Understanding Continuous Service Improvement, Optimisation and Innovation

Dr Jodi Clyde-Smith Executive Director, Research Operations

Rationale

3/08/2016

FACULTIES &

INSTITUTES

SCHOOLS

CENTRAL DIVISIONS

RESEARCH CENTRES

(e.g. CODES)

ENTITIES (e.g. Foundation,

TUU)

UTAS

Strahan

Bicheno

Burnie

Queenstown Swansea

Smithton

Hobart

Launceston SLIMS

LMS

D2L

TALENT2

BI

VIDEO CONF

Development of Design Principles

Determination of Process

Business Case

Appointment (via RFT) of supporting consultant

Unanimous support by

SMT for Review

1. Duplication & Operating Silos 2. Geographic Separation 3. System Changes 4. Increasing Cost of Delivery

Based on the strategic plan the time was right for UTAS to investigate what our optimal professional services operating model might be

Rationale

3/08/2016

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1.0

Und

erta

ke R

esea

rch

2.0

Pro

vide

Stu

dent

Ser

vice

s

3.0

Uni

vers

ity G

over

nanc

e

4.0

Pro

vide

Sta

ff S

ervi

ces

5.0

Man

age

Ext

erna

lR

elat

ions

hips

(all

exte

rnal

par

ties

othe

r…

6.0

Uni

vers

ity S

trate

gy

7.0

Man

age

Uni

vers

ityA

sset

s

8.0

Man

age

Uni

vers

ityIn

form

atio

n

9.0

Man

age

Tech

nolo

gy

10.0

Und

erta

ke M

arke

ting

and

Com

mun

icat

ion

11.0

Impr

ove

Per

form

ance

12.0

Man

age

onsi

tebu

sine

sses

13.0

Tec

nica

l Sta

ff

Of UTAS total cost base of $456m, about 41% relates to the provision of professional services, with salaries accounting for the majority this cost.

Professional Service Costs Total: $186m

Distribution of Professional Effort by Service Salaries: $123m*

$5.0 $36.3 $4.5 $9.8 $2.0 $1.0 $16.6 $1.9 $10.6 $3.2 $0.4 $1.0 $5.0

Source: PwC activity analysis of UTAS data Source: UTAS 2012 Financial Budget & PwC Analysis

Dis

trib

utio

n of

Effo

rt b

y Se

rvic

e

(% o

f tot

al e

ffort

p s

ervi

ce)

Cost of Professional Salaries per Professional Service*

Faculties & Institutes Divisions Central

Analysed professional salaries by

service provided

*NB: Not all areas covered by activity analysis (e.g. Gov&Legal, Fleet, Uniprint)

Proposed Model

3/08/2016

Sandy Bay

Newnham

Domain

Inveresk Burnie CRADLE

COAST • Campus • Rural Clinical

School • TIA

1 2

LAUNCESTON • AMC / AMC Search • Education • Transactional

Processing • Other Newnham • Inveresk

3 DOMAIN • Health Science • Menzies • IMAS SET

• SET 4

ABL • Arts • Law • Business • Other

5

Proposed model – geographic delivery • Business Partner teams & clusters embedded in and supporting Faculties and Institutes

• Service delivery geographically dependent • Clusters proportional to scale and complexity of site

Staffing and Due Diligence / QA critical

3/08/2016

Function Resp CC ABL Dom SET Ltn Div

Finance Services COO BP BP BP BP BP

HR Services COO BP BP BP BP BP BP

IT Services COO BP BP BP BP BP

Commercial Svces COO BP - BP - - -

Research Services DVC(R) BP BP BP BP -

Student Services DVC(S&E) BP BP BP BP BP -

Mkt & Comm Svces COO BP

Function Report to Number

Hub Managers COO & Dean One for each of the 6 hubs

Service Exec Directors Service Managers

Resp SENEX member Service Exec Directors

One for each of the 7 functions One for each of the 7 functions

Director Svce Delivery COO One for the overall model

Loca

l QA

Cent

ral Q

A

Current Institutional Status

3/08/2016

1. Implementation is substantially complete • 181 heads (155 FTE) reporting lines changed from >20 reporting strictures to 7

consistent reporting structures

2. Varying degrees of performance by function. Impacted by: • Resourcing (number of people – e.g. HR tried to avoid recruiting but did 12

mths later, service rose) • Capability of people (at all levels – ED, Manager, BP and team) • Pre-existing maturity (e.g. research ground up build, IT largely pre-existing) • Complexity of Hub • Geography of Hub (ABL all on campus, Domain across 3 CBD locations)

3. Some of the wins • Functional expertise delivered by local business partners/teams • Finance - Budget process and model • Research – PES, GRO’s and grant applications • Broader organisational focus on service delivery

Evaluating Success at the Institutional Level

Performance Measures: Customer Satisfaction

7

Service Levels – Overall

3/08/2016

All Hubs Staff Sys Svce R/shp

CSD Fin HR ITS OMC Res StudSvc

Overall

Staffing – provision of adequate staff and resources; Systems – appropriate systems and processes in place; Service – level of overall service supplied; R/ship – effective r/ships built between central services, hub staff and customers

Comments – Improvement in last quarter. Research the standout

function again. Recent BP appointments likely to uplift next

quarter.

Mar 2015

Overall Trend

14 Jan May Aug Nov 15 Mar CSD Finance

HR

ITS OMC Research StudSvces Overall

Trend

3.4 4.3 3.9 3.8 4.0

3.7 3.3 4.1 3.9 4.0

4.3 3.8 3.2 3.2 3.7

5.0 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.1

2.2 3.2 3.7 3.3 3.6

4.6 4.4 4.7 4.8 4.9

3.8 4.0 4.1 3.8 3.6

3.9 3.9 4.0 3.8 4.0

3.9 3.9 4.0 3.8 4.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

1 2 3 4 5

4.1 3.9 3.9 4.2

3.8 3.8 3.8 4.6

3.6 2.7 3.9 4.4

4.0 3.9 4.4 4.2

3.3 3.6 3.5 4.0

4.7 5.0 4.9 4.8

3.5 3.0 3.7 4.0

3.9 3.7 4.0 4.3

Service Levels – by Function

3/08/2016

Staffing – provision of adequate staff and resources; Systems – appropriate systems and processes in place; Service – level of overall service supplied; R/ship – effective r/ships built between central services, hub staff and customers

Comments – Student Svces affected by SLIMS system and remediation

issues. Good improvement from HR and OMC. Research excellent.

Trend

Mar Rating

3/08/2016

Other Feedback – Annual Survey

Evaluating Success at the Institutional Level

– Performance Measures: Success Rates

11

Research Funding

– ARC Success rates: now at or exceeding national success rates (2014 was the first time in 12 years)

– NHMRC Success rates: improving and now close to national success rates; $ value of grants has UTAS at equal 10th nationally

– UTAS now submitted HERDC returns in the >$90M bracket

– Cat 1 HERDC return broken the $40M barrier – Contract research rocketing (122% increase in 2015

HERDC return)

12

13 UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA

Benefits 2 years on?

UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA CREDIT JULIANNE O’REILLY-WAPSTRA 13

Metric % change across years 12/13 to 13/14

13/14 to 14/15

No. external grants submitted - 5.8 + 3.2

$ Value of grants + 46.3 + 17.3

No. Aust. Competitive submitted - 3.2 - 16.5

$ Value Aust. Competitive + 26.8 + 64.2

No. ARC submitted - 16.4 - 17.5

$ Value ARC + 78.3 + 122.1

Funding

ARC Linkage Projects 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Success rate 45% 40% 42% 56% 31% (50%) - HASS

Pre-Hub

HERDC Returns Profile

14

Evaluating Success at the Institutional Level

– Performance Measures: Publications

15

Benefits 1 year on?

16

Hub % change

from ‘12/’14 % change

from ‘13/’14 All Publications + 59.2 + 40.9 Arts Business Law + 89.6 + 101.7 Launceston (Education AMC) + 10.2 + 4.8 Medical and Health + 37.9 - 0.5 Science Engineering Technology + 93.1 + 52.9 Data: January – August 2012, 2013, 2014

Indicative of benefits of ↑ publication capture by Hubs of academic outputs?

Credit – Julianne O’Reilly-Wapstra; Deputy Director (Research Development)

Benefits 2 years on

– UTAS broke through the 1,000 author points for refereed articles

– Improved data quality and timeliness – ERA 2015:

– Data quality – Preparation – Presentation of creative works

– >300 reports/analyses requests undertaken between

Hub and Central staff to inform org unit and institutional research strategies

17

18

Evaluating Success at the Institutional Level

– Performance Measures: HDR

19

Difficult to Tell…

Administrative relief for Graduate Research Coordinators Improved service delivery compounded by:

– Areas of accountability and responsibility that lie outside GR administration

– Introduction of a new student management system

– Introduction of a system that doesn’t support HDR candidature

12 months after the introduction of the system, going through LEAN and CPI to try to maximise efficiencies and pick up on improving service delivery

Evaluating Success at the Institutional Level

– Performance Measures: Research Development

20

Introduced in 2014…

– >2,000 participants in first year

– Too early to quantify the longer-term benefits (e.g. increased funding and outputs).

– Formal, quantitative and qualitative participant feedback shows:

– 79%-100% of participants gave top assessment scores across

most programs) – The combination of different styles of sessions (seminars vs full

day workshops vs multi-day workshops, external speakers vs internal speakers, interactive, hands-on sessions vs information only sessions) offered diversity to suit different participant preferences.

21

Academic Research Development Framework

The aim of this Development Framework is to provide holistic personal, professional and career development to help academic staff and HDR candidates build their research careers – whatever their academic stage. Where possible, programs will be run across campuses and/or via videoconference to ensure the widest possible access by staff. However, this is not always feasible. Therefore, if there is a session not currently offered on your campus that you are interested in, please contact your relevant Research Hub.

Funding Development Publication Development Grant Writing with Tim Haydon Nature Masterclass

Research Career Development HDR Development High Impact Presentation Skills How to manage your supervisor

Pitching your project perfectly

Increase your research exposure, profile and citations

Go8 Future Leaders Program

How to recoup the money you spent on your PhD

Tips and Tricks for Winning Grants

Publishing in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (HASS)

Essential Research Guide to UTAS

How to build your online research profile

Philanthropic grant development workshop

How to write with impact and hook your reader

Laying the foundations for a successful research career

Travel makes your research stronger – getting the most from your conference and research travel during your PhD

How to form community partnerships for research projects

Writing with others: Collaboration and co- authorship

A strategic research career: creating your short- & long-term research niche

Making the transition: Research candidate to Research staff

Developing Grant Applications with External Collaborators: Ways to do it well

Energise your academic writing

Key ethical dilemmas and responsible conduct in research

Where should I publish? How to select a target journal

Crowdfunding

Writing Retreat

Resilience and mental health for researchers

Time management for the busy HDR candidate

How to make the most of your research funding

Breakfast Club

How to self-publish and develop a personal brand to build your research career

Life After Graduation: Explore International Teaching and School Administration Careers Tasmanian Community Fund

Information Session Forging new research Connections

Crowd Funding: How it works and how to develop your pitch

Powerful Presentations

Writing for publication Grad Cert unit Research data

management 3MT Heat 1 How to self-publish and develop a personal brand to build your research career

The Unexpected Benefits

– Some roles far exceeding expectations – Deployability and diversification – Adaptation and co-operation – Interdivisional objectives can be achieved – Institutional focus and refinement on institutional

performance

23

Researcher Profiles Project

24

Monitoring for Improvement

3/08/2016

1. Governance and Oversight • Constant vigilance, annual review • Annual plans and review to see if deliverables met and what problems

have arise or impeded delivery. • LEAN review

2. Metrics indicators by function for ongoing reporting- health

Innovation

– High standards, well-functioning system is now allowing for innovation

– We are moving into: • Research development • Research extension • External collaboration

26

Acknowledgements

– Brett Harris – Julianne O’Reilly-Wapstra – The ORS Team

27

Thank you

– Questions?

28