SSA Table of Contents
The 2001 process differed slightly. Tracy McIntyre, (then) special assistant to Weldon Ihrig, accompanied me this time. Deans were asked to invite their key administrators to participate in the interviews, and to seek input from other staff members in advance of the meetings (Attachments B and C). We asked interviewees to fill out a paper survey, rating the effectiveness of key services, the importance of these services, and to indicate any change over the last two years. Those results are included in this report beginning on page 4.
Similar to last time, we looked for trends, as well as noting the top three areas of concern for each school/college, and interesting but unique questions that are worth considering. We also spent the first part of each interview inquiring about areas of noted improvement since the last survey and the services deans and administrators believe are working well.
The purpose of the assessment process, through interviews and a paper survey (Attachment D), is to look for improvement opportunities and indicators of progress. We found service areas with significant signs of progress improved over the last two years. The positive comments are included in the first part of this report and the areas of needed improvement later in the report.
In order to continue with the positive movement, we intentionally focus more of this report on the areas in need, rather than on the areas working well. Based on feedback from the service providers on the last report, more specific detail is included about areas of concern in order to better illustrate the key issues and assist the services in making desired improvements.
The addition of key administrative staff to the interviews proved helpful in gaining feedback and a broader understanding of the issues school/college staff face in getting their jobs done. We found all those who participated were thoughtful, well prepared and interested in helping the UW improve. Due to their varied assignments, I believe the findings to be a truer representation of UW opinion about central service.
Deans and administrators were happy to participate in this kind of survey, believe it should be done every other year, and want to see continued improvement. In terms of overall satisfaction levels, my review suggests that of the 22 interviews, 20 presented their views as neutral to positive, while two were dissatisfied. This is a vast improvement over the 1999 survey when 8 of the 21 (the Information School is now included) were dissatisfied.
What this report does not do is prescribe solutions for the areas of concern. It is a reflection of compiled and individual comments, and it raises expectations for continued improvement. People like the progress being made, want to find ways to acknowledge the efforts, and to help. What will be done now to address areas of concern is for UW leaders and the functional areas to determine. Some issues require internal process improvement while others may require different approaches to working with process partners and customers. It is critical to the effectiveness of the assessment process that actions continue to be taken to address the issues and be communicated as they occur.
Finally, these findings describe a point in UW history, and reflect concerns of that time as well as point us in new directions. Spring 2001 was one of great economic uncertainty as the UW faced the realities of continued budget cuts, the aftermath of the earthquake, soaring energy costs, and the TA/RA (Teaching Assistant/Research Assistant) strike.
Note: Acronym Key can be found in Attachment A
Some of those areas noted in the first report, e.g. Payroll, Travel and Planning and Budgeting worked on their issues effectively. Deans and administrators now also have a better understanding of the challenges faced by central services, and appreciate being more involved. "Increased cross-campus collaboration is encouraging and exciting," stated one school administrator.
Another example of noted improvement is found in the survey results (see next section). In all but one of the service areas, positive change was noted since 1999.
Certain people were named multiple times as exemplars of providing quality service:
Certain departments/functions stand out:
At the completion of each interview, we distributed a survey (Attachment D) to each person and asked that it be filled out individually or as a group, and then returned to us. We did not receive all surveys back, but got enough to feel confident that these results represent the deans and their senior administrative staff. All areas, with the exception of Grant and Contract Services, improved. In terms of ratings on a 5 (high) point scale, the averages were:
| Issue | Effectiveness | Importance | Change since '99 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operational Areas Needing Greatest Improvement in 1999 | |||
| Human Resources | 4.4 | 4.7 | + |
| Buying/Paying: quicker | 3.4 | 4.1 | + |
| Grants: pre-award | 3.0 | 4.8 | none |
| Space issues | 2.8 | 3.8 | + |
| Technology | 2.2 | 4.7 | + |
| General "Needs Improvement" Areas in 1999 | |||
| Reducing turnaround time | 3.0 | 4.5 | + |
| Sharing information | 4.0 | 4.4 | + |
| Encouraging staff to find answers/meet needs | 3.2 | 4.5 | + |
| Increasing delegated authority | 3.8 | 4.2 | + |
| Additional areas from 1999 | |||
| Ease of finding information | 2.3 | 4.8 | + |
| Receiving information | 2.7 | 3.9 | + |
| Customer service quality | 3.2 | 4.5 | + |
| Overall Central Services | 3.6 | 4.5 | + |
The three operational areas needing greatest improvement are:
* = Area of concern in last report.
Three other areas were mentioned frequently, but without the same depth of concern:
* = Area of concern in last report.
Architecture: Purchasing, GCS
Arts and Sciences: C&C; Classroom Services; Central budget cuts
Bothell: HR (need to determine scope of responsibilities to be provided by Bothell); Publications Services
Business School: Classroom Services; Capital Projects; Purchasing; C&C
College of Education: Retaining faculty; Development (not ready for Campaign with inexperienced staff); Scholarships/Diversity (need salary equalization for minorities); Classroom Services
Dentistry: Deferred Maintenance (classrooms and labs); Dental Stores; increasing inability to be competitive due to poor state of facilities Engineering: CASPO; Provost's Office (don't work as a team, lack of communication to College, decisions take too long); Financial Systems
Forestry: Development structure; Need for communications; Lack of new dean support
Graduate School: C&C; Financial Systems; HR (shouldn't let problem employees pass around campus without any communication) Health Sciences: Financial Systems; New Administrator Orientation needed
Information School: Classroom Services; Student Records; Parking
Law: Purchasing
Libraries: Purchasing; Capital Projects; Desire for Outsourcing
Medical School: Research Infrastructure (GCS/Office of Technology Transfer/Human Subjects); Health Sciences Building (maintenance and minor repairs needed, but timely, responsive and at reasonable cost), Central infrastructure erosion
Nursing: Space needed; Finding information on the web; C&C
Ocean and Fisheries Sciences: GCS; CASPO; CPO Pharmacy: Procurement Card (doesn't work for departments, effective for dean's office); Communication (takes too long to get information, never know who received information); Payroll (need for greater responsiveness)
Public Affairs: Capital Projects
Public Health: Publications; Capital Projects; Emergency Communication Plan needed
Social Work: Physical Plant (regular maintenance); Publications Services; Capital Projects/CASPO; Classroom Services
Tacoma: Financial Structure and flexibility (e.g. organization code limitations, chart of accounts, easy of moving between budgets) needs revision; Transaction fees to pay for new computers of concern; Capital Projects
Undergraduate Education: Physical Plant (general maintenance); CASPO/Capital Projects Office
It's particularly difficult to work across disciplinary lines due to the organization code and budget number structures. The UW chart of accounts needs revision to a more macro level. Managing at the current level of detail is cumbersome and seen as antiquated. Data warehousing is seen as a positive step, but only if it's created quickly and information is easily retrievable by the user.
Some of these changes need to occur at the policy level. Decisions to invest in new systems or interfaces must be made, and with collaboration and support from schools/colleges. Some perceive that UW leaders and deans want control over what information is openly accessible and what's protected. Many interviewed believe everything should be stored in open systems. Lack of access to information is becoming a barrier to managing, especially with interdisciplinary work. Departments need to be able to use multiple budgets that cut across schools and colleges.
Capital Projects: Two years ago, all of the departments working on capital projects were included in this concern. In 2001, the concerns focus most directly on the Capital Projects Office (CPO), and less so on Capital and Space Planning Office (CASPO), Facilities, and Real Estate. Since 1999, new leaders and staff joined CASPO and Real Estate; and Facilities was reorganized. Capital Projects has a new leader as of June 1, 2001. He brings vast experience to the job, and administrators have high hopes for his ability to improve how things work in CPO.
Capital Projects is viewed poorly now: lacking in leadership, unwilling to change, unaccountable, and non-communicative. The operational challenges are in Estimating, Accounting, Design Services, and with the project managers. Estimates are inaccurate (always too low), there's no information about the budget provided during the course of the projects or detail at the end, and there seems to be no negotiation with clients about what can be done or altered in case of overruns. One dean told us, "55-75% costs are over estimate; embarrassing when costs are to be paid by others -- I have to go back with requests for more dollars." Clients don't know how to enter the system or understand the intake process. The impression is that the client doesn't matter as soon as the project is underway. In order to get projects done well, schools/colleges "have to devote their own people as 'project managers' who don't have the right skill set" --and are only doing it "because Capital Projects staff aren't doing the job."
Questions also arose about needed major remodeling projects and who is responsible for that planning and implementation. Some of the deans find their space sub-par, to the point they are embarrassed to bring guests to campus and are concerned about their competitiveness. Also, many deans are required to move researchers and staff off campus due to space limitations. Without room to expand, they are losing faculty. They want space that is "off-campus" to be declared as "on-campus". "How did Zymogenetics/Roosevelt get declared 'on-campus'"? asked one.
Grant and Contract Services: There is no clear consensus on improvements made in GCS over the last two years. Half of those who responded to the paper survey thought the service levels were worse than in 1999; the other half reported improvement. Those more satisfied found a more responsive staff and greater efforts at timeliness.
Those who were unhappy with the service levels were very unhappy. Hopes that new leadership would improve service have not been realized. The general feeling expressed is that this office keeps getting new staff and resources but improvements aren't forthcoming. Staff is described as lacking a service attitude, sending "rude" emails, and not getting proposals out on time. One dean said the GCS staff and leaders have a "reluctance to be innovative and hide behind what they 'can't do.'" And while the web pages are getting better for all grant related issues, more needs to be done to transmit information via the web and to track where proposals are in the process.
Several opinions were expressed about the organizational structure: "Should not report to Research;" " Taking Office of Technology Transfer out wasn't the solution;" and "GCS should be reassigned to GCA." Everyone interviewed was complementary of the Human Subjects Office but also concerned that they "need more staff and resources to keep up with expanding responsibilities."
Computing and Communications: Over the past several years administrators and staff have been asked by central leadership to get involved with UW-wide initiatives such as school/college strategic planning, USER, and other improvement efforts. And while deans and administrators happily acknowledge the "best campus computing ever" and the rich websites, they want more support, service and inclusion by C&C. Many school and college staff do not see C&C as involving them in decision making or priority setting. Some of the concern is about lack of information: the campus doesn't seem to know what C&C is developing or working on. C&C is viewed as the sole decision maker for campus computing decisions rather than a collaborator. Since they are the backbone of the infrastructure, schools and colleges must work with them. However, some "work around" C&C by hiring their own staff or consultants in order to do what's needed. Some of the decisions, like the Ariba purchase, were questioned..."why does C&C buy some software but won't allow departments to purchase others" and why are the costs for central solutions being passed on to users? "Support is eroding and there's no customer service," said one administrator.
Getting things done that aren't on the C&C agenda is perceived as difficult. Statements were made like "everything we ask for takes too long," "they have a 'can't do' attitude," "it's hard to get what you want/need." One dean said that it takes his staff "1-3 months to get proper access to systems, takes forever to get wireless put in, it's expensive, and they are inflexible."
Communication was a common concern: "They seem to determine their own priorities -- what are they doing?" "Even our own C&C contacts don't know what's happening. No evident strategic plan, no vision -- do they even have one?" "They need to loosen up control over what departments can see and do in financial systems."
Classroom Services (Seattle Campus): This issue is complicated by multiple units with differing responsibilities for classrooms. These units appear to have different approaches to problem solving and customer service. Student Affairs is responsible for classroom assignments. I heard a number of comments that while the staff may be satisfactory to work with, their systems and processes are not. Some commented that Student Affairs staff members are generally inflexible and not student/faculty/user oriented. On the other hand, as cumbersome as the Classroom Support Office (within Undergraduate Education) systems are (audio-visual and other equipment), that staff is seen as willing and flexible. One dean said, "We would have big gains if classroom services were better coordinated – students aren't sure where to go. Student Affairs has a 'no' / 'can't do' attitude. If something falls under SA, I don't even want to pursue it -- we have created our own systems to affect change. There is no message from the top encouraging change. On the other side, Undergraduate Education has a 'let's try it' flexible attitude." Another stated, "Classroom Assignments and Classroom Support Services don't know what the other is doing. The web has aggravated it more -- with paper there was no expectation of the information being up to date, but now that it's up on the web the fact that it's not correct and not updated seems worse." All are concerned that users need to work with two systems to get needs met, and since the systems don't interface with each other, what results are many problems and errors. One dean commented about the "huge disconnect, no communication about equipment changes, lack of technology, and how embarrassing it is when bringing in outside guests/donors."
Another need is for classroom improvements. Many classrooms have chairs bolted to the floor, which detracts from team learning or group discussion. Most are also lacking in today's presentation technology, and need aesthetic improvements. Allocating money to this priority is a key budgetary decision. However, even when money is allocated, the process is perceived to "move at a snail's pace." Instructional laboratory space has the same constraints and concerns.
Publication Services: They are perceived as way behind in planning for the future-- "They don't seem to understand where the technology is going and how electronic publications are changing -- took 2-3 years to get self-service printers. They need to build technological capacity in Publications staff."
Multiple comments were made about the lack of design innovation, high costs with inaccurate estimates, taking too long to produce pieces, and errors. Remarks were made on the need for improved customer service, as defined by flexibility, quality, communication, accountability, and friendly staff. Schools/colleges asked why they were limited to this service when outside sources produce better products at lower cost and with quicker turnaround. Also, Publication Services is the keeper of mail lists (e.g. directory) but the lists are inaccurate or inaccessible..."What are the lists, how do I get on or off them, and how are they monitored?"
Facilities: There are two areas of concern with Facilities Services: Parking and Regular Maintenance.
Increased Departmental Workload: The issue of transferring the burden of work or charging departments for services was mentioned several times. Some tasks need to be done by departments now (e.g. Positive Time Reports (PTR's) done on-line, Form 220 auditing, Procurement Card reconciling) rather than centrally. Some schools/colleges find this positive while others, especially the smaller schools/colleges with fewer staff, find it difficult. They wonder what their overhead rates are covering. With continued budget cuts and streamlining, the central infrastructure is eroding. While most of the campus supports USER, one administrator used it as an example, "central administration seems to be benefiting from this more than schools/colleges -- seems that this is a shift of duties from central out without support or thinking about the internal processes that will need to be developed." Others complained about being charged for services from centrally supported units, for example by C&C and Surplus Property.
Campus Communications: With so many changes underway schools/colleges find it hard to get information they need or find out about the changes. They don't know how to get on mail lists or don't know what lists exist. They are concerned they aren't getting all the necessary/correct information. A suggestion was made that any time new processes are introduced email alerts should be sent to users, or placed on the highlight section of the faculty/staff web pages. They don't want to wait for twice yearly update reports.
Another suggested identifying a "mechanism for saying 'thanks' to central services. They want to share positive comments so central service staff can hear good feedback too. They also suggest creating "a way to encourage and collect cost saving ideas."
Most of the deans who assumed their positions after the 1999 report found their receptions welcoming, supportive and open. Health Science deans often commented about the close knit group of deans and how they help each other get oriented.
Some suggestions from the deans about activities to include in orientations are to:
Tracy McIntyre
Tracy served the past year and a half as Special Project Manager for Weldon Ihrig, a
position that was created to serve needs arising from the 1999 report. Tracy
created and managed the Yellow Pages project, helped with the update reports to
deans, and provided leadership and coordination for web based projects. Tracy
received her Bachelors degree in Spanish and International Programs from the UW and
worked as my assistant while a student and for two years after graduating. Tracy
left the UW at the end of May 2000 to go to graduate school, where she will study in
Spain.
