1. Business Process Review at Kingston University
An overview of KU’s 7 steps of review
Some of the lessons learnt and
critical success factors

2. About KU Approx 18,000 students 7 faculties of varying size
School structure in larger faculties
Income related budgets for faculties
Autonomy and authority of Deans
10 corporate/service departments
NOTE devolved structure of faculties with resources on an income related budget methodology and considerable autonomy

3. Objectives for BPR To deliver high standards of service
To reduce duplication of effort
Encourage development of harmonised more streamlined procedures
Clarify roles and responsibilities
clearer division of labour between parts of the University
Target - average of 10% saving in administrative costs (that is tasks not staff) over the next decade
and/or release staff for more productive tasks

4. Approach and methodology Project management (formal project documentation) and inclusive Implementation of recommendations a separate project
BPR Steering Group set up to steer activity
Meets 3-4 times a year chaired by DVC and includes top level management
VC, Finance, HR, Information Services, Registrar + Internal Assurance (audit)
Academic represented by Dean and two Heads of School
Small core BPR unit
Manager – internal appointment
Consultants (for initial review and training)
BPR business analyst appointed
Transient small project teams established for each process under review
4-6 members of transient project teams to manage the project on a day-to-day basis
People who will be able to help develop ideas into preferred solutions and implement them
Usually key business owners of process or stakeholders/key members from operational environment
Staff involved in the process invited to attend workshop sessions to ascertain current process, identify problems and suggest solutions

5. 7 key steps of review at KU
Project initiation – including PDD
Desk review
Interviews
Workshops
a) fact-finding b) process redesign
Review options and develop preferred solutions
Report Preparation
Presentation to Project Board

6. Step1 – project initiation
For each process first agree a project definition document:
Define your aims
Define the scope
start & finish of process, inclusions, related processes, exclusions
Define process objectives and measures
State expected business benefits of potential improvements
Define known constraints
State deliverables and expected resource requirement
Provide a high level work plan
Suggest the project team and team member’s roles
Do a thorough stakeholder analysis
Start a risk analysis
Define your success factors, a communication plan
Suggest the time for the post-implementation review if possible
Project definition document template with thanks to Jane Caddick at the University of Wolverhampton
Follows standard methodology for project management eg PRINCE2 Project Initiation Document (PID)

7. A word about stakeholder analysis
Lots of people can be affected by the change
To ensure a positive contribution seek to
Understand who they are
What influence/source of power they bring to bear
And what they have at stake
Then establish a process to actively manage stakeholders through communication
Your analysis can be based on
Impact, orientation, need and/or power

8. Lesson 1 Be thorough in your analysis Be proactive and communicate
Don’t ignore key players
Seek out and manage individual key stakeholders
Seek out and manage individuals who may be “road-blocks”
Power - Low
Interest - Low
Interest - High
Minimal effort
Keep informed
Power - High
Power – High
Keep satisfied
Key players
Within project team this can be confidentially down to named individuals
Use a POWER/INTEREST TRAFFIC LIGHT MATRIX
Have an information strategy for low power but high interest stakeholders
they can be vital to success and can sabotage from inside
Seek out key individuals for informal meetings
influence and persuade them of benefits and use them as champions of change
You know who are likely to be major roadblocks to implementing change – go and talk to them, persuade them

9. Business Process Review of xxxx processes - Stakeholder Analysis
Interest/requirement from the project
What the project needs from them
Notes
xxx staff
Currently operating the processes and therefore potentially affected by process change.
Ultimately responsible for operating redesigned processes.
Knowledge of existing process, views and ideas.
Opinions on improvement options (practicality etc).
Co-operation in anticipation of implementation.
xxx staff to be involved at every stage of the project, through direct participation and communications about progress.
Deans, Heads of Departments
Participants in xxx processes and customers of these processes. Therefore likely to be affected by changes.
Opinions on improvement options.
Representatives to be invited to appropriate workshops.
Xxx management team
Responsible for delivering the current and redesigned processes.
Knowledge of existing process (including process objectives and performance), views and ideas.
Knowledge of regulatory and legislative requirements and strategic vision. Opinions on improvement options.
To take active part in the BPR work.
Staff from related functional areas
Operating parts of the personnel processes or customers of them. Therefore potentially affected by change
Knowledge of current process, views and ideas.
To be consulted with and invited to participate in workshops.
Executive
Define business strategy and priorities. Ensure that the University operates within the law.
Knowledge of strategic and plans, management experience.
Requirements for reports.
Guidance on direction of project.
To be consulted with and reported to.
BPR Project Board
Managing body for the BPR project
Monitor project’s progress.
Provide support in management of project risks and constraints.
Progress reports will be provided to the BPR Project Board for discussion.
Outputs from the project will be made available to the BPR Project Board.
For the Project definition document I use this more formal typical template at Kingston

10. Start your risk log now
Risk No
Risk
Probability
Low=1
High=5
Impact
Risk Factor
Probability X Impact
Measures to mitigate risk/Contingency
Review Date 1
Lack of availability of staff or other stakeholders to input knowledge of current practice, or delays in obtaining this input.
The effect of this occurring would be the delay or non-completion of deliverables within the proposed timeframe and an additional risk of recommending process improvements that were not based on complete information. 2 5 10
To try to ensure availability of staff without necessitating re-arrangement will be mitigated wherever possible by
Forward planning and notice
Communication stressing the importance of the work and the support of managers in backing up this message.
Contingency would be to substitute alternative staff with equivalent knowledge if possible.
If the risk becomes critical the Project Sponsor and BPR Project Board would need to reconsider the viability and scope of the project within its current timeframe.
Start a risk log at the beginning of the process
– don’t forget to analyse probability and impact when evaluating risk to determine risk management strategies
I also start an issues log at the same time and there may be some cross reference to the risk log
– useful to categorise issues log to begin considering how/where to address issues – policy outside scope of BPR
People
Process
Systems
Policy

11. High level project plan
There are 2 traditional approaches to BPR
Start from a blank sheet of paper (ie “green field” site)
Understand the current process and improve it
Some practitioners believe detailed knowledge of the current position limits ability to think of creative/innovative solutions
At KU we felt the understanding was important and the correct approach but we include a separate creative “blue skies” session early in the review process.
Be aware of elapsed time required – for example to arrange workshops

12. Steps 2 and 3 Project initiation – including PDD Desk review
Interviews
Required to get an overview of current process and problems and use this to:
Draft a high level current process map “as is”
Start your issues log
Plan how to approach the workshops to ensure you can achieve the results you want
Think carefully about how to structure these and what groups to put together
Admissions example

13. Admissions example
Desk review & interviews revealed serious conflict between faculties and centre because
Central department was established to improve response times to applicants
Based on assumption 80% applications could be processed centrally
This was translated into “should”
But reality was 50% applications required academic scrutiny
Its the “80% standard assumption” versus faculty strategies to respond to the changed environment & need to recruit to target
- An interesting fact - not particularly material - but significant negative effect on the process is faculties intense dislike of the terms “standard” & non-standard” because terms infer privileged access versus sub-standard applicants.
Clarity: - Unclear who has responsibility for decision making
- No formal escalation route for disagreements
- No agreed definitions to measure process eg conversion rates
Inefficiency: includes use of local systems to manage interview; current interview process conflicts with SLAs and both factors result in data not being available centrally, which in turn affects the ability to manage the process effectively
Resource: includes problems of process with peak workflows as well as faculty perceptions over low status of admissions tutors, role often given to youngest & most inexperienced academics with little or no hand-over and training.
Information: difficulty establishing all necessary information to set up & manage process.

14. Step 4 Project initiation – including PDD Desk review Interviews
Workshops
fact-finding
process redesign
TIP
Start fact finding workshop with validation of your desk researched current process steps map
Helps settle attendees
Easier to correct what’s wrong than start from blank sheet of paper
Teases out differences in process
Teases out issues

15. Lesson 2 Separate fact-finding & redesign workshops TIPS
Usually 1 week apart
Enables move to solution finding
TIPS
Have good chocolate biscuits!
Half day sessions work well (9am – 2pm)
Working lunch encourages useful informal discussions to happen
Write up “findings” for validation, additions & corrections by workshop attendees
DON’T attempt to squash fact-finding and redesign into one workshop
You’ll get stuck in “whinge mode” and not progress easily to process improvement

16. Lesson 2 continued Provide clear guidance for each workshop
Explain what you mean by process review
Explain your methodology and approach
Tell them what you expect from them
Give ground rules for the workshops
Tell them what output the workshop should be
Eg for fact-finding workshop together you will define:
The “As Is” process map, showing ownership of steps and critical path, identifies some measures of the process (including elapsed time if appropriate)
A consolidated and categorised issues log
The requirements/objectives of the process
Process is a related group of tasks that together create a result of value to the customer (Michael Hammer)
Steps may be all contained within a corporate/service department or a faculty
but usually span the organisation, crossing departmental boundaries
Process review is a concentrated and collective look this related group of tasks and
Asks fundamental questions, such as:
What is the purpose, the objective of the activity?
What objective should it have?
Where does it starts and where does it end?
What is the output and what it this used for?
How is the activity measured at the moment (if at all)?
Does it meet the objective & how well?
Inclusive approach ensures:
All people involved in the process have a say
A greater collective understanding of the whole process and of current problems/deficiencies
Leads to understanding of the need for change
Workshop ground rules: Comments confidential
Respect each other’s views
Turn mobile phones off please!

17. Use process step analysis
WHY
- Why do we do this
Process Step?
- Is its purpose
clear?
WHAT
- What is done in this
process step?
- Is there a clearly defined
method for doing the step,
with clear performance
standards?
INPUT
- What are the
inputs?
- Who are the
suppliers?
-What are the
standards and
how are they
measured?
OUTPUT
- What are the
outputs?
-Who are the
customers?
-What are the
standards and
how are they
measured
THE
PROCESS
STEP
HOW
- How is this process
step done?
Is there the capability
to achieve the standard
(skills, equipment,
facilities)?
- Is all the information and
knowledge available?
HOW WELL
-How well is this process
step done?
- Is its actual performance
measured and compared
to the standard?
- Is corrective action taken
when required?
BREAK THE PROCESS DOWN INTO STEPS AND ASK
From INPUT to OUTPUT for each step
WHY do we do it?
WHAT do we do?
HOW do we do it?
AND HOW WELL

18. Identify the cause of problems
WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT CAUSES THE PROBLEMS and mustn’t focus on the effects
Aim is “to identify improvements, not to apportion blame”

19. Step 4 continued Project initiation – including PDD Desk review
Interviews
Workshops
fact-finding
process redesign
TIPS
Write up notes from workshop quickly – agreed process, list of issues, process objectives; circulate these for validation, ask for additions thought of since the session
Start redesign workshop with the agreed objectives and categorised issues list output from fact-finding workshop eg from admissions:

20. Example - objectives of admissions
To select and recruit suitable applicants to the right courses
To optimise process to meet recruitment targets
To embody good practice
ensuring it remains appropriate as the recruitment environment changes
To provide high quality service to applicants
Stock phrase seems to be getting bums on seats BUT it is much more complex than that ...
Its about getting the right bums on the right seats on courses that will meet each applicant’s aspirations and objectives … the inextricable link to retention issues
A by-product of the process is the informal evaluation of course popularity & content - informs marketing & future course development
NOT LEAST - its the high quality service
Timeframe to suit applicants not us! Its common sense - as customer ourselves we are more likely to purchase from the company responding quickly than the last one to respond!

21. Example of key issues in admissions
Conflict exacerbated by lack of clarity
about roles & responsibilities
about terms & definitions
Inefficiency, non-adherence to SLAs
No central deposit of information
Resource issues
Inadequate information flow

22. Process redesign workshop
Develops ideas for an improved process, based on our agreed requirements
Creates a “To Be” roadmap by
Critically evaluates and challenges the status quo
Looks for creative alternatives
Looks for more efficient ways to achieve objectives
Asks questions of each process step, such as:
Is it required ?
Should you
do it ?
Can it be
automated ?
Does it
add value ?
Is it duplicated ?
Can it be simplified ?

23. TIP - for complex processes ‘Critical Evaluation’ is a useful technique to manage redesign in steps
For more complex processes using this technique helps (with thanks to Jane Caddick at Wolverhampton for the template)
Focus on the 5 areas
Purpose
Place
Sequence
Person
Means
In the fact finding workshop you complete the first column
Process redesign then challenges and provides options
Leave the solutions column for the project team to work up preferred solutions

24. 7 key steps of review at KU
TIP
Remember to write up notes from re-design workshop quickly; circulate for validation and additions before reviewing options & developing preferred solutions
Project initiation – including PDD
Desk review
Interviews
Workshops
a) fact-finding b) process redesign
Review options and develop preferred solutions

25. Final steps - project team develops preferred solutions
Takes ideas generated at workshops
Looks at other HEIs for ideas and possibilities
Evaluates and develops preferred options
TIP
May be useful to bring some faculty representation to the project team
6 elements of good process
Customer (end-user) focus
Adds value (not cost)
Responsibilities clearly owned
Those operating understand the process
Well measured
And continuously improved
6 principles of good process design
Streamline (remove duplication)
Simplify (common standard approach)
Move decision points (to as early in the process as possible)
Remove linear or sequential steps (adopt parallel steps where possible)
Take a multi-skill/team base approach
Use technology as an enabler
Learn from others – don’t reinvent the wheel!
Testing options on selected reps can ensure buy-in as well as providing a sanity check
Characteristics and principles helps to explain what BPR should achieve – sort of initiation training

26. Administrative principles appropriate to any process - JISC
Do it ONCE
Do it RIGHT
Do it QUICKLY
Keep it SIMPLE
TRUST me
I am ACCOUNTABLE
Use informal networks as sounding board as you develop preferred solutions
TIP
Validate preferred options with key stakeholders

27. Example conclusions from admissions
A fundamental lack of trust between central dept and faculties
Distancing of admissions tutors from central dept and vice versa
All staff involved in admissions feeling disempowered and frustrated
Difficulty in managing the process centrally due to lack of data input to student records system
Most worrying problem is the lack of trust
Frustration and disempowerment is resulting in low morale
Problems are compounded by lack of information in central system - makes it difficult to manage the process at Uni level
Spiral of complaints to be investigated
- faculty complaints about backlogs
- non-adherence to SLAs by faculties

28. Key changes in redesign
Accepted the changed environment and
Removed the assumption that the majority of undergraduate applications be centrally processed
Required adequate resources for the additional academic decision making and interviewing
Acknowledged the process as a joint activity
Accepted control of information in corporate system was critical to managing the whole process
Adopted a process whereby the “decision” was part of a timely process
Embedded customer relationship management

29. Steps 6 and 7 Project initiation – including PDD Desk review
Interviews
Workshops
a) fact-finding b) process redesign
Review options and develop preferred solutions
Report Preparation
Project team develops preferred options into a business case for change
models the redesigned processes
Presentation to Project Steering Group
Ultimate decision making point
BPR Manager presents preferred solutions to BPR Project Steering Group

30. Use swim lane process maps to make roles and responsibilities clear
Define measures for the process

31. Provide guidance on resource required where appropriate –
Based on snapshot and analysis of actual undergraduate numbers of applications referred to faculties, as at 9 May 2003,
graph to show HOURS PER WEEK to resource interviews, assumptions:
80% applications received between Dec-March
This 80% received in a steady flow
Interviews of 30 mins, includes time to record decision on application form
Four bars indicate hours if interview all; 75%; 50% and 25% of applications referred to faculties

32. Lesson 3 Communicate widely Used BPR internal web page provides
briefings prior to workshops
updates on findings and interim bulletins
final reports with recommendations & process models
Invest time in a “roadshow” to present and discuss findings and recommendations
Tailor the approach to take account of structure and culture of your organisation
Visit sites if campus is not on one location
Use appropriate forums/committees to get colleagues to understand and therefore support change
Use formal and informal networks
KEY ISSUE is the understanding
Tell them
Tell them again
AND tell them again

33. Lesson 4 Be flexible Be responsive to constructive criticism
Be prepared to review your recommendations
Take account of feedback and concerns from your stakeholders
They may be right !! – example from admissions

34. Faculties invited to comment on
CRM plan and timeframe maximums
Principles
Removal of assumption of majority processed by central dept
Academic decision making absolute (no matriculation checks by central dept)
Use of corporate system for all steps in process
Process
Allocation of roles and responsibilities, particularly:
Faculty/central department split
Single faculty contact point
Interview administration
We revised our original timeframe targets for admissions processing in the light of feedback from faculties about the staff resources and time required to complete interviews
BUT agreed these would be revisited for the next recruitment cycle through the review of implementation
Taking into account the effect of new processes on recruitment and conversion rates

35. Lesson 5 Manage expectations of benefits
Tendency to expect to £ savings from change
Address qualitative benefits of new processes
Measure what you are doing now
marker to demonstrate improvement against
Model the costs of new processes
Not always possible to realise £ savings, especially in cross functional processes with multiple process owners
eg 5% of 10 different people’s jobs in 10 different departments in a devolved structure
Remember a more effective process is as much of a benefit as cutting costs eg increasing conversion rates, reducing errors
Measures eg staff costs, other resources, time to complete steps and overall process, turnaround time, conversion rates, error rates
Model cost of new processes – tip especially in a devolved environment, you may need to look at shifts in costs/resources between departments/faculties

36. Lesson 6 Enable change in policy
BPR may result in recommendations that require change in policy
Decide best approach to achieve the desired change
Use established good practice guidelines to underpin your arguments for change
Use benchmarks from other organisations where appropriate
APPROACH - take account of
Culture of your organisation
Structure or your organisation central/devolved/hybrid
Committee structure and decision making routes
EXAMPLE GUIDELINES & BENCHMARKS
I used QAA good practice on recruitment and admissions to underpin discussions on strategy
And used average processing times from UCAS to underpin discussions on turnaround times

37. Lesson 7 Be patient, hold on to your goals
Agree a time for post implementation review
Compare against measurements of current processes to demonstrate benefits achieved by change
Be aware of the time lag before being able to demonstrate improvement
Many processes are based on the annual cycle of events in academic administration which makes it more difficult to maintain momentum and motivation because of the delay in showing improvements have been achieved
REMEMBER
Sometimes things get worse before they get better!

38. A word about implementation
Separate project for implementation
Project best led by process owner
Ensures line management authority for action
Manages clash of resource for operational responsibilities
Project management approach to implementation
Project steering group/board to manage progress with BPR manager as a member to
Provide continuity from review
Assist project team to understand objectives to be achieved
Assist project team to establish project plan
Ensure original recommendations not watered down because of difficulties during implementation

39. What we achieved Harmonised procedures
Clarified roles and responsibilities
Developed user confidence & trust in the process and central department
increased demand for central processing now
All processing recorded in corporate system
Enables recruitment and admissions strategies to be measured and analysed for effectiveness
Provides mechanisms for continuous improvement

40. What we achieved (continued)
Improved quality of service & response time to applicants
At least 80% applications processed within the timeframes
45% of those processed within 5 working days
Because we removed duplication of effort and reduced costs
U/G 11.5% efficiency gain; P/G 2.2% efficiency gain
Able to cope with growth
49% increase in applications between 2001/2-2005/6
(average for comparator group 16%) – UCAS annual datasets
40% increase in offers made to applicants
Saved 145 working person days on the undergraduate process

42. Week by week trend Oct 2005 - July 2006
Up until 28 February – 90% of all applications were processed on time

43. REDUCED RELIANCE ON CLEARING BY 10% FROM PEAK

44. Critical success factors
Respected top level sponsors; proactive champions of change
Independence and internal knowledge of BPR team
Inclusive approach to review that involves stakeholders
Project management approach to review & implementation
Good planning – adequate time & resource
Separate implementation and
Plan procedures to support new operational process
Remember balance of resource: design of change = 20% effort implementation of change = 80% effort
Accept the transitional steps in process of change and retain your determination!
Independent internal knowledge
Organisation structure – culture & sub-culture
Known existing business processes
Able to identify key influences
Also acts as champions for change
Don’t under-estimate time and resource for review,
or time needed to develop preferred solutions for a complex process

45. Thank you for listening
Paula Thorne-Jones
BPR Manager