institutional effectiveness task force report (complete)
TRANSCRIPT
Page1of20
UCLAStrategicPlanningInitiativeInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForce
FinalReport
July17,2017
Page2of20
EXECUTIVESUMMARY:AspartofUCLA’sStrategicPlanningInitiative,theInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForce(“theTaskForce”)waschargedwithdevelopingthreetofiveactionableitemsthatwouldimproveourinstitutionaleffectivenesswhileenhancingUCLA’sacademicqualityandsocialimpact.ConsistentwiththeguidingprinciplesofUCLA’sStrategicPlanningprocess,theTaskForceconsistedofabroadrangeofUCLAstakeholdersandusedacollaborativeanditerativeprocesstodevelopasetofrecommendedactionitems,whichwerethenpresentedtoabroadergroupofstakeholdersforinputandfeedbackataTownHallonJune1,2017.Notsurprisingly,theinstitutionaleffectivenessissuesfacedbyUCLAareonesthatarecommontomanyorganizations(includinglargeacademicinstitutions)astheyfindtheneedtoadjusttotheirchangingexternalenvironmentandhencepotentialsolutionstosomeoftheissuesarewelldocumentedinthemanagementliterature.However,theTaskForcestrovetolookattheseissuesfromaUCLAperspective,andtotakeintoaccountourowninstitutionalcultureandvaluesindevelopingspecificrecommendedactionitems.TheTaskForceelectedtofocusprimarilyonthequestionof“HowcanwemakeUCLAmoreagile/abletorespondmorequicklyandeffectivelytochangesintheexternalenvironment,particularlychangesinresources?”.Wefeltthatthisquestionwasthetoppriorityintheareaofinstitutionaleffectivenessandthatansweringthisquestioncouldhelptoaddressseveraladditionalquestionsthatthecommitteefeltwereimportant.TheTaskForceidentifiedtwofactorsthatwefeltwereofprimaryimportancethatimpairinstitutionalagilityatUCLA,namely:
• TherearetoomanylayersofinstitutionalreviewatUCLA,and• The“wrong”functionsatUCLAarecentralized(i.e.,somefunctionsthatshouldbecentralized
arenotandotherfunctionsthatshouldnotbearecentralized).FouractionitemswereidentifiedbytheTaskForcethatwouldhelptoaddresstheseissuesandhenceimproveUCLA’sinstitutionaleffectiveness,whileatthesametimeimprovingUCLA’sacademicqualityandsocialimpact.Thesefourrecommendedactionitemsareto:
1. TrainLeadership,faculty,andstaffonhowtoleadconsultativeprocessesandpromoteeffectivediscourse;
2. Usecollaborativeprocessestodevelopinstitutionalkeyperformanceindicators(KPIs);3. CreateaUCLA“LeanTeam”taskedwithimprovingprocessesacrosscampussothatwemeet
KPIs;4. Developanintercampusteamchargedwithaddressingcentralizationissues.
Takentogether,wefeelthattheseactionswouldnotonlygreatlyimprovetheinstitutionaleffectivenessofUCLA;theywouldalsoprovidesubstantialco-benefitstotheUCLAcommunity,including:
• Increasingtransparencyandcommunication;• Increasingtrust;• Fosteringamore“mission-oriented”culture;and• Fosteringagreatercustomer-serviceorientation.
Detailsregardingtheprocessbywhichtheseactionitemsweredeveloped,aswellaswhyandhowtheyshouldbeimplementedareprovidedinthereportthatfollows.Theseactionsarenotparticularlyresourceintensive,butwouldrequireasubstantialcommitmentacrosstheinstitutionintermsofself-reflectionandeffort.BecausetherecommendedactionshavethepotentialtobetransformativeforUCLAandarewell-alignedwithourinstitutionalcultureandvalues,wefeelthatthiseffortiswellworthwhileandsuchacommitmentwouldallowUCLAtorisetoanewlevelofexcellence.
Page3of20
PROCESSUSED:TheInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForcewaschargedbyUCLA’sExecutiveViceChancellorandProvost,ScottWaugh,todevelopthreetofiveactionableitemsthatwouldimproveUCLA’seffectivenesswhileenhancingouracademicqualityandsocialimpact.TheInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskwasoneoffivetaskforcesinvolvedindevelopingactionitemsaspartofthestrategicplanningprocess:EducationInnovation,ResearchInnovation,CivicEngagement/CommunityImpact,InstitutionalEffectiveness,andGlobalOutreach.Eachofthetaskforceswasprovidedwiththecoreprinciplesguidingthestrategicplanningprocess(Table1)andwithinitialquestionstobeusedtohelpguidetaskforcediscussions.TheseinitialquestionswereprovidedtoeachofthetaskforcesbytheEVCandProvostandweredevelopedbasedonaseriesofconversationsthatAssociateProvostAnastasiaLoukautou-SiderisandSeniorAdvisorYolandaGormanhadwithabroadrangeofstakeholdersacrosstheUCLAcampusabouttheirconcernsandpriorities.TheinitialquestionsprovidedtotheInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForce(referredtoashereafterinthisreportas“theTaskForce”)areprovidedinTable2.Table1.GuidingPrinciplesforUCLAStrategicPlanningInitiative1.Focus:Strategicplanningwillaimtobenefitthecampusaswhole;itwillnotinterveneintheplanningeffortsofdifferentcampusunits.2.Inclusiveness:Strategicplanningprocesswillbeinclusiveofthedifferentvoicesandstakeholdersoncampus.TaskForceswillbecomposedtoincluderepresentationfromfaculty,staff,administration,students,andalumni.Therewillbetownhallmeetingsforinput,aswellasopportunitiesforthecampuscommunitytoreviewthedraftplanandsubmitfeedbackonline.3.Action:Thestrategicplanwillleadtoactionableitems;itwilllinkactionstostrategicdirections.4.Flexibility:Thestrategicplanwillbealivingdocument;onethathastheflexibilitytobeenhancedandadaptedinthefuture.5.Transparency:Campusconstituentswillbeabletotracktheprogressandimplementationoftheplan’sinitiatives.Table2.InitialQuestionsProvidedtotheInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForcetoHelpGuideTaskForceDiscussions1.HowshouldUCLArespondtodecliningstaterevenuesandincreasinguniversitycosts?HowcanwekeepUCLAaffordableandexcellent?2.Whattypesoffacilities,activities,andprogramsmaybenefitfromcentralization,andwhichshouldbetterresidewithineachunit?Canintegratingcertaincentraladministrativeserviceshelplowercostsandoverheadsforacademicunits?3.Whattypesoffacilitiesandresourcescanbesharedtocreategreaterefficienciesandreduceduplication?Whatshouldwedomoreandwhatshouldwedoless?Howcanwestreamlineoffices,programs,andactivities?4.Whatstructuresandpoliciesareneededtofacilitateinterdisciplinarycollaborationamongdifferentunits?5.InwhatnewwayscanUCLAemploytechnologytoenhanceinstitutionaleffectiveness?TheTaskForceusedacollaborativeanditerativeprocessoveraperiodoftwomonths(fromMarchtoMay2017)todevelopasetofrecommendedactionitems,whichwerethenpresentedtoabroadergroupofstakeholdersforinputandfeedbackataTownHallonJune1,2017.ConsistentwiththeguidingprinciplesofUCLA’sStrategicPlanningprocess,theTaskForcewascomprisedofindividualsthatrepresentedabroadrangeofcampusunitsandstakeholdergroups(seeTable3).TheTaskForce
Page4of20
developedtheirproposedactionitemsviaaseriesofbrainstormingactivities;thesearesummarizedinTable4.TablesandfiguressummarizingtheresultsoftheindividualbrainstormingactivitiesareprovidedintheAppendix.Table3.InstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForceMembersNameofTaskForceMember Position/RelationshiptoUCLAAtkeson,Andy Professor,EconomicsBeck,Michael AdministrativeViceChancellorBuzzi,Meg AcademicPersonnelOffice,ProjectDirectordeStefano,April AssistantDean,GradDivision-AcademicServicesDickau,Devon UCLAAlumnus;ConsultantatDeloitte&ToucheEldredge,Jeff Professor,MechanicalandAeroEngineeringGodwin,Hilary(Chair) ProfessorandAssociateDeanPublicHealthGorman,Yolanda SeniorAdvisortotheChancellorforStrategicInitiativesLee-Garcia,Rebecca DirectorofProgramAnalysis,AcademicPlanningandBudgetLoukaitou-Sideris,Anastasia ProfessorandAssociateProvostNoriega,Chon Professor,TelevisionFilmTheaterOuchi,William Professor,AndersonSchoolofManagementandAssociateDirector,CTSI
Pardasani,Neil UCLAAlumnus;Partner&ManagingDirectoratTheBostonConsultingGroup
Parr,Tracey AssistantDeanforAcademicandStrategicPlanning,LawSchoolSands,Rafi UndergraduateStudent,BusinessEconomics/PoliticalScienceStaton,Paul CFO,UCLAMedicalCenterTucker,Belinda Professor,PsychiatryTable4.ProcessUsedbyInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForcetoDevelopActionItemsMeetingDate
PrimaryFocusofMeeting
Meeting1-March21,2017
• RefinedandprioritizedquestionsfortheTaskForcetoaddress(brainstormingactivity);SeeTableA1inAppendix.
Meeting2-April5,2017
• ReviewedhistoricaltrendsforUCLAandpeerinstitutions,includingmoneyspentperstudent,tuitionincreasescomparedtocostoflivingincreases,enrollments,andclasssizes(overviewprovidedbyRebeccaLeeGarcia)
• Performedrootcausalanalysis(brainstormingactivity)toidentifyfactorsthatcurrentlyimpairUCLA’sinstitutionalagility;SeeFigureA1inAppendix.
Meeting3-April19,2017
• Developedlistofpotentialactionitems(brainstormingactivity)thatwouldhelptoaddressthetworootcausesofimpairedinstitutionalagilitythatwereconsideredbythetaskforcememberstobethehighestpriorities(SeeFiguresA2andA3inAppendix),namely:o Therearetoomanylayersofinstitutionalreview;o The“wrong”functionsatUCLAarecentralized(i.e.,somefunctionsthat
shouldbecentralizedarenotandotherfunctionsthatshouldnotbearecentralized).
Page5of20
MeetingDate
PrimaryFocusofMeeting
Meeting4-May3,2017
• Reviewedinsightsfromtheliteratureoncentralizationversusdecentralization(overviewsprovidedbyHilaryGodwinandBillOuchi)
• Draftedsetof“selectioncriteria”fordeterminingwhetherfunctionsshouldbecentralizedornot;SeeTablesA2,A3andA4inAppendix.
Meeting5-May25,2016
• FinalizedlistoftopfourrecommendedactionitemsanddiscussedhowtheseshouldbepresentedattheJune1stTownHallmeeting.
Page6of20
ACTIONITEM1:CREATEINCREASEDCOMPETENCEONCAMPUSINCOLLABORATIVEANDEFFECTIVEDISCOURSEWHAT?
• TrainUCLAleadership,facultyandstaffonhowtouseconsultativeprocessesandlead/engageineffectivediscourse.Ourabilitytodeploybestpracticesinorganizationalmanagementtoimprovetheeffectivenessofourinstitutioniscriticallydependentuponkeystakeholdershavingcompetenciesrelatedtoclear,effectivecommunicationandtheabilitytouseconsultativeprocessestomanagechange.Consultativeapproachesarecoretoourinstitutionalvalueofsharedgovernance,butnotallBruinshavetheskillsneededtoimplementtheseskillsinpractice.Werecommendimplementingahands-ontrainingprogramwhosegoalistoprovideleadership,faculty,andstaffacrossUCLAwithpracticalskillsneededtoleadandengageineffectivediscourseandtoemployconsultativeprocessesintheirwork.Toensureuptakeofthisprogram,AcademicSenate,studentorganizationsandstaffrepresentativesshouldbeinvolvedinthedevelopmentandimplementationoftheprogram.
WHY?
• Enableustotacklecoreissuesandproblemsinawaythatisdirect,productiveandcollaborative.TrustandeffectivecommunicationarecoretotheeffectivenessofourinstitutionandenhancingthesecapacitieswithinUCLAwouldleadtosignificantimprovementsininstitutionaleffectiveness.Improvingverticaltrustwithinourorganizationwouldhelptoustoidentifywherelayersofreviewcouldpotentiallybecoordinatedbetter.Improvinghorizontalcommunicationwithinourorganizationwouldhelptoustoopportunitieswherecentralizedserviceswouldbemoreeffective.
• Bestpracticeexample:OhioStateUniversity’sCultureShapingInitiative.1,2OhioStateUniversity’slaunchedahighlyeffectiveinitiativein2007tomovetheirinstitutionfrom“visibletovisionary”thatfocusedonaligningtheirculturewiththeirinstitutionalvalues.Thisinitiativewasmodeledonasmaller,parallelinitiativewithintheOSUMedicalCenterthathadbeenverysuccessful.Theyreportthatthisinitiative“createdanenterprisemindsetandgreatercollaborationandagility”andresultedinimprovednationalandinternationalrankings.2
HOW?• Option1:Hireaconsultingfirmwithexpertiseinthisarea.Awiderangeofconsultingfirms
specializeinprovidingtrainingsrelatedtoleadingandparticipatingincollaborativeandeffectivediscourseandhiringoneofthemcouldhelpUCLAto“jumpstart”theinitiative.Asjustoneexample,OSUretainedthefirmSennDelaney(http://www.senndelaney.com/)todevelopanddeploytheirinstitution’s“CultureShapingInitiative”.
• Option2:Buildaninhousetrainingteam.Inthelongrun,itmaybemorecost-effectivetodevelopaninhousetrainingteam.ThiswouldalsoallowforUCLAtodevelopatrainingprogramthatistailoredtoourinstitutionalcultureandvalues.
1http://research.osu.edu/wp-content/themes/research.osu.edu/documents/orbo/CultureShapingInitiative.pdf2http://knowledge.senndelaney.com/docs/clients/case%20studies/senndelaney_casestudy_OSU.pdf
Page7of20
WHEN?• Implementinitial“trainthetrainer”programinAY2017-18;rolloutbroadertrainingin
AY2018-19.Werecommendahybridapproach,inwhichaconsultingfirmwithexpertiseinthisarenaishiredtoconductinitialtrainingsinAY2017-18andtohelpusdevelopourowninhouseteam,whichwouldthenrollouttrainingtoabroaderaudienceacrosscampusstartinginAY2018-19.
Page8of20
ACTIONITEM2:DEVELOPINSTITUIONALKEYPERFORMANCEINDICATORSWHAT?
• Useparticipatorydecision-makingprocessestodevelopaconsensussetofkeyperformanceindicators(KPIs)forUCLA.Clearlydefinedmetricsforassessinginstitutionalsuccessarecriticaltobeingabletoidentifyopportunitiesforimprovementandassessingwhetherchangesthatareimplementedtoimproveinstitutionaleffectivenesshavethedesiredimpact.Tobeconsistentwithourinstitutionalcultureandvalues,thesemetrics(or“keyperformanceindicators”,KPIs)needtobedevelopedinwaysthatarebothcollaborativeandtransparent.Becauseprioritiesvaryacrosstheinstitution,schoolsshouldlikewisebeencouragedtodevelopandcommunicateKPIsthatarespecifictotheirunits.
WHY?
• TobeinsuccessfulinmakeUCLAmoreeffectiveandagile,weneedtofirsthaveacommondefinitionofwhat“success”wouldlooklike.Developmentofkeyperformanceindicatorsthatareagreeduponbothverticallyandhorizontallywithinorganizationsisgenerallyrecognizedasbeingcriticaltobothinstitutionaleffectivenessandtrustwithinorganizations.ThedevelopmentoftheseKPIsnecessarilyrequiresbroad-baseddiscussionsaboutinstitutionalvaluesandpriorities.Forinstance,discussionsaboutwhatmetricstousefor“instructionalproductivity”(e.g.,studentcredithoursversusnumberofcoursestaught)shouldbetiedtoparalleldiscussionsaboutwhatmetricsshouldbeusedtoassessacademicexcellenceandstudentlearning,toensurethatqualityisnotcompromisedaswestriveforimprovedefficiency.Futhermore,thesediscussionsshouldbeconductedinaninclusivemannerthatinvolvesbroadinputfromfacultyandstudents.
• BestPracticeExamples:AlthoughKPIsaremorefrequentlyassociatedwithfor-profitorganizations,therearebecomingmorecommonamongacademicinstitutions.EABhasawebpagethatfocusesonKeyPerformanceIndicators,thatincludesbothfrequently-usedKPIsforacademicinstitutionsandamoredetailedexamplefromtheUniversityofKansas.3However,thesematerialsareprimarilyfocusedonservicefunctions;examplesrelatedtoacademicexcellenceandsocietalimpactalsoneedtobeidentified.
HOW?
• Hireaconsultingfirmwithexpertisefacilitatingparticipatoryprocessesinacademicinstitutionstofacilitateprocess.BecausedevelopmentofKPIsisastandardmanagementpractice,werecommendhiringaconsultingfirmwithexpertiseinthisarenathatemploysparticipatoryprocessesthatarealignedwithourinstitutionalcultureandvalues.OncetheinstitutionalKPIsaredeveloped,thedashboardsystem(whichusesTableau4)thathasbeendevelopedbyTheUCLAofficeofAcademicPlanningandBudgetatUCLAcouldbeadaptedandusedformonitoringandcommunicatingtherelevantindicators.CapacityshouldbebuiltwithindifferentschoolsandunitsatUCLAtobeabletoaddandmonitorunit-specificKPIstothedashboard.
3https://www.eab.com/research-and-insights/university-systems-forum/resources/shared-services-resource-center/key-performance-indicator-compendium4https://www.tableau.com/
Page9of20
WHEN?• LaunchinFall2017withgoalofhavingfully-vettedinstitutionalKPIsnolaterthanJune2018.
BecausethedevelopmentofKPIsissocentraltobeingabletomonitorprogressonstrategicplanninggoals,thisactionitemshouldbegiventopprioritywiththegoalofhavingfully-vettedinstitutional-levelKPIsbytheendofAY2017-18.Capacityshouldbebuilttofacilitatethedevelopmentofschool-specificKPIsduringAY2018-19.
Page10of20
ACTIONITEM3:CREATEUCLA“LEANTEAM”WHAT?
• ImplementaUCLA“LeanTeam”thatidentifiesopportunitiesforimprovingprocessesacrosscampus,developplansforaddressingthem,andfacilitatestheirimplementation.InadditiontodevelopingKeyPerformanceIndicators,aprocessisneededtoconductrapidanditerativediagnosisoffactorsthatimpaireffectivenessatUCLAandtodevelopeffective,evidence-basedsolutions.UCLAshoulddevelopa“leanteam”thatcanserveasaresourceand“inhouseconsultinggroup”forcontinuousimprovementactivitiesacrosscampus.
WHY?• “Continuousimprovement”isaevidence-basedanddata-drivenapproachforimprovingboth
organizationalefficiencyandeffectiveness.Continuousimprovementprocessesaredesignedtoevaluateandimproveproducts,servicesorprocessesandhaverapidlybecomeastandardapproachtoimprovingboththeeffectivenessandefficiencyoforganizations.Manysuccessfulmodelsforcontinuousimprovementprogramsexist,includingSixSigma(originallydevelopedatMotorola)andKaizen(usedbyToyota).Inrecentyears,moreandmoreeducationalinstitutionshaveembracedcontinuousimprovementmethodologiesaswell,ineffortstomaintainexcellenceinthefaceofrisingcostsanddiminishingresources.Becauseacademiaisinherentlydifferentfromfor-profitinstitutions,itiscriticalthatUCLAdevelopitsownteaminthelongrun(asopposedtosimplyrelyingonoutsideconsultants).Thiswillalsoensurethatthecontinuousimprovementmindsetbecomesengrainedandintegratedintoourinstitution’scultureandoperations.
• Bestpracticeexample:UCLAHealthSystem’sValUCareRedesignTeam.5TheUCLAHealth
Systemdevelopedaninhouseteam(theValUCareRedesignTeam)thatleadstheirinitiativesrelatedtoenhancingpatientexperienceatUCLA,improvingcareoutcomes,improvingoperationaloutcomes,andloweringhealthcarecosts.Theirworkhasresultedinshorterhospitalstaysandhighpatientsatisfaction.AnyinitiativeatUCLAshouldstartbyconsultingwiththeleadershipoftheUCLAHealthSystemandtheValUCareRedesignTeamtoidentifyhowtheirexperienceandexpertisecanbeleveraged.
HOW?
• Option1:Hireaconsultingfirmwithexpertiseinthisarea.AwiderangeofconsultingfirmsspecializecontinuousimprovementprogramsandhiringoneofthemcouldhelpUCLAto“jumpstart”theinitiative.
• Option2:Buildaninhouse“leanteam”.Inthelongrun,itwilllikelybemorecost-effectivetodevelopaninhouseleanteam.ThiswouldalsoallowforUCLAtodevelopacontinuousimprovementprogramthatistailoredtoourinstitutionalcultureandvalues.
WHEN?
• ImplementinitialcontinuousimprovementprograminAY2017-18;rolloutinstitutionalteaminAY2018-19.Werecommendahybridapproach,inwhichaconsultingfirmwithexpertiseincontinuousimprovementprogramsishiredandfocuseson“low-hangingfruit”inAY2017-18.
5https://www.uclahealth.org/valu/
Page11of20
Duringthisperiod,UCLAshouldfocusonbuildingin-housecapacity(modeledontheUCLAHealthSystem’sValUCareRedesignTeam),tobelaunchedinSummer2018.
Page12of20
ACTIONITEM4:CREATE“CENTRALIZATION”TASKFORCEWHAT?
• Empoweragrouponcampustocreateandimplementastandardsetofcriteriaandprocessfordeterminingwhatcampusfunctionsshould(andshouldnot)becentralized.AlthoughActionsItems1-3willhelptoimprovetrustandcommunicationaswellastoimprovebothefficiencyandeffectivenessofcoreunitsoncampus,thereisstillaneedforastandardprocess(includingastandardsetofcriteria)fordeterminingwhatcampusfunctionsshouldandshouldnotbecentralized.Althoughsomeorganizationschoosetohireexternalconsultinggroupstoperformthiswork,wedidnotfeelthiswouldbeatractableapproachatUCLAduetotheinstitutionalcultureofsharedgovernance.Inaddition,thegroupfeltstronglythatthiswasnota“one-time”fix,butratheranongoingchallengethatwouldbebestaddressedbyhavingastandardinstitutionalapproachovertime.Therefore,weproposeempoweringagrouponcampustocreateandimplementastandardsetofcriteriaandprocessfordeterminingwhatcampusfunctionsshould(andshouldnot)becentralized.
WHY?
• Inefficienciesresultwhen“wrong”functionsarecentralized.Likemanyacademicinstitutions,UCLAstrugglestobalancethevariedneedsanddesiresforindependenceofitsunitswithaneedtoreduceinefficiencies,institutionalcosts,andrisk.Althoughtheliteratureoncentralizationanddecentralizationprovidesmanyvaluablelessonsonwhattypesoffunctionstendtobenefitfromcentralization,anyinitiativesdealingwithcentralizationoffunctionsorservicesatUCLAneedtobewellalignedwithourcultureandvaluestobesuccessful.Overall,UCLAtendstobefairlydecentralizedandinitiativestocentralizefunctionscanbeexacerbatedbyunwillingnessofdifferentunitsorcampusentitiestorelinquishcontroloveraparticularfunction,lackoftrustand/orperceptionsthatbetter(ormoreappropriate)servicescanbeprovidedlocally.Centralizationinitiativesthatdonotemploysufficientlycollaborativeprocessesarelikelytofailbecausetheyarelesslikelytoengendersupportfromtheunits.
• Standardcriteriaandprocessesandregularreviewwillimprovetransparencyandtrustoncampus.ExamplesofthetypesofcriteriathatmightbeemployedtoassesswhetheraparticularserviceareprovidedinTableA4intheAppendix.ThedevelopmentofstandardcriteriaandprocessesfordeterminingwhetherspecificfunctionsandservicesatUCLAshouldbecentralized(ornot)combinedwitharegularreviewprocesswouldnotonlyimprovetransparencyandtrustoncampus,butwouldalsoimproveaccountabilityandcreateagreater“customer-service”orientationforunitsthatdelivercentralizedservices.
HOW?
• Option1:Createandchargea“JointPowersofAuthority”committeewithrepresentativesfromacrosscampus.Thisoptionismodeledonlocalgovernancesituationswheretwoormorepublicauthorities(e.g.,localgovernment,utilities,ortransitauthorities)haveoverlappingpowersandhavethepotentialtobenefitfromworkingtogethertosolveaparticularlycomplexproblemortoachieveeconomiesofscale.IntheUCLAcase,the“jointpowersofauthority”wouldincludethecentraladministration,eachoftheschoolsonourcampus,andacademicsenate.Ideally,therepresentativesservingonthecommitteewouldhavesufficientauthoritywithinthecampusunitsthattheyrepresentthattheycouldexercisethepowers/authoritiesoftheirunit.Asaresult,thecommitteewouldbothhavethebroadexperiencebaseneededto
Page13of20
assessthepotentialpitfallsofcentralizingaparticularfunctionorserviceandbeempoweredtodevelopacentralizedsolutionthatwouldmeetthevariedneedsofUCLAunits.
• Option2:CreateandchargeaCampusAdvisoryBoardwithbroadrepresentation.Aslightlydifferentmodelwouldinvolvetheestablishmentofacampusadvisoryboardthatwouldprimarybemadeupofexternaladvisorswithmanagementexperience(e.g.,consultantswithexpertiseincentralizationinitiatives)butwouldalsoincluderepresentativesfromcriticalstakeholdergroups(includingfaculty,administrators,andstudents)fromacrosscampus.Thisapproachwouldhavethebenefitsofleveragingexternalexpertiseintheareaofcentralizationandprovidingafreshperspectiveonhowtopotentiallysolvesomeofourproblems.
WHEN?
• CreateCentralizationTaskForceinFall2017andchargethegroupwithfinalizingstandardcriteriaandprocessforreview.WerecommendthatthecentraladministrationconsultwiththeAcademicSenateandDeansoftheSchoolsoverthesummertodeterminewhattheorganization(e.g.,Option1orOption2aboveorsomecombinationthereof)oftheCentralizationTaskForceshouldbeandtoobtainspecificrecommendationsforTaskForcemembers.ThiswouldallowtheTaskForcetobeformedinFall2017.Theinitialchargetothegroupshouldbedevelopingandvettingthefinalsetofstandardcriteriaandprocesstouseforassessingwhetherfunctionsandservicesshouldbecentralized,withthegoaloffinalizingthesebytheendofAY2017-18.
• ChargeCentralizationTaskForceimplementingstandardcriteriaandprocessstartinginFall2018.StartinginFall2018,theCentralizationTaskForceshouldidentifytheinitialsetoffunctionsandservicestobereviewedtodeterminesuitabilityforcentralizationandusethestandardcriteriaandprocessesdevelopedinAY2017-18toreviewthetoppriorityfunctionsandservicesinAY2018-19.
Page14of20
APPENDIX.DETAILEDRESULTSOFINDIVIDUALTASKFORCEMEETINGSANDBRAINSTORMINGACTIVITIESTableA1.RevisedListofPrioritizedQuestionsConsideredbytheInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForce.FigureA1.ResultsofRootCausalAnalysistodeterminefactorsthatimpairinstitutionalagilityatUCLA(“fishbonediagram”).FigureA2.Resultsofbrainstormingactivitytodeveloplistofpotentialactionitemsthatwouldhelptoaddressthetworootcausesofimpairedinstitutionalagilitythatwereconsideredbythetaskforcememberstobethehighestpriorities.Part1:actionitemstoaddresstheproblemthatinefficienciesresultfromtoomanylayersofreview.FigureA3.Resultsofbrainstormingactivitytodeveloplistofpotentialactionitemsthatwouldhelptoaddressthetworootcausesofimpairedinstitutionalagilitythatwereconsideredbythetaskforcememberstobethehighestpriorities.Part2:actionitemstoaddresstheproblemthatthe“wrong”functionsatUCLAarecentralized(i.e.,somefunctionsthatshouldbecentralizedarenotandotherfunctionsthatshouldnotbearecentralized).TableA2.ExamplesofProsandConsofCentralizationandDecentralizationTableA3.ExamplesofAreasWhereCentralizationisAdvantageousandWhereDecentralizationisAdvantageousTableA4.ExamplesofRecommendedFactorstoConsiderWhenDeterminingWhetherCentralizationorDecentralizationisPreferable
Page15of20
TableA1.RevisedListQuestionsConsideredbytheInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForce,ListedinOrderofPriority(where1wasconsideredbytheTaskForcememberstobethetoppriorityforconsideration).1. HowcanwemakeUCLAmoreagile/abletorespondmorequicklyandeffectivelyto
changesintheexternalenvironment,particularlychangesinresources?2. Howcanweremoveunnecessarybureaucracy?3. Whattypesoffacilities,activitiesandprogramsmaybenefitfromcentralization,andwhich
shouldbetterresidewithineachunit?Canintegratingcertaincentraladministrativeserviceshelplowercostsandoverheadsforacademicunits?
4. Whattypesoffacilitiesandresourcescanbesharedtocreategreaterefficienciesandreduceduplication?Whatshouldwedomoreandwhatshouldwedoless?Howcanwestreamlineoffices,programs,andactivities?(e.g.,wherecouldwedeveloptemplatesthatcouldbedisseminatedinstitutionally?)
5. Whatstructuresandpoliciesareneededtofacilitateinterdisciplinarycollaborationamongdifferentunits?
6. Inwhatnewwayscanweemploytechnologytoenhanceinstitutionaleffectiveness?7. Canweofferprinciples/rulesofengagementtoguideusinstitutionallyaswemoveforward
withimplementingstrategicchanges?8. Howcanweoptimizeautonomyof/empowerindividualUCcampuses?WithinUCLA,how
couldbepromoteautonomyofunitsinwaysthatmatterbutnotinwaysthatcompromiseeffectiveness?
4. Howcanweimproveinstitutionalresponsivenessto(all)criticalstakeholders?(Notethatthismightbeacommunicationissue.)
Page16of20
FigureA1.ResultsofrootcausalanalysisbrainstormingactivitytodeterminefactorsthatimpairinstitutionalagilityatUCLA(“fishbonediagram”)
UCLAisnotasagilein
respondingtothechangingfinancialandeduca6onalenvironmentasitneedsto
be
Ins6tu6onalCulture&Prac6ces
Ins6tu6onalStructure
Ins6tu6onalIncen6ves
Ins6tu6onalRules&Policies
ExternalRegula6onsExternalIncen6ves
Lackoffinancialincen6vestobeagileindevelopingandchangingeduca6onalprogs
Lackofincen6vestobackupcentralpriori6es
Ins6tu6onalorgstructreflectshistoricalresources&priori6es(not“newnormal”)
Wrongfunc6ons&processesarecentralized
Historically,highlevelofdecentraliza6on/delega6ngauthoritytounits
Collabora6onvaluedforresearchbutnotnecessarilyadministra6on
Ineffec6vecommunica6onacrossunitsandbetweencenterandunits
Toomanylayersofreview
ReviewisoQensequen6alinsteadofcollabora6ve/simultaneous
IncreasinglevelofFederalregula6ons&compliancerequirements
Nottakingadvantageofopportuni6estobeexemptfromregula6ons
Studentneeds/desiresnothistoricallygiventoppriority
Historically,priori6esreflectedgovtbeingprimarysourceofsupport(nottui6on) Notsteppingbacktoeval
processesfromahighlevel
Increasingefficiencyisnotincen6vizedins6tu6onally
Commitmenttosharedgovernance
Unwillingnesstorelinquishpower/control
Lackofsystema6ccriteriaandprocessfordeterminingwhatshouldbecentralized
Nomechanismforregularreviewandrestructuring
Page17of20
FigureA2.Resultsofbrainstormingactivitytodeveloplistofpotentialactionitemsthatwouldhelptoaddressthetworootcausesofimpairedinstitutionalagilitythatwereconsideredbythetaskforcememberstobethehighestpriorities.Part1:actionitemstoaddresstheproblemthatinefficienciesresultfromtoomanylayersofreview.
ToaddressinefficienciesduetotoomanylayersofreviewatUCLA
Createa“leanteam”thatiden<fiesopportuni<esforimprovedprocesses
Createinventoriesofwhichpoliciesdrivesprocesses/processmapping
Iden<fysitua<onswhereunits(deptsorschools)couldmakefinaldecisions
Iden<fywherethereisoverlappingauthorityanddecrease
Iden<fy“non-controversial”situa<onsandcreateexpeditedreviewforthem
Leveragetechnologicaladvancesforgatheringandanalyzingdatatocreateevidence-based
solu<ons
Leveragetechnologicaladvancesforfacilita<ngbeIerprocesses
Holdunitsaccountableformee<ngdeadlines
Iden<fyandinvestincentralizedexpertsthatcanhelpunits
Improvecommunica<onbetweenandwithinunitsandbetweenunitsandcentraladmin
Page18of20
FigureA3.Resultsofbrainstormingactivitytodeveloplistofpotentialactionitemsthatwouldhelptoaddressthetworootcausesofimpairedinstitutionalagilitythatwereconsideredbythetaskforcememberstobethehighestpriorities.Part2:actionitemstoaddresstheproblemthatthe“wrong”functionsatUCLAarecentralized(i.e.,somefunctionsthatshouldbecentralizedarenotandotherfunctionsthatshouldnotbearecentralized).
Toaddressproblemthat“wrong”func7onsarecentralizedatUCLA
Createsystema7ccriteriaandprocessesfordeterminingwhat
shouldbecentralized
e.g.,Iden7fyingrela7vevalueofstandardizing,riskavoidance,
andagility
Iden7fyopportuni7esforcentralized“resource
hubs”(whiles7llallowunitstomaintaincontrol)
e.g.,Technologiesforinstruc7on
e.g.,Spaceforinstruc7on
e.g.,Databaseforstudentandalumnioutcomes
Differen7atebetweenwan7ngdecentralizedbecauseprocesses
areinefficientvs.doesn’tfundamentallymakesensethat
centralized
Page19of20
TableA2.ExamplesofProsandConsofCentralizationandDecentralization.6,7,8
Centralization DecentralizationPros • Enablesstandardsandconsistency
• Providesforgreatercontrol• Supportsmorecollaborationacross
units• Potentialeconomiesofscale• Leveragecompetitivestrengthsofthe
whole• Allowsforfasterdecisions
• Tendstopromotemorecreativityandinnovation
• Tendstobemakeorganizationsmoreflexible&responsive
• Moreeasilysupportsuniquenessofdifferentunits
• Empowerslocalunits• Ideallypromotesnormsof
collaborationandtrust
Cons • Canbecumbersome• Tendstobelessnimbleandslowerto
implementchange• Canresultininflexibility• Potentialfordecisionmakingtobe
removedfromareasthatareimpacted
• Canmakeithardtogainconsensus• Canincreaseriskandliability• Canresultinvaryingdegreesof
qualityandstandards• Potentialformore"stove
piping"/fragmentationTableA3.ExamplesofAreasWhereCentralizationisAdvantageousandWhereDecentralizationisAdvantageousAreasWhereCentralizationisAdvantageous AreasWhereDecentralizationis
Advantageous• ITInfrastructure• ITSecurity• Publicsafetyresources• Physicalinfrastructuredesign,construction,and
maintenance• Insurance• HumanResources/Benefits/laborrelatedissues• InstitutionalBrandManagement• FinancialAndAuditsystems• Academicstandards• Marketing/Branding• Classroomscheduling• Legalaffairs&contractmanagement• Communications/Media&communityrelations
• Faculty/staffhiringTendstobemoreflexible
• Studentselection(admissions)• Curriculumdevelopment
6R.Andrews“OrganizationalSizeandSocialCapitalinthePublicSector:DoesDecentralizationMatter”ReviewofPublicPersonnelAdministration2017,37,40-58.7R.Andrewsetal“Centralization,OrganizationalStrategy,andPublicServicePerformance”JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory2009,19,57-80.8http://smallbusiness.chron.com/centralized-vs-decentralized-organizational-structure-2785
Page20of20
TableA4.ExamplesofRecommendedFactorstoConsiderWhenDeterminingWhetherCentralizationorDecentralizationisPreferable• Arethereopportunitiesforeconomiesofscale?• Aretheresignificanthealth,safety,reputationalorfiscalcostsassociatedwithmistakes?• Isthecompetitiveenvironmentgoingthroughrapidchange?• Doesthearea/issuehavehistoricalconflictorlackofconsensus?• Willdecisionshaveimpactonotherentities?• Isalocalunderstandingoftheissuesessential/acompetitiveadvantage?• Istheresufficientdiversityintermsofneeds/prioritiesofunitsthatstandardizationis
counter-productive?• Canyoueffectivelydevelopauditorotherwisemeasuretoensurecompliance/meeting
minimumstandards?• Isunderstandingandmeetingtheneedsof"customers"atoppriority?• Whatarethekeyperformanceindicatorsthatmattertothedifferentstakeholders?