bfcss executive summary 06122015

HIGH-LEVEL BUSINESS & FINANCE OVERALL2015 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS

JUNE 16, 2015

B&F Customer Satisfaction Survey (BFCSS) Team Members:Elizabeth Balten, Kelli Ford, Cathy Hamilton Raquel Huffman, Jed Johnson, Tina Jordan, Joan Knight, Catherine Lilly, Sean Lindblade, Randy Meyer, Lynn Mulally, Will Pekarek, Paul Sheh, Amanda Simon, Preston Smith, Gary Uptigrove, Dan Zemaitis, Randy Meyer

Consultants: Manu Misra, Paul Parzuchowski

High-Level 2015 Business & Finance Customer Satisfaction Survey Results

Executive Summary

The Business & Finance Customer Satisfaction Survey (BFCSS), administered on a biannual basis, is integral to reaching the Provider of Choice goal in the FY15 Business and Finance (B&F) Strategic Framework. It is the tool B&F uses to guide core services in creating action plans, to track on historical trends for customer satisfaction, and to identify the core services in need of extra support to meet their customer satisfaction goals. For example, in 2014 the Business & Finance Customer Satisfaction Improvement Effort (BFCSIE) focused on supporting nine core services in efforts to increase their customer satisfaction scores.

Overall Satisfaction was maintained this year, showing an upward trend from 7.39 in 2013 to 7.48 in 2015. This meets the Strategic Framework goal of maintaining the 2013 level of overall satisfaction. Twenty-five core services’ overall satisfaction ratings increased from 2013, twenty-two core services’ ratings decreased, and twenty had no prior data from 2013 to compare results. The response rate in 2015 was comparable to that of 2013 but has a greater numbers of respondents who indicated that they were “very familiar” with core services than in 2013. This means that data from the University’s closest and most frequent customers is better represented in the 2015 survey data than it was in the 2013 survey.

ITS

F&O

Finan

ceUHR SS

C

B&F Overall

Total R

espo...

02468

10

2011 avg. 2013 avg. 2015 avg.

14,1998,5028,339

The 2015 B&F Customer Satisfaction Team began meeting in December 2014 and made a number of significant changes and improvements on the survey design and administration. Some of the most noteworthy changes were:

Switching to Qualtrics for enhanced survey design and administration. Adding questions about recency of core service usage and frequency of use. Limiting feedback to that from the most recent customers (Last use <2 years

ago). Measuring eight service attributes compared to nine attributes in 2013.

June 12, 2015 2


Moving forward, the BFCSS team is preparing for unit presentations, meeting with the BFCSS Customer Advisory Group, and preparing the release of the 2015 Customer Satisfaction Analysis (CSA) Tool on the B&F website for public access to the Customer Satisfaction data. The team is also engaged in process improvement efforts to help guide the next iteration of the Customer Satisfaction Survey in 2017. However, the team believes that an overhaul of the principles and design of the survey is due.

June 12, 2015 3


I. IntroductionThe Business and Finance (B&F) Strategic Framework identifies Provider of Choice as

one of the three main goals for Business and Finance, with Customer Satisfaction being the main metric for this goal. Measurements for this goal have been taken through B&F customer satisfaction surveys administered during June 2005, May 2007, March/April 2009, March/April 2011, and March/April 2013. In December 2014, the Business and Finance Customer Satisfaction Survey Team (BFCSS) was convened. The team members were charged with representing their AVP areas and implementing the B&F wide 2015 Customer Satisfaction Survey process. Responsibilities include survey design, administration, results collection, analysis, and reporting customer feedback data to B&F core service units. Consultants were contracted who were responsible for analysis and compilation of the survey results from the various sources and for updating the online Customer Satisfaction Analysis (CSA) reporting tool.

The 2015 B&F Customer Satisfaction Survey was distributed through a new online survey platform, Qualtrics. It was distributed through email and available on-line and was open from March 23rd to April 10, 2015. This report contains the high-level results of the 2015 Customer Survey, comparisons with the 2011 and 2013 results, and descriptions of the next steps in distribution of results and data analysis.

II. Survey Design and AdministrationSeveral significant changes were made to the administration and the structure of the

survey in 2015. Primarily, the team believed that survey data measuring satisfaction changes between B&F survey time periods (e.g. 2013-2015) would be most effective for managers using the data to evaluate changes. This more constrained feedback would then more accurately demonstrate the effects of the latest changes in each core service area as opposed to measuring the feedback from respondents who evaluated services based on their experiences from two or more years ago. In order to accomplish this, a number of changes were made, which are described below.

Survey Design: Changes in “demographics” and additional questions A new question was added for date of last use. Options were: “Within the last 3

months”, “3-9 months ago”, “9-24 months ago”, and “Have not used this service in the last 2 years”. If the last option was selected, customers were not permitted into the survey, just as they were not permitted to complete it if they selected “Not at all familiar with this service.”

A new question was added asking for frequency of usage. Options were: “Daily/weekly/biweekly”, “Monthly/bimonthly”, and “Biannually/annually”.

A new option was added to the demographic question for area of the university with which the customer identified. The option “Dearborn/Flint” was added to the existing areas of “Business & Finance”, “Academic Units”, “Student Life”, “Central Administration/Other”, and “UM Health System”.

The “Visitor” option was eliminated from the role at the university question, leaving the options of “Faculty”, “Staff”, “Student”, and “Other”. (Historically, “visitor” had only

June 12, 2015 4


pertained to the Division of Public Safety and Security (DPSS). However, that core service was not part of the 2015 survey.)

Many core services opted to add one or more additional questions, specific to each core service, in order to solicit more customized feedback. Some of these questions asked about a customer’s level of experience or asked what the customer’s role in the core service was.

Survey Design: Clusters and switching to Qualtrics

The team continued the practice of administering the survey in clusters of 6-9 core services for each customer to take, with the option for them to complete additional core service surveys by moving to a B&F website listing all 67 core services. The team also elected to use skip logic to filter out customers who selected “Not at all familiar with this service” and/or “Have not used this service in the past 2 years”.

Qualtrics was used for the first time to create and administer the survey. Since the University has its own license for Qualtrics, this allowed for increased assistance in survey administration from Information & Technology Services (ITS). Using Qualtrics also allowed for the randomization of surveys within clusters as a measure for preventing survey fatigue. In the past, when using Survey Monkey, the surveys at the end of a cluster were placed at a disadvantage attributing to decreased response rates. As such, randomization allowed for a more fair presentation of surveys in a cluster. Qualtrics also enabled the team to view not only how many responses each core service survey had, but also how many participants took one or more surveys.

Survey Design: Service Attributes List for 2015 (differs from 2013*)

The list below describes the service attributes that were presented to each customer who took a satisfaction survey pertaining to a specific core service. Changes are noted below the list.

1. Understands the customer’s business needs2. Understands and explains policies and procedures3. Communicates service standards4. Demonstrates functional/technical expertise5. Implements service changes effectively 6. Easily accessible service or service provider7. Provides friendly and courteous service8. Overall Satisfaction

* The word “University” was eliminated from Question 2 (e.g. University policies and procedures). The 2013 survey Question 5, “Communication of service changes” was eliminated. Both of these changes were made based on B&F Customer Satisfaction Advisory Group and BFCSS Team feedback.

June 12, 2015 5


Survey Design: 67 B&F Core Services list

67 B&F core services participated in the 2015 B&F Customer Satisfaction survey, two more core services than participated in 2013. Fourteen core services from the 2013 survey were either eliminated or chose not to participate in the survey in 2015 and sixteen services were added in 2015, some as variations from previous years. For example, one 2015 service, ITS Communications Systems and Data Centers, was split into three different core service units in 2015 (Landline Telephone, Video Conferencing, and WiFi).

Facilities and Ops (23 units)1.Architecture, Engineering&

Construction (AEC)2. AEC: Interior Design*3. PTS-Fleet and Garage

Services4. PTS-Parking Customer

Services5.PTS-Parking Operations &

Maintenance6. PTS-Transit Services7.Office of Campus

Sustainability (OCS)8.OSEH-Biological Safety9.OSEH-Environmental

Protection & Permitting10.OSEH-FireSafety Services11.OSEH-Hazardous Materials

Management12.OSEH-Research Health &

Safety13.OSEH-Operational Health &

Safety14.OSEH-Radiation Safety

Service15.Plant Ops-Call Center

(POCC)16.Plant Ops-Construction

Services17.PlantOps-Custodial Services18.Plant Ops-Facilities

Maintenance19.Plant Ops-Moving &

Trucking Services20.Plant Ops-Pest Management21.Plant Ops-University

Grounds

22.Plant Ops-Utilities & Plant Engineering (UPE)

23.Plant Ops-Waste Management

Finance (8 units)24. Financial Operations-

Accounting Services25.Financial Operations-Payroll26.Office of Financial Analysis27.Printing Services/Copy

Centers28.Procurement Services29.Property Disposition30.Sponsored Programs31.Work Connections

Information & Technology Services (22 units)

32.Analytics & Business Intelligence (BI) Support

33.Digital Signage*34.Donor & Alumni

Relationship Tool (DART)35. Enterprise Imaging*36.Financial and Physical

Resource System37.Human Resource

Management System38. IT Asset Management

(ITAM)*39.Landline Telephone *40.M+Box*41.MGoogle*42.MiServer/MiDatabase43.MiVideo*44.MiWorkspace*45.Mobile Application

Development Support46.Research Administration Systems, eResearch, and M-Inform

47. Document Imaging Scanning Services*48.Software Licensing and

Distribution (SWLD)49.Student Administration

System50.Teaching and Learning

(CTools)51.IT Security Essential

Service*52.Videoconferencing*53. WiFi*

University Human Resources (8 units)

54.Academic HR55. Childcare Centers56.Faculty & Staff Assistance

Program57.Human Resource

Development58.Office of Institutional Equity59.Records and Information

Services60.Staff HR Services61.Work Life Resource Center

Shared Services Center (SSC) (6 units)

62.Accouts Payable*63.Accounts Receivable*64.Finance Contact Center*65.HR Benefits Transactions*66.HR Data Management*67.Human Resource Contact

Center*

*indicates new unit

June 12, 2015 6


Survey Administration: Targeted Customer Access to SurveysEach core service unit was encouraged to develop a list of knowledgeable customers to

whom to target their surveys. This list could include groups like Budget Administrators Group (BAG), Associate Provost/Associate Dean Group (APADG), Facilities Users Networks (FUN), University of Michigan Health System (UMHS), Administrators, P-Card users, and compilations of customers with recent contact. The BFCSS team continues to observe that the quality of the customer feedback is directly related to the quality and consistency of the customer lists that are maintained and provided by the core service manager.

The BFCSS team encouraged customers to forward surveys to others whom they knew were knowledgeable about our services. To increase response rates, and at the request of the team, a few managers personally solicited input directly from customer groups toward the end of the survey cycle.

The BFCSS team also gave all survey takers the added option of completing as many additional surveys as they would like from an internal website listing the core services. Surveys were distributed to customers as a single survey in clustered groups of 6-9 core services. This was more similar to 2011 than the clusters of 5-6 core services that were presented in 2013. We used a survey administration technique (skip logic) that allowed customers to easily skip past units about which they had no feedback because they were not familiar with the service or had not used it in the past two years.

III. B&F RESULTS AND COMPARISON 2011-2013-2015

Overall SatisfactionThe B&F Senior Managers, through the B&F Strategic Framework, established a target

to maintain the 2013 level of overall mean satisfaction in the 2015 Customer Satisfaction Survey.

Overall satisfaction was maintained in 2015, increasing from 7.39 to 7.48. A similar number of survey responses from the 2013 survey were collected in 2015. The 8339 completed surveys represent feedback from ~4300 faculty, staff and students. Four AVP areas maintained satisfaction, one AVP area (Finance) increased satisfaction, and one AVP area was new.

June 12, 2015 7

Unit 2011 avg. 2013 avg. 2015 avg. Difference 2013 to 2015

B&F Overall 7.51 7.39* 7.48 +0.09ITS 7.70 7.43* 7.40 -0.03F&O 7.38 7.31 7.45 +0.14Finance 7.44 7.23* 7.61* +0.38UHR 7.60 7.89* 8.14 +0.25SSC NA NA 6.80 NATotal Completed Surveys 14,199 8,502 8,339 -163


*The increase in Finance Overall from 2013 to 2015 is statistically significant. None of the other 2013-2015 changes are significant. However, this charts shows that the changes in ITS Overall, Finance Overall, and UHR Overall from 2011 to 2013 were also significant.

B&F Overall Service Attribute RatingsAll service attributes ratings statistically significantly increased from 2013 to 2015.

Additionally, all service attribute ratings (except for Explanation of policies and procedures) increased from 2011 to 2015 at statistically significant levels.

*indicates statistically significant increases from 2013

Percentage of B&F Total Surveys by AVP Area8,339 individual surveys were completed in 2015 (a decrease of 2% from 2013). The

chart below represents the changing make-up of the overall survey response pool, broken out by AVP area, from 2011 (14,199 surveys), 2013 (8,502 surveys), and 2015 (8,339 surveys).

Total Responses by AVP Area 2011 2013 2015 % Change 2013-2015

B&F Overall 14,199 8,502 8,339 -2%Facilities & Operations 5,247 3,262 2,590 -21%Finance 3,506 1,638 1,561 -5%Information & Technology Services 2,750 2,750 2,663 -3%University Human Resources 1,234 866 854 -1%Shared Services NA NA 671 NA

The following charts show that the make-up of the response pool, in terms of its representation by the B&F units, has changed by the addition of the Shared Services Center AVP area and by decreased representation from F&O (by 8%).

June 12, 2015 8

B&F Service attributes ratings2011 Mean

2013 Mean

2015 Mean

Diff 2013-2015

Corr. with Satisf.

Q1 Understanding of customer’s business needs 7.45 7.30 7.59 +0.29* 0.87Q2 Explanation of policies and procedures 7.40 7.26 7.45 +0.19 0.84Q3 Communication of service standards 7.32 7.19 7.42 +0.23* 0.85Q4 Functional/technical expertise 7.65 7.57 7.78 +0.21* 0.85Q5 Implementation of service changes 7.19 6.96 7.33 +0.37* 0.86Q6 Accessibility of service and/or service provider 7.56 7.60 7.71 +0.11* 0.81Q7 Level of courtesy 8.04 8.13 8.34 +0.21* 0.73Q8 Overall Customer Satisfaction 7.51 7.39 7.48 +0.09 1


ITS30%

F&O36%

Fin25%

UHR9%

2011

B&F Overall Opportunity Matrix

In order to identify the service attributes that most impact satisfaction while at the same time providing opportunities for growth, it is helpful to plot the overall mean scores on an Opportunity Matrix. In this analysis, service attribute mean scores are sorted into categories as follows: Top Priority, Strengths, Maintenance, and Concerns.

In the top left quadrant are areas of Top Priority. These represent service attributes that are most highly correlated with overall satisfaction while having the lowest satisfaction scores. Attributes with high correlation to satisfaction and high scores are attributes of relative Strengths. Attributes with higher scores but lower correlation are in Maintenance, while areas with lower scores and lower relative correlations to overall satisfaction are labeled as Concerns.

`

June 12, 2015

ConcernsHigh Score, Low CorrelationMaintenanceLow Score, Low Correlation

Strengths

Low Score High Correlation

Top Priority

High Score, High Correlation

ITS32%

F&O31%

Finance19%

UHR10%

SSC8%

2015ITS32%

F&O39%

Fin19%

UHR10%

2013

9


Degree of Familiarity: Overall Satisfaction MeanAgain this year we asked respondents to rate their familiarity with core services by

selecting amongst the following options: Very familiar, moderately familiar, aware, or not at all familiar. For most core services, customers with higher familiarity had higher satisfaction.

B&F F&O Finance ITS UHR SSC0123456789

Degree of Familiarity - 2015 Only

VeryModeratelyAware

Ove

rall

Satis

fact

ion

Percent Satisfied by AVP Area

Ratings of 8, 9, and 10 indicate that a customer is satisfied. “Achieving a 70% satisfied score is a reasonable standard as an indicator of organizational health. The rationale behind this standard is that when satisfaction dips below 70%, focus groups can usually clearly identify specific areas for quality improvement initiatives. If satisfaction is above 70%, focus groups have difficulty pinpointing quality improvement initiatives, thus strategic improvement is blurred” (Aaron Sorenson, Sibson-Segal customer satisfaction B&F consultant 2009 report). UHR has achieved this level of satisfaction overall but other AVP areas show room for improvement.

June 12, 2015 10


2011 2013 20150.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

B&FF&OFinanceITSUHRSSC

IV. ITEMS OF INTEREST

Decrease in Participation by Academic UnitsCustomers who identified as being from an Academic Unit decreased from 2013 to 2015.

This is due to decreased participation from students, particularly with ITS surveys. (See below for more detailed student information.) Because the overall number of survey responders stayed relatively the same in 2015 compared to 2013, there was an increase in customers from other areas such as B&F and Central Administration.

2013 Customer Area 2015 Customer Area

Academic Unit; 38%

Cen-tral Ad-

minis-tra-

tion; 6%

B&F; 20%

Other; 20%

Stu-dent Life; 3%

Health Sys-tem; 13%

Aca-demic Unit; 24%

Central Adminis-tration;

11%B&F; 30%

Other; 4%

Student Life; 7%

Health System;

23%

Decrease in Student ParticipationThe percentage of students who participated in the survey decreased in 2015 when

compared to 2013, returning to similar levels as 2011. Many of the students in the 2013 survey results provided feedback to ITS core service surveys, due to special appeals for participation. That appeal was not made in 2015.

June 12, 2015 11


Faculty6%

Staff60%

Student14%

Other20%

2013 Roles

Faculty6%

Staff88%

Student5%Other

1%

2015 Roles

Recency Data2015 was the first year that customers were asked to indicate when they last used the core

service they were evaluating. Skip logic ensured that data was only collected from customers who had used the core service in the last two years, with 68% of customers evaluating services they had used in the past three months (see chart below).

0-3 months68%

3-9 months17%

9-24 months13%

NA2%

When Customers Last Used Core Services

V. MOVING FORWARD, THANKS AND TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS

Rolling out the 2015 DataThe B&F Customer Satisfaction Survey team is currently analyzing the customer survey

data as well as the implications of the survey administration changes we implemented. The team is also preparing for unit presentations, including the results for the Business & Finance Customer Satisfaction Improvement Effort (BFCSIE). Next steps include:

Testing the updated Customer Satisfaction Analysis 4.0 (CSA) reporting tool

June 12, 2015 12


Sharing detailed data results with directors and senior unit leaders during June-July, 2015 Rolling out the open-ended survey comments and additional question results to managers Encouraging celebrations for the units who met or exceeded the target Posting the updated CSA tool on the B&F website by July 30, 2015

Thanks to the 2015 B&F Customer Advisory GroupWe offer special thanks to the 2015 B&F Customer Satisfaction Advisory Group for their

advice and support. Their input has been invaluable.

Members include: Bonnie Brown Alex Abdun-Nabi Marcy Brighton Steve Donoghue Lois Harden Victoria Hueter Mike Lane

John D. Lindner Susan Monroe Marti Moon Robert Rademacher Jody Reynolds Lora Rometsch Joe Stchur

Candace Terhune-Flannery

Mary Tresh Dana Vaughan Steven Whiting

2015 Team Recommendations Overall 2017 Survey Administration Recommendations:

Do a complete overhaul of the survey tool, organizational assumptions and customer satisfaction survey process (starting early in 2016) in preparation for the 2017 survey administration. Base the overhaul on Senior Staff intentions for measuring and improving customer satisfaction with B&F services. Secure consultation from a survey expert.

Require one returning member from each AVP area to join the 2017 Customer Survey Committee. Insure there is fair ratio of core service administrative responsibilities per team member.

Require 50% of the 2017 committee members representing each AVP area to have survey experience and expertise (ideally with a B&F survey).

Require B&F core service managers to create and maintain customer lists continuously for ongoing communication purposes as well as for customer surveying.

Reconvene the 2015 B&F Customer Satisfaction Team in February-March 2016 for updates on data roll out, analysis and related action planning and to share the plans for survey overhaul.

Specific recommendations in preparation for the 2017 BFCSS Team: Identify members by September 1 and start with an orientation in October, 2016. Create timetable and implementation plan including launch in March. Consider revising BFCSS committee/sub-committee structure. Prepare document templates, Google folder and instructions by October Orientation.

o Have a table of contents, including templates, for group updates & administrative actions.

o Do consistent labeling of team templates, using consistent terms.o Use Google Drive as document repository and Google Docs to create documents.

June 12, 2015 13


Include a job description with definitions for survey team members. Also include helpful information: What is a core service? What is a customer list?

o Include examples from 2015 in 2017 folder. Facilitate the agreement of managers and Senior Staff on the list of 2017 core services by

December 1, 2016. Continue to convene a Customer Advisory Group: hold the first meeting by mid-January

2017.o Divide the list of core services among Advisory Group members for deeper input

(rather than having the entire group provide feedback about all of the services).

June 12, 2015 14


Appendix

June 12, 2015 15

2015 Business Unit

2015 Core Service Name


Mean 2015

Mean 2013

Diff

F & OAEC- Architecture,

Engineering, and Construction

Architecture, Engineering & Construction (AEC)

7.28 6.78 0.50

F & O AEC- Interior Design 7.06 N/A N/A

F & OOffice of Campus Sustainability

Office of Campus Sustainability 7.76 7.04 0.72

F & OOSEH -FSS Fire Safety Service

OSEH-FSS: Fire Safety Services 8.06 8.03 0.03

F & OOSEH Biosafety: BLS Biological Safety

OSEH Biological Safety 7.95 8.18 (0.23)

F & O

OSEH-EP3 Enviro Protection and Permitting

OSEH-EPP: Environmental Protection & Permitting

8.08 8.24 (0.16)

F & OOSEH-HMM Hazardous Materials Management

OSEH-HMM: Hazardous Materials Management

8.38 8.05 0.33

F & OOSEH-OHS Operational Health and Safety

OSEH Operational Health & Safety 8.64 7.6 1.04

F & OOSEH-RHS Research Health and Safety

OSEH Research Health & Safety 7.76 8.04 (0.28)

F & OOSEH-RSS Radiation Safety Service

OSEH-RSS: Radiation Safety Services

8.77 8.21 0.56

F & OPlant Operations-Custodial Services

Plant Operations - Custodial Services 7.35 6.59 0.76

F & OPlant Operations-Pest Management

Plant Operations - Pest Management 8.4 8.75 (0.35)

F & OPlant Operations-University Grounds

Plant Operations - University Grounds 8.07 7.57 0.50

F & OPlant Operations-Waste Management

Plant Operations - Waste Management 7.91 8.79 (0.88)

F & OPlant Operations: Construction Services

Plant Operations - Construction Services 7.79 7.06 0.73

F & OPlant Operations: Facilities Maintenance

Plant Operations - Facilities Maintenance

6.23 6.62 (0.39)

F & O

Plant Operations: Moving and Trucking Services

Plant Operations - Moving & Trucking Services

8.2 8.39 (0.19)

F & OPlant Operations: Plant Operations Call Center

Plant Operations - Call Center 7.57 7.89 (0.32)

2015 Business Unit



Mean 2015

Mean 2013

Diff

F & O

Plant Operations: Utilities and Plant Engineering

Plant Operations - Utilities & Plant Engineering

7.04 7.35 (0.31)

F & OPTS- Fleet & Garage Services

Fleet & Garage Services 7.91 7.61 0.30

F & OPTS- Parking Customer Services

Parking Customer Services 7.2 7.29 (0.09)

F & OPTS- Parking Operations and Maintenance

Parking Operations & Maintenance 6.58 6.72 (0.14)

F & O PTS- Transit Services Transit Services 7.21 7.26 (0.05)

FinanceFinancial Operations - Accounting Services

Financial Operations - Accounting Services

7.48 7.72 (0.24)

FinanceFinancial Operations - Payroll

Financial Operations - Payroll 7.95 8.04 (0.09)

FinanceOffice of Financial Analysis

Office of Financial Analysis 7.74 7.56 0.18

FinancePrinting Services/Copy Centers Printing Services 8.82 8.97 (0.15)

Finance Procurement ServicesProcurement Services - Procurement 6.86 5.93 0.93

Finance Property Disposition Property Disposition 7.55 7.63 (0.08)Finance Sponsored Programs Sponsored Programs 7.29 6.8 0.49Finance Work Connections Work Connections 6.71 7.08 (0.37)

ITSAnalytics and Business Intelligence (BI) Support

ITS Business Intelligence Support 7.53 7.28 0.25

ITS Digital Signage 7.28 N/A N/A

ITS

Donor & Alumni Relationship Tool (DART) ITS DART

7.65 6.26 1.39

ITS Enterprise Imaging 7.58 N/A N/A

ITSFinancial and Physical Resource System

ITS Financial & Physical Resource System

7.15 6.75 0.40

ITSHuman Resource Management System

ITS Human Resource Management System 7.39 7.49 (0.10)

ITSIT Asset Management (ITAM) 7.94 N/A N/A

ITS LandLine Telephone 8.45 N/A N/AITS M+Box 7.32 N/A N/AITS M+ Google 7.15 N/A N/AITS MiServer/MiDatabase 7.24 N/A N/AITS MiVideo 7.5 N/A N/AITS MiWorkspace 7.3 N/A N/A

2015 Business Unit



Mean 2015

Mean 2013

Diff

ITSMobile Application Development Support

ITS Mobile Application Development Support

7.53 6.36 1.17

ITS

Research Administration Systems, eResearch and M-Inform) ITS eResearch

6.45 7.09 (0.64)

ITSDocument Imaging Scanning Services 8.29 N/A

ITSSoftware Licensing and Distribution (SWLD)

ITS Software Licensing & Distribution

7.45 7.3 0.15

ITSStudent Administration System

ITS Student Administration System

7.52 6.58 0.94

ITSTeaching and Learning (CTools)

ITS Teaching & Learning 7.11 7.43 (0.32)

ITSIT Security Essential Service 7.85 N/A N/A

ITS Video Conferencing 7.71 N/A N/AITS WiFi 7.75 N/A N/ASSC Accounts Payable 6.46 N/A N/ASSC Accounts Receivable 6.81 N/A N/ASSC Finance Contact Center 6.84 N/A N/A

SSCHR Benefits Transactions 7.36 N/A N/A

SSC HR Data Management 6.71 N/A N/A

SSCHuman Resource Contact Center 7.05 N/A N/A

UHR Academic HR Academic HR 7.84 7.69 0.15UHR Child Care Centers Child Care Centers 8.97 8.68 0.29

UHRFaculty & Staff Assistance Program

Faculty & Staff Assistance Program 8.51 8.05 0.46

UHRHuman Resource Development

Human Resource Development 7.83 7.42 0.41

UHROffice of Institutional Equity

Office of Institutional Equity 8.4 7.29 1.11

UHRRecords and Information Services

Records and Information Services 8.04 8.43 (0.39)

UHR Staff HR Services Staff HR Services 7.74 7.38 0.36

UHRWork Life Resource Center

Work Life Resource Center 7.71 7.92 (0.21)

bfcss executive summary 06122015

Documents