Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
University of Minnesota
Hiring Process Redesign
Lean Continuous Improvement Kaizen Event
Report to HR ProsApril 24, 2013
Kaizen Team
Kaizen Team• Sponsor – Lori Lamb • Team Leader – Katie Stuckert & Laura Negrini• Team members:
• Sheila Reger, Consulting Team Manager• Alexandra Whittington, HR Consultant• Jackie Gilliard, Staffing Consultant• Charlene Lowe, Talent Coach, OHR Job Center• Bonnie Marten, Diversity & Inclusion Committee Rep• Dorothy Cottrell, Academic Health Center• Lori Loberg, College of Food, Agriculture and Nat Res
Science • Linda Kinnear, UMN Duluth• Mary Cameron, UMN Duluth• Lynne Olson, University Services• Michele Gross, University Policy Office
• Facilitator – Tom Baumann, Sara Gronewold
Business issue Perceived challenges with the hiring process include: • Inefficient and cumbersome process results in high time-to-fill rates•Varied processes among different employee groups (ie. Faculty, P&A, Civil Service, and Labor Represented)•Poor candidate experience given the application review and priority hiring requirements•Unclear and inconsistent standards regarding posting requirements•Lack of communication throughout the process between OHR and the units as well as with the candidates
Scope of Kaizen Event Scope: Review of the central hiring processes --beginning when the requisition is received (post-classification) from the collegiate or administrative unit until the requisition is designated as either filled or canceled.The process will include faculty, P&A, Civil Service, Labor Represented, and No-Search hires. The project does not include student hires.
Starting point: Requisition is received from the collegiate or administrative unitEnd point: When the requisition is designated as filled or canceled.
Goals For the Future Process
• Simplify the hiring process by eliminating steps that no longer add value or are not required by policy or collective bargaining agreements
• Reduce number of process steps by 50%
• Define roles and responsibilities between OHR and unit representatives
• Decrease time-to-fill rate by 30%
Current Process
Observations of Current Process
• Processes are complex and not standardized• Training for hiring authorities is inadequate• Hiring process is frustrating for users and
applicants• Inconsistency between units on how to close out
requisitions • EOAA guidelines are inconsistently applied• Failure rate percentages are high – lots of rework
on requisitions• Surprised at variety of duties for hiring authorities• Communication with the candidates is not timely
and is incomplete
Observations of current process
• Lots of “hurry up and waits”• Too much information in too many places• Information is sometimes not easily or intuitively
accessible• We try to be high service but process is confusing
for users• Disappointed that there isn’t more automation
within the process
Faculty/P&ACurrent state Future state
Qty Time Qty Time
Tasks 49 56 hours, 40 minutes
Waits 44 114 days
Handoffs 18
Decisions
6
File/store 7
ElapsedTime
121 days
Civil Service/Labor Represented (with valid priority candidates)
Current state Future state
Qty Time Qty Time
Tasks 30 16 hrs, 45 mn
Waits 20 32 days
Handoffs 14
Decisions
5
File/store 3
Elapsed Time
33 days
Civil Service/Labor Represented (no priority candidates)
Current state Future state
Qty Time Qty Time
Tasks 40 35 hours, 45 minutes
Waits 32 65 days
Handoffs 24
Decisions
9
File/store 8
Elapsed Time
70 days
Recommendations
Issue: Hiring process takes too long and is inconsistent across campuses, units, and employee groups
Actions: Reduce number of steps and standardize process; clarify roles and responsibilities; establish timeline expectations, include checklists, and distribute updated flowchart
Recommendations
Issue: Within the process of no-search hires for faculty and P&A positions, there is tension between the values of the organization and the flexibility needed to attract, promote, and retain high quality and diverse candidates.
Action: Strengthen the approval criteria and recommend delegation of authority at campus level
Recommendations Issue: 80% of requisitions are submitted
with incomplete information, which increases time-to-fill.
Action: Improve usability of requisition form with additional automation and instructions; and provide education and performance metrics to HR and hiring authorities
Recommendations
Issue: Data integrity is unreliable due to lack of timely and accurate updates of information within system
Action: Clarify procedures and expectations and communicate the negative impact of delays
Recommendations
Issue: Hiring process does not prioritize candidate experience.
Action: Simplify candidate application process and increase automated communication with candidate throughout process
Future Process
Faculty/P&ACurrent state Future state
Qty Time Qty Time
Tasks 49 56 hours, 40 minutes
28 22 hrs, 40 min
Waits 44 114 days 13 55 days
Handoffs 18 12
Decisions
6 5
File/store 7 4
ElapsedTime
124 121 days 63 59 days
Civil Service/Labor RepresentedCurrent state Future state
Qty Time Qty Time
Tasks 40 35 hours, 45 minutes
21 19 hrs, 45 mn
Waits 32 65 days 9 25 days
Handoffs 24 15
Decisions
9 6
File/store 8 5
Elapsed Time
113 70 days 56 28 days
Civil Service/Labor Represented (w/valid priority candidates)
Current state Future state
Qty Time Qty Time
Tasks 30 16 hrs, 45 mn 18 8hrs, 20 mn
Waits 20 31 days 8 18 days
Handoffs 15 8
Decisions
5 3
File/store 3
Elapsed Time
73 33 days 37 20 days
Efficiency Opportunities
P & A and FacultyReduction of process steps
Reduction in elapsed time Reduction in task time
50%49%58%
Civil service/labor represented (no PC)
Reduction of process stepsReduction in elapsed time
Reduction in task time
50%65%49%
Civil service/labor represented (PC)Reduction of process stepsReduction in elapsed time
Reduction in task time
56%40%50%
Anticipated Improvement Metrics• Reduced time-to-fill• 80% first-pass-yield on requisitions• Improved hiring authority satisfaction• Hiring authorities are aware of EOAA goals for all vacancies • Reduce the number of direct-hires (except spousal)• Increased accuracy of applicant statuses• Reduced staff time to meet reporting requirements by 20%
Benefits of Future State• University’s reputation is improved• Able to attract, acquire, and retain diverse
and high-quality candidates • Reduce administrative costs• Redirect staff resources to more strategic
and mission-related functions• Hiring authorities have resources and
support they need to navigate the hiring process effectively
• Increases accountability• Decreased frustration by everyone in
process
Action PlanWhat When Who
Create guidelines for hiring decisions that need consultation (added to tool kit)
June 1, 2013
Linda
Update and improve requisition form (Add hard stops where appropriate, add language to manage expectations)
July 1, 2013 Laura
Educate HR pros about incoming requisition bottleneck to better manage process
May 1, 2013 Sheila
Create training and guidelines (checklists) for hiring authorities (added to tool kit) on new process
August 1, 2013
Laura
Define responsibility and reduce and control number of hiring authorities that can enter requisitions
June 1, 2013
Laura/Susan
Create standards for managing layoff list July 1,2013 Mary/Patti D.
Executive leaders communicate plan to empower Human Resources/Staffing Consultants
May 15, 2013Sept. 6, 2013
Katie
Create flowcharts for each employee group with steps and timeframes i.e 6 weeks for P&A/14 days for CS &LR include in training and tool kit
July 1, 2013 Laura/Katie
Action PlanWhat When Who
Monitor incoming reqs. for completeness and accuracy
June 1, 2013
Jackie
Research and explore opportunities for shared services
Sept. 1,2013
Sheila/Laura
Establish diversity screening standards to hiring authorities (for tool kit)
July 1, 2013 Mary/LindaLori
Develop direct hire form language and template
June 1, 2013
Katie
Identify and implement Best Practices for interview scheduling (for tool kit)
July 1, 2013 Katie
Review and revise “so sorry” letters – expand to academics hiring procedure. Align system notifications with applicant status (tool kit)
July 1, 2013 Katie
Develop and improve recruiting efforts – active outreach (runner ups, internal talent bank, mobility)
Sept. 1, 2013
Charlene
Training around effective reference checking(tool kit)
July 1, 2013 Sheila
Action PlanWhat When Who
Establish and execute an Hiring Authority satisfaction survey
July 1, 2013 Laura/OMS
Propose delegation authority of direct hire to the chancellors
June 1, 2013 Katie
Update policies and procedures to implement new process
August 1, 2013
Michele
Needed to Fully Capture and Sustain These Improvements
• We need the approval, public support for, and broad communication by the Senior Leadership Group
• Despite the high priority of ESUP, we need human and technical resources for updating employment system
• We need ongoing measurement and feedback of process performance
Helpful Hints to improve Requisition first pass yield
• Complete ALL the fields. May need to change to Requisition Approver role to have access to edit fields.
• Always complete the field specifying if a background check is required. Guidelines for whether a background check is recommended are located in Managers Toolkit.
• Minimum requirements must be consistent with the job classification. Always compare the job classification database info with the minimum requirements in the posting for consistency.
• Minimum requirements must be specific and measurable.
• For represented labor groups: preferred requirements beyond the minimum cannot exceed the minimum requirements.
Helpful Hints to improve Requisition first pass yield
• Remove all fancy formatting.• When duplicating a previous requisition, check
every field carefully for relevance and accuracy. Look for old dates embedded within posting description or application instructions.
• Always add notes to provide context. Notes such as previous discussions and decisions, who participated, why a req should or should not be posted until filled, if an internal candidate has been identified, justification for not conducting a background screen, etc.
• Common mistake: considering students to be “internal”, students are “external”.
Questions/Observations?
