1. Human Resources Administrative Review Conceptual Recommendations
University of Maine System
May 2013
Meeting the Human Resource Needs of UMS
Now and in the Future
Three members of the Review Team are here today to add campus perspective”
Judy Ryan, Associate VP for HR at UM
Sheri Stevens, Executive Director of Administrative Services, UMA
Jennie Savage, HR Manager, UMPI Edit for names for appropriate group
In order to focus on our recommendations, I’ll go very quickly through the first ten slides. They are there for your background information.

2. Review Team Sheri Stevens, UMA Judy Ryan, UM Martha Freeman, USM
Jennie Savage, UMPI
Tracy Bigney, UMS
Cindy Huggins and Becky Wyke, Sponsor
Tamara Mitchell, OE Partner
Laurie Gardner, UMF (joined team for report writing)

3. Status & Timeline
Conceptual plan under review by Steering Committee, Presidents, Shared Services Advisory Council, Chief Academic Officers, Board of Trustees, Campuses – May & June
Team completing financial analysis
Plan posted on Mission Excellence Website and Feedback Survey open: May 24 - June 28
Scheduled for BOT action July 15

4. Scope of HR Review Human Resources Equity and Diversity
Talent Management (hiring, managing, developing)
Total Rewards (compensation and benefits)
HR Information and Reporting
Institutional Leadership and Planning
Equity and Diversity
Labor and Employee Relations
Organizational Development
Payroll
Talk about what it is not – student employment, student AA/EO/Title IX..
Payroll includes student employees, but not student employment

5. HR Services Human Resources work can be seen in these categories:
Transactional –repeated, standardized
Tactical/customer service –high touch
Strategic
Almost all current HR/EO services are mission critical or legally mandated
Many “should do” HR services are performed only to a limited extent
Transactional –standardized and repeatable, e.g. benefits administration and payroll
Tactical/customer service = working with employee or manager
Strategic –aligning workforce with strategic plan of institution; e.g. Bend the Trend
Categorized each function as mission critical/mandatory; should do; would be nice
Almost all we do now is mission critical; the “should do” is only done to a limited extent

6. Criteria for success Interoperable- having “depth” not “redundancy”
Competent-quality customer service, high level of professionalism
Consistent, timely and clear - in data, decision making and policies.
Savings and/or efficiencies
Depth = bench strength; not so dependent on single employee always afraid, “what if something happens to _____?”

7. Input into analysis phase
Discussions with all campus and system office leadership teams
Discussions with HR/EO staff at each campus and system office
Consultant workshops

8. Common Themes of Input
Strong support for the role of local HR on all campuses and system office
Need for local knowledge
Strong recognition that strategic human resource management is important but is currently a gap in HR service
Generally broad support for improving data management/technological solutions
Strategic human resource management – aligning employees with institutional strategic plan through practices such as training, development, planning, succession management

9. Leadership Input Nearly all current HR services are essential services
Universally recognized issues with decision making process (lack of clarity or accountability) across the organization
Currently recognized gaps are in employee development and training and lack of formal inclusion of campus leadership in labor relations strategy and communications
Scalability is important – differences may be due to campus size or rural vs. more urban settings
Scalability –also different missions; one size does not fit all

10. HR/EO staff input
Need an intentional communication plan and shared expectations (clarity) between system office and campuses
More HRIS authority should be decentralized
Need better reporting, integration of databases
Would like to see improved training for HR staff
Intentional communication plan –currently staff feel frustration that we are not all pulling in the same direction
HRIS authority –more autonomy in use of MaineStreet

11. Sibson Consulting Assistance
“Over the shoulder” assistance to review Team’s work
Identify best practices and benchmarks
Led workshops to explore organizational designs for HR
About 20 employees from HR/EO, IT, Finance from across the System participated in three workshops
The RT had already completed a lot of work when Sibson joined us in January

12. Impact of Human Resources
HR function
About 83 FTE employees in HR/EO departments
Total cost $7 million
UMS Human Resources
5,700 faculty and staff (human resources)
Total cost about $350 million (compensation and benefits); 73% of E and G budget

13. UMS Human Resources and HR Function
HR has the ability to impact the effectiveness of all human resources; the HR function is only a small piece of this. It would be short sighted to only look at savings within the HR function. This led us to expand the scope of the review. This is not unlike Procurement looking both at the administrative costs and the impact they can have on total spend for goods and services.
$430 Million is cost of human resources in total budget, not just E and G.

14. Expanded Scope of Review
Make the HR function more efficient
while investing in strategic HR management
to affect the overall effectiveness and productivity of UMS human resources
This realization led us to expand the scope of our review

15. Overarching Recommendation A New Paradigm
Strategic Human Resource Management (SHR) to leverage the total human resource asset.
Strategic Human Resource management is recognizing an organization’s human capital as being the principal source of the organization’s innovation and competitive advantage. In doing so, the focus shifts from: How do we get our employees to do a particular function or task? To How do we best engage and inspire our workforce for our mutual benefit?
There are three parts of the new paradigm: Strategic HR, employee engagement and optimal service delivery
Strategic human resource management = aligning human resources (people) with the institution’s strategic goals and operating in a highly efficient, effective manner.
Most of what HR does now is mandatory or mission critical due to policy, contract and law. There are other aspects of HR that “should be” done, and we currently fulfill these roles in a fledgling way. We need to put more emphasis on the strategic aspects of HR.

16. New Paradigm SHR Key practices: institutional planning,
talent management (finding, attracting, nurturing and developing employee talent, proper positioning of individuals within the organization, and off-boarding),
alignment (aligning individual, group and organizational goals),
culture/work environment management (encouraging employee engagement and decision-making, morale, retention), and
organizational development (structures, human capacity planning, efficiency and effectiveness)

17. New Paradigm Employee engagement Optimal service delivery
UMS success depends on faculty and staff engaged in doing our best work to fulfill the universities’ missions
Drive decisions to the lowest appropriate level
Employee development to provide skills and abilities
Increase authority and accountability of employees and managers
Optimal service delivery
Different HR services require different delivery mechanisms
Customer/Client Focused
Employee development gives employees the skills and abilities to make the decisions and perform at a higher level with less oversight
More on service delivery modalities later

18. What does the new paradigm require?
Long-term culture change
Engagement means leaders delegate more decisions and manage through employee accountability and audit mechanisms
Service orientation
Up front investment in staff and technology
Education of HR staff and administrative leadership
Those reviewing and approving this report need to be aware of these aspects of the paradigm. This is what UMS is committing to.

19. The Plan to achieve this
1. Leadership team representing all universities and the system office
Team of four
System Chief HR Officer
“Super 6” HR leader for UMA, UMF, UMFK,UMM, UMPI and SWS
UM Associate VP for HR
USM Chief HR Officer
Our specific recommendations constitute a plan to achieve the new paradigm. There are three major pieces of the plan:
Leadership team
HR Transitions
Optimal service delivery
Leadership Team
Super 6 provides the executive HR leadership for the 6 entities
This will improve decision making in HR

20. HR Leadership Team
Clear authority for UMS HR policy, program, practices and budget
Improve decision making and consistency
Venue to discuss and balance tension between campus perspective and “system-ness”
Better define areas of responsibility, accountability for system office, campuses, shared services
Multi-Campus Position
Strong equal voice for smaller/mid-sized institutions
Strategic HR leadership and expertise to supplement and support campus HR resources

21. HR Leadership Team
Team!!

22. Staffing based on competencies
Competencies will be defined for all positions
“Knowledge, skills, abilities, self-image, traits, mindsets, feeling, and ways of thinking” (Society for HR Management)
Starting with the Leadership Team the selection process will ensure that employees have the competencies for the positions
Commitment to: competency based staffing, providing opportunities for current employees, employee development, and limiting workforce disruption

23. The Plan 2. Transition the HR function
A. HR leaders are business partners with chancellor and presidents
B. Educate HR staff, administration and leadership about strategic HR and service orientation
This slide is just a few words, but a big, important effort.
We recommend that the HR leader on each campus report to the president/chancellor.
Education about strategic HR will prepare HR to provide the services and will prepare leadership to expect and demand them.

24. The Plan
3. Optimal service delivery –differentiated and client focused
A. Critical role of HR at each campus
High touch, requires local knowledge
Advising on personnel policies and labor relations
Assisting with innovation and group process
Designing, training and auditing performance management
Supporting employees
Employee, manager, leadership and organization development
Three service modalities to match the types of work we do: Local HR, shared expertise and shared services
Don’t read roles

25. The Plan
3. Optimal service delivery – differentiated and client focused
B. Share Expertise
Not every campus can or needs to have high level expertise in every area of HR
Staff at larger campuses and system office with specialized knowledge share with smaller campuses
Pilot a Shared Expertise Team and if successful, expand to other areas
Areas to be considered: Benefits and Wellness; Organization Development/Communication; Labor Relations; Equal Opportunity/Diversity; Compensation
Share expertise to get away from “haves and have nots”
Shared Expertise Team = SET
Don’t read text

26. The Plan
3. Optimal service delivery - differentiated and client focused
C. Shared services for transactional work
Repeated, standardized work
Build on Employee Benefits Center (EBC)
After EBC is transitioned and enhanced, add payroll, aspects of recruiting, and data entry
Centralized management; co-located

27. The Plan
3. Optimal Service Delivery - differentiated and client focused
D. Process Improvement
Employ Lean process improvement to HR
Eliminate unneeded steps and rework; decision making to lowest level of appropriate authority
HR processes affect all departments; savings are not just in HR
Estimate savings of 10 – 16%
Expand to all other areas after HR
In addition to the three service delivery modalities there are three aspects of how we perform work to be client focused: process improvement, technology and 360 feedback

28. The Plan Optimal Service Delivery - differentiated and client focused
E. Invest in technology and IT support
Increased IT support and increased capacity within HR to manage technology –ultimately 2 positions in HR (replacement headcount, not new) and 1 in IT
Technology needs will be assessed using the standard business case model and phased in as projects are approved and pilot projects demonstrate success
Case management
Applicant tracking, e-recruitment
Imaging/Document Management
Workflow
Expanded employee and manager self service
Expanding use of technology will help us to be more efficient. HR was the first area to implement PeopleSoft 10 years ago. We now need to catch up in adding other technologies to out work.
Don’ t read text
Imaging –electronic personnel files
Case management –shared services center
Knowledge center –allow employees to get info specific to their situation when they need it
Date warehouse –important for reporting and institutional information on which to base decisions

29. The Plan Optimal Service Delivery – differentiated and client focused
E. Invest in technology and IT support
Medium and longer term considerations may include
Learning Management System
Performance management
Portal with knowledge center
Data warehouse
F. Use 360 feedback
For work groups and individual leaders
Formulate action plans to address areas of improvement

30. The Plan
4. Staged investment and implementation to demonstrate success of the new paradigm
Form & develop Management Team
Develop full implementation plan for approval
Lead and assess pilots
Pilot Lean-HE process improvement in benefits and recruitment
Pilot shared service center: transition and enhance Employee Benefits Center (with technology investment)
Begin education and transition to strategic HR
Future phases subject to approval of implementation plan and business case review for additional technology investments
Staged implementation gives us the opportunity to demonstrate the success of these broad changes. We will submit the full implementation plan and experience of the pilots to the Board for approval to go ahead with the rest of the work. Technology investments will be subject to the normal SSAC business case approval process.

31. Financial Impact Investment in specialized staff and technology
Pilot projects will be initiated to demonstrate the value of the new paradigm and service delivery models
Full implementation plan to be approved by Board of Trustees
Future investments subject to management approval
Savings in FTE as technology and business process redesign are fully deployed
FTE in HR/EO function reduces from 83 to 74 (subject to appropriate investments)
Savings make it possible to invest in SHR at relatively little added cost over time
UP front investment in Super 6 and technology for pilots. FTE reductions can’t occur until technology is in place, so there is a lag between the investment in technology and the savings in FTE.

32. Invest in Strategic HR to Gain Longer Term Savings
Expand Lean process outside HR to create savings in all administrative areas
Improved management by Leadership Team
Consistency
Controlling costs – administrative, benefits
Improved Engagement and Decision-Making
Improved dialog with bargaining agents
Improved communication with employees
Improved service to students and the State of Maine
Investment is required to create longer term savings for strategic, core mission priorities

33. Assessment
Metrics and assessment to be spelled out in Implementation Plan
360 feedback
HR workgroups
Leadership Team
Individual leaders
FTE reduction in HR
Documentation of Lean process results
Annual assessment by Presidents Council and SSAC
Ask Team Members to add their campus perspective or other thoughts.

34. Implementation Preliminary Implementation
Define and fill the Leadership Team positions
Initiate pilot projects
Assess pilots
Full implementation plan subject to approval by Board of Trustees
Future investments and projects subject to management approval

35. Feedback Reminder
Report and survey are available on the Mission Excellence website:
Survey Period: May 24 – June 28

36. Timeline Reminder
Vetting process by Steering Committee, Presidents, Shared Services Advisory Council, Board Finance and Facilities Committee –May 1 – May 16
Roll out to HR/EO staff after May 8
Board of Trustees SHR discussion - May 20
Seek feedback from University community –May 22 – June 28
Board of Trustees action – July 15

37. Reactions and Questions