ua recommendations - university of alaska systemrecommendations were compiled and refined to...

Copyright © 2016 by The Segal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

UA RECOMMENDATIONS

Statewide Transformation Team Advancement

University of Alaska System

2

Process and Working Team Approach

Definitions and Terminology Used

Recommendations

Appendix

3

Based on input from Statewide direct reports, key staff, and employees, working teams were formed to advance the initial recommendations of the Statewide Transformation Team

Each of the six teams met 2-3 times in person (and virtually as needed) between early December and mid-February to review the transformation team work to date, explore and assess various alternatives, and refine recommendations for implementation

A team leader (or co-leaders) was established for each team to communicate with leadership and maintain consistency with other teams

The team leader was tasked with ensuring the team supports the goals and objectives of the initiative

Each team was comprised of 7-10 members who were responsible for developing plans and strategies that will allow UA to realize its vision

Recommendations were compiled and refined to determine commonly impacted areas across each of the functional groups

Four themes emerged from all of the team’s recommendations, resulting in the categories presented in this report

Process

4

Working Team Approach

Phase 1

Where Are We Today First Meeting

Phase 2

Where Do We Want to Be Second Meeting

Phase 3

How Will We Get There Third Meeting

• Objective: gain a shared view of the current state of the functional area assigned to each Committee

• Review existing service delivery model and its strengths and weaknesses

• Review preliminary recommendations from Statewide Transformation Team

• Review leading practices

• Understand and confirm the case for change

• Objective: Create a high level plan to implement the recommended organizational and service delivery model

• Identify required investments and develop timelines, milestones , tasks and activities required to support the implementation of the new model

• Identify the imperatives for success in developing and delivering the change

• Objective: Develop a recommendation for improving the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of services in the functional area assigned to each team

• Explore alternative delivery models

• Assess operational, organizational, financial and cultural risks , benefits and impacts of each model

• Recommend a definitive model

• Create a high level business case for change

Communication Team Integration Project Management

5



Recommendations

Appendix

6

New Term Used Definition

UA System New term to describe the previously-named University of Alaska

State Wide Organization (“SW”)

Universal Technologies (“UT”) The centralized IT organization responsible for the continuation

of the Enterprise-wide systems

University or Universities Refers to the larger entities within the UA System (UAA, UAF, or

UAS)

Campuses Refers to the satellite campuses (i.e. Kenai, Kodiak, Prince

William Sound, etc.)

Functional Area Organizations like Finance, HR, IT, etc. The working teams are

each made up of one or more functional areas

OIT No longer exists in the new structure. This falls under the newly-

termed Universal Technologies

Common Terminology Across Report1

1 These terms are utilized for consistency within this report, but can be changed to better fit the definition as determined by the President or working teams

7

For each recommendation, the working teams conducted a RACI analysis to determine the following:

Responsible (also Recommender): Those who do the work to achieve the task. There is at least one role with a participation type of responsible, although others can be delegated to assist in the work required.

Accountable (also Originator, Approver or final approving authority): The one ultimately answerable for the correct and thorough completion of the deliverable or task, and the one who delegates the work to those responsible. In other words, an accountable must sign off (approve) work that responsible provides. There must be only one accountable specified for each task or deliverable.

Consulted: Those whose opinions are sought, typically subject matter experts and with whom there is two-way communication.

Informed (also Informee): Those who are kept up-to-date on progress, often only on completion of the task or deliverable; and with whom there is just one-way communication.

RACI Analysis

8



Recommendations

Appendix

9

The following concerns emerged as potential barriers to successful implementation and progress:

Lack of accountability

Culture of data ownership

Risk aversion

Lack of collaboration

Lack of trust

Separate accreditation structures

UA System vs. Universities competitive mentality

Lack of data-driven decision-making

Low levels of morale and engagement

Recommendations

An active communication plan and cultural management system should be instituted to mitigate employee concerns regarding the changes

Ensure effective change management with input from all affected stakeholders to increase levels of morale and engagement

Instill a culture of accountability for improved employee performance

Establish a culture of trust and collaboration across all University of Alaska entities

Address accreditation structure and risk aversion as a barrier to collaborative implementation of initiatives

While maintaining unique strengths of universities, eradicate competitive mentality between UA System and Universities/Campuses

Culture

10

Four themes emerged from all of the team’s recommendations, resulting in the categories presented in this report:

Strategy: Overarching recommendations that impact multiple stakeholders

Governance: Who/Where the responsibility lies for carrying out processes, functional operations, and decision-making

Operational Efficiencies & Process Redesign: Areas in which opportunities exist for gained efficiencies and/or economies of scale

People: Job placement, cultural issues, and staffing levels

Recommendation Themes

11

Strategy Recommendations

Team Recommendations Who is Responsible? Timeline

TechnologyImplement needed enterprise systems Requirements: CMT, Implementation:

UT LeaderJune-September

Enterprise Systems

Management

Empower University-led systems development Universities June-December

Administration

Create a long-term Land Management strategy Director of Land Management March-June

Create a business-center model for the UA System Office Controller’s Office, UA System Executives and Supervisors

March, April

Finance

Develop a Banner training plan Controller, AVC’s UA System Financial Services

April-June

Develop a University and Foundation investment strategy Chief Treasury Officer/Foundation Treasurer

April-June

Develop succession planning within Finance and Investing Chief Treasury Officer March-December

Develop a procurement strategy Interim Chief Procurement Officer March-December

Refine Finance and Administration work to align with UA System Office Controller July-December

12

Strategy Recommendations continued


HumanResources

Shift UA System to a strategic advisory role UA System HR Ongoing

Ensure effective implementation of recommendations UA System Senior Leadership May-August

Academic Affairs &

Research, UR, UA Foundation

Develop a strategic enrollment strategy and plan UA System Leadership May; Ongoing

Clearly define role, strategies, and goals of research UA System Leadership May; Ongoing

Establish an E-Learning vision and strategy System-Wide Academic Council June-August

Align UA Foundation accountabilities and results UA Foundation, Universities May; Ongoing

Clarify the mission and vision of University Relations VP for University Relations, AVP for Public Affairs

March-May

Align Student and Enrollment Services with UA System priorities N/A Already being Implemented

Eliminate the Squire Patton Boggs Federal Relations contract N/A Already being implemented

Align Efforts with SPB and AAR TBD May-July

13

Governance Recommendations


Technology

Determine University-level support model Host University Ongoing

Establish a UAF University-level support model UAF CIO March-July

Centralize enterprise-wide technology functions Initially: CMT, Then: Universal Technologies Leader

April-July

Enterprise Systems

Management

Centralize Banner maintenance and upgrades Universal Technologies March-July

Coordinate data sharing Data Stewards March-July

Administer University access and security controls management at Universities Universities May-September

Administration

Move public record requests to University Relations University Relations March-April

Use the UA System Emergency Manager for business continuity Business Continuity Manager, Chief Risk Officer

March-June

Move responsibility for managing insurance claims to Finance & Administration Chief Risk Officer, CFO March-June

Retain existing structure for College Savings Plan and Scholars Plan N/A March

Continue to route the Anonymous hotline to Audit N/A N/A

Finance

Create a technology governance structure VP of Finance and Administration April-June

Confirm Records Management location within Finance and Administration VP of Finance and Administration April-June

Confirm OnBase location N/A April-June

14

Governance Recommendations continued


HR

Maintain HR reporting structure UA System Leadership April, May

Maintain policy-related functions across the system, Keep Labor Relations at UA System Office

UA System Leadership, HR April-June

Move most operational HR Services to the Universities UA System Leadership April-June

Maintain role as custodian of data definitions UA System Leadership, HR Council April, May

Transition Enterprise Management Operations to Universal Technologies, Ensure collaboration with Universal Technologies

CHRO and HR Directors/HR Council; UT

May, June

Move Banner security and access management to Universities and UT CHRO and HR Directors/HR Council; UT

May, June

Analyze manual processes to determine feasibility for moving payroll to the universities

UA System and University HR June, July

Move UA tax accounting to Finance Function UA System leadership; Subject Matter Experts

September-November

Maintain oversight for classification and compensation at UA System UA System/University HR, HR Council

April, May

Move recruitment functions to the Universities UA System leadership April-June

Maintain Benefits Management, Plan Design, and Communication at UA System Office

HR Council; CHRO May-July

Partner with Universities for required training, with only subject matter training at UA System as needed

CHRO and HR Directors May-July

15

Governance Recommendations continued


Academic

Maintain leadership of educational policy at UA System UA System Leadership Ongoing

Transition K-12 Outreach and Workforce Development Programs to Universities

UA System Leadership Ongoing

Maintain UA System Workforce Development relationships UA System Leadership Ongoing

Maintain leadership for UA System industry-related policy decisions UA System Leadership Ongoing

Assess student-related services, campaigns and communications UA System Leadership Q3, Q4

Utilize SES to facilitate UA System Student Scholarship & Tuition Policy Development

UA System Leadership June-August

Maintain location of Alaska Scholars Program N/A N/A

Locate FERPA policy development at UA System Office, Manage FERPAcompliance at Universities

TBD May-June

Maintain system governance UA System Leadership Ongoing

Transition Enterprise Management Operations to UT and project management/system enhancements to Universities

UA System and UT Leadership June-August

Move Banner security and access management to Universities and UT UA System Leadership Ongoing

Move AVP State Relations to Office of Strategy, Planning and Budget N/A Already being Implemented

Reassign Shaping Alaska’s Future office to Public Affairs N/A Already being Implemented

16

Operational Efficiencies and Process Redesign Recommendations


TechnologyDefine Centers of Excellence to support Universities and Campuses CIO’s May-July

Continuously evaluate economies of scale CMT April; Ongoing

Enterprise Systems

Management

Consistently identify appropriate sourcing of IT functions University CIOs and UT Leader March-December

Administration

Redesign contracting processes General Counsel’s Office March-May

Review and assess Institutional Research processes and policies UA System IR March-June

Review process for issuing land permits Project Steering Committee March

Finance

Redesign financial reporting processes Controller, AVC’s, Banner Governance Group

Ongoing

Charge PCI governance committee to define processes VP Finance & Administration, PCI Governance Committee Leader

April-June

Develop adjudication process for procurement disputes Interim Chief Procurement Officer April-June

HR

Redesign key HR processes and transactions UA System Leadership, UT, HR June, July

Inventory strengths and best practices, Leverage experts across system UA System and University HR leaders; HR Council

April, May

Develop a self-service system for key HR transactions UA System Leadership, UT, HR/HR Council

June, July

Explore outsourcing options of some HR processes/transactions UA System leadership; Subject Matter Experts

September-November

Develop a standard curriculum across the system HR & UA System Directors; CHRO June-August

Academic Ensure easy and efficient data access Universal Technologies Ongoing

17

People Recommendations


TechnologyRe-define organizational structures CMT March-May

Develop a needed system for cultural management UA System Executive Leadership Ongoing

Enterprise Systems

Management

Administration

Hire a skilled Chief Human Resources Officer CHRO Hiring Committee March, April

Retain the Associate Vice President for State Relations AVP for State Relations March, April

Fill vacant Chief Risk Officer Position President’s Office, HR March, April

Eliminate UA System EH&S Positions Interim Chief Risk Officer March, April

FinanceExamine current staff resource levels Controller April-June

Evaluate the number of senior leadership positions VP Finance and Administration March-June

18

People Recommendations continued


HR

Regularly assess compensation and conduct market analyses CHRO and HR Council, UA System HR

May-July

Utilize collaborative hiring with Universities and UA System UA System and University HR Already being Implemented

Establish a culture of trust and collaboration UA System and University HR leaders; HR Council

April, May

Academic

Create and fill a new AVP Public Affairs and/or Federal Relations Position N/A Already beingImplemented

Assess the ability of a single position to manage federal relations, public affairs, and budget; Consider eliminating VP UR position

UA System Leadership June

Eliminate UR administrative support position N/A Already being Implemented

Clarify role of University Relations with respect to Federal Government VP for University Relations, AVPfor Public Affairs

March-May

Address accreditation structure as a barrier to collaboration System Wide Academic Council (VP AAR), Faculty Alliance

September; Ongoing

19

Appendix

Recommendations by Theme

Technology Team Recommendations

Enterprise Management System Team Recommendations

Administration Team Recommendations

Finance Team Recommendations

Human Resources Team Recommendations

Academic Affairs & Research, University Relations and UA Foundation Team Recommendations

20


Strategy

-Implement needed enterprise systems

-Empower University-Led systems development

-Create a long-term Land Management strategy

-Create a business-center model for the UA System Office

-Develop a Banner training plan

-Develop a University and Foundation investment strategy

-Develop succession planning within Finance and Investing

-Develop a procurement strategy

-Refine Finance and Administration work to align with UA System office

-Shift UA System to a Strategic Advisory Role

-Ensure effective implementation of recommendations

-Develop a Strategic Enrollment Strategy and Plan

-Clearly define role, strategies, and goals of research

-Establish an E-Learning vision and strategy

-Align UA Foundation accountabilities and results

-Clarify the mission and vision of University Relations

-Align Student and Enrollment Services with UA System priorities

-Eliminate the Squire Patton Boggs Federal Relations contract

-Align Efforts with SPB and AAR

Legend:

Technology Team= Green

Enterprise Management Systems Team= Orange

Administration Team= Purple

Finance Team= Grey

HR Team= Red

Academic Affairs & Research, UR, & UA Foundation Team= Blue

21


Governance

-Determine University-level support model

-Establish a UAF University-level support model

-Centralize enterprise-wide technology functions

-Centralize Banner maintenance and upgrades

-Coordinate data sharing

-Administer University access and security controls management at

Universities

-Move public record requests to University Relations

-Move responsibility for managing insurance claims to Finance &

Administration

-Use the UA System Emergency Manager for business continuity

-Create a technology governance structure

-Confirm Records Management location within Finance and Administration

-Confirm OnBase location

-Maintain HR reporting structure

-Maintain policy-related functions across the system, Keep Labor Relations

at UA System Office

-Move most operational HR Services to the Universities

-Maintain role as custodian of data definitions

-Transition Enterprise Management Operations to Universal Technologies,

Ensure collaboration with Universal Technologies

-Move Banner security and access management to Universities and UT

-Analyze manual processes to determine feasibility for moving payroll to the

universities

-Move UA tax accounting to Finance function

-Maintain oversight for classification and compensation at UA System

-Move recruitment functions to the Universities

-Maintain Benefits Management, Plan Design, and Communication at UA System

Office

-Partner with Universities for required training, with only subject matter training at UA

System as needed

-Maintain leadership of educational policy at UA System

-Transition K-12 Outreach and Workforce Development programs to Universities

-Maintain UA System Workforce Development relationships

-Maintain leadership for UA System Industry-related policy decisions

-Assess student-related services, campaigns and communications

-Utilize SES to facilitate UA System Student Scholarship & Tuition Policy

Development

-Maintain location of Alaska Scholars Program

-Locate FERPA policy development at UA System, Manage FERPA compliance at

Universities

-Maintain system governance

-Transition Enterprise Management Operations to UT and project

management/system enhancements to Universities

-Move Banner security and access management to Universities and UT

-Move AVP State Relations to Office of Strategy, Planning and Budget

-Reassign Shaping Alaska’s Future office to Public Affairs

Legend:




Finance Team= Grey

HR Team= Red


22


Operational Efficiencies & Process Redesign People

-Define centers of excellence to support Universities and Campuses

-Continuously evaluate economies of scale

-Consistently identify appropriate sourcing of IT functions

-Redesign contracting processes

-Review and assess Institutional Research processes and policies

-Review process for issuing land permits

-Redesign financial reporting processes

-Charge PCI governance committee to define processes

-Develop adjudication process for procurement disputes

-Redesign key HR processes and transactions

-Inventory strengths and best practices, Leverage experts across system

-Develop a self-service system for key HR transactions

-Explore outsourcing options of some HR processes/transactions

-Develop a standard curriculum across the system

-Ensure easy and efficient data access

-Re-define organizational structures

-Develop a needed system for cultural management

-Eliminate UA System EH&S positions

-Hire a skilled Chief Human Resources Officer

-Retain the Associate Vice President for State Relations

-Fill vacant Chief Risk Officer Position

-Examine current staff resource levels

-Evaluate the number of senior leadership positions

-Regularly assess compensation and conduct market analyses

-Utilize collaborative hiring with Universities and UA System

-Establish a culture of trust and collaboration

-Create and fill a new AVP Public Affairs and/or Federal Relations

Position

-Assess the ability of a single position to manage federal relations, public

affairs, and budget; Consider eliminating VP UR position

-Eliminate UR administrative support position

-Clarify role of University Relations with respect to Federal Government

-Address accreditation structure as a barrier to collaboration

Legend:




Finance Team= Grey

HR Team= Red


23

Appendix







Academic Affairs & Research, University Relations and UAFoundation Team Recommendations

24

The Technology Team was tasked with further developing recommendations regarding technology infrastructure and organizational structure

The Technology Team shared certain recommendations with the ESM Team and worked towards consistent outcomes

Included in team’s discussions were:

Define IT Infrastructure

UAF & UA System Services Reorganization

Empowering UA System to be a Strategic Partner

Gaining Economies of Scale

Redefining Organization Structure

Clarifying Reporting Relationships

Cultural Change to Support University’s Mission

Technology Team Scope

25

Jerry Domnick, Manager Local Area Network, Kuskokwim Campus

Tom Langdon, Manager, Customer Support Services, OIT

Colleen McKenna, MIS Associate Professor, UAS

Martha Mason, CIO, UAF (Team co-leader)

Kenrick Mock, Professor of Engineering, UAA

Pat Shier, Associate VC & CIO, UAA (Team co-leader)

Mona Yarnall, IS Manager, UAS

Nathan Zierfuss, Chief Information Security Officer, OIT

Technology Team Members

26

Recommendation

The operational information technology functions for UAF and UA System should be managed by the UAFCIO. UA should move to a model where host-universities provide all basic IT support services to any UA System level staff.

Additional Narrative

This recommendation is shared between the Enterprise Systems Management team and the Technology team. Agreed that IT services could be provided by the local university, but UAF & SW members of the team felt the fiscal and cultural risks were too service impacting to be warranted to address perceived confusion, that can be addressed through education and transparency efforts.

TechnologyDetermine University-Level Support Model

Benefits Risks Actions

1. Allows UT to focus on core operational decisions instead of needing to create an organization to support their user technology concerns

2. UAF would be more in control of basic IT support assets

2. UT can be more efficient3. Universities can easily

accommodate more users

1. May require increase in financial investment

2. Net value proposition from eliminating shared service has not been identified

3. UAF leadership un-engaged to date on process implications

1. Determine if/how to transition these services to universities

2. Assure that university IT organizations are properly staffed to manage additional users

R ESPONSIBLE

Host University

A CCOUNTABLE

UAF CIO

C ONSULTED

Host university leadership

I NFORMED

Universal Technologies

M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Governance

27

Recommendation

Determine what services UAF CIO’s organization should provide to its UAF, UA System and Universal Technologies customers including how to resource this appropriately.


UAF CIO is accountable for UAF Service Catalog.

TechnologyEstablish a UAF University-Level Support Model


1. Allows for “Centers of Excellence” to remain intact

2. Transparent and well-defined organizational structure will eliminate confusion around leadership approach and management structure

1. Ability to attract and retain staff

2. Potentially disruptive to higher performing IT units

3. Determining the optimal support staff size

4. Organizational changes alone don’t address root cause cultural issues.

5. May require increase in fiscal investment.

1. UAF CIO determine what resources are needed to support the services

R ESPONSIBLE

UAF CIO

A CCOUNTABLE

UAF CIO

C ONSULTED

UAF and UA System Leadership

I NFORMED

CMT


X X X X X

Governance

28

Recommendation

Further all discussions considering what services might best be provided by UAA, UAS or UAF on behalf of the UA System where expertise exists should also be considered. Continue any exploration of outsourcing as an option.


Some services operating out of “Centers of Excellence” may not make sense to dismantle. Shared services can work, but remains difficult because the campuses can view each other as competitors and the current structure is blended and perceived as being unclear. A more defined and transparent structure could be beneficial.

TechnologyDefine Centers of Excellence to support Universities and Campuses


1. Provides necessary assistance to UT

2. Allows for “Centers of Excellence” to remain untouched

3. Transparent and well-defined organizational structure to eliminate confusion

1. Shared service implementation can be difficult

2. Distributed accountability makes strategic change difficult

1. Identify what support UT needs and where it can come from

2. Define current “Centers of Excellence”

R ESPONSIBLE

CIO’s

A CCOUNTABLE

CMT

C ONSULTED

Campuses and UA System

Leadership

I NFORMED

CMT


X X X

Operational Efficiencies

and Process Redesign

29

Recommendation

Redefine the IT organization(s). Each university (UAF, UAA & UAS) to provide localized operational services for their university, including expanded roles for data access, system access and enterprise systems development. University CIOs to report directly to Chancellor. Creation of a Universal Technologies organization for core, enterprise-wide systems and creation of an Office of the CTO for strategic & non-operational aspect for IT leadership.


Unclear organizational lines and a complicated financial/expense model, across the system, amplify the need for overall clarification in structure and expense distribution/reporting. For campuses, it can be difficult to see where OIT’s appropriation translate to OIT’s service catalog and whether they are equivalent near-market rates, including their relative unit costs for per campus usage. For strategic leaders, it can be default to achieve strategic impacts without authority to execute.

TechnologyRe-define Organizational Structures


1. Clearly defined new organizational lines will limit confusion

2. Shared services (UT) provide economies of scale

3. Clearer lines promote fiscal transparency for campuses and lines of service

1. Not attracting and retaining required talent to manage each org

2. Making sure the new system does not fall victim to the same downfalls as current model (system culture)

3. Failure of collaboration & transparency

1. Define/finalize the IT organization structure as well as CMT governance

2. Enable new structure3. Establish accounting

protocols to capture and report based upon services, the model of service and the new organization model

R ESPONSIBLE

CMT

A CCOUNTABLE

President

C ONSULTED

Finance Resources & Summit Team

I NFORMED

IT Staff, Governance Groups, IT

Consumers


X X X People

30

Recommendation

Create a “Universal Technologies” organization to centralize some technology functions within “a centralized unit” in an effort to simplify and add consistency to technology system management for enterprise-wide systems.


Centralize enterprise-wide technologies for economies of scale, where a centralization model provides the proper amount of services and support . Centralization does not necessarily require geographic centralization of people, but instead placing the right person in the right role. Current enterprise OIT roles and IT roles distributed at SW outside of OIT should be centralized.

TechnologyCentralize Enterprise-wide Technology Functions


1. Keeps economies of scale

2. Simplifies IT structure throughout SW

3. Increases consistency and reduces inefficiencies

4. Could enable common focus instead of competing interests

5. Fosters a culture of collaboration and accountability

1. Not choosing the appropriate technologies to be centralized

2. Not finding the right leader of the centralized IT function (responsibility w/o accountability)

3. Resourcing conflicts may still remain

4. May not enable common focus

1. Identify employees who should reside in the UT group, including leadership

2. Define the leadership position responsibilities

3. Define the mission of the UT organization

Step 2 - Identify which technology functions should be centralized and from where and to where

R ESPONSIBLE

Initially: CMT Then: Universal

Technologies Leader

A CCOUNTABLE

CMT

C ONSULTED

Campus Functional Leadership +

UA System (SW) Leadership

I NFORMED

Application Stakeholders


X X X XGovernance

31

Recommendation

Regularly and rigorously review each IT organization’s service catalog for the optimal mix of service provisions where economies of scale may exist for the UA System.


What would a decision engine look like? Should a recharge model be explored as a viable option? Would there be any efficiencies of organizationally having them centralized, but physically diverse locations? To what degree is one institution willing to rely on a competitor institution for day to day necessities?

TechnologyContinuously Evaluate of Economies of Scale


1. Opportunities for synergies given the reorganization

2. Cost savings3. Standardize on best

practices4. Alignment of processes5. Streamline service

offerings and simplify support

1. Many moving parts and involved parties

2. Need for some Universities to compromise

3. Possible reduction of services or flexibility

1. Explore further options including, university HelpDesk

2. Consolidate LMS –Blackboard Learn

3. Develop a strategy of potential consolidation

R ESPONSIBLE

CMT

A CCOUNTABLE

OoCTO

C ONSULTED

Stakeholder groups

I NFORMED

Chancellors


X X X X X X X X X X X X



32

Recommendation

Move forward with evaluation and an implementation of a common UA System enterprise-wide solution for email & calendaring.


The Enterprise Systems Management team should include these types of enterprise-wide applications within their scope. The first step in determining email/calendaring solutions will revolve around a strategy for delivery of student services for these types of needs.

TechnologyImplement Needed Enterprise Systems


1. Enterprise systems can help provide unity and efficiencies across campuses

2. Streamline administrative processes

3. Standardized user experience

4. Simplifies user & support experiences

1. Fear of losing campus individuality

2. Cultural issues3. Poor execution4. Effort and costs of

change

1. Develop email/calendaring implementation plan and requirements (student & admin)

2. Work with the ESM team and their definition of Enterprise Systems

3. Consider the outsourcing of it all (implementation and on-going support)

R ESPONSIBLE

Requirements: CMT

Implementation: UT Leader

A CCOUNTABLE

CMT

C ONSULTED

All Stakeholders

I NFORMED

Summit Team


X X X X

Strategy

33

Recommendation

Move forward with actively managing SW and System wide culture.


All proposed organizational change will fall short of any desired effects without changing and continuing to manage organizational culture at both SW, Campuses and System wide.

TechnologyDevelop a Needed System for Cultural Management


1. Enabling a culture of accountability

2. Higher levels of service at all organizations

3. Decreases value lost to mistrust

4. Create shared purpose and unified approach to UA mission

1. High levels of belief bias to overcome

2. Failure to execute, risks all other recommendations

3. Poor execution and adoption

4. Lack of commitment

1. Develop cultural management plans at SW level and System level

R ESPONSIBLE

System-wide Exec. Leadership

A CCOUNTABLE

President

C ONSULTED

All Stakeholders

I NFORMED

Summit Team


X X X X X X X X X X X X X ->

Culture

34

Pro’s

Elevates voices of the campuses

University-level CIOs are the direct link to universities for all operational aspects of the university (direct reporting relationship to Chancellors)

Creates consistency

Creates an opportunity for a culture of accountability

Campuses are responsible for local user services

Con’s

All structures may increase costs

Adds complexity of coordinating 5, instead of the current 4, IT organizations at UA

System-wide IT governance linked to the business is still undefined

Pro’s & Con’s of All of the New Organizational Structures

No proposed organizational structure enjoyed unanimous support

35

President

Chancellor UAA

UAA CIO

Chancellor UAF

UAF CIO

Chancellor UAS

UAS CIO

Office of CTO


Enterprise Systems Management

Others (e.g. WAN)….

CMT

Organization Structure As Related to IT FunctionsOption #1

Pro’s Con’s

1. Creates a CMT that allows for OoCTO to be included

2. OoCTO is more strategic and does not have operational responsibilities

1. UT reporting relationship is to a committee and will be challenging to execute and manage

36

President

Chancellor UAA

UAA CIO

Chancellor UAF

UAF CIO

Chancellor UAS

UAS CIO

Office of CTO





Pro’s Con’s

1. UT reporting relationship is to a UA System office appropriate to its scope of responsibility

2. Clear reporting line

1. Goes counter to a UA Systems organization that does not have operational aspects

CMT

37

President

Chancellor UAA

UAA CIO

Chancellor UAF

UAF CIO

Chancellor UAS

UAS CIO

Office of CTO





Pro’s Con’s

1. UT has an active voice in the CMT

2. UT CMT participation helps isolate CTO from operational duties

1. Goes counter to a UA Systems organization that does not have operational aspects

2. Similar to current structure

CMT

38

Collaborate with University leadership for UA System-wide initiatives:

Set policy, provide legal interpretation and system-level risk assessments

Be a steward for shared strategic resources and oversee assets like the UA network and Enterprise systems

Establish system-level strategic direction/vision, fostering collaboration to achieve UA mission, and leadership to address conflicting objectives

Canvas the market for new and emerging IT opportunities to further the mission of the UA system

Provide support and a single-system voice when needed for external relationships

Foster innovation & collaboration within the UA System

Ensures adoption of industry best practices across the UA System

Champion the UA System level IT culture

The following responsibilities were hotly contested / not unanimously supported:

Ensures alignment of IT and UA strategy

Establishes and chairs IT governance

No operational aspects / duties

Primary Responsibilities of the Office of the CTO

39

University specific & localized operational IT services for students, faculty and staff

User services

AV

Desktop

Call center

Computer labs

All application privilege approval & granting

Infrastructure

Data center operations

Telecommunications

Server administration

Local Area Network operations & engineering

Messaging / Directory

Application modifications & development

Coordination and decision-making implementation via CMT

CIO’s Champion University IT Culture

Primary Responsibilities of University CIOs / IT services

40


Upgrades and Maintenance

UA System-wide large enhancements

Application Administration (technical not functional)

Bug Fixes

Security Role Definitions

Database Management

Back up and Recovery

Development Standards Creation

Promote to Production Environments

Training (train the trainer)

Server Administration

Disaster Planning and Recovery

Service Level Agreements

Large Procurements / Purchases (e.g. Symantec)

WAN

Network security

Main data center operations

Coordinate with the businesses/Universities

Primary Responsibilities of Universal Technologies

41

Make enterprise wide decisions

Develop plans / operationalize the choices made in the strategic decision making process

Be the voice of all IT concerns across the Universities

UT Leadership is very actively consulted, but not a voting member of the team (this was hotly contested by members of the team as to whether this responsibility is dependent on the organizational model chosen or not)

Primary Responsibilities of the CIO Management Team (CMT)

42

Appendix








43

The Enterprise Systems Management Team was tasked with further developing recommendations regarding data concerns, project management and other enterprise-wide topics

The ESM Team shared certain recommendations with the Technology Team and worked towards consistent outcomes


Establish Data Definitions

Data Security and Integrity

Coordinate Data Sharing

Assure Access to Systems

Centralize Banner

Campus-Led Project Management

Outsourcing Opportunities

Enterprise Management System Team Scope

44

Brian DeZeeuw, Financial Systems, UAA

Tom Dienst, Business Office, UAS

Mike Earnest, Registrar & Enrollment Services, UAF

Vickie Gilligan, Finance, SW

Erin Holmes, Institutional Research, UAA (Team Leader)

Mark Hopson, IT Security Officer, UAS

James Milburn, Enterprise Applications Services, OIT

Ian Olson, Institutional Research, UAF

Enterprise Management System Team Members

45

Enterprise Systems Policy

Interpret UA policies/ State & Federal regulations – i.e., identify if FERPA applies

Identify where there are gaps in policies

Recommend policy revisions, additions, deletions

Establish ESM policies

Part of these individuals duties / responsibilities would include:

Business Practice

Understand policies & document their practices

Ensure separation of duties

Request clarification to ESM policies

Consult with those in the Procedure group

Coordinate and collaborate for data definitions

Involved with determining the calendar for ES updates

Develop and approve a test plan

Procedure/Action

Define, assign, and revoke roles

“Doer” level

They follow the procedures to do the work

Universities are responsible for making sure the procedures are followed

Policy StructureESM Responsibility—Conceptual Model

Enterprise

Systems

Policy

Business Practice

Procedure / Action

UA Policies, State &

Federal Regulations

46

Introduction

Currently too many layers of approval have asserted themselves into the process of securing and maintaining Banner and other enterprise wide systems. Approval for access to Banner, its data tables and other enterprise wide systems should move to the universities. Second layer of approval should be removed. UA System and functional areas would be required to define rules and create a culture of data stewardship.

This future state would allow work to move forward that meets the needs of the students and universities more efficiently. The move to a collaborative culture would foster shared effort and allow institutions to act on priorities.

Definitions

Enterprise Wide Systems or Enterprise Systems: Any software that allows UA to address a universal or common university business process. It can be a commercial product such as Banner or a locally developed product such as ELMO.

Data Stewardship: Shared responsibilities associated with managing, collecting, viewing, storing, sharing, disclosing or making use of educational information. These responsibilities apply to all levels of data handling and all systems within the UA system.

Enterprise Systems ManagementIntroduction and Definitions

47

Enterprise Wide Systems or Enterprise Systems are systems:

Used across all universities

Used as the default system of record

Which require centralized administration for it to be feasible

Where one university cannot opt out without any issue to the remaining

Where one university cannot manage some data independently of the others

Which have a single instance at the application-level

Where interdependencies exist between universities

That natively supports multiple institutions (its architecture doesn’t prohibit this)

Where a single identity is used across universities (for example: sign-on, the data within)

Where identical branding is not important

That uses a common database across the same application

Where there is a need for common data definitions and management reporting across the entire UA system

Where only a single set of rules need to be applied across universities

Where changes have a universal impact or effect

Whose purpose is unique (it does not do the same thing that another application already does)

That possess financial economies of scale (purchase and support)

Where the number of contracts with the vendor and any inter-connected across universities supports a single instance

The judgment as to whether an application is an Enterprise System is based on how well the application match these characteristics, not whether it meets all of them.

Enterprise Systems Determining Characteristics

48

Enterprise-wide Applications

Seem to Meet Minimum Characteristics

Banner

- HR, Finance & Student

- RPTP – Data repository

- DegreeWorks

- Banner workflow

- TEM: Travel & Expense Management

- UA Online: Banner self-service

On-Base: document imaging BlackBoard

- Learn

- Connect: Emergency management system

- Transact : ID cards

PeopleAdmin / Page-Up Active Directory Enrollment Rx (UAA & UAF)

EDIR – Enterprise Directory THD – The Housing Directory VistaPlus: Data store (finance & HR)

Touchnet – payment gateway for credit Zuausr - Banner & On-Base security

management

AIM – Facilities tool

ELMO – Easy Management Login Option Enterprise E-mail & calendaring (none in

place)

Microsoft productivity applications

Video conferencing VOIP WAN

Considered But Do Not Seem to Meet Minimum Characteristics

Lumens Grants application CourseLeaf- catalogue & curriculum

management

Millennium UAA Door access Maxient – Title IX compliance (further

determination needed)

49

Enterprise Systems ManagementCentralize Banner Maintenance & Upgrades


1. Achieves Economies of scale

2. Fosters Operational efficiencies

3. Removes most operational needs from a SW organization and creates better alignment with the four Core values

4. Allows universities to be a consumer of ESM as a utility

1. Failure to maintain audit requirements and separation of duties

2. Failure to keep functional areas fully informed

3. Failure of leadership in UT-ESM to support cultural change

4. Failure to appropriately resource activities

1. Continue to review resource requirements for adequacy

2. Develop a thorough roles & responsibilities matrix for upgrade and maintenance activities

3. Evaluate any Banner infrastructure changes required to support this recommendation

Recommendation

Maintenance and upgrade functions for Banner should be centralized under “a centralized IT unit”

(Universal Technologies) and moved out of other UA System functional areas where this exists. Enterprise-

wide systems other than Banner should also be considered under this model.


Demand for the function could reside in the functional area, but the technical implementation should be

managed from a central unit “Universal Technologies”. Final testing and approvals must be performed by the

functional areas.

R ESPONSIBLE


A CCOUNTABLE


Leader

C ONSULTED

Functional areas &

universities

I NFORMED

University CIOs


X X X X X Governance

50

Recommendation

Coordination of data definitions and data quality standards should be managed by the data stewards in the respective functional areas from each university and the respective UA System functional area for data consistency and integrity.


Universities were frustrated with not being involved in data management, quality and definitions. Creating a collaborative process not perceived to be owned by one person or department would be beneficial. There have been different approaches to how data definitions are established by function, causing inconsistencies. Institutional Research could lead the system-wide coordination and governance process for data definitions and documentation.

Enterprise Systems ManagementCoordinate Data Sharing


1. Increases data sharing

2. Regulates data

governance

3. Creates clear and common

data definitions

4. Encourages a culture of

collaboration and

coordination

5. Fosters transparent

governance process

6. Avoids redundancy

1. Failure to move from

culture of data ownership

to data stewardship

2. Failure to adopt newly

established data

definitions

3. Failure of governance and

compliance

4. Failure to have appropriate

coordination with UT-ESM

1. Consult universities to

identify and prioritize

needs

2. Identify and publish the

new data definitions and

quality standards

3. Create and publish ESM

data stewardship

responsibilities as well as

the data stewards

4. Leverage IData Cookbook

5. Consider hiring a resource

to jump-start the

documentation effort

R ESPONSIBLE

Data Stewards

A COUNTABLE

Data Stewards

C ONSULTED

Functional areas, universities

& UT

I NFORMED

University CIOs


X X X X X

Governance

51

Enterprise Systems ManagementAdminister University Access and Security Controls Management at University Level


1. Allows universities to easily apply access

2. Removes unnecessary administrative burden

3. Provides for OoCTO to define broad, consistent security policy

4. Creates an environment when data are more accessible, transparent and consistent

1. Failure to maintain separation of duties

2. Failure to ensure that data stewards collaborate with universities and functional areas

3. Failure to properly manage data access

1. Decide how access is granted at university level

2. Ensure process is in place to balance security and compliance

3. Coordinate a process between data stewards and UT-ESM to redesign & pre-define security roles and publish security role definitions

4. Define an audit procedure for security

5. Review all security classes to allow for more viewable access

Recommendation

Enterprise system access control and security provision/management should be administered at the university level.


This should be handled at the university/function, but base security provisions should be initially established by the data stewards (in collaboration with UT-ESM) and must coordinate between all functional areas. There should be a small number of people granting access who know enough about separation of duties, functional knowledge and the existing security roles as well as new role creation. Overtly state that the policy aspect should come from OoCTO, but granting of access will be at a university level. Additional resources initially needed to review security to simplify all classes.

R ESPONSIBLE

Universities

A CCOUNTABLE

University CIO’s

C ONSULTED


I NFORMED

University data security

individual(s)


X X X X X

Governance

52

Enterprise Systems ManagementEmpower University-led Systems Development


1. Empowers universities to meet their own needs

2. Increases capacity for projects

3. Allows for UT dollars to be spent solely for cross-university needs

1. No assurance the project would benefit all universities

2. Lack of communication results in no group collaboration

3. Inability of universities to implement development due to resource constraints

4. Increase reverse integration costs as other universities adapt new development

5. Failure to share solutions

1. Develop framework to determine if a project is university specific or enterprise-wide

2. Determine which projects currently in queue are universally important

3. Determine governance model for universal projects

4. Examine what is needed to give university development access in a safe environment

Recommendation

Projects and system enhancements should be encouraged. Individual universities and UA System functions should be empowered to innovate, initiate and/or lead projects and system enhancements. To enable that innovation, the universities and UA System will be given the access to development tools to build solutions. Universities and UA System will collaborate on any projects and/or system enhancements.


Policy is set and the universities are empowered to develop and implement enhancements and solutions within the parameters of the policy. There are too many projects in the queue that are not getting done. If universities could coordinate efforts, they could move faster because currently they wait for SW assistance to get the projects off the ground. Universities can spearhead projects. Universal Technologies would only take on projects (outside of upgrades and maintenance) that benefit all universities. If there was a shared service alternative it would be worth considering.

R ESPONSIBLE

Universities

A CCOUNTABLE

University CIO’s

C ONSULTED


I NFORMED

IT Project Managers +

Functional Areas


X X X X X X X X X X XStrategy

53

TechnologyCampus Support Model (aka Universal Technologies as a Strategic Partner)


1. Allows UT to focus on core operational decisions instead of needing to create an organization to support their user technology concerns

2. UT can be more efficient3. Universities can easily

accommodate more users

1. Change from SW providing support to UAF and fear of losing a centers of excellence model

2. Recommendations may not be supported by key leadership at UAF

3. Could lead to duplication or increased management

1. Determine how to transition these services to universities

2. Assure that university IT organizations are properly staffed to manage additional users

Recommendation

The operational information technology functions for UAF and SW should be managed by the UAF IT organization (lead by the UAF CIO). UA should move to a model where host-universities provide all basic IT support services to any UA System level staff.


This recommendation is shared between the Enterprise Systems Management team and the Technology team. Agreed that IT services should be provided by the local university.

R ESPONSIBLE

Host university

A CCOUNTABLE

Host university IT

C ONSULTED

Host university CIO

I NFORMED




54

Enterprise Systems ManagementOIT Business Office


1. These are functions that do not need to be done by IT employees

2. Decreases administrative burden

1. Losing the opportunity to have an IT person knowledgeable about these functions

1. Follow up with Administration team to determine next steps

Recommendation

Evaluate the OIT Business Office to see if SW can achieve more value if these areas have the potential to

serve all of SW as part of a shared service model for administration.


Moved to Administration team – to be addressed by other SW Business Office consolidations.

R ESPONSIBLE

Administration Team

A CCOUNTABLE

TBD

C ONSULTED

IT

I NFORMED

IT


X X

55

Enterprise Systems ManagementConsistently Identify Appropriate Sourcing of IT Functions


1. Possible cost savings2. Certain functions or areas

within functions could be outsourced for economies of scale

1. Outsourcing can be controversial

2. System governance would need to be very strong to introduce outside parties

3. May not be the most cost effective

1. Review current functions to look into opportunities to appropriately source

Recommendation

Continue to look at the appropriate sourcing for IT functions or contracted/hosted services strategically in an

ongoing manner.


Will look for individual opportunities where outsourcing makes good business sense.

R ESPONSIBLE

University CIOs & UT Leader

A CCOUNTABLE

CMT

C ONSULTED

Functional Areas

I NFORMED

Chancellors and President





56

Appendix








57

The Administration Team was tasked with reviewing the Transformation Team’s recommendations and further developing recommendations regarding the UA System and individual Universities

The team was comprised of members from the following functional areas:

General Counsel's Office

Strategy, Planning, Budget

– Associate VP for State Relations

– Institutional Research

– Land Management

Risk Services

Included in team’s discussions were recommendations regarding:

Operational Efficiencies and Process Redesign

Strategy

People

Administration Team Scope

58

Sacha Layos, SW General Counsel’s Office

Alesia Kruckenberg, SW Budgeting/Planning

Debbie Carlson, SW Finance

Jennifer Harris, UAF SFOS (Team Leader)

Wendy Miles, Ketchikan

Talis Colberg, Mat-Su College

Larry Foster, UAA Mathematics Professor

Administration Team Members

59

AdministrationHire a skilled Chief Human Resources Officer


1. Consolidation of HR duties in one place

2. Strengthens UA System HR function to be a better resource for University HR departments

3. General Counsel’s Office will spend less time involved with collective bargaining and labor relations cases

4. Increased effectiveness of General Counsel’s Office ability to contribute value

5. Reduction in external legal costs

6. Reduction in individual workloads for HR Directors at each University

1. Historical tension between SW HR and University HR departments could be exacerbated if the CHRO is seen as directive rather than collaborative

2. Degree of collective bargaining and labor relations knowledge of new CHRO hire

3. Potential to increase overall costs to University if costs savings are not realized through General Counsel's increased effectiveness and reduced outside legal costs

1. Review CHRO job description to ensure it properly captures all knowledge and skill requirements

Recommendation

Employ a Chief Human Resources Officer with the ability to assume traditional HR responsibilities currently performed by the General Counsel.


R ESPONSIBLE

CHRO Hiring Committee

A CCOUNTABLE

CHRO Hiring Committee

CONSULTED

President, General Counsel,

University HR Directors

I NFORMED

System-wide Executives


X X

In addition to reducing the burden on legal counsel for matters related to employee relations, this position will provide strategic leadership for all HR offices across the UA System. Recent reductions in state funding will create an even greater need for a strong system-wide approach to handling all employee-related matters.

People

60

AdministrationMove public record requests


1. Reduction in redundant workload

2. Increased efficiency of responses

3. Early assessment of reputational risk or impact

4. Allows University Relations to have early access to potential issues

1. Fear of releasing wrong documents or not releasing in a timely manner

2. Additional workload placed on University Relations

3. Overemphasis on reputational issues vs. legal/compliance risks

1. Develop guidelines for responding to requests, and guidelines for escalating issues to General Counsel or others

2. Develop communication plan, including a communication loop

3. Redesign/realign website to communicate change

Recommendation

Assign the responsibility for responding to routine public records requests to University Relations.


R ESPONSIBLE

University Relations

A CCOUNTABLE

General Counsel’s Office

CONSULTED

Public Affairs

I NFORMED

UA System leadership,

University leaders, marketing/

communications department


X X

Matters that are not deemed or considered “routine public records requests” would continue to be managed

by the Office of General Counsel.

Governance

61

Administration Redesign contracting processes


1. Streamlined processes and reduced cycle time for managing/developing/ approving contracts

2. Standardized contract review process

3. Increased awareness of risks associated with contracts at individual University-level

4. Reduction of contracting costs by 10%-30%

1. Loss of knowledge 2. Loss of checks and

balance3. Universities may not

understand legal implications of nuanced contract terms

1. Develop boiler plate language

2. Develop a contract training module and provide proper resources

Recommendation

Redesign roles, responsibilities, processes and technology used to facilitate contracting processes.


The creation of a contracting instruments catalogue was introduced as a specific process redesign to gain

efficiencies and is tentatively targeted for implementation by July 1, 2017.

R ESPONSIBLE


A CCOUNTABLE


CONSULTED

Procurement, facilities, and risk

offices

I NFORMED

All employees with purchasing

power


X X X



62

AdministrationRetain the Associate Vice President for State Relations


1. Clear updates of happenings/activities in the Legislature to the UA system

2. Shared knowledge, continuity and back up for AVP State Relations

3. Retention of Historical data for research

4. Back-up support for AVPPublic Affairs & Federal Relations

1. University employees may not see benefit of the position due to budget restrictions and lost positions

1. Add additional duties such as assist/back up AVP Public Affairs and Federal Relations with Federal contact and communications

2. Retain all working papers, notes, contacts, and documents prior and current

3. Market this position to all employees

Recommendation

Retain the Associate Vice President for State Relations as a full-time position.


The current resource is considered to be strong and a meaningful asset. The University should consider

alternative approaches, including outsourcing, part-time role, etc., if the position becomes vacant.

R ESPONSIBLE

AVP for State Relations

A CCOUNTABLE

VP Strategic, Planning and

Budget

CONSULTED

AVP Public Affairs & Federal

Relations, System Executives,

President

I NFORMED

Board of Regents and

Management


X X

People

63

AdministrationReview and assess Institutional Research processes and policies


1. Enhanced efficienciesleading to cost savings

2. Delivery of Project Management’s value to the entire system versus

3. Efficient delivery of Board of Regents’ requests

4. Create data continuity and consistency across the system

1. Skewing of data, if Universities do not use the same parameters when pulling data

1. Review and assess of operational process and services

2. Develop guidelinesdocuments prior and current

3. Review, assess and update current systems, tools and training

4. Review, assess and evaluate transferring "Project Management" from Universal Technologies to UA System Institutional Research

Recommendation

Conduct a detailed review and assessment of Institutional Research processes, policies, practices, structures, tools, systems, and training and explore opportunities to gain efficiencies and potential cost savings.


R ESPONSIBLE

UA System Institutional Research

A CCOUNTABLE

UA System Institutional Research

CONSULTED

University Institutional Research

offices and Universal Technologies

Offices; UA System Strategy,

Planning, and Budget Office

I NFORMED

All employees requesting

Institutional Research services


X X X X

The review should be conducted system-wide with the participation of all Institutional Research offices. In order to gain efficiencies and potential cost savings, it is further recommended that data deficiencies and inconsistencies be identified, prioritized, and have a corrective action plan established.



64

AdministrationCreate a long-term Land Management strategy


1. Potential to generate additional revenue

2. Clarity of purpose3. Alignment to institutional

goals and objectives

1. Short-sighted strategy could waste limited land resources

1. Develop cost-benefit analysis of land strategy options

Recommendation

Create a long-term land management strategy for the University.


The team believes that value will be created by having a long range strategic view and plan relative to the

use of University owned or controlled land resources.

R ESPONSIBLE

Director of Land Management

A CCOUNTABLE

Director of Land Management

CONSULTED

Strategy, Planning, and Budget

Office, President, individual

Universities

I NFORMED

Board of Regents


X X X X

Strategy

65

AdministrationReview process for issuing land permits


1. Reduction in processing timelines at UA, state and federal levels

2. Supports compliance with state, federal and local regulations

3. Partnering with outside agencies may provide benefits that include a better understanding of research, development of relationships

4. Potentially saves .5 FTE across the system after a blanket contract is in place

5. Lower frustration levels

1. Streamlining the process could result in non-compliance if reviews are reduced or eliminated

2. Fines3. Potential long-term and

expensive clean up4. If the change is not

supported by the users, some users may decide to operate outside the system

5. DNR and UA System Office may not be able to reach an agreement suitable to both parties

1. Review analysis and report completed by the Land IT team

2. Education of users and reviewers on the updated process

Recommendation

Determine the most effective and efficient process and location for issuing and administering land permits

consistent with the soon to be developed analysis and process improvement report.


VP for UA Relations has contacted DNR to begin the process.

R ESPONSIBLE

Project Steering Committee (VP

Michelle Rizk and UAF VCR

Larry Hinzman)

A CCOUNTABLE

Project Steering Committee

CONSULTED

VC of Research, Researchers,

Admins associated with research

grants/permits, EHSRM, Legal

I NFORMED

Chancellors of each University


X



66

AdministrationCreate a business center model for the UA System Office


1. Creates a clear expectation thatadministrative/ transactional duties are shared across departments

2. Cross-training reduces knowledge loss

3. Provides robust support within department

4. Alleviates potential back up workload falling on one staff member

1. Potential that some departments may choose the same back-up staff

2. Increase in organization coding errors, as the back-ups would have a larger pool of organizations

3. Potential to reduce output of department function duties and responsibilities

1. Formalize the existing administrative support back-ups as a team with formal title

2. Create guidelines and expectations for the back-up process

3. Place lists of back-upadmins on Controller web site

4. Review and add back-up duties to Job Descriptions

5. Retain all back-ups within their respective departments

Recommendation

Explore and develop opportunities for creating a place-based business center model to formalize support

backup and to address transactional needs of the UA System office.


R ESPONSIBLE

Controller’s Office, Statewide

Executives and Supervisors

A CCOUNTABLE

UA System Executives

CONSULTED

Supervisors of administrative

support staff

I NFORMED

Staff


X X

This recommendation is limited to administrative resources working within UA System offices.

Strategy

67

AdministrationFill vacant Chief Risk Officer position


1. Direct control of responsibilities/decisions

2. Provides the leadershipnecessary for toughpolicy decisions

3. Provides additional support to UAA, UAF and UAS to develop EHSRM policies

4. Reduces the need for additional development and management of training

5. Cost savings associated with EHS position eliminations

1. Less personnel to share the workload

2. Potential for knowledge loss

1. Change direct report from General Counsel to President

2. Review and assess CRO job description to align with the management and operation of Risk strategies

3. Create policy that requires SW employees to take safety training at their physical locations

4. Retain current admin staff as part of the backup team to support ChiefRisk Officer and Business Continuity Manager

Recommendation

Fill the role of Chief Risk Officer for the University of Alaska, which will report to the President.


R ESPONSIBLE

President’s Office and Human

Resources

A CCOUNTABLE

President’s Office

CONSULTED

General Counsel, Chancellors,

University EHSRM Directors,

UA System Executives

I NFORMED

Board of Regents, UA System

employees


X X

Filling this position will allow for the elimination of the two UA System EH&S positions and will support a

more effective risk management strategy going forward.

People

68

AdministrationUse the UA System Emergency Manager for business continuity


1. Business continuity for all Universities and campuses

1. Lack of sufficient input during development

1. Review and assess Emergency Manager’s job description to clearly align with the management and implementation of a continuity plan

2. Provide a technical person for support that is shared with the Chief Risk Officer

Recommendation

Use the SW Emergency Manager for Business Continuity purposes.


Align this position to report to the President. Practices and operations of continuity plan will be delegated to

the Universities and campuses. (i.e. no single person will be entirely responsible for business continuity for

the University system).

R ESPONSIBLE

Business Continuity Manager

and Chief Risk Officer

A CCOUNTABLE

Business Continuity Manager

CONSULTED

Chancellors, Vice Chancellor for

Academic Services, Vice

Chancellors for Research,

Provost

I NFORMED

Board of Regents, HRM A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

X X X X

Governance

69

AdministrationEliminate UA System EH&S positions


1. Ensures there is someone on the ground to plan for and respond to events on campus

2. Assists with Risk coordination,correspondence, contracts, and finances

3. Reduces each University’s financial allocation obligation of UA System Risk

4. Knowledge sharing could provide efficiencies for managing individual Universities’ issues

5. Cost savings

1. Meetings do not occur 1. Terminate all UA System EHS and EM positions, as responsibilities and operations will be assumed by eachUniversity

2. Assist and support terminated staff in transferring to vacant positions

3. Appoint a team leader from the University EHSDirectors to coordinate and lead the meetings

Recommendation

Eliminate the two UA System EH&S positions.


This recommendation will allow for cost savings and more effective localized risk strategies. EH&S campus

Directors will meet on a regular basis to discuss EHS issues.

R ESPONSIBLE

Interim Chief Risk Officer

A CCOUNTABLE

Interim Chief Risk Officer

CONSULTED

President, Chancellors

I NFORMED

Human Resources, Risk staff


X X

People

70

AdministrationMove responsibility for managing insurance claims to Finance & Administration


1. Aligns with Finance function

2. May provide additional job advancement and cross-training opportunities

1. Claims information to Chief Risk Officer could be delayed

1. Move all insurance claims (both workers and non-workers compensation claims) to Finance

2. Ensure that claims information is provided to the Chief Risk Officer for risk assessment

Recommendation

Workers and non-workers compensation insurance claims should be managed by Finance and

Administration.


This consolidation should lead to cost savings by reducing staff resource needs in the future.

R ESPONSIBLE

Chief Risk Officer, Chief

Financial Officer

A CCOUNTABLE

Chief Financial Officer

CONSULTED

Finance department and Risk

Services

I NFORMED

Human Resources and Risk

Services


X X X X

Governance

71

Appendix








72

The Finance Team was tasked with reviewing the Transformation Team’s recommendations and further developing recommendations regarding the UA System and individual Universities

The team was composed of members from the following functional areas:

Controller

Finance & Investment Management

College Savings Plan

Procurement

Cash Management

Audit

Records

Included in team’s discussions were recommendations regarding:

Operational Efficiencies and Process Redesign

Strategy

People

Governance

Finance Team Scope

73

Tammi Weaver, SW Finance

Tanya Hollis, SW Finance

Myron Dosch, SW Finance – Controller (Co-Team Leader)

Dave Read, UAF GI Business Manager

Roxy Felkl, UAS Budget Director

Jodi VanKirk, UAS General Ledger

Sandi Culver, UAA Financial Service (Co-Team Leader)

Soren Orley, UAA Accounting Professor

Finance Team Members

74

FinanceRedesign financial reporting processes


1. Increased efficiency,

standardization, and

reliability of data

2. Improved access to data

3. Streamlined reporting

4. Improved distribution of

processes and roles

5. Elimination of shadow

systems

1. Insufficient resources

provided to fully address

the needs

2. Reporting gaps during

transition period

1. Identify reporting needs

and reports that can be

standardized

2. Create standardized

reports, where feasible

3. Develop a plan that

leverages technology to

improve the reporting and

financial analysis

capabilities, including a

comprehensive

assessment of various

tools and technology

available, such as an

appropriate data

warehouse systems

4. Develop training for

report automation

Recommendation

Redesign financial reporting system, process, structures, roles, and responsibilities.


Please see next slide.

RESPONSIBLE

Controller, AVC’s, Banner

governance group

ACCOUNTABLE

Controller

CONSULTED

Banner finance users, SW

Financial Systems, Universal

Technologies, Ellucian

I NFORMED

Banner finance users





75

FinanceRedesign financial reporting processes continued

Recommendation

Redesign financial reporting system, process, structures, roles, and responsibilities.


This recommendation was considered to be of the highest priority and necessary to support

systemic transformational change.

Some members of the Finance Team have strongly indicated that the Banner redesign will likely need to

involve more than a few minor changes. In order to properly redesign Banner, a significant, one-time

investment will be required. This is necessary due to over-customization in the past, leading to a lack of

uniform standard practices. Upon completion, comprehensive financial data will be available at the

operational level, to the point where each University and campus will have the capability of producing their

own full financial data.

Other members of the Finance Team have indicated that the Banner redesign may be smaller in nature, but

these team members have acknowledged that the redesign may, indeed, require substantial investment.



76

Finance Develop a Banner Training Plan


1. More effective and

efficient use of staff time

2. More reliable data

3. Consistency in

applications

4. Full utilization of Banner

functionality

5. Reduction in processing

times and error rates

6. "Train the Trainer" model

will be more cost effective

and will provide a closer

point of contact

1. Insufficient funding

available to trainers

2. Developing inconsistent

training standards

1. Identify specific training

needs

2. Fill vacant positions and

evaluate need for

additional positions

dedicated to training

3. Develop “Train the

Trainer” plan, which will

exist at the SW Office,

and University training

schedules

Recommendation

Develop a plan to enhance training on Banner, financial systems, and processes.


In conjunction with the Banner redesign recommendation, it will be critical to develop a training program and

standardized system-wide processes to fully leverage the new Banner ERP configuration.

R ESPONSIBLE

Controller, AVC’s, UA System

Financial Services

A CCOUNTABLE

Controller

CONSULTED

Vice President of Finance and

Administration, President,

Deans and Directors of Major

Budget Units

I NFORMED

Vice Chancellor of Administrative

Services, Provosts


X X X Strategy

77

FinanceCreate a technology governance structure


1. Enhanced prioritization

and more effective use of

resources

2. Increased accountability

3. Improved decision

making process

4. Broader understanding

of key decisions

5. Chaos reduction

None identified 1. Establish an IT

governance group that

has a broad

representation from user

group, business process

owners, etc.

2. Establish a group charter

defining roles,

responsibilities and scope

in consideration of

Ellucian

recommendations

Recommendation

Create and implement a comprehensive technology governance structure that establishes

system/technology strategies, resources, and management oversight policies for the future.


The team recognizes that the technology team will advance this objective but wants to emphasize the

importance of having a clear and rational technology governance structure.

R ESPONSIBLE


Administration

A CCOUNTABLE


Administration

CONSULTED

VCAS, President, Chief

Information Technology Officer

I NFORMED

Finance and IT communities


X X X Governance

78


1. Clarity in roles and

responsibilities

None identified 1. Confirm that Records

Management functions

best resides in Finance

and Administration for

strategic alignment

Recommendation

Confirm that Records Management policies and compliance (student, HR, finance, etc.) should remain within

Finance and Administration.


R ESPONSIBLE


Administration

A CCOUNTABLE


Administration

CONSULTED

President, Records

Management Director

I NFORMED

System-wide communityM A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

X X X

FinanceConfirm Records Management location within Finance & Administration

Governance

79

FinanceConfirm OnBase location


Recommendation

There are alternative views relative OnBase governance. One view is to maintain the oversight and

management of OnBase within UA System Finance and Administration. A second view is to delegate

responsibility for oversight and management of OnBase to the individual Universities. The Team could not

reach agreement on this recommendation.


R ESPONSIBLE

A CCOUNTABLE

CONSULTED

I NFORMED


X X X

Team leaders are prepared to outline the benefits and risks of the alternative approaches and share their

perspectives with the President or his designee.

Governance

80

FinanceCharge the PCI governance committee to define processes


1. Improved understanding

of risk and implications of

noncompliance

2. Mitigated risk of

noncompliance with PII,

PCI, red flag, etc.

None identified 1. Consider the need for a

dedicated Compliance

Officer position

responsible for PCI, red

flag, OFAC and other

related regulations

2. To the degree that it is

determined a need for a

Compliance Officer,

decide where Compliance

Officer best resides for

strategic alignment

Recommendation

Charge the PCI governance committee to define policies, strategies, roles, processes, and systems that will

add value to the PCI administration and reduce institutional risk.


The time commitment for PCI responsibilities is considerable.

R ESPONSIBLE


Administration, PCI governance

committee leader

A CCOUNTABLE

PCI governance committee

leader

CONSULTED

Records Management manager,

Controller, PCI committee

I NFORMED

University finance staff


X X XOperational Efficiencies


81

FinanceDevelop University and Foundation investment strategy


1. Decreases the risk of

noncompliance with

investment policies and

regulations

2. Maintains confidence in

stewardship of financial

resources

None identified 1. Analyze management

needs within acceptable

risk levels for oversight

and due diligence of UA

and Foundation

investment portfolios

Recommendation

Analyze level of management needed for development and oversight of prudent University and Foundation

investment strategy.


This recommendation was developed by the Transformation Team and is endorsed here.

R ESPONSIBLE

Chief Treasury Officer /

Foundation Treasurer

A CCOUNTABLE

Chief Treasury Officer /

Foundation Treasurer

CONSULTED

Foundation Investment

Committee, UA CFO, Chief

Investment Officer

I NFORMED

UA President, Foundation

President


X X X

Strategy

82

FinanceDevelop Succession planning within Finance and Investing


1. Mitigated risk of

knowledge loss

None identified 1. Develop succession plan

for key functions

2. Develop plan to increase

expertise and knowledge

base among existing

personnel

Recommendation

Develop comprehensive succession plans to mitigate risk of knowledge loss.


Succession planning is under recognized and failure to plan for the future places the University at great risk

of losing critical intellectual capital.

R ESPONSIBLE

Chief Treasury Officer

A CCOUNTABLE

Chief Treasury Officer

CONSULTED


Administration, Foundation

Investment Committee, Chief

Investment Officer

I NFORMED

UA President, Foundation

President


X X X X X X X X X X

Strategy

83

FinanceDevelop a procurement strategy


1. Clarification of roles &

responsibilities

2. Cost savings across the

UA System

1. If Chief Procurement

Officer is moved to a

University, the University

may not establish a high

priority for system-wide

responsibilities

1. Assess potential cost

savings through

enhanced procurement

practices

2. Evaluate best

organizational structure

for efficiencies, cost

savings and alignment of

procurement functions

across the UA System

2. Develop a plan for

moving the effort forward

Recommendation

Convene a team of procurement and other leaders to evaluate the Jim Lynch reorganization recommendations;

develop a procurement strategy and plan that defines a future vision for procurement and that defines roles,

responsibilities, structures, systems, and processes for the delivery of procurement services across the University.


Other universities and systems that have embarked on similar efforts have realized tremendous cost savings

through leveraged buying, eProcurement strategies and systems, and other leading procurement practices.

R ESPONSIBLE

Interim Chief Procurement Officer

A CCOUNTABLE


CONSULTED

University procurement directors,

University Construction Division

heads, VCASs, Vice President

Finance and Administration

I NFORMED

University and external

procurement community, VP

Budget and Planning


X X X X X X X X X X X X

Strategy

84

FinanceDevelop adjudication process for procurement disputes


1. Clarification of roles &

responsibilities

None identified 1. Document procurement

adjudication process

Recommendation

Develop an appropriate procurement adjudication process, and identify a UA System Office resource to

adjudicate procurement disputes.


R ESPONSIBLE


A CCOUNTABLE


CONSULTED

General Counsel, Vice President

of Finance and Administration

I NFORMED

University procurement offices


X X X Operational Efficiencies


85

FinanceRetain existing structure for College Savings Plan and Scholars Plan


1. Best alignment of

expertise and capacity

None identified None identified

Recommendation

Retain existing organization structures and reporting lines for the administration of the College Savings Plan

and UA Scholars Program.


R ESPONSIBLE

None identified

A CCOUNTABLE

None identified

CONSULTED

None identified

I NFORMED

None identified


X Governance

86

FinanceContinue to route Anonymous hotline to Audit


1. Best professional

capacity to administer

2. Independence

None identified None identified

Recommendation

Continue to route the Anonymous Hotline to Audit. Do not move to HR or elsewhere.


R ESPONSIBLE

None identified

A CCOUNTABLE

None identified

CONSULTED

None identified

I NFORMED

None identified

M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Governance

87

FinanceExamine current staff resource levels


1. Optimal staffing levels at

acceptable level of risk

2. Improved automation and

report design ultimately

requiring fewer resources

to manipulate data for

reporting requirements

3. Adequate resources to

meet the reporting needs

and University priorities

1. Insufficient funding

available to adequately

resource the risk

1. Make recommendation

for resource realignment

Recommendation

Examine current level of risk for some specific reporting functions and related staffing including effort/time

dedicated to some tasks – determine if UA System Office is over-resourcing some functions (or under-

resourcing).


R ESPONSIBLE

Controller

A CCOUNTABLE

Controller

CONSULTED

Statewide Transformation Team

I NFORMED


Administration, President


X X X


People

88

FinanceRefine Finance and Administration work to align with UA System Office


1. Better alignment of

resources

2. Economies of scale

3. Efficiencies in delivery

1. Function is not performed

well or diligently

2. Function is not prioritized

or funded at the

Universities

3. Possible loss of

consistency

1. Transition Banner

security access and

property reconciliation to

Universities

2. Review all operational

functions and transition

appropriate functions to

Universities

3. Transition spouse/

dependent tuition waiver

to Universities

Recommendation

Refine Finance and Administration work to align with governance/policy role of UA System Office, moving

operational functions to the Universities or other UA System offices where operational functions overlap.



R ESPONSIBLE

Controller

A CCOUNTABLE

Controller

CONSULTED


Administration, UA System

finance department heads,

University finance staff

I NFORMED

University and UA System

finance staff


X X X X X XStrategy

89

FinanceEvaluate number of senior leadership positions


1. Optimal organizational

structure

2. Potential cost savings

1. Overburden leadership

2. Loss of institutional

history and depth

1. Identify senior leadership

positions and possible

restructuring

Recommendation

Evaluate the number of senior leadership positions.


R ESPONSIBLE


Administration

A CCOUNTABLE


Administration

CONSULTED

President, VCAS

I NFORMED

UA System Finance and

Administration community


X X X X


People

90

Appendix








91

The Human Resources Team was tasked with further developing recommendations regarding the UA System Human Resources unit and those at the Universities


UAF & UA System Services Reorganization

Gaining Economies of Scale

Redefining Human Resources Strategies

Clarifying Responsibilities for Labor Relations

Exploring Operational Efficiencies and Cost Savings

Reviewing HR Systems

Ensuring support from OIT

Employee and Student Payroll

Reviewing Compensation/Classification and Recruitment Practices, as well as Benefits Management, Plan Design, and Communication

Developing a plan for training at UA System and University levels

Encouraging Cultural Change to Support the UA System’s Mission

Human Resources Team Scope

92

Matt Cooper, SW Legal Counsel

Tara Ferguson, Compensation Director, SW Human Resources (Team Leader)

Brad Lobland, Director, UAF Human Resources

Margo Griffith, Sr. Consultant, UAF Human Resources

Gail Cheney, Director, UAS Human Resources

Nicole Rogers, Sitka Human Resources

Ron Kamahele, Director, UAA Human Resource Services

John Dede, Special Assistant to the Senior Vice Provost, UAA

Human Resources Team Members

93

Human ResourcesRedesign Key HR Processes and Transactions


1. Significant cost savings in

staff required to support

manual processes (HR

and University

departmental staff)

2. Reduce bottlenecks and

bureaucratic processes

3. Reduce costly errors (as

high as 90%) and

reworks

4. Reduce number of

unnecessary policies and

regulations that inhibit

effective and efficient

processes

5. Improved service levels

6. Economies of scale

1. Potential cost of

automation

1. Quantify cost of University FTEs

currently supporting manual HR

Processes

2. Establish a process to audit

processes, workflows, policies

and regulations

3. Form a cross-University task

force to guide effort

4. Assess and modify authority level

requirements

5. Leverage UA technology and

automation solutions

6. Map processes and workflows

7. Identify technology solutions

8. Redesign/reengineer workflows

and process

9. Ensure proper investment,

technology support, and

alignment with all functional areas

Recommendation

Launch a comprehensive effort to redesign and automate key HR processes and transactions.


This recommendation is critical to reducing overall cost structures, gaining efficiencies, and creating capacity for HR staff to

shift its focus to more value-added, strategic and consultative HR services. Processes should include employment/job

change status and time /attendance.


X X

R ESPONSIBLE

UA System Leadership, UT, HR

A CCOUNTABLE

UA System Leadership, UT, HR

CONSULTED

University HR staff, Others

impacted by changes

I NFORMED

University HR staff, Others

impacted by changes



94

Human ResourcesEstablish a culture of trust and collaboration


1. Higher levels of

collaboration and

coordination

2. Improved overall

performance of HR

function

3. Reduced silos

1. Establish a formal HR council

structure that includes directors and

UA System officers/CHRO to lead

effort

2. Elevate levels of trust in University HR

leaders and staff

3. Shift perception of UA System HR

from controller to collaborator

4. Reduce silos

5. Address restrictive culture of heavy

compliance and assess risk tolerance

6. Establish mechanisms for effective

two way communication

7. Review and revise regulations to

ensure clarity on various HR roles and

responsibilities

8. Ensure role clarity and accountability

for all involved (UA System &

University)

Recommendation

Establish a culture of trust and collaboration between UA System HR and University HR functions.


R ESPONSIBLE

UA System and University HR

leaders; HR Council

ACCOUNTABLE


leaders; HR Council

CONSULTED

UA System and University

Human Resources

I NFORMED


Human Resources


X X

Culture

95

Human ResourcesShift UA System to a Strategic Advisory Role


1. Free up capacity of UA

System HR to focus on

strategic/consultative

functions

2. Enhanced services to

Universities

3. Reduced duplication of

manual transactional

activities across the

system

1. Universities absorb too

many HR responsibilities

without sufficient

resources/staffing

1. Clearly define mission,

vision, and strategic

objectives for HR

2. Clearly define HR roles

across the system

3. Educate leaders, faculty

and staff across the

system on what HR does

4. Shift core functions to

Universities and redesign

and automate core HR

processes (see specific

recommendations)

Recommendation

Shift UA System focus from transactional HR to a strategic advisory role responsible providing value-added

services.


Online recruiting platform is already underway. Some of the transactional automations have already begun.

R ESPONSIBLE

UA System HR

A CCOUNTABLE

UA System HR

CONSULTED

UA System HR, UA System

leaders, and University HR

I NFORMED

University HR and overall faculty

and staff


X X X X

Strategy

96

Human ResourcesInventory Strengths and Best Practices, Leverage Experts


1. Reduction of duplicate

efforts

2. Sharing and adoption of

best ideas and practices

across the system

1. University & UA System

HR Directors conduct an

inventory of best

practices

2. Council to identify

process to gather and

share practices,

approaches, and

programs

Recommendation

Inventory strengths and best practices across the system. Triage HR issues at the University level and

leverage experts across the system.



X X

R ESPONSIBLE


leaders; HR Council

A CCOUNTABLE


leaders; HR Council

CONSULTED


Human Resources

I NFORMED


Human Resources



97

Human ResourcesDevelop a self-service system for key HR transactions


1. Gain efficiencies of HR

staff

2. Faster and more efficient

service for employees

3. Increased capacity of HR

and University staff (FTEs)

4. Reduced lost paperwork

5. Shorten time delays in

providing information to

insurance company

6. Reduced duplication

7. Consistency in processing

transactions

8. Establishes a common

employee data set

1. Potential cost of self-

service technology

1. Assess and identify

technology solutions

2. Leverage UA technology

solutions where possible

Recommendation

Develop a self-service system for key HR transactions.



X X

Opportunities include benefit elections, open enrollment, changes in life events, beneficiary information,

training enrollment (PageUp), and others.

R ESPONSIBLE

UA System Leadership, UT,

HR/HR Council

A CCOUNTABLE

UA System Leadership, UT,

HR/HR Council

CONSULTED

University HR staff, others

impacted by changes

I NFORMED


impacted by changes



98

Human ResourcesExplore outsourcing options


1. Reduced costs

2. Gain in process

efficiencies

3. Increased capacity of HR

staff (FTEs)

4. Consistency in

processing transactions

5. Reduced liability

6. Reduced error rates in

transactions

1. Outsourcing may be

more costly

1. Identify potential

providers

2. Analyze costs

3. Ensure effective

communication with

Council and HR Directors

Recommendation

Explore outsourcing of some HR processes/transactions.


Opportunities include FMLA, tax accounting (international & out-of-state), employment verification, Sikuliaq,

and others.


X X X

R ESPONSIBLE

UA System leadership; Subject

Matter Experts (short-term task

forces)

A CCOUNTABLE



forces)

CONSULTED


impacted by changes

I NFORMED

Council, HR Directors, Human

Resources, others impacted by

changes



99

Human ResourcesEnsure Effective Implementation of Recommendations


1. Realization of cost

savings and efficiencies

2. Improved HR structure

and services

1. Cost of implementing

recommendations

1. Identify and commit to

needed investments in

automation and

technology

2. Ensure accountabilities

for implementation and

follow through

3. Engage an external

partner to support and

guide implementation

phase

4. Provide regular project

status updates

Recommendation

Ensure follow though and implementation of Team’s recommendations in next phase of planning.


Previous planning efforts have lacked sufficient follow through and implementation of changes. The Team

believes effective implementation is critical to success.


X X X X X X X

R ESPONSIBLE

UA System senior leadership

A CCOUNTABLE

UA System senior and HR

leadership

CONSULTED

Human Resources; HR STT

Members

I NFORMED

Human resources; HR STT

Members

Strategy


UA System Transformation Team Recommendations

Original Recommendations

University of Alaska

101

Human ResourcesMaintain HR Reporting Structure


1. Structure could prevent HR

from evolving and becoming a

strategic HR organization

2. Potential reduction of HR focus

on value-added HR services,

people and culture; too much

emphasis on transactional/

administrative HR, processes,

and compliance (Risk of

workforce being managed as a

financial commodity vs. a

people and culture-oriented

function)

3. Potential loss of HR voice and

influence at UA System

leadership level

4. Further negative impact on HR

morale

1. Complete pending searches

2. Finalize structure

Recommendation

Consider moving HR under FA as this is an administrative function. If moved, consider appropriate level for current Chief Human Resource Officer (CHRO) position. If not moved, streamline with a policy-level focus.

Team Considerations

The Team disagrees with this recommendation, and believes that the moving HR under Finance will reinforce the perception that HR is an administrative, not a strategic function. If HR is moved under the Finance function, the team believes the ability for HR to become a strategic function must somehow be preserved.


X X

R ESPONSIBLE

UA System leadership

A CCOUNTABLE


CONSULTED

Human Resources; University

Employees

I NFORMED

Human Resources; University

Employees

Governance

102

Human ResourcesMaintain policy-related functions across the system, Keep Labor Relations at UA System Office


1. Greater alignment of LR

strategies and activities

to broader HR vision and

strategies

1. Establish process to

ensure University input

into the bargaining

process

2. Assess risk tolerance and

modify as appropriate

3. HR council will help to

ensure strong policies

that are consistent across

the system

Recommendation

Maintain those functions that are policy-related or require consistency across the system (e.g. labor negotiations, job family structure/market analysis, compensation, health benefits). Ensure Labor Relations function remains in State Wide Human Resources, rather than in General Counsel.

Team Considerations


X X X

Team agrees, with some modifications. The team recommends that recruitment policies, system data,

system maintenance, training and shared resources be added to the list. The team also recommends that

labor negotiations be changed to ‘labor relations’.

R ESPONSIBLE

UA System leadership; Human

Resources

A CCOUNTABLE

UA System leadership; Human

Resources

CONSULTED

University HR

I NFORMED

University HR

Governance

103

Human ResourcesMove most operational HR Services to the Universities


1. Potential efficiencies and

cost savings (reduce

duplication)

2. More streamlined

services across the

system

1. Could result in

inconsistent

administration of

programs and policies

2. May result in diminished

sense of affiliation with

the system office/team

1. If implemented, the

team’s technology

recommendations would

reduce operational HR

services

Recommendation

Universities can provide operational HR services for UA System staff located in their operating areas (Recruitment and Onboarding transactions, data entry).



X X X

There was broad team consensus agreeing with this recommendation, but not complete agreement across

the team. Ensure that a review of Orientation processes occurs separately, given that it is not strictly

operational/transactional and is a “high touch” HR service.

R ESPONSIBLE


A CCOUNTABLE


CONSULTED


I NFORMED

HR staff and broader faculty and

staff

Governance

104

Human ResourcesMaintain role as custodian of data definitions


1. Allow HR access to the

data it needs

1. Inability to get the data

that HR needs

1. Confirm roles and

responsibilities for data

definitions

Recommendation

Maintain a role as custodian of UA HR institutional data definitions; however, discussion is needed regarding who holds responsibility for data integrity and data definitions –is it at UA System, the universities, or shared in an equal partnership?

Team Considerations

Team believes that HR should have responsibility for data definitions. This becomes increasingly important

as recommendations for automation are considered.


X X

R ESPONSIBLE

UA System leadership, HR

Council

A CCOUNTABLE

UA System leadership, HR

Council

CONSULTED

UA System HR, UA System UT

I NFORMED

UA System HR, UA System UT

Governance

105

Human ResourcesTransition Enterprise Management Operations to Universal Technologies, Ensure Collaboration with Universal Technologies


1. Cost Savings


services/streamlined

technology services

3. Improved consistency

1. Tables are highly

specialized and require

HR knowledge

2. HR may get lost in the

system when requesting

services if knowledge and

understanding of HR is

insufficient

1. Maintain knowledge resource in HR

(i.e. tables)

2. Establish HR analytics reporting

and dashboards

3. Ensure HR component as part of

the Enterprise Management Team

5. Leverage UA databases and

systems across all Universities

where possible

6. Ensure HR analytics tools and

capabilities

7. Ensure a strong partnership exists

between universities and Statewide

HR/UT

8. Define UT governance structure

and approach

Recommendation

Transition enterprise management operations to OIT and project management and system enhancements access/controls to the universities, with UA System HR serving as a collaborative partner rather than a system or data owner. Support for this recommendation is contingent upon addressing the risks and concerns outlined below.

Team Considerations

Updated with Benefits/Risks/Actions below. A sufficient level of competency, knowledge and understanding of HR must be ensured in UT in order for this recommendations to be successful.


X X

R ESPONSIBLE

CHRO and HR Directors/HR

Council; UT

A CCOUNTABLE

System Wide Leadership;

CHRO and HR Directors; UT

CONSULTED

UT and Human Resources

Leaders

I NFORMED

UT and Human Resources Staff

Governance

106

Human ResourcesMove Banner security and access management to Universities and UT


1. Build flexibility

2. Cost Savings

3. Reduced licensing costs

4. Easier access to data

5. Reduce duplication of

efforts and data

1. HR may get lost in the

system when requesting

services

1. Maintain knowledge

resource in HR (Tables)

2. Establish HR analytics

reporting and dashboards

3. Make HR part of the

Enterprise Management

Team

4. Leverage UA databases

and systems across all

Universities where

possible

Recommendation

Move Banner/other HR system security and access management to the universities and OIT. Coordination and collaboration among the three universities and UA System should be used to manage this. Support for this recommendation is contingent upon addressing the issues outlined below.

Team Considerations

Updated with Benefits/Risks/Actions below. A sufficient level of competency, knowledge and understanding of HR must be ensured in UT in order for this recommendations to be successful.


X X

R ESPONSIBLE

CHRO and HR Directors/HR

Council; UT

A CCOUNTABLE

System Wide Leadership;

CHRO and HR Directors

(Council); UT

CONSULTED

UT and Human Resources

Leaders

I NFORMED

UT and Human Resources Staff

Governance

107

Human ResourcesAnalyze manual processes to determine feasibility for moving payroll to the universities


1. Based on size,

outsourcing of payroll

would be costly

2. Even if outsourced, would

still need subject matter

experts to answer

questions and deal with

manual processes/

exceptions

* See Team’s

recommendation on

process redesign

Recommendation

Move Employee and Student Payroll to universities or consider outsourcing.

Team Considerations

Prior to moving to universities, manual processes/exceptions should be analyzed to determine feasibility and potential for automation. Remove “consider outsourcing” from initial recommendation, as this was determined not cost effective.


X X

R ESPONSIBLE


Human Resources

A CCOUNTABLE


Human Resources

CONSULTED

UA System and Universities

Leadership

I NFORMED


Staff

Governance

108

Human ResourcesMove UA tax accounting to Finance Function


1. Unclear *See Team’s

recommendations on

broader process redesign

and outsourcing in previous

section

Recommendation

Move UA tax accounting for out-of-state and international students and employees to FA.

Team Consideration

This recommendation as constructed by the STT may simply result in cost shifting.


X X X

R ESPONSIBLE



forces)

A CCOUNTABLE



forces)

CONSULTED


impacted by changed

I NFORMED

Council, HR Directors, Human

Resources

Governance

109

Human ResourcesMaintain oversight for classification and compensation at UA System


1. HR Council to help lead

and provide clarity where

needed for roles and

authorities, reviewing

regulations

Recommendation

Maintain oversight role for classification and compensation at UA System, but work to improve transparency

to foster equity and consistency across the system.

Team Consideration


X X

Team agrees.

R ESPONSIBLE

UA System HR, Universities HR,

HR Council

A CCOUNTABLE

UA System HR, Universities HR,

HR Council

CONSULTED

Broader Human Resources Staff

(Both UA System and

Universities)

I NFORMED

Broader Human Resources Staff

(Both UA System and

Universities)

Governance

110

Human ResourcesRegularly assess compensation and conduct market analyses


1. Enhanced consistency in

compensation practices

2. Greater alignment of

compensation planning

and philosophy to

broader HR strategies

1. Identify process

2. Develop an approach to

share job descriptions

across Universities

3. Utilize a systematic

method to ensure

consistency (analytics)

Recommendation

Regularly review compensation across job families and between universities including criteria for determining placing executive and senior administrative staff, and conduct market analyses on a scheduled interval, providing this information to the President and the universities.

Team Considerations

Team agrees.


X X X

R ESPONSIBLE

CHRO and HR Council, UA

System HR

A CCOUNTABLE

CHRO and HR Council, UA

System HR

CONSULTED


Leadership

I NFORMED


Staff

People

111

Human ResourcesUtilize collaborative hiring with Universities and UA System


This is already being done

Recommendation

Consider collaborative hiring—involve university staff on hiring committees for UA System positions, this may

increase awareness of services/needs across university boundaries and build relationships.

Team Considerations


Team agrees.

R ESPONSIBLE

A CCOUNTABLE

CONSULTED

I NFORMED

People

112

Human ResourcesMove recruitment functions to the Universities


1. May help to reduce siloes2. Free up some resources

at UA System3. Gain efficiencies and

reduce duplication

1. Potential loss of employee affiliation with UA System

1. UA System senior leadership to decide next steps

Recommendation

Move recruitment functions to universities with each university providing recruitment support to UA System

departments in their geographic area.

Team Considerations

F M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

X X X

The team had broad consensus in support of this recommendations but not complete agreement.

R ESPONSIBLE


A CCOUNTABLE


CONSULTED


I NFORMED

HR staff and broader faculty and

staff

Governance

113

Human ResourcesMaintain Benefits Management, Plan Design, and Communication at UA System Office


1. Consistency across the system

1. Structure could prevent HR from evolving and becoming a strategic HR organization

2. Potential reduction of HR focus on value-added HR services, people and culture; too much emphasis on transactional/administrative HR, processes, and compliance (Risk of workforce being managed as a financial commodity vs. a people and culture-oriented function)

3. Potential loss of HR voice and influence at UA System leadership level

4. Further negative impact on HR morale

1. Determine structure for UA System HR

2. Ensure collaboration between HR Council/CHRO and the Joint Healthcare Committee

Recommendation

Maintain responsibility for health insurance, wellness program, benefit accounting, supplemental benefits design/procurement, and retirement compliance at UA System, but consider moving to FA.If maintained in a standalone HR department, look for opportunities to streamline.

Team Considerations

Team disagrees with moving to FA, but agrees with maintaining at UA System. The Team recommends focusing on broader HR process improvement, rather than streamlining or moving.


X X X

R ESPONSIBLE

HR Council; CHRO

A CCOUNTABLE

HR Council; CHRO

CONSULTED

University HR Leaders

I NFORMED


Human Resources Staff

Governance

114

Human ResourcesPartner with Universities for required training, with only subject matter training at UA System as needed


1. Reduced cost2. Reduced duplication with

University training efforts

1. Transition remainingcentral training functions

Recommendation

Eliminate function from UA System and partner with universities for needed training.

Team Considerations

The Team agrees with this recommendation and believes UA System should provide subject matter training in specific areas by HR staff members in those individual departments as needed, but that a dedicated UA System training function or office is not needed.


X X X

R ESPONSIBLE


A CCOUNTABLE


CONSULTED

UA System HR Staff

I NFORMED

UA System and Universities HR

Staff

Governance

115

Human ResourcesDevelop standard curriculum across the system


1. Cost savings and

efficiencies

May be addressed by

PageUp

1. If items are not

addressed by PageUp,

ensure that Team’s

recommendation to

inventory and leverage

best practices/expertise

across system is utilized

Recommendation

If system standardization is required for particular curriculum, use staff at a lead university to develop. Agreement will be needed among universities to adhere to this standard and track employee training in a consistent (preferably automated) manner.

Team Considerations


X X X

Team agrees—PageUp may solve this issue.

R ESPONSIBLE

HR & UA System Directors;

CHRO

ACCOUNTABLE

HR & UA System Directors;

CHRO

CONSULTED

UA System HR Staff

I NFORMED

UA System and Universities HR

Staff



116

As an action item in the “Redesign Key HR Processes and Transactions” recommendation, the team recommends that cost-savings be quantified in order to serve as a case for change for automation of certain processes. The following is a draft example of cost-savings projections from an automation of a manual process. This is a high level review of a single process, and could be used as an example for projecting cost-savings of similar manual processes.

This brief analysis is a case study of the benefit of automating personnel actions. There are many personnel actions which are transacted using the paper-based job form. Despite many hours devoted to training of staff in departments whose job it is to fill out job forms, it is still a time-consuming and error-prone means of conducting business. The Contract Extension (CONX) was selected for this analysis because it’s among the highest frequency of all personnel action types and is a relatively simple action.

Our experience tells us that automated personnel actions, foremost being Web Time Entry, results in error rate and processing time decrease. The aim of this analysis is to quantify and project cost savings derived from automating a typical personnel action.

HR Automation Costing Example

117

CONX = Contract Extension

The Contract Extension transaction is a very common maintenance type of personnel transaction. It is performed to extend the contract period for assignments that have an end date; such as, temporary assignments and regular term assignments (typically grant funded positions).

The process requires a paper job form and appointment letter to be prepared at the department level then routed to HR for data entry and filing.

Last year there were 1,300 CONX processed UA system wide.

At best, it takes 5 hours of staff-time (department and HR) to process one CONX. This estimate includes rework-time (errors and incomplete work).

The average hourly rate (with benefits) for staff-time is $36.63.

Cost to process one CONX is $183.15.

Cost to process 1,300 CONXs in a year is $238,095.

Current State

118

EPAF = Electronic Personnel Action Form

EPAF removes the paper job form from the process. EPAF electronically routes the transaction through approvers to HR. EPAF also reduces the instances of error and incomplete work. In the case of contract extensions, the department would still need to prepare and submit an appointment letter to HR.

EPAF can cut from 30 to 120 minutes from processing times, largely due to reducing rework-time. If on average a 60 minute reduction in processing time is realized, that would result in a 20% reduction in personnel time-cost.

Future State—Automated CONX EPAF

CurrentCut 30

minutesCut 60

minutesCut 120minutes

Average Total Time to Process a CONX 5 4.5 4 3

# Process per Year 1300 1300 1300 1300

Average Hourly Rate (incl. benefit rate 50%) $36.63 $36.63 $36.63 $36.63

Total Cost for one CONX $183.15 $164.84 $146.52 $109.89

Total Cost per year: $238,095.00 $214,285.50 $190,476.00 $142,857.00

Cost savings $23,809.50 $47,619.00 $95,238.00

Percent savings 10.00% 20.00% 44.44%

119

Appendix








120

The Academic Affairs and Research, University Relations, and UA Foundation Team was tasked with further developing recommendations regarding the Academic Affairs and Research Unit, University Relations, UA Foundation, UA Scholars, Branding, and Federal Relations


Establishing Academic Planning and University Relations/Foundation Strategies

Defining the role and key strategies for research

Exploring data collection and utilization efficiencies

Defining the role that E-Learning should play at UA

Clarifying Workforce Development Program Uses and Efficiencies

Developing a plan to best establish and utilize a centralized UA System Campaign

Ensuring strong marketing and communication engagement and support

Exploring the best methods to leverage alumni for fundraising support

Encouraging Cultural Change to Support the UA System’s Mission

Academic Affairs and Research, University Relations, and UA Foundation Team Scope

121

Saichi Oba, SW SES

Lael Oldmixon, UA Scholars

Megan Reibe, UA Foundation

Mark Kreta, UAF Director of Admissions

Doug Goering, UAF Dean College of Engineering and Mines (Team Leader)

Keni Campbell, UAS Chancellor’s Office

Jill Dumesnil, UAS Associate Dean School of Arts and Sciences

JoAnn Bartley, UAA Assistant Professor/Chair, Human Services

Rachel Morse, UAA Assistant VC, Alumni Relations

Jeff Woods, UA Student, System Governance Council Representative

Academic Affairs and Research, University Relations, and UA Foundation Team Members

122

Academic Affairs & ResearchDevelop a Strategic Enrollment Strategy and Plan


1. Clarity and direction of

student enrollment

strategies, goals and

objectives

2. Clarity and direction of

student retention

strategies, goals and

objectives

4. Increased enrollment

5. Improved retention


efforts

1. Develop a process and

approach for Universities

to maintain responsibility

for high-school Junior

year students and higher,

and for the UA System to

maintain responsibility for

younger populations and

parents

2. Benchmark other system

models (Cal, SUNY)

3. Establish strategic

marketing strategy at UA

System with university

input and clear objectives

and expectations

Recommendation

Develop a strategic enrollment strategy and plan, that includes recruitment, retention, and completion that

can be used to inform roles and responsibilities of UA System and Universities.


Universities carry the main responsibility for developing and acting (implementation and tactical initiatives) upon the action

items in the strategy and plan, in partnership with the UA System (UA System to help create overarching goals and serve as

resource for resource for university planning). Potential resource constraints at the University level need to be considered.

R ESPONSIBLE

UA System Leadership

A CCOUNTABLE


CONSULTED

Universities

I NFORMED

Stakeholders impacted by

recommendation

M A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Ongoing

X X

Strategy

123

Academic Affairs & ResearchAddress accreditation structure as a barrier to collaboration


1. Greater alignment and

synergies across

Universities

2. Reduced competition for

students

3. Improved ability for

students to transfer

4. Enhanced student

retention

1. Accreditation continues to

be a barrier (or excuse)

to collaboration

1. Address transfer issues and

challenges

2. Establish a common

vocabulary in lead

university/strategic

pathways planning

3. Review and reconcile

university degree levels

where possible (Math,

English)

4. Assess structures and

approaches of other

systems

5. Address siloes and

competition among

Universities

Recommendation

Address accreditation structure as a barrier to collaboration and consistency across Universities.


The Team recommends that the Universities maintain control of programs. In addition, faculty must remain in control of the

curriculum. Ensure effective change management and communication around changes. It is important that UA does not allow “risk

to accreditation” to be a conversation stopper. Potential areas to lead conversation include: Faculty Alliance, Coalition of Student

Leaders, and System Wide Academic Council. Faculty Alliance to take a larger role in aligning changes where occurring.

R ESPONSIBLE

System Wide Academic Council

(VP AAR), Faculty Alliance

A CCOUNTABLE

Faculty Senates, Faculty at

Universities

CONSULTED

Faculty at Universities

I NFORMED

Faculty at Universities


X X

Culture

124

Academic Affairs & ResearchClearly define role, strategies, and goals of research


1. Clarity and alignment of

priorities, goals, and

objectives

2. Establish research as a

main focus in future

academic vision and

strategy

3. Alignment of investments

in research

4. Increased research

funding for UA

1. Identify the appropriate

structure and approach to

support the research

vision.

2. Examine, define, and

clarify the roles, structure,

and responsibilities in

light of the lead

universities/strategic

pathways

3. Maintain UA System

Federal Relations

function to support

research and

development

Recommendation

Clearly define the role of research and define key strategies and goals.


R ESPONSIBLE


A CCOUNTABLE


CONSULTED

Research Infrastructure at

University Level

I NFORMED

Research Faculty

StrategyM A M J J A S O N D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Ongoing

X X

125

Academic Affairs & ResearchEstablish an E-Learning vision and strategy


1. Improved student access

2. Greater flexibility for students

3. Increased competitiveness

for students out of state and

in remote locations

4. Increased enrollment

5. Revenue generation

6. Greater alignment of

eLearning goals and activities

across Universities

1. Insufficient technology or

inconsistent systems will

negatively impact

administration of eLearning

and the student experience

2. Loss of face to face learning

experience for students

3. Potential investment/cost in

improved technology

1. Establish consistency across all

Universities (UA System serves as

enabler, with programs and

departments residing at the

Universities)

2. Standardize/Streamline

blackboard, voice threads, Google

docs, and video conferencing for

cost savings and efficiencies

3. Assess system wide business

functions and tools and share

services where efficiencies can be

gained (i.e. procurement, email,

transfer system, etc.)

4. Ensure sufficient onsite support for

students in online courses

5. Clarify degree requirements across

Universities. (Determine if

emphasis should be on programs

or courses.)

7. Establish a revenue model that is

incentivized and promotes

collaboration

Recommendation

Establish an E-Learning vision and strategy.


The goal should be to have aligned offerings across Universities. Team notes that collaboration for

technology infrastructure is necessary, with flexibility of how courses are presented.

R ESPONSIBLE

System Wide Academic Council

A CCOUNTABLE

System Wide Academic Council;

E-learning offices at University

level

CONSULTED

Faculty

I NFORMED

Faculty; Students


X X X X

Strategy

126

UA FoundationAlign UA Foundation accountabilities and results


1. Increased fundraising and

revenue generation

2. Enhanced accountability

for fundraising

1. Examine the structure and

leverage the full potential (i.e.

maximize focus on major gifts

and development)

2. Clarify roles and responsibilities

between UA UR, the

Universities, and the Foundation

3. Assess where the responsibility

and accountability for major gifts

should lie

4. Enhance the culture of giving

though increased education and

accountability for fundraising

across all leaders and faculty

5. Establish consistent position

descriptions with consistent

performance expectations

Recommendation

Align University accountabilities and results (particularly with regard to Prospect Management). Examine

structure and accountabilities to leverage the full potential of major gift fundraising.


Team notes that it is imperative as a condition for success that sufficient resources be assessed and provided to

carry out the recommendation. Ensure sufficient marketing and communications support for UA Foundation.

R ESPONSIBLE

UA Foundation, Universities

A CCOUNTABLE

UA Foundation

CONSULTED

Universities

I NFORMED

President, Boards


X X

Strategy

127

University RelationsClarify the mission and vision of University Relations, Clarify role of University Relations with respect to Federal Government


1. Enhanced fundraising and

revenue generation

2. Strong support for

successfully executing

against the campaign

3. Enhanced alumni

engagement

4. Well-designed and

consistent approach to

federal government relations

(impact on grants and

contracts)

1. Cost of additional

resources

1. Establish clear strategies, goals and

objectives for UA System marketing and

communications

2. Identify, market, and communicate the

objectives and benefits of a central UA

campaign

3. Tie marketing and communications

efforts to specific goals and outcomes

4. Establish a UA System communication

plan and strategy with consistent

messaging to the broader alumni

community while keeping university

identities

5. Explore partnerships in joint messaging

across universities and across

stakeholder groups

6. Ensure sufficient support and

communication to include and engage

universities

Recommendation

Clarify the overarching mission and vision of the University Relations function, as well as the role of

University Relations with respect to the Federal Government.


Ensure sufficient marketing and communications support for University Relations. Partner with Universities in this effort.

Maintain sufficient alumni communication at the university level, ensuring that communication to alumni has alma mater

recognition and branding—even if part of an overall UA System campaign and overall UA System messaging.

R ESPONSIBLE

VP for University Relations, AVP

for Public Affairs

A CCOUNTABLE

VP for University Relations

CONSULTED

Communication Team

Leaders/University Relations

Directors at Universities

I NFORMED

Communication Team

Leaders/University Relations

Directors at Universities


X X X X

Strategy/

People

128

Academic Affairs & ResearchEnsure easy and efficient data access


1. Ability to make data-

driven decisions

2. Improved ability to

measure outcomes

1. Ensure proper tools and

data are available in order

for the University to make

data-driven decisions (i.e.

dashboards, common

databases, effective

enterprise management

systems)

Recommendation

Ensure easy and efficient access for data to better develop and implement strategic priorities.


These needs are broader across Banner and other systems across the UA System and Universities, but are

particularly important for Stakeholders. Data quality, access, and usability often surfaced during team

discussions of other recommendations.

R ESPONSIBLE

UT

A CCOUNTABLE

UT

CONSULTED


recommendation

I NFORMED


recommendation


X




SW Transformation Team Recommendations

Original Recommendations

University of Alaska

130

Academic Affairs & ResearchMaintain leadership of educational policy at UA System, Transition K-12 Outreach and Workforce Development Programs to Universities, Maintain UA System WD Relationships, Maintain leadership for UA System Industry-related policy decisions


1. Gain efficiencies

2. Leverage strong

relationships at UA

System

1. May create a potential

resource issue for

universities/may result in

an unfunded mandate for

universities

1. Ensure alignment of priorities

and university needs

2. Clarify if university programs

will be cut given budget

constraints, and if the move

will result in an unfunded

mandate for universities.

3. Ensure effective

communication and

collaboration between UA

System and the universities,

with an alignment to program

utilization and needs

4. Address silos across

universities

Recommendations (a-e)

Maintain leadership of educational policy issues at SW. Assess where it is best located.Transition K-12 Outreach to the universities. Streamline where appropriate.Move workforce development programs to the universities.Maintain system-level workforce development relationships (e.g. Alaska Workforce Investment Board) at SW to ensure

alignment with Shaping Alaska’s Future. Clarify, remit and assess proper palcement of functionMaintain leadership role for system-level industry-related policy decisions at SW.

Team Considerations

The Team Agrees with these recommendations, with the considerations and conditions outlined below.


X X X X

R ESPONSIBLE


A CCOUNTABLE


CONSULTED

Stakeholders that are impacted

by recommendations

I NFORMED


by recommendations

Governance

131

Academic Affairs & ResearchAlign Student and Enrollment Services with UA System priorities


Already being

implemented

Recommendation (f)

Change focus of Student and Enrollment Services to align with essential roles of SW and consider changing the name to Student and Enrollment Strategy (SES), as the term/name “services” implies operational responsibility.

Team Considerations

The Team agrees with this recommendation-this is already occuring and the Team supports the change.


R ESPONSIBLE

N/A

ACCOUNTABLE

N/A

CONSULTED

N/A

I NFORMED

N/A

Strategy

132

Academic Affairs & ResearchAssess student-related services, campaigns and communications


1. Cost savings

2. reduction of

duplication

1. Misalignment across

Universities

2. Reduced services to

students

3. President/Board of

Regents determining

necessary student

outreach that

universities do not

implement

4. Early outreach stops;

reduction in Alaska's

college going rate

and UA's first time

freshmen

5. Reduction in student

course loads;

reduction in

graduation rate

1. Further assess structure and potential impacts

2. Establish clear roles, objectives, and expectations for


3. Ensure that Universities have sufficient resources to

support activities

4. Establish process for Universities to take responsibility

for Junior year high-school students and higher (with

the exception of UA Scholars Program coordination with

Universities), and UA System take responsibility for

younger populations and parents

5. Assess/benchmark other system structures (Cal, SUNY)

6. Clarify and define roles of UA System vs. Universities

7. Monitor retention and ensure proper resources at the

University level

8. Communicate & share the work being done with the

College Savings Plan

9. Ensure flexibility of roles for urgent demands of the

President & Regents

10.Establish strategic marketing strategy at UA System

level with university input and clear objectives and

expectations

11.Develop a more uniform message that includes all

university logos equally

Recommendation (g)

Move student-related services, campaigns and communications to the universities. The team recommends further assessment before implementation.

Team Considerations

The Team believes a more uniform communications strategy is needed that includes input from the Universities and UA System. The team agrees that there still is a role for these services at the UA System level.


X X

R ESPONSIBLE


A CCOUNTABLE


CONSULTED


by recommendations

I NFORMED


by recommendations

Governance

133

Academic Affairs & ResearchUtilize SES to facilitate UA System Student Scholarship & Tuition Policy Development


1. Gain efficiencies 1. Establish a process to

ensure sufficient

University input into

policy development

2. Establish a process to

ensure sufficient advance

communication and

engagement of students

3. Consider establishing

multi-year set tuition to

prevent blindsiding

students

4. Establish a working group

led by SES with

representatives from

colleges within the

universities

Recommendation (h)

Utilize newly-named SES to facilitate system-level student scholarship, and tuition policy development.

Team Considerations

The Team agrees with this recommendation with the considerations and conditions outlined below.


X X X

R ESPONSIBLE


A CCOUNTABLE


CONSULTED


by recommendations; Students;

UA Foundation

I NFORMED


by recommendations; Students;

UA Foundation

Governance

134

Academic Affairs & ResearchMaintain location of Alaska Scholars Program


1. May not result in

efficiencies or cost

savings

2. May not improve program

for students

1. Formalize a strong

connection to SES with

effective communication

and collaboration

2. Ensure link of Scholars

Program to the strategic

enrollment plan

Recommendation (i)

Move Alaska Scholars outreach and external relationships to AAR/SES.

Team Considerations

Team does not agree with the recommendation and believes there are no meaningful efficiencies can be

gained from the recommended model.


R ESPONSIBLE

N/A

ACCOUNTABLE

N/A

CONSULTED

N/A

I NFORMED

N/A

Governance

135

Academic Affairs & ResearchLocate FERPA policy development at UA System, Manage FERPA compliance at Universities


Recommendation (j)

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) policy development should be held at SW and be housed in AAR/SES. FERPA compliance should be managed at the universities.

Team Considerations

The Team agrees with this recommendation.


X X X

R ESPONSIBLE

TBD

A CCOUNTABLE

TBD

CONSULTED

TBD

I NFORMED

TBD

Governance

136

Academic Affairs & ResearchMaintain system governance


Recommendation (k)

Maintain system governance as it is currently structured and located.

Team Considerations

The Team agrees with this recommendation.


X X X X

R ESPONSIBLE


A CCOUNTABLE


CONSULTED

Stakeholders Impacted by

Recommendation

I NFORMED

Stakeholders Impacted by

Recommendation

Governance

137

Academic Affairs & ResearchTransition Enterprise Management Operations to UT and project management/system enhancements to Universities


1. Cost savings/efficienies 1. May result in inconsistent

practices

2. Decisions that are UT-

centric and not student-

centric

3. Authority transfer from

university enrollment

managers to UT

4. Potential fracturing of the

cohesive Banner team

structure that is critical to

running a single instance of

Banner across a multi-

university environment

1. Sync and align with other

team recommendations

2. Align overarching plans and

strategies of the

UT/Enterprise Management

teams with the broader team

recommendations

3. Leverage purchasing power

by aligning systems and

licenses across universities

4. Clarify stakeholder input

and needs

5. Ensure a centralized

process with coordinated

points of decisions-making

6. Ensure UT

recommendations are

student user-based

Recommendation (l)

Transition enterprise management operations to OIT and project management and system enhancements access/controls to the universities, with SW SES serving as a collaborative partner rather than a system or data owner.

Team Considerations

The Team agrees with this recommendation provided stakeholder input is clear and there is a centralized process and effective coordination of priorities and decision-making.


X X X

R ESPONSIBLE

UA System and UT Leadership

A CCOUNTABLE

UT Leadership

CONSULTED

Academic Affairs

Representative, Stakeholders

I NFORMED

Stakeholders/Users

Governance

138

Academic Affairs & ResearchMove Banner security and access management to Universities and UT


*Team did not feel

comfortable commenting

on this recommendation

without comprehensive

understanding of

technologies

Recommendation (m)

Move Banner/other student system security and access management to the universities and OIT. Coordination and collaboration among the three universities and SW should be used to manage this.

Team Considerations


The purpose and/or impact of this recommendation is not fully understood. Recommendation needs to be

aligned with the work of the Technology and Enterprise Management Teams.

R ESPONSIBLE


A CCOUNTABLE


CONSULTED


Recommendation

I NFORMED


Recommendation

Governance

139

University Relations/FoundationMove AVP State Relations to Office of Strategy, Planning and Budget


Already being

implemented

Recommendation (a)

Move AVP State Relations under the Office of Strategy, Planning and Budget (SPB).

Team Considerations


Recommendation is already being implemented. This should be considered as part of the University

Relations Strategy.

R ESPONSIBLE

N/A

A CCOUNTABLE

N/A

CONSULTED

N/A

I NFORMED

N/A

Governance

140

The Team agrees with this recommendation. This should be considered as part of the University Relations

Strategy.

University Relations/FoundationEliminate the Squire Patton Boggs Federal Relations Contract


Already being

implemented

Recommendation (b)

Eliminate the Squire Patton Boggs Federal relations contract.

Team Considerations


R ESPONSIBLE

N/A

A CCOUNTABLE

N/A

CONSULTED

N/A

I NFORMED

N/A

Strategy

141

University Relations/FoundationCreate and fill a new AVP Public Affairs and/or Federal Relations Position


Already being implemented

Recommendation (c)

Create and fill a new AVP Public Affairs and/or Federal Relations position. Note: Upon retirement of VP UR, this position to report to the UA President.

Team Considerations


This recommendation is already being implemented. This should be considered as part of the University

Relations Strategy.

R ESPONSIBLE

N/A

A CCOUNTABLE

N/A

CONSULTED

N/A

I NFORMED

N/A

People

142

Team recommends that an assessment be done to determine if a single resource can sufficiently support and manage both federal relations and strategy, public affairs, and budget for the University. This should be considered as part of the University Relations Strategy.

University Relations/FoundationAssess the ability of a single position to manage federal relations, public affairs, and budget; Consider eliminating VP UR position


1. Cost savings 1. May be too much work

for one person to

support/manage

2. Reduced ability to interact

at the Federal level

1. Assess workload and

responsibilities of single

role to detrmine if the

structure will sufficientloy

support demand

Recommendation (d)

Eliminate VP UR position (will occur year-end with retirement of incumbent).

Team Considerations


X

R ESPONSIBLE


A CCOUNTABLE


CONSULTED


Recommendation

I NFORMED


Recommendation

People

143

University Relations/FoundationEliminate UR administrative support position


Already being

implemented

Recommendation (e)

Eliminate UR administrative support position.

Team Considerations


This recommendation has already been implemented. How the position is resourced should be considered

as part of the University Relations Strategy.

R ESPONSIBLE

N/A

A CCOUNTABLE

N/A

CONSULTED

N/A

I NFORMED

N/A

People

144

University Relations/FoundationAlign efforts with SPB and AAR


1. Identify approaches and

mechanisms for ensuring

alignment

2. Establish objectives and

priorities

Recommendation (f)

Align efforts and explore ways to work together with SPB and AAR in supporting State and Federal relations efforts.

Team Considerations

The Team does not substantively disagree with this recommendation.


X X X

R ESPONSIBLE

TBD

A CCOUNTABLE

TBD

CONSULTED


Recommendation

I NFORMED


Recommendation

Strategy

145

University Relations/FoundationReassign Shaping Alaska’s Future office to Public Affairs


Already being

implemented

Recommendation (g)

Reassign Shaping Alaska's Future Office work to Public Affairs (see further information in Strategy, Planning and Budget section).

Team Considerations


This recommendation has already been implemented.

R ESPONSIBLE

N/A

A CCOUNTABLE

N/A

CONSULTED

N/A

I NFORMED

N/A

Governance

ua recommendations - university of alaska systemrecommendations were compiled and refined to...

Documents