Unemployment Insurance Optimizing Staff Kierston Howard UI Infrastructure Operations Branch Manager kierston.howard@state.co.us 303-318-9219

Staff Allocation Model Data driven staff allocation model to better respond to variations in customer demand over time Started in November 2014

Initial State Variation in workload over time with static staffing Lack of consistency in performance to customers

Initial State Lack of data to quantifiably understand workload and staffing needs by unit over time. Units ‘siloed’ with decisions made in units Informal sharing of staff. Not coordinated, data driven, or tracked. Reactive vs. proactive or responsive staffing reallocation. “It takes years to become good at the job…”

Desired State-Goals Better meet customer demand Level out individual workloads Function as a division, not as disparate units Understand our processes and how we define and measure success Create new job pathways

Approach Structured Crosstraining Process Improvement Build out the data Cadence of coordinated dialogue & decision making Quarterly Weekly Monthly Evaluate model effectiveness Discuss and make decisions on needed improvements Establish by-unit needs Make staffing allocation decisions Execute and measure Evaluate staffing trends and performance data Set guidelines for next month

Observations During implementation Lack of standard processes, production standards or operational data collection/reporting Little training infrastructure in most areas Lack of updated, easy to access job references

Year 1 Results Contributed to meeting federal and internal metrics Greater flexibility to respond to workload demands with crosstrained staff Better operational awareness of each unit’s processes & relevant data Better infrastructure to coordinate as a division Improved ability to understand true staffing requirements Career Pathways created

Observations Post Implementation No base hiring model as a backbone Lack of data and training infrastructure Number of employees crosstrained-too many for regular exposure to work leading to quality concerns Administrative duties being done at professional level

Additional Gleanings Marathon not a sprint and we are in the first mile Buy in at all levels-paradigm shift (both new way of managing the business and meeting metrics across all units is possible) The successes of year one primarily is in the trial and error and exposing organizational gaps

Year 2 Modifications Developed division wide hiring model & cycle Scaled down crosstraining-fewer employees with greater impact Set agreements for regular exposure to work with ability to ramp up due to workload Increased metrics gathering around satisfaction and unit specific metrics, greater transparency Strengthened change management efforts

Early Year 2 Results Maintaining federal and internal performance metrics Agreements upheld building flexibility in job knowledge in preparation for claim load busy season BPC is swarmed during CP/CSC nonbusy time and has reduced backlog Staff satisfaction with the model is increased Strengthened training infrastructure & reduced silos

Staff Exposure to Crosstrained Area

Workload Management by FTE

Staff Satisfaction Results Staff responses: Management responses:

Next Steps Comprehensive evaluation of current training Job assessment/Curriculum development Centralized Knowledge Database Tracking system-data at our fingertips Building accountability in staff/management evaluations Pushing work down to lowest levels

Questions