Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

The University of Kansas: Changing for Excellence

1,482

Published on

In a recent presentation before a national higher-education conference, Jeffrey S. Vitter, provost and executive vice chancellor of the University of Kansas, and John Curry, a managing director at …

In a recent presentation before a national higher-education conference, Jeffrey S. Vitter, provost and executive vice chancellor of the University of Kansas, and John Curry, a managing director at Huron Education, demonstrated how recommendations for efficiency and maximizing existing operations will result in almost $100 million in savings and new revenue for the university over three years.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,482
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
35
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. The University of Kansas:Changing for ExcellenceNovember 12, 2012
  • 2. Presenters Jeffrey S. Vitter Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor The University of Kansas jsv@ku.edu John R. Curry Managing Director Huron Consulting Group jcurry@huronconsultinggroup.com© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 2
  • 3. Agenda • Perspective on University Cost Reduction • KU’s Rationale • Bold Aspirations – KU’s Path Forward • Project Team Organization • Business Case Relationship Map • Areas of Focus • Facilities • Procurement • IT • All Funds Budgeting • Shared Service Centers • Keys to Success© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 3
  • 4. Perspective on University Cost Reduction AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSIn the face of unprecedented budget challenges, large public and private research universities haveimplemented or are considering a range of approaches to cost reduction. Immediate Incremental Transformational• Across the board budget cuts • More across the board cuts • Comprehensive operational and• Delayed deferred maintenance • Large tuition increases program reviews• Capital project delay • Procurement strategies • Organizational rationalization• Furloughs • Cuts to low priority services and • Shared services• Hiring freezes programs • Outsourcing• Early retirements • Sale of non-critical assets • Process standardization, workflow optimization • Procure-to-Pay transformation • Budget process redesign Short-term / Temporary Longer-term / Structural Easier to implement More complex Transformational approaches, while more difficult to implement, can secure sustainable gains in efficiency and performance.© 2011 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 4
  • 5. KU’s Rationale PROACTIVE APPROACH - STRATEGIC INVESTMENTThe University leadership launched Changing for Excellence to identify strategies to become moreeffective, reduce costs and increase revenues in service and program areas. Reduction in Bold Aspirations Competition from State Support Strategic Plan Other Universities KU considered multiple approaches for more effective and strategic management of resources assure administrative redesign budgeting and focus on enrollment functions are maximally planning capabilities to management as many efficient orient all funds towards state universities are strategic priorities aggressively recruiting© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 5
  • 6. Bold Aspirations – KU’s Path Forward ADMINISTRATIVE SAVINGS WILL FUND THE STRATEGIC PLAN Our aspirations are bold: to be recognized as a top-tier public international research university. Our plan is organized around six goals to achieve our goal: 1. Energizing the Educational Environment 2. Elevating Doctoral Education 3. Driving Discovery and Innovation 4. Engaging Scholarship for Public Impact 5. Developing Excellence in People 6. Developing Infrastructure and Resources The primary goal of administrative transformation is to create savings to fund the strategic plan.© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 6
  • 7. Project Team Organization PHASES 1, 2, AND 3 Executive Project Delivery Project Committee 1 team/campus Leadership • Chancellor, • Consultants • John Curry,Phase 1Opportunity Provosts ManagingIdentification • Functional Director • “Decision Specialists makers” Advisory Opportunity • Mike Phillips, Opportunity Opportunity Committee WorkWork Groups Groups • Subject Senior Work Groups Work Groups • Meets Matter DirectorPhase 2Business Case monthly • Cross- TBD “Champion” • • • TBD Advisors day to day TBD • • Key projectDevelopment campus stakeholders stakeholders management • Represented: Opportunity Opportunity faculty, Opportunity Implementation Opportunity Work Groups Work Groups Implementation Phase 3 operational WorkTeams Groups Work Groups Support Teams Implementation Including project leaders, staff, TBD • • TBD Select areas students • TBDchampion & • TBD only ambassadors© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 7
  • 8. Business Case Relationship Map SYNERGIES AMONG WORK STREAMSThere is a high level of connection among the KU business cases. Key© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 8
  • 9. Facilities – Overview (1 of 2) CONSOLIDATING OPERATIONS TO ACHIEVE SAVINGS FROM ECONOMIES OF SCALE Goals Reduce costs by consolidating operations, improving workforce morale and enhancing worker productivity, improving customer service, and implementing a preventive model to reduce deferred maintenance backlog over time. Implementation Objectives • Consolidate Student Housing and central facilities operations reducing total FTEs and capitalizing on economies of scale • Implement a zone maintenance program focusing on preventive maintenance and customer satisfaction • Implement mobile technologies to optimize the work order system • Implement energy conservation and sustainability initiatives KEY CHALLENGE: Achieving cost savings required organizational and operational changes, with little initial support among facilities leadership or the workforce to undertake these changes.© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 9
  • 10. Facilities – Overview (2 of 2) CONSOLIDATING OPERATIONS TO ACHIEVE SAVINGS FROM ECONOMIES OF SCALE Estimated Annual Financial Opportunity Estimated Annual Saving Savings To Date $2.6M $1.4M Cumulative Cost Saving Projections© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 10
  • 11. Facilities – Three Phased Approach WORKFORCE INVOLVEMENT ENABLED BUY-IN AND CHANGEBenchmarks, business cases, and extensive stakeholder and workforce involvement throughoutthe project were the three keys to success. Phase I Phase II Phase III Identified High Level Trends Created Detailed Business Implemented Changes and Opportunities Case Recommendations • Maintenance labor costs • Consolidate maintenance • Consolidated Housing and nearly twice as high per and custodial operations into Central Facilities GSF than peers zone maintenance program • Implemented zone • Campus operating three • Increase span of control to maintenance and eliminated separate maintenance and align with peers supervisory layers custodial units • Design performance metrics • Refocused organization on • Travel time, due to to evaluate service and preventive maintenance geographic dispersion, performance • Rolled out mobile consumed one hour per day • Leverage work-order software application using iPod/iPad per employee • Implement energy devices • Primary focus on services conservation program • Implemented energy billable to units initiatives • High energy costs vs. peers© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 11
  • 12. Facilities – Implementation Outcomes WORKFORCE INVOLVEMENT CREATES BUY-IN AND ENABLES CHANGEThe consolidation of multiple operating units and separation of the construction function resulted in$1.4M in immediate personnel savings with the potential to achieve $2.6M/year moving forward. Consolidated Housing and Reduced management FTE’s by 30 resulting in $1.4M in first year, Central Facilities Operations with $2.6M per year expected Implemented Contemporary Lowered maintenance response times, improved customer service, Zone Maintenance Program focused the organization on PM, increased worker productivity Employee Morale and Utilized employee climate surveys and focus groups to engage Workforce Productivity staff in the change process and develop work place improvements Initiatives Energy Conservation and Involved stakeholders from across campus to develop integrated Sustainability Initiatives behavioral change campaign to reduce energy costs 3% – 7% annually© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 12
  • 13. Facilities – Key Challenges (1 of 2) PROACTIVELY ADDRESSING CHALLENGES IS KEY TO EARLY SUCCESSLeadership actively engaged the workforce, key stakeholders, and customers early on in theimplementation effort as challenges confronted the management team. Challenge 1: Initiating Change • Existing workforce and supervisors had little input into the management and direction of the central Facilities organization • Apprehension on the part of Student Housing with respect to consolidating operations’ impact to customer service Challenge 2: Determining the right organizational structure and operating model • Organization was focused on construction and large, re-billable projects • Little preventive maintenance and growing deferred maintenance backlog • Centralized shops and storeroom led to significant ‘windshield’ time and reduced worker productivity© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 13
  • 14. Facilities – Key Challenges (2 of 2) PROACTIVELY ADDRESSING CHALLENGES IS KEY TO EARLY SUCCESS Challenge 3: Obtaining Buy-in from Workforce and Customers • Low workforce morale and disenfranchisement needed to be overcome • Campus customers resistant to change and feared reduction in service levels Challenge 4: Maintaining Change Momentum • Breaking old habits and practices difficult post-implementation with respect to billing practices and customer service • Workforce and supervisors have tendency to confront operational challenges in new model with old ways of thinking about service delivery© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 14
  • 15. Facilities – Key Success Strategies (1 of 2) LEADERSHIP AND STAKEHOLDER COMMITMENT IS REQUIRED FOR CHANGEAddressing workforce concerns and early communications efforts with stakeholders, along withremoving resistant leadership were key strategies for successful implementation. Leadership Commitment & Making the Case to Stakeholders 1. Replaced facilities leaders who were not committed to change 2. Continually communicated commitment of leadership to change and to improving the organization for employees and customers 3. Included Student Housing in design of future state from the beginning Focused the Organization on a Preventive Maintenance Model 1. Separated construction function from the maintenance organization 2. Organized maintenance work into campus zones to improve productivity and to create a sense of ownership of buildings and systems 3. Utilized work-order software and mobile technologies to enhance new operating model© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 15
  • 16. Facilities – Key Success Strategies (2 of 2) LEADERSHIP AND STAKEHOLDER COMMITMENT IS REQUIRED FOR CHANGE Involved Stakeholders & Employees in Creating Change 1. Created workgroups composed of mostly front-line employees, stakeholders, and customers from across campus to design future state operating and organizational models 2. Focused early on addressing employee morale concerns and create buy-in Aligned Performance Objectives with the New Operating Model 1. Made new leadership and supervisors accountable to new model 2. Developed organizational and operating KPI’s to align with new model 3. Continued involvement of workforce post-implementation in new change initiatives and continued focus on improving employee morale and welfare© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 16
  • 17. Procurement – Overview (1 of 2) FINANCIAL SAVINGS, IMPROVED OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES Goals • Focus purchasing staff on commodity management and strategic sourcing • Optimize technology and operations to address the drivers behind the low utilization • Implement procurement/payables technology to automate processes and routine transactions Findings and Opportunities • Develop strategic sourcing program as part of ongoing operations and shift focus to commodity management • Implement an eProcurement solution to • channel spend to University contracts • streamline the approval and settlement process • address the low utilization and efficiencies of procure to pay technologies • Merge procurement organizations, resulting in additional resources for commodity management expertise and strategic sourcing activities KEY CHALLENGE: Organizational resistance is substantial due to a failed eProcurement attempt several years ago.© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 17
  • 18. Procurement – Overview (2 of 2) FINANCIAL SAVINGS, IMPROVED OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES Annual Financial Opportunity Work Stream Estimated Annual Saving Achieved 1st Year Savings Strategic Sourcing $2.1-3.3M $3.9 – $4.3M eProcurement $750K, after implementation In Process Cumulative Cost Savings $9.0 Millions Procure to Pay Optimization $7.8 $8.0 $7.4 $6.9 $7.0 Sourcing Rebate Revenue $6.4 $5.9 $6.0 Sourcing Cost Savings $5.4 $5.0 $5.0 $4.5 Sourcing One Time Incentives $4.0 $4.0 $3.5 $3.0 $3.0 Cumulative Project Savings $2.6 $2.1 $2.0 $1.7 $1.2 $0.7 $0.8 $1.0 $0.0 Dec-11 Jun-12 Dec-12 Jun-13 Dec-13 Jun-14 Dec-14 Jun-15 Dec-15 Jun-16© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 18
  • 19. Strategic Sourcing – Approach NEGOTIATED SAVINGS AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSFERAfter negotiating six commodity areas, Huron provided training and guidance for the KUsourcing team, using the Express Shipping commodity area. Before conducting the sourcing training, Huron negotiated contracts in six areas: • Scientific Supplies • IT Distributors • Office Related Products • Maintenance, Repair & Operations Products • Computer Hardware • Multifunctional Devices Negotiations, Compliance Presentation and Audit and Action • Ongoing Huron Business Case • Finalize business remote support, • Develop industry case as needed Data Analysis and internal • Present to • Contract perspectives stakeholders Data Gathering review/summary • Build business • Determine and Contract • Pricing analysis case implementation Strategic Review • Benchmarking • Summarize strategy Sourcing • Estimate savings savings • Identify target Overview suppliers opportunities • Develop recs • Classroom style • Supplier data training request • Market/industry research© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 19
  • 20. Procure to Pay – Approach SYSTEM AND PROCESS UPGRADES, USER TRAININGWave 2 will deliver P2P transformation both centrally and across campus. The transformationincludes process, technology, and organization changes. Task / Timeframe Campus Impact Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Wave I KUPPS Optimization integration Wave 1 All Business Suppliers Supplier Data Collection Available in KUPPS P2P Organizational Wave 2 Changes and Centralized Transformation Invoicing Wave 2 Streamlined Settlement Design and Approvals Workflow Wave 2 Systems Integrations with Build KUPPS, PeopleSoft, DEMIS and ImageNow Wave 2 Wave 2 Central and Conference Room Pilots Department CRP Sessions Wave 2 Wave 2 Testing and Testing and Validation Validation© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 20
  • 21. Information Technology – Overview (1 of 2) REDUCED COSTS, SEAMLESS COLLABORATION Goals • Centralize and virtualize servers maintained remotely across campus to reduce institutional IT costs while providing improved service and data integrity • Reorganize departmental IT staff to provide broader coverage and more standardized service • Increase the use of multi-function devices (MFD) to reduce total costs of campus printing • Centralize identity management and network management solutions for all KU campuses • Leverage combined buying power of all campuses to negotiate more favorable deals with software vendors Findings and Opportunities • High level of decentralized hardware, software, and IT staff managed by departments • Poorly defined role of local IT staff, leading to inconsistent expectations and levels of service across campus • Perception among campus users that IT implementations and projects are not fully supported by University leadership, causing many efforts to “fizzle out” mid-stream or shortly after completion • Each campus has developed unique technical infrastructures to support most administrative areas KEY CHALLENGE: Many of the IT initiatives require buy-in and support of decentralized campus leaders, including collaborative infrastructure design across campuses.© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 21
  • 22. Information Technology – Overview (2 of 2) REDUCED COSTS, SEAMLESS COLLABORATION Estimated Financial Opportunity Estimated Annual Saving Saving To Date $6.7M - $9.5M $1.19M* * Includes estimates to end of current fiscal year Cumulative Cost Savings© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 22
  • 23. IT – Optimization (1 of 2) REDUCING OPERATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY COSTSInitiatives are underway to maximize efficiency in a number of IT areas across KU. Redefine & Reorganize • Identify Director for IT Support Services Decentralized IT Staff • Change reporting lines of Technology Liaisons to Central IT • Complete assessment of additional IT responsibilities and customer needs • Evaluate and standardize workstation support job description and salary bands • Reorganize and rationalize workstation support Co-locate & Virtualize Servers • Identify and register all devices acting as servers on the KUL network Completed as a prerequisite to • Develop policy regarding decentralized servers and other IT devices implementation Purchase and install necessary IT infrastructure to support future state Shared Servers • Virtualized Servers • Work with units and departments to set up intake list and systematically transition Co-located Physical Servers decentralized servers© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 23
  • 24. IT – Optimization (2 of 2) REDUCING OPERATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY COSTS Leverage Software Purchasing • KU will employ an annual “software call” to help identify planned software KU Lawrence KUMC Others purchases by schools and departments • Central IT • Central IT • General Counsel • Software Review Board with representation from across the University will be • Tech Liaisons • Research • Endowment • User Communities • User Communities established to identify opportunities for cross-campus collaboration on software • Research • Purchasing • Purchasing procurement Early Success in Cross-Campus Initiatives • Dual initiatives to upgrade separate installations of the HR information system were integrated into one, resulting in one-time savings for the University of $640K and projected recurring annual savings of $750K. • This set a precedence for cross-campus collaboration in the IT arena going forward.© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 24
  • 25. IT – Enabling Collaboration COST SAVINGS ARE ONLY PART OF THE BENEFIT OF IT OPTIMIZATION Pursuing Single Identity Management and Network Optimization initiatives across campuses will increase opportunities for collaborative research while reducing costs. Single ID Management Network OptimizationIllustrative Direct Login Workarounds Centrally manage one Network Operations Optimize Network Expand Central Management KUL KUMC KU networkCurrent Students, Students, State Faculty & Faculty & Center Staff Staff Enabling Collaboration Single Identity Management and Network Optimization KU provide seamless collaboration across the campuses: Future State Students, • Collaborative research Faculty & • Electronic libraries and resources for students Staff • Reduced operational costs © 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 25
  • 26. Budgeting – Overview (1 of 2) ALL FUNDS BUDGETING AND GREATER TRANSPARENCY Goals Redesign the annual budget allocation process to encompass all sources of funding; enable comprehensive budget understanding and budget transparency for all stakeholders, and manage fund balance growth. Findings and Opportunities • Unexpended endowment distributions have been growing by a CAGR of 6.36% over the past 5 years,--from $76M in 2006 to $101M in 2011. • Carryforward balances have been growing by a CAGR of 11.9% over the past 5 years--from $60M in 2006 to $106M in 2011. • Unit budgets have been based on the previous year’s allocation and do not take into account cost drivers such as enrollment and research • Recent years’ budget allocations have not included funding for strategic priorities KEY CHALLENGE: Implementing an all funds budgeting model requires increased communication and coordination to analyze multiple data sources from the central offices, schools and units, and the University Endowment© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 26
  • 27. Budgeting – Overview (2 of 2) ALL FUNDS BUDGETING AND GREATER TRANSPARENCY Estimated Annual Financial Opportunity Estimated Annual Flow Available Utilized To Date $4.5M N/A Cumulative “Newly Available Resources” Projections© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 27
  • 28. Budgeting – Approach CHANGING THE BUDGET CYCLETransformation of KU’s budget model, from an incremental approach to an incentive-based systemwill be phased in over several years. New budget report Full integration of Refined budget report, Prior budgeting model format integrating all budget process and incorporate incentives funds strategic planning FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Budgeting Model Budgeting Model Budgeting Model End State Budgeting and Process and Process and Process Model and Process A “base plus allocation Budget model and reports Redesigned model Budgeting and resource plus adjustments align with financial allows an all funds view management integrated incremental model” statements and enhance of each area, reveals into the strategic planning that did not understanding of cost key drivers and processes; budget incorporate all sources structure at the school metrics, and aligns prioritization aligns with of funding—out of and administrative unit incentives between strategy sight, out of mind level each area and KU as a whole© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 28
  • 29. Shared Service Centers – Overview (1 of 2) IMPROVED SERVICE, FINANCIAL SAVINGS Goals Increase customer service and reduce costs by creating shared service centers (SSCs) across campus to organize staff around job functions and increase training effectiveness for business processes Findings and Opportunities • SSCs are service-driven, using periodic assessments of customer service and metrics to ensure high performance. • Improved performance of administrative functions will free up funds for strategic initiatives. • Unorganized demands on staff time are replaced by balanced, focused workloads, allowing staff to have backup during leave time and to develop new skills and expertise. • SSCs build teams of staff with common experience and goals, bolstering camaraderie, knowledge sharing and fostering a professional and experienced work environment. KEY CHALLENGE: SSCs represent a substantial cultural shift for both faculty and staff. Gaining buy-in for the change requires persistent, focused effort with stakeholders across campus.© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 29
  • 30. Shared Service Centers – Overview (2 of 2) IMPROVED SERVICE, FINANCIAL SAVINGS Estimated Annual Financial Opportunity Estimated Annual Saving Saving To Date $1.97M - $2.9M N/A Cumulative Cost Saving Projections $8 Millions $7 Administrative SSCs Research SSCs $6 Academic SSCs $5 HR Pilot Site $4 Cumulative Project Savings $3 $2 $1 $0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 -$1© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 30
  • 31. Shared Service Centers – Approach A PHASED IMPLEMENTATION BUILDS UNIVERSITY SUPPORTOur approach integrates cross-over work with separate Procurement, Research Administration and HRwork streams. Deploy • Execute Deployment Develop/Build Plan • Conduct Training – • Build Processes Customers and Staff Design • Recruit and Staff SSC • Execute Workforce Organization Transition Plan • Design Processes • Finalize Governance • Implement Processes Assess • Design Organization Model • Develop Training and • Create SLA’s / Funding • Determine Baseline Knowledge Transfer • Assess Current State Model Plan • Complete Deployment • Develop Future State • Develop Recruitment Service Delivery Model Planning and Staffing Plan (High-Level) • Develop Facilities and • Develop Business Logistics Plan • HR Process Redesign: PS 9.1 upgrade Case and • Develop Governance Implementation • Procurement and Sourcing: system upgrade and Model business practice redesign Roadmap • Finalize and • Research Admin: improved PS functionality and Communicate Strategy central office process redesign© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 31
  • 32. Shared Service Centers – Communication STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT The shared service center implementation is dependent on several committees comprised of staff from all facets of the University. Changing for Excellence Executive SteeringThese committees involve Committeethe highest levels ofUniversity leadership Design Review Assistant Vice Provost Project Manager Committee for Business Services (temp) Communication Business Process SSC Project Manager Support – 2 (temp) AmbassadorsBroad campus Process Improvement Transition Planning and Communication andstakeholders (150+) SSC Steering Committee and Training Space Change Management Research These committees involve thought HR Finance Admin leaders and decision makers These committees involve staff currently doing the work, as well as central office functional experts © 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 32
  • 33. Steady-State Phase III Financial BenefitsEXPECTED STEADY-STATE ANNUAL FINANCIAL BENEFITS Annual benefit at FY2016 = $24M 33
  • 34. Combined Phase III Financial BenefitsCUMULATIVE COST SAVINGS FY12 TO FY16 – DETAIL BY PROJECT The five projects included here represent a cumulative financial opportunity of over $99M by the end of calendar year 2016. 34
  • 35. Key Success Factors (1 of 2) It is critical that the approach produces specific, actionable recommendations, creates stakeholder buy-in, and has unwavering public support from University leadership. Keys to Success / Lessons Learned• Clearly articulating campus and leadership initiative objectives and desired end-goals at the start – and reiterating often – builds agreement among stakeholders, even those directly impacted by the change: at KU, administrative efficiencies in support of BOLD academic ASPIRATIONS• Understanding the University’s appetite for change and capacity to change based on available resources• Engaging faculty, process owners, and key campus stakeholders at every stage of the process• Utilizing data-driven business cases and objective measures to depersonalize and depoliticize change• Pursuing opportunities for enhanced enterprise-wide resource management• Using the budget process to sustain efficiency gains© 2011 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 35
  • 36. Key Success Factors (2 of 2) It is critical that the approach produces specific, actionable recommendations, creates stakeholder buy-in, and has unwavering public support from University leadership. Keys to Success / Lessons Learned• Identifying “quick win” opportunities to demonstrate success and transformational opportunities to affect significant and sustainable change• Establishing methods for measuring savings achieved and tracking progress following implementation• Seamlessly transitioning from assessment to implementation to ensure forward momentum is maintained• Demonstrating results to the University community through both internal communications and public, third-party media reinforces the reasons for and commitment to change• Blocking pathways to the old ways to re-enforce commitments to change Above all, University leadership must show a clear and consistent commitment to change and an intolerance for the organizational inertia which can sabotage transformational efforts.© 2011 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 36
  • 37. 37

×