USG Shared Services Strategy
ACIT Meeting – University of West Georgia
November 8th 2007
“Creating A More Educated Georgia”

Strategic Goal Six
The Board of Regents adopted a new Strategic Plan in August, and is now
actively moving to take action on each of the six goals.
The University System is fortunate to enjoy strong financial support from state
leaders. The USG must continue to earn that support by demonstrating
accountability for the use of its resources, by maximizing non-state revenues, and
by increasing the efficiency of its business operations. The USG must work with
state leaders to develop an appropriate business model for current economic
trends and conditions.
Our Focus: Strategic Goal Six
As a result of its strategic actions, the University System will increase its efficiency
while increasing academic quality.
Objectives of this goal include increasing the efficiency of business functions,
developing a leadership culture and engaging the workforce in process
improvement, and establishing accountability metrics for the System.
1

Key Survey Observations
Concluding in June 2007, Hackett completed a benchmarking study to
analyze resource efficiency across eight finance processes. Key
observations from the survey included:
 Overall process costs are 3rd quartile as compared to those of similar peers
 Higher costs due to staffing in transactional processes
 Dispersal of transaction processing to each campus has led to:
– Higher enterprise-wide costs
– Inconsistent compliance with financial practices and policies
– Higher manual processes
 Under-utilized technologies yielding a lower return on investment
Feedback received from the universities is that there were inaccuracies in
the data submitted. Select data and metrics will be further validated.
2

Board of Regent’s Value Grid Indicates Opportunity to
Improve Efficiency and Effectiveness
Hackett Value Grid
High 1Q
Key FN Drivers Board of
Effectiveness
Regent
World-Class Role of Finance
Information Access &
1Q Distribution
Effectiveness
Value of Analysis and
Quality of Output
Efficiency
Risk Mgmt
Cost and FTEs
Productivity, Cycle
Times & Self-service
Board of
Cost per transaction
Regents
Automated Transactions
Integrated Technology &
Low High
Efficiency Common Architecture
Board of Regents
Overall
3

Hackett Study Recommendations
The results from the Hackett study included recommendations that the
BOR focus on certain high priority actions:
Action #1 - Evaluate approaches & develop a plan for shared services

across BOR for the following functions:
– Accounts Payable
– Procurement
– Human Resources
– Payroll
Action #2 – Leverage more standardized tools and best practices within

Planning and Performance management
Action #3 – Target areas with higher labor costs and redundancies

As a result of the survey analysis and recommended actions, the Georgia
Board of Regents has started a Shared Services assessment of key finance
functions.
4

Shared Services Objectives
Shared Services is often confused with the centralization of functions into
one physical location. In fact, Shared Services is much more:
 Focus on both increased efficiency
and increased service levels
Centralized  Customer-service oriented mindset
Shared
Model
 Back-office functions run as a front-
Services
office (“run like a business”)
Model
 Ability to reengineer processes to:
Efficiency
Scale &
 Optimize degree of sharing to achieve
scale
 Incorporate best practices
 Maintain end-to-end process integrity
and control
 Early adoption in the U.S. private
sector demonstrated potential for
Distributed
savings in government also
Model
Service/Responsiveness
5

USG Reasons for Shared Services
Several strategic objectives were identified based on the results of the
survey including to:
Reduce risk of loss of key personnel

Leverage investment in technology to maximize functionality

Reduce audit risk from non-standard processes and reporting

Provide responsive, high-quality services at lower system-wide cost

Enable campuses to put more effort to teaching and research

Keep tuition cost down by lowering administrative overhead

6

Cost Savings
Only by addressing all three components ‘standardization, consolidation and
re-engineering’, full benefits of implementing Shared Services can be
achieved. Components Examples
Standardization • Investment in leading-edge
IT capabilities
• Standardize processes and policies
• Automation of core processes
• Minimize number of different systems
25%
Consolidation/ Centralization • Single vendor master data base
• Reduce physical locations • Central shared service center
• Typically move to a low cost location • Moving to a low cost site
50% • Streamline organization
• Reduced finance staff and
• Outsourcing/ Co-Sourcing
management layers
Re-engineering • Process oriented organization
• Establish a service culture • Service culture through service level
25% • Establish a service culture
• Organize around end-to-end processes agreements
• Organize around end-to-endprocesses
• Implement best practice processes • Independent legal entity
• Implement best practice processes
“If a company simply consolidates to get the economies of scale,
50% of the savings are left of the table.” - Hackett Research 2004
7

Benefits of Shared Services
SSC provides organizations with more time for decision support and
continuous improvement in the SSC secures efficiency in transactions.
Support the organization by Maximizing technology
standardizing and centralizing capabilities to improve
activities efficiency
To-Be
As-Is
Focus on decision
Decision support Decision Decision
Local F&A
support support support
Administration
Administration
Reduction of
Administration
transactional
processes Automation
Transactions
Transaction SSC
Local F&A SSC
8

Board of Regents
DRAFT Concept
Only!
Policies/Procedures
Shared Services
Model
Governing Board for USG Shared Services Center
(Made up of customers: Institutional Reps, etc.)
Shared Services Center:
Executive Director
Technology
Assoc. Director (int. admin) Provider
Help Desk
Reporting
Accounts
HR/Payroll Purchasing
Payable
Service Level Agreements w/metrics
Shared services to 33 institutions and sites
“Creating A More Educated Georgia”

 Service Orientation in Place
 Structured way of dealing with customers
 Customer satisfaction levels understood
 Processes documented
Customers
 ERP
 Standardized,
Implemented
controlled & repeatable
 Document activity
Critical
Scanning
 Recharging
Technology Processes
Solution Success Methodology
Factors
 Workflow
 Benchmarking
 Automated capability –
Payments internal/external
People
 Elimination of  Metrics: (1) control
side systems based & (2) efficiency &
 Skilled leadership in place
effectiveness
 Team shape & stability
 Team members: culture, values & competencies
 Team morale, reward & retention
Searle’s diagram (Phil Searle - expert on Shared
Services implementations)
10

Shared Services Road Map
Typically Shared Services Projects have four Phases, we are in the
Assessment Phase:
10-14 Weeks 3-5 Months 6-12+ Months 2-16 months
Design Build Deploy
Assess
• Execute Deployment Plan
• Develop Service Management
• Design the Business Processes
• Confirm Service Level
Processes
• Shared Services Vision • Design the Organization
Current Project Focus
Agreements
• Build Performance Support and
• Scope of Shared Services • Design the Enabling Technology
• Conduct Training and Work
Training Materials
• Current State Analysis • Select Location and Real Estate
Shadowing
• Build-out Facility
• Benchmarking/ Opportunity • Develop Hiring Plan and Recruit
• Develop / Deliver Deployment
• Recruit Shared Services
Assessment (done) Shared Services Leaders
Communications
Personnel
• High Level Operating Model • Refine Communications Plan
• Test Shared Service Center
• Create Service Level
• Process Split Definition • Create Workforce Transition Plan
Readiness
Agreements
• Change Management • Develop Training Plan and
• Execute Workforce Transition
• Develop Key Performance
Strategy Management Development
Plan
Indicators
• Business Case Program
• Develop / Deliver Build
• Implementation Roadmap • Design Facilities Pilot
Communications
• Design Service Management Group 2
• Build the Organization
Approach Details
Group 3
• Conduct Deployment Planning
Program-, migration- and change management (ongoing)
Management
=
NOTE: Timeframes above are illustrative and vary depending on organization size, Shared Services scope, Checkpoint
global vs. regional objectives, Greenfield vs. Brownfield, ERP solution status, etc.
11

USG / Accenture Project Team
The Shared Services Assessment phase will be conducted with a small
team with cross-functional and cross-organizational representation. The
following is the proposed organization structure.
Steering Program Bill Bowes (USG)
Mark Howard (ACN)
Committee Sponsor(s)
William Bowes (USG) Paul Glasser(USG)
John Clemens (USG) Peter Shields (USG)
Debbie Lasher (USG)
Larry Wakefield (USG) Ron Carruth (USG)
Zeynep Angin (ACN)
Project Technology
James Brignati (USG) Randy Hinds (USG)
Manager(s) SME
Tracey Cook-Robinson (USG) Jerry Turner (USG)
Dan Whitfield (USG) Holley Schramski (USG)
Adriance Galloway (USG) James Sutherland (USG)
Tom Maier (USG)
Kris Biesinger (USG)
TBD (ACN)
Business Case
Process Change
Stream Leads
Stream Leads Management
(AP, Procurement, Stream Leads
HR/Payroll)
Donna Bertran (USG) – AP Vikki Williamson (USG) John Millsaps (USG)
Mike McClearn (USG) – Procurement Michal Borkowski (ACN) Kristin Murphy (ACN)
Bill Filtz (USG) - Procurement David Horowitz (ACN)
Robert Elmore (USG) - HR/Payroll
Zeynep Angin (ACN) – AP/Procurement
David Horowitz (ACN) – HR/Payroll Not a Workstream.
Input on current underlying technology
12

USG Shared Services Strategy
ACIT Meeting – University of West Georgia
November 8th 2007
“Creating A More Educated Georgia”