UniForum (University Operations Forum)

Student Support & Service StudyHoSA ConferenceAuckland, September 2011

UniForum: Outline

1. The Process: what we did

2. The Constraints: limitations & blockages

3. The Current Activities: what we are doing

4. The Learnings: take-away initiatives

UniForum: private forum of 5 Universities goal is to improve efficiency and effectiveness of support services through major

institutional insights study is under a collaborative framework facilitated by CUBANE Consultants to enable

structured approach & review of key operational areas

Professional Staff Surveys:Identifying professional staff & worked proportion FTE for 12 month period as coded for each activity e.g.. UoM 2010 Activity Analysis Project

Professional Staff Benchmarking:- FTEs from Professional Staff Surveys were used to analyse differences into comparable data (coding, scaling and normalisation of raw data. etc)

Priority Activity AreasPriority = require significant resourcing - Admissions- Enrolments- Examinations & Special Consideration- Student/Academic Advising (including Unsatisfactory Progress)

Local Reference Areas - Business & Economics - Education- Science- EngineeringData from local areas used for benchmarking study.

UniForum: The Process

Data Input

University site visits for priority activity areas: Panel meetings/

interviews with relevant staff from local reference areas and central areas

In depth analysis of business process, system enablers, policy framework

UniForum: The Process

Workshop

1

•Established key priority areas & chose reference faculties/ disciplines across participants

Workshop

2

•Reviewed consultant’s activity analysis findings and draft benchmarking report

•Considered performance, improvement options & evaluated measures

•Analysed models of service delivery for student administration and student support services for the 5 comparator universities focusing on priority activities

Workshop

3 (Conference)

•Tested presentation and understanding of insights to other participants

•Highlighted and tested relative position to “leading practices” across participants

•Considered maturity of priority activity processes (including business and IT systems / resource management) and discussed next steps

Participant Input3 workshops engaged participants with findings/ observations including qualitative

assessment of the normalised data.

UniForum: The Process

Example report data and analysis

Front-line activities

UniForum: The Process

Where are we high / low in resourcing and / or costs?

What structures and practices are creating this position?

What implications do these positions have for scope and quality of service?

Devolved or central model

Consistency & accessibility vs. variability

Generalist or specialist staff

Casual / permanent staff mix

Staff seniority

Peak management

Value: $ vs quality

Participants presented at WS 3 (conference):

Activities / Functions

Frontline/ Governance mix

What structures / practices do we have that appear to be leading the way amongst the 5 universities?

What structures / practices do other universities have that we could benefit from adopting / moving towards?

What activities require further investigation and the potential value of investing effort in this area?

UniForum: The Process

Benchmarking

Highest resourced activities

Participants presented to their Executive : Objectives: prompt discussion on key opportunities and implications for existing /

planned projects Target: activities with greatest enterprise-wide opportunity and interest

Participants presented at WS 3 (conference):

UoM: Current Activities

•at central, faculty and departmental levels

•identify anomalies, trends, issues

Data Mining•at local

2nd & 3rd tier level for reviewed activities

•address anomalies, identify cost patterns/trends

Test Assumptions

•across similar functional units (eg. Student Centres)

•establish best practice & efficient practices

•against quality of service to test proposition that High $ = High quality

Bench-marking

Cross Reference with other surveys / data – International Barometer, student experience etc

Examine contextualised

recommendations

Consider opportunities for

process management

changes

Training needs or business

improvement analysis

Meet Business Plan objectives &

KPIs

Present findings and analysis to divisional heads:

Next Steps:

UoM: Current Activities

Monash University - issues for further consideration

• Functional activities are – Highly devolved (i.e. b/n central vs faculty)– Highly devolved within faculties– Predominantly staffed at HEW 7 and below– Predominantly generalists, less specialised

• Benchmarks and metrics need to be defined to measure– Costs and distribution of resources– service standards to applicants/students

UniForum: Constraints

Reviewing Process Issues

Opportunity lost to obtain context for data since site visits prior to data release

Difficulty of interpretation. Are the context of derivation

and our pre-conceptions important in the

interpretation of data?

Pre-selection of priority areas risks pre-determining outcomes & opportunity lost to uncover other significant

issues

Variety in structures and scope make institutional

comparisons difficult

UniForum: Constraints

Data Integrity Issues

Variability in coding at activity (cf. functional) level(though this was countered

during the site visits)

Staff Survey data alignment for some key activity areas

(e.g. Enrolments & Admissions).

Variability in coding due to varying operational contexts

of budget unit and perceptions of roles

(work to be done to align Staff Survey process)

Data may require context to be indicative of a significant issue. Detailed qualitative

data analysis may be needed.

UniForum: Constraints

Organisational Buy-InImmature learning culture –short term focus, misaligned structures (central / local) – no strategy around comms or

enforcing incorporation of best practice into work practice

Staff Survey undertaken without understanding why or context of what will be done with the data

Diverse organisational values & practices and change fatigue make it difficult to integrate benchmarking

lessons

Innovation & change tend to be locally driven – enterprise wide strategic objectives/priorities requiring local change difficult. Small units share

knowledge & handle change easier

Data may require context to be indicative of a significant issue.

Detailed qualitative data analysis may be needed

Benchmarking activities are not effectively challenging the

organisational perceptions at the local level

UniForum: Learnings

Consistency in data collection

Maximise value by providing adequate resourcing for study

lead

Improved Promotion / Communication of

benchmarking tool to drive change & achieve

excellence

Can lead to ongoing investigation / learning experience by ensuring best practice adopted

enterprise wide

Can provide a rigorously informed method of developing quality

improvement projects based on sector best

practices

Synergy of quantitative and qualitative

approaches but greater emphasis on

quantitative required to fully understand outputs

Discussion of best practice elsewhere valuable in terms of stimulating thinking

Improvements in data collection over time will

lead to greater confidence in integrity

and trend analysis

Take-away Initiatives

Establish a detailed reporting

framework

Integrate with planning process and align outcomes

with other benchmarking activities

Determine extent outcomes may inform decisions

Consider profiling lead practices in view of business process

reviews due to policy developments

UniForum: Learnings

UniForum: Questions

?