human resources team report - university of alaska systemhuman resources report 3 assumptions u a...

Human Resources Team Report

UA Strategic Pathways

January 18, 2017

Human Resources Report 1

Table of contents

Charge, Scope and Goal ...........................................................................................................2

Assumptions, HR Definitions, Best Practices ..........................................................................3

Questions and Further Analysis System Wide – All Options, HR System Wide Opportunities for Change – All Options ..................................................................................4

Process Overview .....................................................................................................................5

Option 1 – Continued Implementation of SW Transformation and Establishment of HRC ...6

Option 2 – Consolidated Administration, Decentralized Consultation .................................10

Option 3 – CHRO Direct Oversight of Campus HR ..............................................................14

Option 4 – Autonomous Regional Offices .............................................................................19

Addenda .................................................................................................................................23

Human Resources Report 2

Charge

Develop and review options for organizational restructuring including but not limited to further decentralization, consolidation at one campus, or consolidation at Statewide of functions that

support improvements in service and cost effectiveness through outsourcing, automation, intercampus collaboration, process standardization, and other means TBD by the team.

Scope

All of HR across the system.

Goal

Reduce operating costs. Align with UA priorities.

Key Stakeholders

u Employees: Staff, Faculty, and Students u Executive Leadership and Management u Unions u Institutional Research (IR), Information

Technology (IT), Finance

u Secondary Stakeholders: General Counsel, Students (volunteers, customers, the product of the system)

u Tertiary Stakeholders: Community, Employers, Alumni, Legislators

Team Members

u Charla Brown u Sharon Chamard u Michael Ciri u Tara Ferguson u Ron Kamahele

u Tom Langdon u Karen Lee u Brad Lobland u Raymundo Lopez u Melanie Osborne

u Robin Renfroe u Fred Schlutt u Chrystal Warmoth

Human Resources Report

3

Assumptions

u A dotted/dashed line (consolidated and functional authority) and solid line (hiring, firing authority).

u Options were developed knowing that across the UA System HR offices have already reduced staffing due to budget cuts of almost 10%, i.e., from FY15 to FY17 reduced 10 positions and concomitant net reduction in compensation and benefits of $580,943, 11.7% reduction in budget1.

u Cost analysis and financial impact of structural changes (Options) have not been assessed.

HR Definitions

u Strategic Services: HR expertise that aligns programs, policies and rewards with mission of organization. Includes total rewards, organizational development and talent management.

u Consultative Services: HR services requiring professional expertise in the areas of labor relations, employee relations, employee development, organizational development, compliance, compensation, benefits, and recruitment.

u Transactional Services: HR services requiring technical expertise in the areas of payroll, personnel assignments, and employment documentation.

u PPA/CCC: Payroll – Personnel Assistant/Cost Center Clerk is a department employee assigned certain duties to assist the department manager with HR transactions. The PPA/CCC receives training in assembling the forms, letters, and memos required to enact the wide array of HR transactions. There are over 200 PPA/CCCs across the UA System. They are often the primary point of liaison between the regional HR offices and the client organizations.

Best Practices

u Ensure HR is a strategic partner. u Develop efficiency metrics for HR. u Adequate HR staffing to support the University community (current climate of uncertainty

and change creates increased demand for HR Consultative Services). u Information Capital: leverage computing and information technology to realize efficiency,

improved service, and enhance decision making. u A culture of continuous improvement. u Success relies on executive buy-in and collaboration, and holding key players accountable

for change initiatives.

1 This amount is smaller than one might expect due to compensation increases in benefits and in reclassification upgrades of remaining positions.


4

Questions and Further Analysis System Wide – All Options

u Who should the regional HR Directors report to? o Currently, the HR Directors report to someone at an MAU, either the chancellor

(UAF) or the vice chancellor of administrative services (UAA and UAS). o One option would change this to all HR Directors report to the CHRO. An advantage

to the HR Directors reporting to the CHRO include, that they would be supervised by a functional area expert, and the HR Directors would be insulated from inappropriate pressure in decision making. A disadvantage would be the perception that there would be a potential alienation from the region they serve.

o A middle ground could be for all HR Directors to report to their chancellors. u Clarify and enhance the role of HR in training and development for employees. u Further analysis of best use of PPAs and CCCs as a system wide resource. u Evaluate additional services that HR performs (such as Title 9, Student Career Services, etc.)

and determine if services can be provided more effectively by other departments. u Align processes to reduce risk and liabilities with HR services consistently across all

campuses (i.e., maintaining documentation and compensation conversations at the Provost’s office).

HR System Wide Opportunities for Change – All Options

u The greatest savings and efficiencies will come from automation and modernization of our HR systems. UA must consider a one-time allocation of resources in order to invest in the long-term capabilities of the Human Resource Information System (HRIS) environment.

u HR has taken steps to automate HR processes. Continued medium to long-term investment in automation, self-service, and standardization across all HR Functional areas will garner system-wide efficiencies.

o For example, by eliminating paper-based processes, tremendous efficiencies will be realized among department-level PPAs and CCCs. 70% of processing time to complete HR transactions occurs with the PPAs and CCCs due to the current paper-intensive nature of our system.

u Recent staff morale surveys indicate a need for employee development and training which does not currently exist. Create a sustainable and resourced Training and Development function in HR.

u Comprehensive and periodic review and update of HR policy and regulations. u Foster “one-university” thinking.


5

Process Overview

The Human Resources team is one of eight teams in Phase 2 of Strategic Pathways. Phase 2 began in early October when the teams met for the first time. During that first meeting, Session 1, there was a thorough orientation to the overall effort, and the charge, scope, and goal were refined. Most teams also identified the first iteration of potential Options. In the weeks between Session 1 and the second meeting, Session 2, the Human Resources team continued to define the options with weekly teleconferences and virtual collaboration. The Pros and Cons for each Option were developed in Session 2 in the first week of November. Since then the Human Resources team has been continually refining the Options, Opportunities, Pros and Cons and writing them into the following document. These Reports served as the main source of information for the Presentations that will be presented to the Summit Team on January 18th.


6

Option 1 – Continued Implementation of Statewide Transformation and Establishment of HRC

Narrative Description

HR Council (HRC) with HR Directors and CHRO to collaborate on strategy, standards, best practices, and automation of processes. Move Statewide payroll, personnel, and employee relations to UAF.

Proposed Organization


7

Option 1 continued – Continued Implementation of Statewide Transformation and Establishment of HRC

Key Change Elements

u Org Structure Changes o Establish an HRC with a written charge accountable to the President of UA. o Move payroll/personnel from Statewide to UAF.

u Staffing Changes o Payroll change – Change department allocation of Statewide payroll/personnel staff

to UAF for budget purposes. One additional staff allocated to support this transition. o HRC implementation – The HRC consists of the UAF/UAA/UAS HR Directors, the

CHRO and Statewide Director of Compensation. u Use of Facilities/Technology

o Payroll change – Update hardware, server mapping and security access. Possible facility needs for payroll at UAF.

o HRC implementation – Members would need webinar capabilities for regular virtual meetings.

o Technology – Study and implement automation of processes. u Administration Changes

o Payroll/personnel change – Statewide offices have minimal involvement in the transactional functions of payroll or personnel.

o HRC Implementation – Scheduling/planning/agenda/notes/reports. The HRC would not be responsible for any HR administration. Drafting the Service Level Agreement (SLA) would be an additional task with appropriate input, governance and accountability. Each element of the HR function should be individually addressed in the SLA.

u Front-End Investment – Potential resources needed to study and implement automation of processes to use existing systems most effectively.

u Decision Making/Authority – Consolidated within HRC and accountable to the president for standardized business practices across UA. Decision making authority rests at the HR Director level for areas of unique University strategy or where delegated by the President.

u Procedure Setting and Definition – Consolidated within HRC. u Auditing and Compliance – Audit by internal and external auditors and compliance by HRC. u Delivering the Work – Regional campus HR employees. u Service Delivery Changes – Regional campus HR offices. u Access for Employees – Regional campus HR employees.


8


Pros and Cons

Pros Cons u HRC currently exists and is charged with

pursuing system-wide process improvement; no structural changes (potentially disruptive changes) are necessary to find efficiencies and service improvements.

u Improved communication, coordination and collaboration between the campuses and Statewide maximizing effectiveness of existing HR expertise across the UA System

u Maintain institutional momentum u Opportunity to standardize processes and

procedures u Focuses Statewide HR on policy,

regulations, guidance, and compliance u Subject matter expertise (SMEs) of HR

professionals to support UA strategic needs

u Has buy-in: already validated through Statewide Transformation process

u Successful implementation is likely u Is widely communicated u More localized decision making on HR

issues (HR Directors have authority to be responsive to customer needs)

u Allows immediate focus on efficiencies gained and costs reduced by improved automation efforts (instead of spending time on implementing a restructure and then getting to automation)

u Does not create the appearance of significant structural change

u May receive push-back in implementing automation and self-service activities (change management may be needed)

u May require more costs in HR labor compared to a more centralized model

u Requires maintaining parallel HR structures at each University campus

u Will not create massive reductions in operating costs beyond those cuts already made.

u Statewide employees will experience some different processes and timelines from UAF that they are not consistently accustomed to (the number of employees that UAF has compared to the number of employees Statewide has, the timeliness of payroll and personnel transactions could take longer)

u Unclear nature of matrix reporting relationships for HRC/ Campus HR Directors (e.g., dotted line to CHRO and solid line to Vice Chancellors)


9


Pros, continued

u HR Directors located on campus embeds expertise and deeper understanding of the university unique needs (positive impact of HR as a strategic partner)

u Statewide HR focus on system level items versus Transactional Service

Further Analysis Needed

u Brainstorm on current organizational issues and/or look at structure of existing HR function (e.g., Training, Payroll, Compensation, Performance Management, Employee Relations, Recruiting) to allow a deeper analysis. For example, what are the high-touch functions and what are the administrative functions?

u Look at outsourcing Family Medical Leave, Cobra, ACA, etc. u What is the reporting structure (dotted line/solid line) with HR Directors and CHRO? (See

assumptions for definitions). u Identify resources for automation effort.


10

Option 2 – Consolidated Administration, Decentralized Consultation


Consolidation of Transactional Services into an HR Operations Center at Statewide or one campus with each University continuing to provide Strategic and Consultative Services at regional campus offices. CHRO provides centralized policy decision making, oversees compliance, drives strategic initiatives, and guides University HR directors.



11

Option 2 continued – Consolidated Administration, Decentralized Consultation

Key Change Elements

u Org Structure Changes – Main office has director and technicians; regional offices retain consultants. Adds HR Operations Center for employee support.

u Staffing Changes – Physical consolidation of staff to perform Transactional Services (payroll, personnel, audit, reporting) occurring at HR Operations Center (Statewide or one campus) – from regional offices to main office. No change in staffing for Consultative Services that will occur at regional offices.

u Use of Facilities/Technology – Will likely require additional facilities at HR Operations Center. May free up some office space at Universities with the consolidation of staff.

u Administration Changes – Decrease in management layer. Consolidation of technical processes and decision making for processes. Consultation services would be unchanged.

u Front-End Investment – May need funds to move people to HR Operations Center. u Decision Making/Authority – CHRO would make policy and technical decisions

respectively. Tactical personnel decisions made at regional offices with increased CHRO oversight. Regulation would need to be changed to reflect decision making authority for certain actions would reside with the HR Operations Center, HR Director.

u Procedure Setting and Definition – Dependent on function being considered. u Auditing and Compliance – HR Operations Center to ensure compliance and audits. u Delivering the Work – Consultative Services, such as, recruitment and employee relations

stay close to employees and supervisors at regional offices. Transactional Services move to HR Operations Center.

u Service Delivery Changes – Removing management layer may minimize optimal service levels and accountability of consultants at regional offices. Pooling technical resources into a single HR Operations Center may/may not increase data entry speeds.

u Access for Employees - No change.


12


Pros and Cons

Pros Cons u Consistent interpretation and application

of policy and procedures for employees, HR staff, and management

u Improved trust in HR as a function u Improved communication and

collaboration between campuses and main HR office

u Dedicated employee focus (e.g., customer support for internal clients)

u Standardized internal processes u Increased data and reporting accuracy u Improved confidence in metrics u Decreased HR liability and risk of

lawsuits u Additional time for high value functions

(recruiting, etc.) at campus level u Pooled resources may cost less u Common in 10,000+ FTE organizations

(see 2016 SHRM Workforce Analytics) o 40.9% Mixed o 46.8% Centralized o 12.3% Decentralized

u Change management expertise gap u Communication-dependent for success u Perceived loss of control at campus level u Change fatigue in employees and HR staff u Risk loss of HR Technicians due to

displacement to HR Operations Center resulting in a serious, though short-term (1 to 2 years) drop in efficiency; it takes at least a year to bring an HR Technician up to speed

u Centralizing Transactional Services does not address the inefficiencies inherent in the system; i.e., overly paper-reliant processes and lack of the enterprise information technology support to meaningfully modernize the HRIS

u Drain on resources/system during integration

u Gaps and/or inconsistencies in HR functions that are not centralized (e.g., recruitment procedure/process)

u Complex nature of matrix reporting relationships for HR directors at campus level (e.g., dotted line to CHRO and solid line to Vice Chancellors)


13


Cons, continued

u Loss of HR control and personnel at campus level affecting morale

u Some duplicate HR structures at each campus

u Training of PPAs/CCCs at departments and campuses distant from the HR Operations Center would suffer, resulting in decreased overall efficiency

u Lack of being held accountable for and following through on change


u Timing of cost analysis? u Timing of implementation? u Will there be adequate resources and executive support to be successful?

o Executive buy-in o Coherent system-wide structure o Change management expertise o Focus on organizational effectiveness o Updated HR vision/mission o Updated HR regulations o Reliable HR systems o Emphasis on professional HR competencies o Adequate HR staffing o Consistent HR metrics o Meaningful training and development o Investment in automation o Effective outsourcing


14

Option 3 – CHRO Direct Oversight of Campus HR


Statewide HR assumes direct supervision of campus HR. CHRO and University HR directors (HRC) collaborate on strategy, standardization of processes, policies, and regulations. Transactional Services consolidated at UAA and UAF. Create HR Coordinator positions to supplant PPAs and CCCs.



15

Option 3 continued – CHRO Direct Oversight of Campus HR

Key Change Elements

u Org Structure Changes o HR Directors solid line reporting to CHRO at Statewide and dotted line to University

Vice Chancellors. o Statewide day-to-day recruitment activity moves to UAF, Statewide continues

strategy and support to campuses with recruitment and retention. o Transactional Services for UAS moves to UAA; transfers money or positions

to support. o Shared HR Coordinators created from existing Cost Center Clerk/Personnel Payroll

Assistant employee pools with dotted reporting line to regional HR office. o Stronger reporting structure established between staff conducting HR work at

extended campuses and regional HR office. u Staffing Changes

o Transfer and marginal reduction of Transactional Services staff through consolidation. (Statewide to UAF, UAS to UAA).

o Possible reduction in the number of PPAs/CCCs. o Review number of Transactional Services staff in Statewide and campuses; determine

appropriate number of employees. u Use of Facilities/Technology

o Assess Banner processes for greater efficiency and automation, move from customized implementation of Banner to standardized implementation to take advantage of generally available automation tools – may require using Banner consultants.

o Paperless onboarding and open enrollment implementation priority – increase efficiencies, reduces duplication of effort and errors.

o Outsource or automate COBRA notification, Affordable Care Act (ACA) notification and reporting, FMLA tracking.

u Administration Changes o Statewide HR assumes direct oversight of all HR processes. o Statewide payroll processes and standard functions.

u Front-End Investment o Investment in Banner consultants to move from customized to standardized

processes. o Priority is ACA, onboarding and open enrollment. o Training of shared HR Coordinators. o Development of shared service “service level agreements”.


16


Key Change Elements, continued

u Decision Making/Authority o CHRO directly supervises Regional HR Directors (solid-line reporting). o University Vice Chancellors for Administrations negotiate and oversee service level

agreements among universities and between their university and Statewide (dotted line relationship).

o Streamline and standardize exceptions across campuses, i.e., salary and policy exceptions.

u Procedure Setting and Definition – CHRO establishes functional regulation and procedures and implements through Regional HR Directors.

u Auditing and Compliance – Statewide responsibility. u Delivering the Work – Regional office staff under direction of the Regional HR Director

supports customers. u Service Delivery Changes

o Campus responsibility with Statewide support. o Services delivered more remotely.

u Access for Employees o Employees work directly with their assigned regional HR offices for day-to-day

needs with the exception that Transactional Service for UAS will be from UAA regional office.

o Campus HR works directly with Statewide for any technical and compliance support needed for day-to-day needs which may include investigations, labor relations, etc.


17


Pros and Cons

Pros Cons u Regional HR Directors supervised by

functional expert with HR expertise, the CHRO, has the potential to improve strategic alignment and efficiencies in implementation of efforts

u HR Directors insulated from inappropriate pressure in decision-making in the interests of the institution as a whole

u HR Consultative and Transactional Services remain close to and responsive to the customer

u The transfer of the HR budget to Statewide ensures HR department budgets not adversely impacted by campus-level budget pressures

u Rapid implementation of system efficiencies

u HR Coordinators, selected and trained by regional offices, in place of department PPAs/CCCs will improve efficiency

u Potential for alienation of HR from its campus clients

u Adding HR Coordinators shifts cost to perform department-level work to the Regional Office with little to no likelihood of departments giving up budget. Many departments would likely object to losing budget in order to implement HR Coordinators.

u Managing HR Coordinators could prove awkward or cumbersome in servicing geographically dispersed clients; making PPAs/CCCs a more practical solution in some cases

u Marginal improvement in overall efficiency; the system itself is rife with inefficient, paper-bound processes; investing in HR Coordinators who are more expert at paper shuffling doesn’t address this fundamental problem with the system; it’s treating a symptom not a cause

u Increases the size of Statewide administration


18



u Reassess and realign functions ongoing between Statewide and campuses as changes are made.

u Holistic approach vs. campus approach. u Confirm the mission of HR and communicate it. u Assess workload and customer service needs of all to determine appropriate level of staffing

at Statewide and campuses. u Annual retreat of Statewide direct reports to CHRO and campus HR directors to identify.

critical areas of focus, assign the who, what and when and celebrate successes. u Develop targets or goals to reduce errors, increase efficiencies; by campus and Statewide –

possibly by department? Celebrate successes.


19

Option 4 – Autonomous Regional Offices


Decentralization of human resources functions away from Statewide. CHRO at Statewide setting minimum standards guidance, compliance and health checks, with each campus autonomous in operating under a standard set of policies and regulations. Each campus HR work independently administering benefits, labor and vendor contracts in addition to Strategic, Consultative and Transactional Services.



20

Option 4 continued – Autonomous Regional Offices

Key Change Elements

u Org Structure Changes o Each regional office performs the major HR functions and services. Statewide HR

organization structure would consist of only the CHRO. o Labor relations may need to report to General Counsel’s office at Statewide.

u Staffing Changes o Each regional office would need to hire staff to take on work in specialized areas

previously performed by Statewide staff, e.g., HRIS, vendor relations, international and inter-state tax accounting, tax and other reporting.

o Alternatively, staff positions and budget could be transferred from Statewide to the regional offices.

u Use of Facilities/Technology o Facilities: Each regional office already has offices, however may need more space for

new staff to handle specialized areas previously performed by Statewide staff. o Technology: Each university would need to enter into agreements with technology

vendors and manage those agreements. u Administration Changes – Regional offices have responsibility and authority to change and

adapt to local (regional) needs and circumstances, while staying within the broad guidance of CHRO and Regents’ Policy.

u Front-End Investment – Hiring staff as needed in each regional office in specialized areas previously staffed by Statewide (benefits, compensation, HRIS). Alternatively, staff positions and budget could be transferred from Statewide to the regional offices.

u Decision Making/Authority – Regulation would be changed to grant authority to the regional HR directors for those operational-level decisions currently held by CHRO. (Decision making and authority for many operational-level exceptions already rests at the regional office level, typically with the regional HR director.)

u Procedure Setting and Definition – Regional offices would develop and adopt procedures which are currently set by Statewide, such as, payroll and personnel processing. Regional offices would need to coordinate on common processes and data definitions.

u Auditing and Compliance – Regional offices adopt more robust self-audit programs, with periodic audits by CHRO and/or Statewide Internal Audit.

u Delivering the Work – Little change needed; regional offices would continue to provide Consultative and Transactional Services to individuals and departments. Statewide would receive all HR services by UAF.


21


Key Change Elements, continued

u Service Delivery Changes o Regional offices would continue to provide Consultative and Transactional Services

as is currently done. o Labor and employee relations removed from HR and moved to General Counsel or

another Statewide office. u Access for Employees – Little change needed; employees could continue to access services

from the regional offices. Some services, such as wellness programming, will be offered regionally. Contracts with wellness program providers may need to be modified.

Pros and Cons

Pros Cons u HR functions are localized to each of the

universities, where the majority of HR work is located

u HR policies and procedures are developed to fit the campus individual situations

u Reduces the Statewide HR functions to only guidance and compliance

u Reduces the size of Statewide staff u Decision making authority resides at the

campus level u Budget authority and accountability

resides at the campus level u Face-to-face interaction with customers

with better access to employees and better service delivery

u Create three HR units with different local policies and procedures

u Difficult to monitor compliance on a consistent basis

u Differences in interpreting and implementing policy could increase risk and inefficiency

u Administration and decision making would be diffused/scattered

u Without a single central administration, there could be a loss of data consistency, and interruption of smooth flow of data to other departments (i.e., finance, HR, student)

u Cost of triplication of HRIS and associated standard operating procedure development /operations

u Loss of economy of scale advantage by having a single vendor for certain services, such as healthcare administration

u Labor relations under General Counsel may undermine General Counsel’s advisory role


22


Cons, continued

u Transferring positions from Statewide to regional offices would be disruptive and may result in lost expertise

u Net increase in HR positions, systems, and resources to support HR functions

u Common data analysis and reporting no longer exists


u None


23

Addenda

u Opportunities Table (Draft) u The Current Org Chart u A Case for Increased HR Automation at the University of Alaska u Business Case: HR Automation – CONX by EPAF u 2016 SHRM Workforce Analytics

https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/special-reports-and-expert-views/Documents/Workforce Analytics Report, June 2016.pdf


24

Outsourcing Automation Collaboration Standardization Other

Labor Relations • Drug Testing • Supervisor Training

(reasonable suspicion) • Negotiations

• Mandatory Training • Union Dues (online)

• Service level agreement and clear expectation that clarifies the role of Labor Relations

• Training

• Process for Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)

• Template memos • Training

• Centralized point of contact

Employee Relations

• Utilize one employee disciplinary database (Maxient)

• Performance management (Page Up)

• Org Chart tool • Reporting tools • Data for data based decision

making (proactive)

• Monitor trends • Performance management • Org Chart tool • Reporting tools • Affirmative Action and

EEOC reporting

Compensation/ Classification

• Studies for market analysis surveys and geographic differential

• In-grade adjustments and performance processes (performance bonuses)

• In-grade adjustments and performance processes (performance bonuses)

• Merit based compensation

• Expand authority to HR Directors for exceptional placement and in-grade adjustments

• Reevaluation of Geographic Differential

Recruiting • Page Up integration with Banner (job forms online, etc.)

• Search committee training • Degree and publication verification

• Search committee training • Mandatory background check

process (criminal)

• More competitive benefits

Benefits • All benefits to State system (merge with current State of Alaska employee benefits)

• Family Medical Leave (FML) • Affordable Care Act (ACA) • Open enrollment (employee

self-service)

• Cobra vendor communications

• Comprehensive review of total benefit package (cost/benefit analysis with Finance, HR and Summit Team)

• Improve benefit orientation


25

Outsourcing Automation Collaboration Standardization Other

Payroll • Out of state and international tax process

• Manual processes • Manual processes

Personnel • Onboarding process (Page up)

• Records management system (EPAF, flow of paper, etc.)

• Onboarding process • More robust support from HRIS

Other • Separation of employee and student identity management (HIPAA compliant enterprise employee email system)

• Strengthen and seek more opportunities to take advantage of the HRC

• Strengthen the connection between CHRO and Vice Chancellors

• Reexamine temporary employee classifications and processes

• Organization wide communication of HR function and role

• Service level agreement and clear expectation that clarifies the role of General Council

Gain efficiencies with PPA and CCC resources


26

Statewide Office of Human Resources

Keli Hite McGeeChief Human Resource Officer

Erika Van FleinDirector of Benefits

Vacant Directory of Payroll Benefit

Accounting

VacantDirector of HR IS

Tara FergusonDirector of Compensation

Timothy Armbruster Benefit Accountant

Laycie SchnekenburgerSenior Tax Accountant

Austin SomaduroffHR Tech

Heather AranaAnalyst & Project Manager

VacantHR Specialist

Tirza CainHR Specialist

Updated 08/17/16

Cheyenne AndersonExecutive Assistant to the

CHRO

VacantHuman Resource Coordinator

VacantLabor Coordinator

Geoff BaconDirector of Labor Relations

Michelle MichelHR & Benefits Consultant

UAF Human Resources

Brad LoblandDirector

Margo GriffithAssociate Director &

Consultant

Mary SchrageOperations Manager &

Assistant to the Director

Yvonne McHenrySenior Consultant

Sherri SoileauPayroll Manager

Bridget ThimsenSenior Consultant

Chris OliverConsultant

Peggy SantanaPayroll Technician

Mary GoldsbyPayroll Technician

Terra PreslanPersonnel Manager

Jessica AllardAdministrative Assistant

John McGeeCareer Services Coordinator

Jevonne BacaPersonnel Technician

Eugenia HailstonePersonnel Technician

½ time in HR

Zoe MarshalStudent Assistant C

Vito MurrilloCullan Christansen

Katrina BacaMorgan Rodriquez

Student Assistant C

Ella Van SiegmanStudent Assistant C

Ron KamaheleDirector

Michelle YerkesSenior HR Consultant (Benefits)

Lauralee SamalotPayroll Technician

Donna BozemanHR Systems Technician

Marcie MilesHR Systems Technician

Dana DodsonHR Systems Technician

Randi Markussen Benefits Specialist

Bryce JohnsonMyUA Help Desk / Benefits

Orientation

Roxi LoweryBenefits Technician

(Part-Time)

UAA Human Resources

Kathy IviePayroll Manager

Erika PierceHR Systems Manager

3 Student Assistants

James YauneySenior HR Consultant

(Recruitment)

Karen LeeSenior HR Consultant

Gail EalySenior HR Consultant (Part-

time)

Gail CheneyDirector

UAS Human Resources

Lori KleinTitle IX Coordinator/HR

Training Coordinator

Sarah BelmontPayroll Technician/Recruitment

Yolanda CorderoPayroll Technician/Recruitment

Kim Stewart GreinerPayroll Technician/Recruitment

A Case for Increased HR Automation at the University of Alaska

Prepared by Ronald C. KamaheleDirector, UAA Human Resource Services

Prepared for UA Strategic Pathways Human Resources Team November 2016

Analysis of Personnel Action ExecutionThis is a brief analysis of the cost to execute personnel actions at UAA in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. This analysis addresses only personnel actions such as; new employee set-up, new assignments for existing employees, updates or modifications of existing employee assignments, and ending employee assignments or employment.

It does not include Consultative Services nor Payroll actions.

AssumptionsA wide variety of personnel actions are included in the personnel action count. At the department level, an average of 1 hour completion time is used as a current state. Because of the manual nature of the work at the department level, some actions can take much more than an hour to complete, equally, there some actions that need less than an hour. An average of 1 hour for completion time is deemed reasonable.

$36 per hour is average rate (with benefits) for all the employees involved in executing personnel actions.

Levels of AutomationLow Primary reliance on manual, paper-based processes.

Medium Mixed reliance on paper forms and computer automation.

High Primary reliance on computer automation.

UAA FY16

Personnel Actions: 24720

Average Hourly Rate: $36.00

Current State

Dept. PPA/CCC UAA HRS SWHR Total

Level of Automation Low Medium High

Time per Action in Hours 1 0.3 0.1

Total Time in Hours 24720 7416 2472 34608

Cost to Execute Actions $889,920.00 $266,976.00 $88,992.00 $1,245,888.00

Future State: Enhanced automation at Dept. PPA/CCC and UAA HRS

Dept. PPA/CCC UAA HRS SWHR

Level of Automation Medium Medium High

Time per Action in Hours 0.75 0.25 0.1

Total Time 18540 6180 2472 27192

Cost Execute Actions $667,440.00 $222,480.00 $88,992.00 $978,912.00 -21.43%

Benefit of Increased AutomationBy extending core system automation to department level, by replacing manual business processes with automated business processes, such that average time to complete an action is reduced by 15 minutes, a 20% savings in cost can be realised.

ImplementationUp-front investment of time and effort at the Statewide level is needed to implement uniform automated processes across the UA System.

We know how to do this already! Web Time Entry is a nice example.

Enhanced automation can be accomplished without restructuring the entire HR Functional Area. In fact, re-shuffling HR will have little effect on the HR work done at the department level, thus having no appreciable benefit to the customer.

Business Case:HR Automation

CONX by EPAF

Prepared by:Ron Kamahele, Director, UAA HRSErika Pierce, Systems & Records Mgr, UAA HRSPrepared for Statewide Transformation HR Team

February 29, 2016

HR AutomationThis 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.

Current StateCONX = 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 (grant funded positions and term faculty).

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.

Current StateLast 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.

Future State - Automated CONX EPAFEPAF = 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.

Future State - Automated CONX EPAF

Current Cut 30 minutes Cut 60 minutes Cut 120 minutesAverage Total Time to Process a CONX 5 4.5 4 3# Process per Year 1300 1300 1300 1300Average Hourly Rate (incl. benefit rate 50%) $36.63 $36.63 $36.63 $36.63Total Cost for one CONX $183.15 $164.84 $146.52 $109.89Total 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%

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.