1. Leadership Foundation for Higher Education
Provocations: Unlocking Thinking
John Dunnion
13th November 2012

2. Methods for Change Rational Benchmarking Surveys Discussion
Expert Advice
Coercive
Explicit Direction from up the Hierarchy
Threat to job security
Incentives
Normative
Participative redesign
Data based
Double loop learning
Involving front line

3. Definition of Madness
Continue to do the same thing again and again and expect different results
Albert Einstein

4. All Rational Approaches
Methods for Change
Shared Service
Benchmarking
Outsourcing
Efficiency Hub
Transparency
All Rational Approaches

5. A report from the All Party Group on Outsourcing and Shared Services
OCTOBER 2012
 Paragraph 2 of the foreword
‘But public sector outsourcing contracts have commonly been the focus of criticism for failing to deliver on time and achieve stated savings, for the lack of due diligence by either or both the customer and supplier, and for sub-par contract management arrangements by either or both parties.’
SW1 disastrous outsource shared service scheme, IBM with South West councils. They carried out 6 months due diligence before stating savings of £192 million would be achieved.
Paragraph 3 of the foreword
‘When Ian Watmore, former Chief Operating Officer at the Cabinet Office, addressed the Group in November 2011, he said that outsourcing and shared services were “at the heart of the efficiency and reform agenda.”’
Shared Service Example Page 8
‘One of North Somerset Council Chief Executive, Graham Turner’s stated aims for the partnership was that it would be so seamlessly integrated with council working that a visitor to the offices would be unable to pick out council staff from partnership ones – and we’re proud to say that in the less than a year, that is truly the case.

6. Changing management thinking
COMMAND & CONTROL
SYSTEMS THINKING
top-down
perspective
outside-in
functional specialisation
design
demand, value and flow
separated from work
decision-making
integrated with work
budgets, KPI’s, targets, SLA’s, benchmarking
related to purpose, variation over time
measures
control
ethos
learning
extrinsic
motivation
intrinsic
manage budgets, manage people
management ethic
act on the system
what matters?
contractual
attitude to customers 6

7. Thinking Governs Performance
Management Thinking
change
analysis
System
Performance

8. Change must be based on knowledge
Check
Plan Do
Not Assumptions

9. Model For Check 1. Purpose 6. Management Thinking
The reason the organisation exists
Responsible for designing the system
5. System Conditions
Causes of waste
4. Flow
Identify Waste
Identify Value Steps
2. Demand
3. Capability
Type & Frequency
How many days?
Value or Failure
What Matters?

10. What Is Your
De facto Purpose?

11. De Facto Purpose of Research at the University of Leicester
To grab whatever research funding we can, by whatever process we choose and move us up the league tables.

12. DEMAND

13. Value and Failure Demand
A VALUE demand is……..the type of calls we want, the things we are here for.
“ I want to study at the University of Leicester…”
A FAILURE demand is…….a failure to do something or do something right for the customer.
“ I am chasing you for information…” 13

14. Overall Demand

15. High Level Categories

16. Conclusions from Demand Analysis
The majority of demand generated in the system is internal process driven demand
We spend a lot of time dealing with demand that we shouldn’t have to (chasing, clarification, checking etc)
The majority of internally generated high frequency failure can be designed out of the system
Turning off the failure will increase capacity to meet what matters to the funding bodies and free up PI time

17. Purpose of Research at University of Leicester
To produce good quality research and value for money aligned to the funding body’s objectives.

18. De Facto Purpose of Maintenance at the University of Leicester
Fix faults that are on the work ticket
when it suits Us

20. Purpose of Maintenance at University of Leicester
Maintain the Property and Services

22. Actuarial Science – Distance Learning at the University of Leicester
De-facto Purpose
To populate our systems with enquirer information we need to impose our communications strategy on all enquirers.
To hold up decision making by requesting information we don’t really need and pass applications around internally.
To fulfil our independent functions needs in an uncoordinated manner for all applicants.
To capture the data we need in multiple systems
To take money and not provide immediate access to services.
To collect money to meet our financial timescales, not the needs of the student.
To know what the route of study should be but not enforce it, to the detriment of the student.
To not formally / equally recognise a student award by allowing them to attend a graduation

23. This chart shows that predictably it will take up to 44
This chart shows that predictably it will take up to 44.6 days to receive exam scripts back from venues – with predictable repeat offenders – it’s quicker to get exam scripts back from New Zealand than it is from London

24. Actuarial Science - Demand Analysis

25. We allow 28% of students to register after the course start date.
Actuarial Science – Distance Learning
We allow 28% of students to register after the course start date.

26. Actuarial Science – Distance Learning
Students who register late are less likely to pass all of their modules and more likely to suspend studies or be lapsed.

27. Students who follow the recommended route are twice as likely to complete in two years – but we didn’t know this and didn’t enforce it

28. Actuarial Science – Distance Learning at the University of Leicester
Purpose from the students point of view: Provide me with a structured programme of study which leads me to a recognised qualification with FIA accreditation

29. Actuarial Science Demand Before and After

30. New Programmes run through new system

31. Elapsed time for marking a module
It used to take up to 73 days with an average of 23 days to mark a student’s assignment – in the current redesign it takes 1 day

32. Admissions Redesign Data

33. Check vs Experiment (UG)
Check vs Redesign (UG)
Check vs Experiment (UG)
UG Application decision making used to take up 34 days with an average of 21 days , in redesign it took up to 6 days the average was 1.4 days

34. Check vs Redesign (PG)
PG Application decision making used to take up to 105 days with an average of 39 days, in redesign the maximum was 7.9 days with an average of 2.7 days

35. Research Council Turnaround Time
65% worse performance – When did Research Councils introduce shared service? 35

36. Typical results Increased capacity Better service Lower costs
Improved morale
So why isn’t everyone doing it?