur year-end with retirement of incumbent).
Team Considerations
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X
R ESPONSIBLE
UA System leadership
A CCOUNTABLE
UA System leadership
CONSULTED
Stakeholders impacted by
Recommendation
I NFORMED
Stakeholders impacted by
Recommendation
People
143
University Relations/FoundationEliminate UR administrative support position
Benefits Risks Actions
Already being
implemented
Recommendation (e)
Eliminate UR administrative support position.
Team Considerations
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
This recommendation has already been implemented. How the position is resourced should be considered
as part of the University Relations Strategy.
R ESPONSIBLE
N/A
A CCOUNTABLE
N/A
CONSULTED
N/A
I NFORMED
N/A
People
144
University Relations/FoundationAlign efforts with SPB and AAR
Benefits Risks Actions
1. Identify approaches and
mechanisms for ensuring
alignment
2. Establish objectives and
priorities
Recommendation (f)
Align efforts and explore ways to work together with SPB and AAR in supporting State and Federal relations efforts.
Team Considerations
The Team does not substantively disagree with this recommendation.
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
X X X
R ESPONSIBLE
TBD
A CCOUNTABLE
TBD
CONSULTED
Stakeholders impacted by
Recommendation
I NFORMED
Stakeholders impacted by
Recommendation
Strategy
145
University Relations/FoundationReassign Shaping Alaska’s Future office to Public Affairs
Benefits Risks Actions
Already being
implemented
Recommendation (g)
Reassign Shaping Alaska's Future Office work to Public Affairs (see further information in Strategy, Planning and Budget section).
Team Considerations
M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
This recommendation has already been implemented.
R ESPONSIBLE
N/A
A CCOUNTABLE
N/A
CONSULTED
N/A
I NFORMED
N/A
Governance
Recommended