UniForum (University Operations Forum) Student Support & Service Study HoSA Conference Auckland, September 2011

UniForum: Outline UniForum: 1. The Process: what we did private forum of 5 Universities goal is to improve efficiency and effectiveness of support services through major institutional insights study is under a collaborative framework facilitated by CUBANE Consultants to enable structured approach & review of key operational areas 1. The Process: what we did 2. The Constraints: limitations & blockages 3. The Current Activities: what we are doing 4. The Learnings: take-away initiatives

UniForum: The Process Data Input Professional Staff Surveys: Identifying professional staff & worked proportion FTE for 12 month period as coded for each activity e.g.. UoM 2010 Activity Analysis Project Professional Staff Benchmarking: - FTEs from Professional Staff Surveys were used to analyse differences into comparable data (coding, scaling and normalisation of raw data. etc) Priority Activity Areas Priority = require significant resourcing - Admissions - Enrolments - Examinations & Special Consideration - Student/Academic Advising (including Unsatisfactory Progress) Local Reference Areas - Business & Economics - Education - Science - Engineering Data from local areas used for benchmarking study. Data Input University site visits for priority activity areas: Panel meetings/ interviews with relevant staff from local reference areas and central areas In depth analysis of business process, system enablers, policy framework

Workshop 3 (Conference) UniForum: The Process Participant Input 3 workshops engaged participants with findings/ observations including qualitative assessment of the normalised data. Workshop 1 Established key priority areas & chose reference faculties/ disciplines across participants Workshop 2 Reviewed consultant’s activity analysis findings and draft benchmarking report Considered performance, improvement options & evaluated measures Analysed models of service delivery for student administration and student support services for the 5 comparator universities focusing on priority activities Workshop 3 (Conference) Tested presentation and understanding of insights to other participants Highlighted and tested relative position to “leading practices” across participants Considered maturity of priority activity processes (including business and IT systems / resource management) and discussed next steps

Example report data and analysis UniForum: The Process Example report data and analysis Front-line activities

UniForum: The Process Participants presented at WS 3 (conference): Devolved or central model Activities / Functions Casual / permanent staff mix Where are we high / low in resourcing and / or costs? What structures and practices are creating this position? What implications do these positions have for scope and quality of service? Staff seniority Peak management Frontline/ Governance mix Consistency & accessibility vs. variability Generalist or specialist staff Value: $ vs quality

UniForum: The Process Participants presented to their Executive : Participants presented at WS 3 (conference): What structures / practices do we have that appear to be leading the way amongst the 5 universities? What structures / practices do other universities have that we could benefit from adopting / moving towards? What activities require further investigation and the potential value of investing effort in this area? Benchmarking Highest resourced activities Participants presented to their Executive : Objectives: prompt discussion on key opportunities and implications for existing / planned projects Target: activities with greatest enterprise-wide opportunity and interest

UoM: Current Activities Data Mining at central, faculty and departmental levels identify anomalies, trends, issues Test Assumptions at local 2nd & 3rd tier level for reviewed activities address anomalies, identify cost patterns/trends Bench-marking across similar functional units (eg. Student Centres) establish best practice & efficient practices against quality of service to test proposition that High $ = High quality Cross Reference with other surveys / data – International Barometer, student experience etc

UoM: Current Activities Next Steps: Present findings and analysis to divisional heads: Examine contextualised recommendations Consider opportunities for process management changes Training needs or business improvement analysis Meet Business Plan objectives & KPIs

Monash University - issues for further consideration Functional activities are Highly devolved (i.e. b/n central vs faculty) Highly devolved within faculties Predominantly staffed at HEW 7 and below Predominantly generalists, less specialised Benchmarks and metrics need to be defined to measure Costs and distribution of resources service standards to applicants/students

UniForum: Constraints Reviewing Process Issues Opportunity lost to obtain context for data since site visits prior to data release Difficulty of interpretation. Are the context of derivation and our pre-conceptions important in the interpretation of data? Pre-selection of priority areas risks pre-determining outcomes & opportunity lost to uncover other significant issues Variety in structures and scope make institutional comparisons difficult

UniForum: Constraints Data Integrity Issues Variability in coding at activity (cf. functional) level (though this was countered during the site visits) Staff Survey data alignment for some key activity areas (e.g. Enrolments & Admissions). Variability in coding due to varying operational contexts of budget unit and perceptions of roles (work to be done to align Staff Survey process) Data may require context to be indicative of a significant issue. Detailed qualitative data analysis may be needed.

UniForum: Constraints Organisational Buy-In Immature learning culture –short term focus, misaligned structures (central / local) – no strategy around comms or enforcing incorporation of best practice into work practice Staff Survey undertaken without understanding why or context of what will be done with the data Diverse organisational values & practices and change fatigue make it difficult to integrate benchmarking lessons Innovation & change tend to be locally driven – enterprise wide strategic objectives/priorities requiring local change difficult. Small units share knowledge & handle change easier Data may require context to be indicative of a significant issue. Detailed qualitative data analysis may be needed Benchmarking activities are not effectively challenging the organisational perceptions at the local level

UniForum: Learnings Consistency in data collection Maximise value by providing adequate resourcing for study lead Improved Promotion / Communication of benchmarking tool to drive change & achieve excellence Can lead to ongoing investigation / learning experience by ensuring best practice adopted enterprise wide Can provide a rigorously informed method of developing quality improvement projects based on sector best practices Synergy of quantitative and qualitative approaches but greater emphasis on quantitative required to fully understand outputs Discussion of best practice elsewhere valuable in terms of stimulating thinking Improvements in data collection over time will lead to greater confidence in integrity and trend analysis

UniForum: Learnings Take-away Initiatives Establish a detailed reporting framework Integrate with planning process and align outcomes with other benchmarking activities Determine extent outcomes may inform decisions Consider profiling lead practices in view of business process reviews due to policy developments

UniForum: Questions ?