1. University of Minnesota Hiring Process Redesign Lean Continuous Improvement Kaizen Event
Report to HR Pros
April 24, 2013

2. Kaizen Team

3. Kaizen Team Sponsor – Lori Lamb
Team Leader – Katie Stuckert & Laura Negrini
Team members:
Sheila Reger, Consulting Team Manager
Alexandra Whittington, HR Consultant
Jackie Gilliard, Staffing Consultant
Charlene Lowe, Talent Coach, OHR Job Center
Bonnie Marten, Diversity & Inclusion Committee Rep
Dorothy Cottrell, Academic Health Center
Lori Loberg, College of Food, Agriculture and Nat Res Science
Linda Kinnear, UMN Duluth
Mary Cameron, UMN Duluth
Lynne Olson, University Services
Michele Gross, University Policy Office
Facilitator – Tom Baumann, Sara Gronewold

4. Business issue Perceived challenges with the hiring process include:
Inefficient and cumbersome process results in high time-to-fill rates
Varied processes among different employee groups (ie. Faculty, P&A, Civil Service, and Labor Represented)
Poor candidate experience given the application review and priority hiring requirements
Unclear and inconsistent standards regarding posting requirements
Lack of communication throughout the process between OHR and the units as well as with the candidates

5. Scope of Kaizen Event Scope:
Review of the central hiring processes --beginning when the requisition is received (post-classification) from the collegiate or administrative unit until the requisition is designated as either filled or canceled.
The process will include faculty, P&A, Civil Service, Labor Represented, and No-Search hires. The project does not include student hires.
Starting point: Requisition is received from the collegiate or administrative unit
End point: When the requisition is designated as filled or canceled.

6. Goals For the Future Process
Simplify the hiring process by eliminating steps that no longer add value or are not required by policy or collective bargaining agreements
Reduce number of process steps by 50%
Define roles and responsibilities between OHR and unit representatives
Decrease time-to-fill rate by 30%
Linda

7. Current Process
Charlene

8. Observations of Current Process
Processes are complex and not standardized
Training for hiring authorities is inadequate
Hiring process is frustrating for users and applicants
Inconsistency between units on how to close out requisitions
EOAA guidelines are inconsistently applied
Failure rate percentages are high – lots of rework on requisitions
Surprised at variety of duties for hiring authorities
Communication with the candidates is not timely and is incomplete
Mary

9. Observations of current process
Lots of “hurry up and waits”
Too much information in too many places
Information is sometimes not easily or intuitively accessible
We try to be high service but process is confusing for users
Disappointed that there isn’t more automation within the process

10. Faculty/P&A Current state Future state Tasks Waits Handoffs Decisions
Qty
Time
Tasks 49
56 hours, 40 minutes
Waits 44
114 days
Handoffs 18
Decisions 6
File/store 7
Elapsed
121 days

11. Civil Service/Labor Represented
(with valid priority candidates)
Current state
Future state
Qty
Time
Tasks 30
16 hrs, 45 mn
Waits 20
32 days
Handoffs 14
Decisions 5
File/store 3
Elapsed
33 days

12. Civil Service/Labor Represented
(no priority candidates)
Current state
Future state
Qty
Time
Tasks 40
35 hours, 45 minutes
Waits 32
65 days
Handoffs 24
Decisions 9
File/store 8
Elapsed
70 days

13. Recommendations
Issue: Hiring process takes too long and is inconsistent across campuses, units, and employee groups
Actions: Reduce number of steps and standardize process; clarify roles and responsibilities; establish timeline expectations, include checklists, and distribute updated flowchart

14. Recommendations
Issue: Within the process of no-search hires for faculty and P&A positions, there is tension between the values of the organization and the flexibility needed to attract, promote, and retain high quality and diverse candidates.
Action: Strengthen the approval criteria and recommend delegation of authority at campus level

15. Recommendations
Issue: 80% of requisitions are submitted with incomplete information, which increases time-to-fill.
Action: Improve usability of requisition form with additional automation and instructions; and provide education and performance metrics to HR and hiring authorities

16. Recommendations
Issue: Data integrity is unreliable due to lack of timely and accurate updates of information within system
Action: Clarify procedures and expectations and communicate the negative impact of delays

17. Recommendations
Issue: Hiring process does not prioritize candidate experience.
Action: Simplify candidate application process and increase automated communication with candidate throughout process

18. Future Process

19. Faculty/P&A Current state Future state Tasks Waits Handoffs Decisions
Qty
Time
Tasks 49
56 hours, 40 minutes 28
22 hrs, 40 min
Waits 44
114 days 13
55 days
Handoffs 18 12
Decisions 6 5
File/store 7 4
Elapsed
124
121 days 63
59 days

20. Civil Service/Labor Represented
Current state
Future state
Qty
Time
Tasks 40
35 hours, 45 minutes 21
19 hrs, 45 mn
Waits 32
65 days 9
25 days
Handoffs 24 15
Decisions 6
File/store 8 5
Elapsed
113
70 days 56
28 days

21. Civil Service/Labor Represented
(w/valid priority candidates)
Current state
Future state
Qty
Time
Tasks 30
16 hrs, 45 mn 18
8hrs, 20 mn
Waits 20
31 days 8
18 days
Handoffs 15
Decisions 5 3
File/store
Elapsed 73
33 days 37
20 days

22. Efficiency Opportunities
P & A and Faculty
Reduction of process steps
Reduction in elapsed time
Reduction in task time
50%
49%
58%
Civil service/labor represented (no PC)
65%
Civil service/labor represented (PC)
56%
40%

23. Anticipated Improvement Metrics
Reduced time-to-fill
80% first-pass-yield on requisitions
Improved hiring authority satisfaction
Hiring authorities are aware of EOAA goals
for all vacancies
Reduce the number of direct-hires
(except spousal)
Increased accuracy of applicant statuses
Reduced staff time to meet reporting
requirements by 20%

24. Benefits of Future State
University’s reputation is improved
Able to attract, acquire, and retain diverse and high-quality candidates
Reduce administrative costs
Redirect staff resources to more strategic and mission-related functions
Hiring authorities have resources and support they need to navigate the hiring process effectively
Increases accountability
Decreased frustration by everyone in process

25. Action Plan What When Who
Create guidelines for hiring decisions that need consultation (added to tool kit)
June 1, 2013
Linda
Update and improve requisition form (Add hard stops where appropriate, add language to manage expectations)
July 1, 2013
Laura
Educate HR pros about incoming requisition bottleneck to better manage process
May 1, 2013
Sheila
Create training and guidelines (checklists) for hiring authorities (added to tool kit) on new process
August 1, 2013
Define responsibility and reduce and control number of hiring authorities that can enter requisitions
Laura/Susan
Create standards for managing layoff list
July 1,2013
Mary/Patti D.
Executive leaders communicate plan to empower Human Resources/Staffing Consultants
May 15, 2013
Sept. 6, 2013
Katie
Create flowcharts for each employee group with steps and timeframes i.e 6 weeks for P&A/14 days for CS &LR include in training and tool kit
Laura/Katie

26. Action Plan What When Who
Monitor incoming reqs. for completeness and accuracy
June 1, 2013
Jackie
Research and explore opportunities for shared services
Sept. 1,2013
Sheila/Laura
Establish diversity screening standards to hiring authorities (for tool kit)
July 1, 2013
Mary/Linda
Lori
Develop direct hire form language and template
Katie
Identify and implement Best Practices for interview scheduling (for tool kit)
Review and revise “so sorry” letters – expand to academics hiring procedure. Align system notifications with applicant status (tool kit)
Develop and improve recruiting efforts – active outreach (runner ups, internal talent bank, mobility)
Sept. 1, 2013
Charlene
Training around effective reference checking
(tool kit)
Sheila

27. Action Plan What When Who
Establish and execute an Hiring Authority satisfaction survey
July 1, 2013
Laura/OMS
Propose delegation authority of direct hire to the chancellors
June 1, 2013
Katie
Update policies and procedures to implement new process
August 1, 2013
Michele

28. Needed to Fully Capture and Sustain These Improvements
We need the approval, public support for, and broad communication by the Senior Leadership Group
Despite the high priority of ESUP, we need human and technical resources for updating employment system
We need ongoing measurement and feedback of process performance

29. Helpful Hints to improve Requisition first pass yield
Complete ALL the fields. May need to change to Requisition Approver role to have access to edit fields.
Always complete the field specifying if a background check is required. Guidelines for whether a background check is recommended are located in Managers Toolkit.
Minimum requirements must be consistent with the job classification. Always compare the job classification database info with the minimum requirements in the posting for consistency.
Minimum requirements must be specific and measurable.
For represented labor groups: preferred requirements beyond the minimum cannot exceed the minimum requirements.

30. Helpful Hints to improve Requisition first pass yield
Remove all fancy formatting.
When duplicating a previous requisition, check every field carefully for relevance and accuracy. Look for old dates embedded within posting description or application instructions.
Always add notes to provide context. Notes such as previous discussions and decisions, who participated, why a req should or should not be posted until filled, if an internal candidate has been identified, justification for not conducting a background screen, etc.
Common mistake: considering students to be “internal”, students are “external”.

31. Questions/Observations?