Common Challenges Research Project: Phase 1 Report

In the Fall of 2017, the Process Improvement Office (PIO) was asked to respond to the recognition by Operations Leadership that staff were feeling overburdened and under resourced. The question PIO was trying to answer: What are our top administrative “pain points”? To that end, the results of Phase 1 skew negative and do not represent an overall assessment of how administrative groups are performing their work.

The final report (pdf) and executive summary (pdf) was shared with faculty and staff on September 25, 2019. The complete text from the final report is below. This report and accompanying Tableau Dashboard (access only available via on campus wired or wireless networks, or while off campus via Virtual Private Network (VPN)) summarize the work completed for Phase 1: Research and Identify Top Issues to Address.

Authors:
Lisa Bonner
Sheri Gausepohl
Wendell Zaragoza

Project Statement/Overview‌

The Common Challenges Research Project (CoRe) began in the Fall of 2017 as a response to staff feeling overburdened, under resourced and seeming to constantly have to task-switch.

Operations Leadership agreed on a strategic plan: Administrative structures will be streamlined and reorganized so that they support rather than hinder student and faculty success. They identified the following project goals to achieve this plan:

• Improve service & clarify where to go for help
• Refocus on core responsibilities (what you’re good at)
• Reduce “task switching” inefficiencies

The intent of this project is to identify, rank, research and implement solutions for all problematic administrative activities performed at the University, beginning with the “most problematic” as determined by the methodology.

PIO researched approaches taken by other Universities with similar issues, attending a conference, reading material in the public domain, and speaking with more than ten Universities regarding their approaches, successes and “learning moments.” See Appendix D for a list of Universities and a summary of key points/lessons learned from this research.

Guided by this research, PIO developed the phased project plan, as well as interview questions and an activities survey. PIO also provided regular updates to the University community as outlined in Appendix E.

Finally, PIO prepared this report and accompanying Tableau Dashboard (access only available via on campus wired or wireless networks, or while off campus via Virtual Private Network (VPN)) for the University community, and held one-on-one meetings with the following groups to provide detailed, relevant results, analysis, and extensive feedback from the survey and listening tour:

• Finance and Business
• Information Technology
• Workday Solutions Group
• Human Resources
• General Counsel
• Buildings
• Marketing and Communication
• Office of the Provost, Faculty Affairs

It is important to note that the interview questions and survey were designed specifically to obtain an inventory of administrative activities that were considered “pain points” by staff and faculty performing or impacted by these activities. Thus, responses are overwhelmingly negative and, by design, skewed to problems and issues. This project does not provide a balanced overview of how staff and faculty feel about their administrative responsibilities.

Further, the question PIO was trying to answer: What are our top administrative “pain points”? To that end, the results of Phase 1 skew negative and do not represent an overall assessment of how administrative groups are performing their work.

That said, all interviews and survey questions were undertaken/written from a purely constructive perspective. This initiative was conceived and implemented solely for the purpose of identifying administrative areas for improvement at the University; it was not intended to elicit justifications for problem areas or to punish/eliminate staff responsible for activities deemed most “painful”.

While PIO was responsible for all work undertaken without the assistance of consultants who specialize in this type of initiative, PIO did partner with IRDAP at key points in the process in which specialized expertise was required, including survey development and data analysis.

Summary of Data Collected

‌PIO collected data from listening tour interviews and a university-wide anonymous survey. From these data sources, 3,460 comments were logged (2,095 from the listening tour and 1,365 from the survey) and an inventory of 780 administrative activities was compiled. Please see the Tableau Dashboard “CoRe Report - University Summary Report” for interactive dashboards of these data (access only available via on campus wired or wireless networks, or while off campus via Virtual Private Network (VPN)).

Summary of Listening Tour Interviews‌

The Listening Tour interviews of over 200 staff across more than 85 departments and groups representing all areas of the University (Appendix A for a complete listing) yielded 2,095 comments from Jan 2018 - August 2018. These interviews were held in individual sessions and small groups with the following questions posed:

• What are your biggest “pain points”?
• What administrative challenges do you face when trying to fulfill your job responsibilities (daily, weekly, monthly, annual)?
• What “workarounds” do you find yourself having to employ in order to accomplish your goals?

Attendees represented all levels of the University, managers and non-managers, union and non-union staff, and the Staff Senate. All provided confidential feedback that was aggregated and anonymized for this and other reporting purposes.

The qualitative data from the listening tour and survey (see next section, Summary of Survey Data) were analyzed with the assistance of the Institutional Research, Data Analysis, and Planning (IRDAP) group under the leadership of Paula Maas. IRDAP provided analysis leveraging institutional knowledge to assign a primary theme to each comment. The top five themes are summarized as follows:

Table 1: Listening Tour Comments - Top 5 Themes

* Although the discussions focused on “pain points” and thus skews negative, all comments were logged including neutral and positive comments. 1,858 comments skewed negative out of a total 2,095 comments logged.

Theme 1: Lack of planning / resource allocation / change management

The most common theme (26% of all negative comments) included topics covering:

• Unrealistic budgets, resourcing, and timelines for new initiatives (e.g., Workday implementation and ongoing support)
• “Capacity doesn’t match ambition”
• “Unsupported expectations”
• “If everything is a priority, then nothing is”
• Misalignment between job descriptions and actual/evolving responsibilities (e.g., assignment of the HR Partner role to existing staff)
• Perceptions of areas being understaffed or overstaffed
• Changes made too frequently; lack of training, expertise to support changes
• “Invisible work” created by centralized areas pushing more arduous tasks downstream without increasing capacity
• Too many siloed systems and lack of IT support for these systems

Theme 2: Ineffective communication / poor customer service

The second most common theme (18% of all negative comments) included topics covering:

• No top down communication about decisions made, strategic direction (from Executive Leadership e.g., Dean/Chief/VP)
• No interdepartmental communication about new or revised policies, procedures
• Lack of context, reasons for a policy/rule
• Confusion around who is responsible for some or all of a process and why
• Territoriality: areas pitted against one another / poor customer service between departments

Theme 3: Poor work environment / Lack of employee support

The third most common theme (15% of all negative comments) included topics covering:

• Lack of respect / support / trust of employees from direct supervisors and area leadership
• Toxic culture or hostile environment; fear of management
• Fear of taking risks (“if I speak up, I will be blamed for failures, become the scapegoat”)
• Meaningless performance review
• Lack of career path, salary below market, inequities in opportunities
• Summer flex, vacation turnover date, parental leave, benefits reduced/costs increasing
• High turnover rate
• Dirty or inadequate work space for job (e.g. privacy for advising students, supporting staff)

Theme 4: Lack of / Inconsistent policies, procedures, documentation

The fourth most common theme (9% of all negative comments) included topics covering:

• Can’t find information or don’t have access needed; wrong information published
• Ruled by exceptions; Policies not applied consistently

Theme 5: Ineffective executive leadership / decision-making (President / Provost / Dean / Chief)

The fifth most common theme (7% of all negative comments) included topics covering:

• Lack of ownership and accountability at the highest levels
• Who is the decision maker?
• Who is responsible for communicating decisions, especially unpopular ones?
• Lack of trust in leadership
• Lack of long term / strategic planning
• What is the big picture?
• What are our priorities?
• What is our business model?

Summary of Survey Data‌

The survey, comprising over 600 administrative activities, was piloted in August of 2018 with 48 staff representing multiple levels and departments across the University, as well as two full-time faculty members and one part-time faculty member. This cohort provided more than 100 suggestions for improvements that were subsequently incorporated into the final survey that was sent to all staff and faculty for completion during September - October, 2018.

This anonymous survey included optional demographic questions, allowing the analysis to include metadata such as primary role (faculty or staff), years of service, union or non-union, management or non-management. The survey yielded responses from 972 total participants (including completed as well as partially completed surveys), 614 activities from the survey received ratings, 186 additional activities were identified and 1,365 comments provided. See Appendix B for a description of the survey and this google sheet for a copy of the survey questions.

,015 staff and faculty were invited to participate, including full- and part-time staff and full- and part-time faculty. Student workers and students were excluded.

Table 2: Invitations and Response Rate by Self-Reported Primary Role

* All full-time faculty, and full-time and part-time staff in Workday (MyDay) with either no termination date or a termination date later than 9/14/2018 received an invitation to the survey. 480 respondents self-reported as full-time administrative staff, 19 respondents self-reported as part-time administrative staff.

** All part-time faculty in Workday (MyDay) with activity pay generated in Fall 2017, Spring 2018, Summer 2018 and/or Fall 2018 semesters received an invitation to the survey.

*** Earlier presentations on CoRe survey results reported 1,140 total responses or 28% rate. 168 responses were eliminated from the final analysis after determining that the respondents did not answer any of the questions relevant to the activities analysis.

Table 3: Survey Response Rates, Submitted v. In Progress

In addition to the quantitative data, the survey yielded 1,254 comments related to specific activities or activity groupings, and 112 general comments (1,365 total comments).

Formation and Charge of the Advisory Team‌

PIO solicited volunteers for the CoRe Advisory Team (“A Team”) during the Fall of 2018 from staff across the University. The Advisory Team is a group of interested individuals who are committed to administrative change and are willing to take on a greater role in CoRe. See Appendix C for a complete list of A Team members.

Specifically, A Team members were/are/will be asked to:

Phase 1:

• Review spreadsheets, communications, reports compiled/written by PIO
• Provide guidance including written and verbal comments to these materials in a timely fashion
• Determine collectively which activity or activities we will work to fix in Phase 2, beginning in the winter of 2018-2019

Phase 2:

• Review process flows and other process/procedure/policy documents designed/written by PIO
• Provide guidance including written and verbal comments to these materials in a timely fashion
• Determine collectively our recommendation for changes to the activity or activities we are working to fix

Phase 3:

• Review business plan written by PIO
• Provide guidance including written and verbal comments to revise/finalize the business plan
• Provide support to PIO’s presentation of the business plan to senior leadership

In all Phases:

• Meet regularly in person or virtually (a few times each semester) to discuss and decide on content, wording, deadlines, etc. related to CoRe deliverables (including reports, presentations, etc.)
• Check-in with colleagues in your department/group/college, providing updates on CoRe activities and soliciting feedback to share with the A Team

Over the course of several weeks in the winter of 2018 - 2019, the A Team reviewed the survey and listening tour data, and met to discuss and identify several factors important to successful project execution. An anonymous point allocation survey was distributed to all 21 members for ranking the factors identified and the results were shared with IRDAP for analysis. See Appendix F for the point allocation survey.

The resulting top three factors were identified as the most important to the A Team for use in the methodology for determining the ranking of problematic activities:

• A source of invisible work and/or unintended downstream work and/or creates gaps in inefficient processes
• Has direct impact on teaching and learning
• Is something done often and has a broad impact on the University community

Summary of Data Analysis Methodology‌

The methodology for determining the ranked list of activities comprises four components:

• Problematic Activities: The 24 most problematic activities from the survey responses, taking into consideration the number of respondents and the percentage of negative responses
• Listening Tour Themes: The five most common problematic themes discussed in the listening tour interviews
• A Team Factors: The top three key factors determined by the A Team, based on what defines “important” and “successful” approaches to problem-solving
• Weightings, based on the number and breadth of each data source.

Each Listening Tour Theme and A Team Factor was assigned a weight and each of the 24 problematic Activities was assigned to the appropriate Listening Tour Themes and A Team Factors.

The calculation of the weightings and Theme/Factor assignments yielded a “Final Score” for each activity and thus one final ranked list of activities. All components of the methodology were reviewed and overseen by the Advisory Team (A Team) and Institutional Research and Effectiveness (IRDAP). Please see Appendix G for a list of the top 24 activities with weightings and “Final Score”, and details regarding the use of each component, below.

Use of Survey Data

‌In consultation with IRDAP, 24 unique activities were were selected from the survey results for inclusion in the final analysis results based on the following criteria:

• All activities with 35% or greater negative responses (individual activity level) and
• 80 or more total responses (individual activity level).

A negative survey response is defined as one of the following sentiments:

• “Bothersome, Tedious, Annoying”
• “Frustrating, Convoluted, Causing Me Concern” or
• “I have a workaround”

Note that “I have a workaround” is included as negative because well-designed processes and procedures by definition do not require or elicit workarounds by staff/faculty; staff/faculty develop workarounds because the process/procedure is not effective/efficient for them. While this workaround may be more effective/efficient for the individual, collectively these workarounds have an overall negative impact on the entire community (including upstream and downstream teams).

Percent of negative responses is calculated by taking the total number of negative responses (defined above) and dividing it by the total number of responses an activity received. For example, “Request/Receive Audio/Visual/Lighting Support” received 115 responses and 47 were negative. The percent of negative responses is 47/115 or 41%.

Any activities closely related to one another were rolled-up (grouped by common process/solution) for analysis. For example, the following two activities were rolled-up into a single activity, “Completing annual review in MyDay”:

• Annual performance review for myself in MyDay
• Annual performance review for my staff in MyDay

Use of Listening Tour Data

In consultation with IRDAP, the weighting for each of the top five listening tour themes was determined by the number of unique comments for each theme (e.g., 478 under Lack of Planning) as a percentage of the total comments represented by the top five themes (1,392) as listed in Table 1. Each activity within the 24 identified from the survey received a weighted value if it was deemed to be negative due to:

• Theme 1: Lack of planning / resource allocation / change management (weighted 0.34)
• Theme 2: Ineffective communication / poor customer service (weighted 0.24)
• Theme 3: Poor work environment / Lack of employee support (0.20)
• Theme 4: Lack of / Inconsistent policies, procedures, documentation (0.12)
• Theme 5: Ineffective executive leadership / decision-making (President / Provost / Dean / Chief) (0.10)

Total possible value for any activity is 1.0.

Use of Advisory Team Factors

In reviewing the point allocation survey results that determined the top three factors as the most important to the A team in determining a successful project execution, IRDAP recommended the weighting below. Each activity within the 24 identified from the survey received a weighted value if improving it would:

• Reduce invisible work (weighted 0.5)
• Have a direct impact on teaching and learning (weighted 0.3)
• Have a broad impact on the University community (weighted 0.2)

Total possible value for any activity is 1.0.

Please see Appendix F for details and the full list of factors.

Weightings of the Three Components‌

The top 24 problematic activities from the survey were included for final analysis and the final weighting formula comprised:

• 0.6: Survey percent “negative” response
• 0.3: Listening Tour Themes
• 0.1: A Team Factors

Calculation of Final Score

The final score for each activity was calculated using:

• the survey “score” (i.e., percent “negative” response for the activity),
• the listening tour “score” (i.e., sum of the points assigned based on whether the activity was due to one or more of the “themes”), and
• The A Team Factor “score” (i.e., sum of the points assigned based on whether the activity would improve one or more of the “factors”)

In the following formula (with weightings): (Survey score x 0.6) + (Listening Tour score x 0.3) + (A Team Factor score x 0.1) = Final Score

Findings‌

Overall, the University community expressed frustration with the combination of decentralized structures and centralized core business units. This situation creates confusion as faculty and staff are unaware of whom to contact for administrative needs and frustration when decentralized tasks are assigned to staff without their knowledge and/or adequate training.

In addition, there are departments whose goals/objectives are at odds with the goals/objectives of their partners, causing miscommunication and mistrust.

Also, there were multiple examples of problematic activities identified as such partially or entirely due to the lack of ownership of these activities. For example, the activity “Activities involved with reserving rooms/space and answering questions related to room setup (for classes/meetings/events)” has no clear owner, with multiple departments of interest: Marketing + Communication, Office of the Provost, Buildings, and Information Technology.

Regarding problematic activities with clear ownership, the community has observed in their own groups as well as in others that specialized transactions are taking precedence over the accurate and timely processing of routine transactions.

Finally, there is a general consensus that there is a misalignment of rhetoric and practice causing prioritization of all as “most important” and fundamentally a lack of direction overall.

Below are some anonymized comments from the survey and listening tour that exemplify overall, recurring themes:

• “Most of our problems are not from systems or changes; the main problem is that nobody is driving the bus; we are falling apart here; there is no one laying out a plan, communicating the plan, talking to interested parties and modifying the plan and then communicating changes/decisions so that people can be productive and on board with the plan (of course projects will have a million details, but if everyone knows the problem (goal) and the plan, we are all ok) “
• “There is little to no organized support for training on campus. It would be useful if there was a page on the HR website that listed all of the software and systems used on campus with links to the department you email, or the site you go to for registration for training. At this point getting trained involves trying to remember the name of a specific person, and keeping a running tab in your head of the systems. Also, there is no opportunity for staff development except for one day a year. We should have opportunities to brush up on skills, or learn new ones on a regular basis.”
• “University needs a way to disseminate a range of information & policies more efficiently. At present it's done piecemeal with various offices - IT, Provost, HR, EDO - sending info as needed. There is no way to capture it in an organized way in one place. A monthly or twice a month internal newsletter would help. It would also be a good way for HR to reinforce University policies and to announce practices that should be observed. It would also be a good way to capture information from the various trainings that the University offers by providing links, summaries and upcoming opportunities.”
• “we try to adopt policies and procedures but then someone disagrees and it just sits and people get discouraged; or even if it is implemented, there are too many exceptions; someone needs to say what needs to be said. . . must say "we're doing it"”
• “Although we've made great strides, I still see this competitive viewpoint from the colleges that makes it difficult to operate as part of central administration. Staff/faculty are sometimes hesitant to share information as a protective measure against their programs or offices. It makes it difficult to collaborate... Lastly -- I think a true departmental map is really important to the proper functioning of the university. I think it would highlight the administrative bloat in this place -- so many directors/senior directors/AVPs/etc, and overworked student-facing people on the ground. But it would also make it easier to navigate interdepartmental collaborations, efforts, info gathering, etc. We all work better when we know how to talk to each other and what our united mission is.”

Top 5 Activities and Final Score‌

1. Resolving issues with pay (0.734)
2. Hiring staff and faculty (0.650)
3. Reserving rooms/space and answering questions related to room setup (for classes/meetings/events) (0.629)
4. Onboarding new staff or faculty (system access, answering questions) (0.605)
5. Answering Questions about Website Content, Data, and Updates (0.602)

See Appendix G for the full list of 24 activities, ranked by final score.

Activity 1: Resolving issues with pay‌

Accurate, timely pay for both employees and our external vendors is a fundamental operational activity for the University. “Resolving issues with pay” involves multiple groups and components including the HR Payroll Team, MyDay processes, managers, workers (student workers, faculty, staff), policies, and others. The issues around pay are seemingly made more obtuse by the university’s diverse workforce with unique policies and procedures for each category, including full-time and part-time staff and faculty, student workers of many kinds, temporary and miscellaneous employees, eight separate unions, and a growing reliance on independent contractors currently managed through Accounts Payable in Finance and Business, not Payroll.

Activity 1 Survey Results

This activity encompasses a single sub-activity from the survey:

Resolving issues with pay
84 total responding / 51 negative responses 61% “negative”

NOTE: “Total Responding” includes all responses from faculty/staff performing the task (i.e., excludes “I don’t do this but I should” and “N/A”). “Negative Responses” include “Bothersome”, “Frustrating”, and “I have a workaround”

For more details regarding survey responses, please see the Tableau Dashboard (access only available via on campus wired or wireless networks, or while off campus via Virtual Private Network (VPN)).

Activity 1 Listening Tour Results

Comments touched on four of the five main listening tour themes:

• Theme 1: Lack of planning / resource allocation / change management
• Theme 2: Ineffective communication / poor customer service
• Theme 3: Poor work environment / Lack of employee support
• Theme 4: Lack of / Inconsistent policies, procedures, documentation

Below is a representative sampling of anonymized comments related to resolving issues with pay. Note that PIO met with Human Resources and WorkDay Solutions Group to provide detailed, relevant results, analysis, and extensive feedback from the survey and listening tour regarding this topic.

Theme 1: Lack of planning / resource allocation / change management (for Activity 1: Resolving issues with pay)

The impact of the MyDay/Workday implementation is the most significant and recurring topic under the Planning / Change Management theme. The perception being that the project was hindered by an aggressive timeline and too few dedicated resources to allow for the conversations and process re-engineering required for a successful implementation. Comments included an inability to see/retrieve accurate data, especially as it concerns faculty and student pay, and an increase in workload downstream for those directly supporting employees in the role of HR Partner or supervisor. Additionally, many comments expressed frustration with changes to policy/procedure in regards to shorter timelines for submitting hours worked, length of time to generate pay cards, and our inability to cut paper checks.

• “I only see the [time tracking] process from when I send time back with notes to be corrected in MyDay. What I have heard from my employees is that they do not always get a clear notification that they have time that was sent back. And then it's hard for them to find the note to know what to correct. The process often makes student workers miss the pay period deadline if they aren't able to respond quickly.”
• “Many times, the errors occur because of a delay or mistake in the job creation process...and I (as a manager) am not notified until after the student worker does not get paid (and the student asks me why).”
• “The Payroll lockout time [changing] from noon to 9am on Monday has been a major hindrance causing many who approve time cards to have to do so outside working hours on Saturday or Sunday for staff who work on Saturday or Sunday.”
• “It takes too long to issue pay cards - on average, close to two weeks”
• “...Student workers have concerns about missing pay and they bring their cases to me directly and I cannot help them. Ad hoc wage checks?? That is not happening at all.”
• “Our policies do not meet our needs. Outsourcing our [Accounts Payable] checks is also problematic. These checks are cut in Oregon, and it takes a week typically for weeks to arrive to the east coast. There is no transparency with BOA if there are issues or when a check has been put in the mail. So typically we don't know if there is an issue until about 2 weeks after a check was cut, when we hear news from the vendor that they have still not received the check. If we cut these checks in house, it would be a matter of a day or two when an issue would be brought to our attention.”

Theme 2: Ineffective communication / poor customer service (for Activity 1: Resolving issues with pay)

The process of paying employees is complex and involves many people across the university performing tasks within tight timeframes. As such, issues related to pay may occur due to missteps at various points in the process and often no single owner can resolve the issue on their own.

• “Faculty compensation adjustments are extremely frustrating; there is no one owner - this results in multiple departments, each with one piece of information, struggling to resolve”
• "I spent significant hours each month attempting to resolve payroll errors with student workers and typically find an alarming series of obstacles, lack of support, and lack of responsiveness from a number of offices involved in the process.”

Theme 3: Poor work environment / Lack of employee support (for Activity 1: Resolving issues with pay)

The employees most often impacted by issues around pay are those required to track their hours and, as is especially the case with student employees, the most reliant on receiving their full paycheck each cycle. As such, many comments expressed concern with supporting our most vulnerable employees regardless of the source of pay error.

• “... When employees don't get paid due to a processing error, they just have to wait until the next pay period, which can be a challenge for them financially...”
• “I have been told by leadership that HR & Payroll do not exist to 'clean up' mistakes, and that a mistake on our part does not mean an urgent issue for them. There is a significant lack of teamwork, lack of urgency to address payment issues for students, and a lack of concern for the well-being of students."
• “Student employees frequently forget to submit their hours worked by the deadline, resulting in them being locked out of the system for a period of time while payroll is being processed. Because this happens with such regularity, it becomes a major headache for the employer. Students, however irresponsible, must be paid for hours worked and locking them out of hours and putting supervisors in the position of having to advocate for them being paid in a timely manner is unacceptable.”

Theme 4: Lack of / Inconsistent policies, procedures, documentation (for Activity 1: Resolving issues with pay)

The rapid deployment of MyDay/Workday along with the challenges of post-implementation corrections/trouble-shooting (some of which, some would argue, continues today) has resulted in limited or no helpful documentation. This rapid deployment also did not allow time for rethinking policies and reengineering business processes in order to allow staff and faculty to work effectively with the new technology.

• “When it comes to Payroll, it would be great if the Payroll team were to provide a one-sheeter of different scenarios where there would be Payroll issues and what the solution would be.”

Activity 2: Hiring staff and faculty‌

The process of hiring new staff and faculty is another fundamental operational activity for the University, especially in light of the considerable turnover experienced in many areas of administration. “Hiring staff and faculty” involves multiple groups and components including HR, the Provost Office, MyDay processes and other systems, hiring managers, administrative staff and faculty, policies, and others. Comments regarding hiring staff and faculty centered on the process of hiring (delays, opacity, and ad-hoc nature), self-imposed rules regarding titles/salaries, lack of qualified/responsive hiring committees, and inconsistencies.

Activity 2 Survey Results

This activity encompasses all of the following sub-activities:

• Write / Update / Approve / Obtain approvals for position job descriptions and recruitment plans
• Request / Confirm / Approve position budget or funding
• Submit / Approve job posting in PeopleAdmin and/or external sites
• Obtain approvals and extend the offer (including generating draft contract, reviewing and approving faculty contracts)
• Initiate a new hire in MyDay

648 total responding / 270 negative responses 42% “negative”

NOTE: “Total Responding” includes all responses from faculty/staff performing the task (i.e., excludes “I don’t do this but I should” and “N/A”). “Negative Responses” include “Bothersome”, “Frustrating”, and “I have a workaround”

For more details regarding survey responses, please see the Tableau Dashboard (access only available via on campus wired or wireless networks, or while off campus via Virtual Private Network (VPN)).

Activity 2 Listening Tour Results

Comments touched all five main listening tour themes.

• Theme 1: Lack of planning / resource allocation / change management
• Theme 2: Ineffective communication / poor customer service
• Theme 3: Poor work environment / Lack of employee support
• Theme 4: Lack of / Inconsistent policies, procedures, documentation
• Theme 5: Ineffective executive leadership / Decision-making (President / Provost / Dean / Chief)

Below is a representative sampling of anonymized comments related to hiring new faculty and staff. Note that PIO met with Human Resources, WorkDay Solutions Group, and the Provost Office to provide detailed, relevant results, analysis, and extensive feedback from the survey and listening tour regarding this topic.

Theme 1: Lack of planning / resource allocation / change management (for Activity 2: Hiring staff and faculty)

As with Activity 1, there is a general sense that the hiring process was not evaluated and reengineered when MyDay was implemented. Thus we are suffering with a process that has been cobbled together and not optimized to take advantage of MyDay. In addition, the new role of HR Partner has not been properly assigned or supported, creating a misalignment between job descriptions and responsibilities for those assigned to that role along with a significant amount of “invisible work” shifted from visible work by HR staff to this HR Partner role.

• “Hiring process is convoluted and inefficient but I am doing it; there must be a better way; I feel like I am trying to hit a moving target because there are no manuals, no checklist and we are changing what we are doing all the time ‘oh, we don't do it like that any more’ or ‘oh, we don't use that’”
• “Getting a position description read, reviewed, and revised/approved by HR is tantamount to rolling a boulder up a steep incline. The process for getting approvals on salaries (which are notoriously too low to recruit top quality candidates) is also poor. The process to create a job requisition for student hires (whether OCSE [On-Campus Student Employment] or FWS [Federal Work Study]), approve the requisition, assign it to an organization, add it to a student record, and so on is far too tedious and confusing and easy to forget when done only once per semester...”
• “PTF hiring process is flawed; HR professionals must perform key tasks to ensure compliance/confidentiality. PTF Hiring is under-resourced [in the schools] and we don't have the qualifications / certification that an HR analyst or specialist is required to have for compliance purposes”

Theme 2: Ineffective communication / poor customer service (for Activity 2: Hiring staff and faculty)

Although there are issues with the processes and systems that support hiring, equally frustrating is the lack of communication across departments regarding rules, policies, and procedures. Groups are not working as a team to hire staff and faculty and this lack of partnership is damaging the ability to attract and hire the best candidates for many positions.

• “All of the processes for new hires can be tedious and convoluted at times. Communicating between both systems and departments causes unnecessary delays and often gets in the way of a streamlined procedure. There are multiple tasks that must be initiated in order to get a job set up in MyDay, and these tasks are often enormously delayed in the back and forth between HR and myself. There are many headaches caused by the lack of clarity and understanding about just how many things need to be submitted/approved/completed before an employee can enter hours and get paid. The hiring process overall feels like a constant back and forth between myself, HR, and the hiring manager. It's hard to believe that our current system isn't nearly as efficient and streamlined as it should be.”
• “Processing any kind of ad-hoc salary increase or promotion/change in title, is the most frustrating process I've encountered at The New School.”
• “Regarding union hourly employees, would like to have a partnership on who to hire moving forward, issues of fixed terms, etc.; I would like to partner with HR to strategize on this but we don't have that partnership now”

Theme 3: Poor work environment / Lack of employee support (for Activity 2: Hiring staff and faculty)

There is a sense that there is not enough support provided to managers and other staff who are responsible for the work required to hire faculty and staff. In addition, salary inequities and below market salaries further exacerbate the hiring process.

• “What is HR doing to support managers? Our managers need support in hiring and other managerial duties.”
• “...The salary range estimates provided by HR are completely useless -- no one in our department makes anywhere near the ‘midpoint’ salaries they indicate, and I am tired of trying to explain this bizarre calculation to my direct reports who also hire staff."
• “All compensation guidelines and recommendations are totally ignored. TNS doesn't even follow its own written guidelines when it comes to employee salary bracketing and trajectory… I am nowhere near the mid-point of my band despite meeting or exceeding all of the requirements outlined in the Administrative Compensation Structure policy (available from HR)…I know that this is also true for the majority of people in my immediate team and larger department.”

Theme 4: Lack of / Inconsistent policies, procedures, documentation (for Activity 2: Hiring staff and faculty)

The lack of accessible/documented policies and procedures in addition to the perception that they are not applied consistently or not followed at all has created a challenge for many of the groups/individuals involved in the hiring process.

• “Job description/hiring process is getting better but lots of wasted time; e.g., 80 emails back and forth with HR when transitioning a job to a higher salary; issue of HR saying ‘you know the job best’ but I need HR language to make it through the HR approval process; there is lack of consistency...(e.g., one month job description is accepted; next month the same job description is rejected); spent 1.5 months on job description, which could easily have been cut in half”
• “We sponsor visas for full time faculty and others. This policy is not clear; HR Operations is not even clear in discussion of this.”
• “Recruitment process (especially for students) is tedious and ineffective. There isn't an effective onboarding or off boarding procedure.”

Theme 5: Ineffective executive leadership / Decision-making (President / Provost / Deans / Chiefs) (for Activity 2: Hiring staff and faculty)

There is a perception of a lack of leadership from the very top driving priorities or a lack of understanding of priorities. Many processes are impacted by this void, including the hiring process by inhibiting planning and inhibiting adaptation to changing market conditions and department/group needs, especially in light of large turnover in key areas.

• “When it comes to the actual annual budgeting to support the Administrative Compensation Structure policy, not enough money is allocated to follow these guidelines leading to high employee turnover and dissatisfaction.”
• “Hiring and promotions move very slowly. The university maintains a self-imposed rigidity about titles and salaries - even when these are within budget, norms, and planning for the positions. Conversations between school deans offices and HR move very slowly, add little value, and often exclude our department (the unit that is paying for and actually cares about the positions)”

Activity 3: Reserving rooms/space and answering questions related to room setup (for classes/meetings/events)‌

While there is an understanding that lack of space on our urban campus is a constant challenge, the issues related to reserving and setting up rooms for classes, meetings and events go beyond that challenge.

The overall themes are a lack of ownership and a lack of interdepartmental coordination. This lack of coordination in many ways stems from the misalignment of goals and objectives of the departments that must work as partners in order to achieve goals related to room reservation and set-up. This misalignment undermines the ability of these departments to work as partners and leads to perceptions that certain departments or groups within the university are given preferential treatment. In addition to this institutional challenge, there is a common theme of inadequate tools available for efficient and effective room reservation and set-up.

Activity 3 Survey Tour Results

This activity encompasses all of the following activities:

• Use 25Live
• Scheduling rooms (for meetings or classes)
• Classroom set-up (physical)

445 total responding / 214 negative responses 48% “negative”

NOTE: “Total Responding” includes all responses from faculty/staff performing the task (i.e., excludes “I don’t do this but I should” and “N/A”). “Negative Responses” include “Bothersome”, “Frustrating”, and “I have a workaround”

For more details regarding survey responses, please see the Tableau Dashboard (access only available via on campus wired or wireless networks, or while off campus via Virtual Private Network (VPN)).

Activity 3 Listening Tour Results

Comments touched on four of the five main listening tour themes:

• Theme 1: Lack of planning / resource allocation / change management
• Theme 2: Ineffective communication / poor customer service
• Theme 4: Lack of / Inconsistent policies, procedures, documentation
• Theme 5: Ineffective executive leadership / Decision-making (President / Provost / Dean / Chief)

Below is a representative sampling of anonymized comments related to reserving and setting up rooms for classes, meetings, and events. Note that PIO met with Buildings, IT, Marketing & Communication, and the Provost Office to provide detailed, relevant results, analysis, and extensive feedback from the survey and listening tour regarding this topic.

Theme 1: Lack of planning / resource allocation / change management (for Activity 3: Reserving rooms/space and answering questions related to room setup (for classes/meetings/events))

The “invisible work” required of staff tasked with scheduling rooms for classes/meetings/events, siloed systems/processes and lack of IT ownership/support in finding/configuring a suitable technology solution contribute significantly to the ineffective room scheduling tool/process. Comments focused on the need for a streamlined process that incorporates all relevant functions/groups (M&C - Events, Provost - Classroom Scheduling, IT - A/V, Buildings - Facilities, Inventory, and Policies) as well as a need for better, more integrated and more supported scheduling system(s). Finally, comments reflected a sense that the university space inventory is not large enough to accommodate the current volume of classes, administrative meetings, and events, resulting in an inferior experience and frustration for all involved in executing these activities.

• “…events planning is very hard to do, little space available, no catering, is barely supported by the university; even [with] the assistance offered on paper, the university provides little resources or help to faculty or staff in executing events; “
• “25Live is such an outdated website and isn't that easy to use. Requesting AV requires a ton of paperwork, which is often out of proportion with the requested work itself. Ensuring that AV is working prior to a meeting is always a big crapshoot, because you never know what the setup is, what's working, what isn't, what cords or adapters are already there and what's missing, etc.”
• “Having multiple systems for different rooms is grossly inefficient. For smaller reservations, it should be possible to invite a room to a calendar event, and to see who has booked what outside of those rooms.”
• “Adjunct [Faculty] space for preparation (and especially student meetings) has become more and more limited over the years. I know space is tight, but we always lose. (Computer availability has over the years been so regularly bad that I & others simply don't bother expecting it.)”
• “Faculty complain about the difficulty of scheduling/getting appropriate classrooms”
• “The AV situation in classrooms can be difficult. Often projectors are old or there is no projector just a big monitor which is really not what you need in a big class. The interface boxes where you connect a laptop are prone to breaking down constantly. Big drain on class time & quality. Also the classrooms themselves are generally small & cramped. New school needs to add more quality classrooms & equipment. It's very hard on students & teachers.”
• “Disabilities (sight, hearing, mobility) are not considered in space planning. Examples include the lights in the List Center library and in the stacks of the University Center. Also, no elevator in between 6th and 7th floors so mobility-challenged people must be singled out when participating in tours, classes, and appointments on the 7th floor.”

Theme 2: Ineffective communication / poor customer service (for Activity 3: Reserving rooms/space and answering questions related to room setup (for classes/meetings/events))

Due to the necessary coordination and cooperation required for efficient and successful room scheduling, the lack of effective interdepartmental communication is a common “pain point” shared by all groups. Further, due to our space-constrained campus, there was a shared feeling across the involved groups that the lack of / misaligned top-down communication added to the challenge of effective room scheduling.

• “Another example of missed opportunity for coordination (there are lots of these), is the Lang O'Cafe... it appears that the right people were not involved in the planning and now there are logistical problems. For example, they are cooking without proper exhaust fans and thus setting off the fire alarm.”
• “My experience scheduling spaces at The New School has been absolutely terrible. There is a basic lack of communication and understanding between faculty and staff. This is something that really needs to be addressed.”
• “there is no cooperation regarding booking rooms; for example, there is a weekly class on Thursday night for one hour for 200 people in the auditorium so that space is unavailable for large events for the entire evening; because we have no rehearsal spaces, we use the auditorium for this purpose M, W, F nights and Saturdays limiting our opportunities for events in that space”

Theme 4: Lack of / Inconsistent policies, procedures, documentation (for Activity 3: Reserving rooms/space and answering questions related to room setup (for classes/meetings/events))

The lack of ownership has contributed to a lack of and/or inconsistent policies, procedures and documentation. Certain groups with vested interests have tried to provide policies, procedures, documentation but all groups are requesting but unable to establish and communicate clear and effective policies and procedures for the university community.

• “...it's impossible to complete the Facilities form because we need to know what kind of equipment is available and that information is not published anywhere”
• “I have to maintain my own list of meeting rooms and the people to contact if I want to use them”
• “I wonder why we have certain events here; who decides this?”
• “From a "benefit" perspective, who is making the priority decisions? if we have an amazing event, why can't a class move to another space for one day; who is making overall space decisions vis a vis goals;
  there is a "policy" about when things happen but then exceptions are made so how can we advocate if there is no foundation/policy; we all need to know the priorities and then stick to them...”
• “We don't have enough rooms that hold 100 or so people, and for the spaces we do have, the booking process is too ambiguous. At any point someone can bump your event, or encroach on it. It has to be confirmed at least twice, which is a waste of admin time.”

Theme 5: Ineffective executive leadership / Decision-making (President / Provost / Deans / Chiefs) (for Activity 3: Reserving rooms/space and answering questions related to room setup (for classes/meetings/events))

Due to our space-constrained campus and multiple, sometimes conflicting priorities related to room scheduling (e.g., classes, for-profit events, academic events, community events, faculty and staff meetings, and student meetings), there is an unmet need for executive leadership. Both tactical and strategic planning is necessary to address the current ineffective process supported by a tool that is not designed and/or configured for current or future anticipated needs.

• “we use to have a space utilization committee which did not have decision making power but was useful for space policies and discussing upcoming changes; when there was going to be a major change, the idea was floated to the committee for discussion - lots of times the committee's comments influenced the timing or other details because decision makers realized the true ramifications of the decisions; reports don't always tell the whole story and we really need room scheduling to be orderly - not just shoved at us”
• “there is a huge gap in that there are enterprise systems that are not owned by anyone; IT will not own them or help troubleshoot (e.g., 25 Live which Public Programs and the Registrar are stuck with owning and paying for - they should not own something that supports the entire enterprise)”

Activity 4: Onboarding new staff or faculty (system access, answering questions)‌

The process of onboarding new staff and faculty goes hand in hand with the hiring of these individuals and is another fundamental operational activity for the University, especially in light of the considerable turnover experienced in many areas of administration. “Onboarding staff and faculty” often involves even more groups and components than the hiring process, including HR, ISSS (for international students and scholars), the Provost office, MyDay processes and other systems, hiring managers, administrative staff and faculty, policies, and others. Comments regarding onboarding staff and faculty centered around lack of communication and lack of understanding of what to provide the new employee and/or how to provide it (e.g., access to and training on systems, obtaining a university credit card, etc.).

Activity 4 Survey Results

This activity encompasses the following activities:

• Onboarding / Initial appointment process
• Request/ensure approval of system access (Banner, MyDay, Concur, Others) for new faculty, student workers, staff from appropriate offices

224 Total Responding / 99 Negative Responses 44% “negative”

NOTE: “Total Responding” includes all responses from faculty/staff performing the task (i.e., excludes “I don’t do this but I should” and “N/A”). “Negative Responses” include “Bothersome”, “Frustrating”, and “I have a workaround”

For more details regarding survey responses, please see the Tableau Dashboard (access only available via on campus wired or wireless networks, or while off campus via Virtual Private Network (VPN)).

Activity 4 Listening Tour Results

Comments touched on four of the five main listening tour themes:

• Theme 1: Lack of planning / resource allocation / change management
• Theme 2: Ineffective communication / poor customer service
• Theme 4: Lack of / Inconsistent policies, procedures, documentation
• Theme 5: Ineffective executive leadership / Decision-making (President / Provost / Dean / Chief)

Below is a representative sampling of anonymized comments related to reserving and setting up rooms for classes, meetings and events. Note that PIO met with HR, IT, and the Provost Office to provide detailed, relevant results, analysis, and extensive feedback from the survey and listening tour regarding this topic.

Theme 1: Lack of planning / resource allocation / change management (for Activity 4: Onboarding new staff or faculty (system access, answering questions))

The inconsistent ownership and established policies and procedures for ensuring the appropriate access to the business applications/systems is the primary challenge during onboarding. Additionally, many comments noted the lack of a general introduction to the university, including its history and current structure, and policies and contacts relevant to an employee’s primary role. A common refrain was the need for an investment in training resources to support new and recently promoted employees.

• “Onboarding is VERY tedious at TNS; you have to put requests in through too many people to get folks set up. There should be ONE form or way to request access to EVERYTHING.”
• “Onboarding is a pain point; we do not provide adequate training as a university;...we need a systemized approach to this; we need policies and procedures and a proper orientation; not necessarily a 1 size fits all but a systemized approach”
• “When onboarding staff I find I often don't know who to ask for access, and that is often changing. Sometimes this process is straightforward, and other times it is not. I also have to train new employees on systems that we use when we have whole offices devoted to those systems. Some of this is information that is pertinent to our department, but we should have more staff devoted to training and onboarding new staff in a more general way.”

Theme 2: Ineffective communication / poor customer service (for Activity 4: Onboarding new staff or faculty (system access, answering questions))

Because of the siloed, ad hoc onboarding with its attendant challenges, communication is most important for onboarding staff and faculty. Thus the additional “pain point” of ineffective communication further exacerbates these challenges. As with the process itself, communications are inconsistent and there is a perception of poor customer service when staff tasked with onboarding new hires must jump from office to office for answers.

• “Onboarding is our biggest issue... she sends a request to a department for help, hears nothing; must call and email at least three times before receiving any response - must constantly follow up; she gets passed her around and then she gives up”
• “New employee onboarding is a pain point; I received no instructions for using MyDay [as an employee] but benefits was helpful when I called them; my credit card was activated but I don't have information on what to do...”
• “Arranging systems access and training for new employees is time consuming; the process of who to ask for what training is opaque (at best); extremely slow”

Theme 4: Lack of / Inconsistent policies, procedures, documentation (for Activity 4: Onboarding new staff or faculty (system access, answering questions))

The siloed, ad hoc onboarding has also resulted in a lack of helpful documentation.

• “What we need for hiring and onboarding of professional staff members is a streamlining of process with clear instructions, staff members from HR that can support the process, electronic processes wherever possible.”
• “I get requests to approve things in systems like MyNewSource and WorkDay. I try to do it but get five errors, but I have no instructions to understand why I am seeing these errors - no onboarding, no instructions, just trial and error - it seems that I have to know specific type codes, etc.”

Theme 5: Ineffective executive leadership / Decision-making (President / Provost / Deans / Chiefs) (for Activity 4: Onboarding new staff or faculty (system access, answering questions))

Staff and faculty alike expressed that onboarding is generally a missed opportunity and that with an understanding of our priorities as a university and the “big picture” we could transform onboarding into the positive experience it can be.\

• “Why hasn’t the university developed search and onboarding guidelines?”
• “When new people are not trained, on boarded properly on business functions for which they are responsible, no one knows basic things like what to do if they receive a contract or a check.”
• “I spend a lot of time cleaning up messes because there is no training of the administrative structure.”
• "I've been on at least six full-time faculty search committees and I've chaired one. Questions that come up during deliberations: - Will this person be able to navigate the new hire onboarding without giving up? - Will it be worth the pain and limbo for this international person to join our faculty? How much should we warn them about the process? - Who will be responsible for them once their contract begins? For part-time faculty, many of the same pain points exist, but the one that is the most grating is having to ask about visa status before even having an initial conversation. Potential faculty are mystified that (unlike other schools) we can't process O-1 and TN-1 visas, and I usually explain by saying ‘there's only one person who works in that office, and we have 2000 faculty.’ I wish I had a better explanation, or even a correct one. In my field, recruiting qualified faculty (we have over 80) is really hard, so this is a real handicap."

Activity 5: Answering questions about website content, data, and updates‌

The University website and answering questions related to website content, data, and updates is becoming more and more critical in both our ability to attract prospective students and our ability to administratively support our current students and alumni. This important and powerful medium has no real “owner” but rather a number of caretakers involved including Marketing & Communication, IT, and content providers across the university. Comments reflect its growing importance and the need for both better governance related to the current, outward-facing website serving prospective students primarily and development of an inward-facing website to serve faculty and staff.

Activity 5 Survey Results

This activity encompasses the following activity:

• Answering questions about . . . website content and updates (e.g., directory listing, program information, general University data)

115 Total Responding / 54 Negative Responses 47% “negative”

NOTE: “Total Responding” includes all responses from faculty/staff performing the task (i.e., excludes “I don’t do this but I should” and “N/A”). “Negative Responses” include “Bothersome”, “Frustrating”, and “I have a workaround”

For more details regarding survey responses, please see the Tableau Dashboard (access only available via on campus wired or wireless networks, or while off campus via Virtual Private Network (VPN)).

Activity 5 Listening Tour Results

Comments touched on four of the five main listening tour themes:

• Theme 1: Lack of planning / resource allocation / change management
• Theme 2: Ineffective communication / poor customer service
• Theme 4: Lack of / Inconsistent policies, procedures, documentation
• Theme 5: Ineffective executive leadership / Decision-making (President / Provost / Dean / Chief)

Below is a representative sampling of anonymized comments related to the University website. Note that PIO met with IT and Marketing & Communication to provide detailed, relevant results, analysis, and extensive feedback from the survey and listening tour regarding this topic.

Theme 1: Lack of planning / resource allocation / change management (for Activity 5: Answering questions about website content, data, and updates)

The TNS website does not serve the needs of the entire New School community. Because the decision was made to build the website as an outward-facing resource primarily for marketing to prospective students, there are many groups/departments at the university which have unmet website needs. In addition, groups/departments do not feel that the planning for the website includes all relevant stakeholders and issues or takes into account the types of updates and turn-around-times required for those updates.

• “Trying to go through M&C to get a change to the website is impossible.”
• “M&C are redoing the website again - not sure whether we are ensuring it is WCH 2.0 compliant - we realize problems too late.”
• “There is a great need to update the New School website and make it more user friendly.”
• “We are working on a Google site with all forms, templates, etc. but it's irritating that we have such limited access to change your own website; the CMS is treated only as an external recruitment device but we have internal needs.”
• “We need an accessibility review of our entire web presence to ensure web pages are scannable for digital readers, videos are captioned, etc.; we should have an IT position to ensure digital compliance with accessibility laws.”

Theme 2: Ineffective communication / poor customer service (for Activity 5: Answering questions about website content, data, and updates)

The website is an important mode of communication both externally, as it is designed now, and internally, as many need it to be. Comments reflected a need for an intranet site that is a website that is internally focused and at least partially password-protected, to assist groups/departments in sharing and obtaining important information, documents, etc. with/from the administrative staff and faculty. Also, there are issues with the accuracy and completeness of the data and information on the website that is a cause of concern to many across the university.

• “Our communications are problematic, data and information inconsistent - inconsistent even front- facing (e.g., with the fire, email says buildings are open but when click link to website, website says they are closed).”
• “In the absence of proper and effective communication, we have created a workaround - we send a bi weekly newsletter and have created our own website that includes information about what's happening, including podcasts, really just a repository for anything useful for faculty and students.”
• “We routinely receive telephone calls that are not even for our department. By the time the callers get to us, they are upset and frustrated. They complain about how impenetrable the university website is and how impossible it is to find the appropriate person's contact number. I end up acting as an old- fashioned switchboard operator who must simultaneously play public relations agent for this university.”

Theme 4: Lack of / Inconsistent policies, procedures, documentation (for Activity 5: Answering questions about website content, data, and updates)

The university website not only requires its own policies, procedures and documentation, which is lacking, but also is a source of policies, procedures and documentation albeit incomplete and poorly communicated. There is a need for both development and publishing of clear policies and procedures regarding the website and also the effective communication of the documentation that is available on the website.

• “it is helpful to be able to point to a published policy on the website”
• “we have rogue websites that people set up because of restrictions with what can but put on our official website; this is a compliance issue because the law is that if we advertise something in any way, even unintentionally, we must stand by it (we could be sued)”
• “administrators need a handbook with web pages and pdfs to policies and procedures on how to do our jobs; and someone needs to keep them up to date”
• “We do not credit the artwork on the website”
• “I have my own cheat sheet for HR and Finance and Payroll but no documentation, no website...; I don't have the capacity to meet or document all of this information myself”

Theme 5: Ineffective executive leadership / Decision-making (President / Provost / Deans / Chiefs) (for Activity 5: Answering questions about website content, data, and updates)

An effective website for both outward-facing and inward-facing information, is critical for sharing accurate, complete and up-to-date information with prospective students and internal faculty and staff. We have focused on the outward-facing component but there is a need for leadership and direction related to the inward-facing component. While Marketing & Communication are responsible for the design of the current website, there is no real owner nor a clear mandate from leadership regarding the needs of the entire community as it relates to the website.

• “We need to look at our university systems holistically; I have similar needs to others but for my own uses, such as a CRM with e-marketing and website management among other things; I need a supported tool because I do not have an IT team or web developer”
• “Regarding the website - we need a protocol but need to empower leaders to update website accurately - this is the definition of an overcrowded hub with thin spokes)”
• “we lack a strategic plan so that we can determine what websites fit and which don't; we need clarity on what we're supposed to be focused on”
• “No one seems to know their roles...no one seems to know who owns things and we don't understand how a program can be approved and display on our website without the proper coding; people don't want to walk through the issues and know/inform all the groups impacted.”

During the listening tour, participants shared some examples of the types of internal, online content in need of improvement:

• “Staff Senate should create and maintain on their webpage an up-to-date list of issues brought to their attention and indicating any actions taken regarding those issues”
• “Open Campus website is confusing and does not work well; M&C worked really hard and spent lots of hours manually tagging items but it is just not working”
• “when onboarding people, we should include the worktags they need to know and someone would keep a list of all worktags and update it accordingly; also, we should have a website for people to go to find out their cost center”
• “PTF [part-time faculty] are not aware of the rules around tuition reimbursement; not all rules are on the website - they only exist in certain people’s heads; we have no internal website to share information”
• “onboarding is an issue, especially faculty; they get so much information in one day; each area only gets 10 minutes of their time because of all of the other information they are provided; everyone is shortchanged; we are trying to write relevant processes; the problem is education and outreach and dissemination of the volume of information; an internal website would be really helpful”
• “we need a better HR website - we could use this as a recruiting tool - the HR website has old, outdated information”
• “we need a website that allows us to lock content just for internal use; this is normal and used by other universities”

Observations/Opportunities for Improvement‌

Other important challenges identified as part of Phase 1 include:

• Overall, non-uniform communication mechanisms have developed between departments, centralized/decentralized partners based on “who you know” instead of vetted, optimized, standardized procedures and protocols; these mechanisms cause confusion, frustration, and misinformation
• Challenges with the policies/processes involved in paying independent contractors result in inefficiencies at best and irrevocably damaged relationships with valuable partners at worst
• Decentralization of contract processing/negotiation and lack of expertise in these areas in the departments causes both inflexibility and inefficiencies
• Managing budgets, including planning and reviewing budgets against historical and/or spending (actuals) is challenging due to misaligned systems, inadequate reporting, exceptions, and lack of direction.
• Although hiring and on-boarding are addressed elsewhere in this report, there are special challenges associated with student employment, especially answering questions about both Federal Work-Study (FWS) and On-Campus Student Employees (OCSE), due primarily to lack of documented/known policies/procedures and/or inefficient processes/workarounds exacerbated by the volume of new student workers starting each semester.
• Completing a review in Lyterati, which appears as number 6 in the list, received a 71% negative response in the survey (72 respondents out of 101 total) and deserves special mention. Comments regarding Lyterati focused on the “invisible” and seemingly pointless work of entering data into Lyterati. This is a particular “pain point” given the increasing demands placed on faculty.

In addition, due to all of the “pain points” outlined in this report there has emerged a culture of requiring a focus on transactional work over and above functional work and strategic activities. Even staff with significant responsibilities for functional and strategic work find themselves compelled to spend most of their time on transactional work, especially “putting out fires”.

Next Steps‌

PIO is meeting with senior leadership to determine the first activity to focus on for Phase 2: Research and Write a Business Plan by the end of Fall 2019 and will commence with conducting a detailed analysis of the current process(es), working with relevant groups to design an improved process(es) and writing a business plan to leadership with recommendations for change.

PIO will also be providing assistance to each administrative group: Finance and Business; Information Technology; Design, Construction and Facilities; and, Workday Solutions Group as they identify and undertake additional projects in parallel with the CoRe initiative either independently or in collaboration with other areas at the University to further improve administrative activities at the University.

Appendices

Appendix A: Listening Tour Staff Representation

Appendix B: Survey Description and Screenshots‌

Appendix C: Advisory Team (A-Team) Participants

Appendix D: Initial Research

Appendix E: Summary of the Updates to the University Community

Appendix G: Top Survey Activities for Inclusion in Analysis