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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. UniForum: Questions ?