Title of presentation · • 150+ meetings with stakeholders across the University. • ROSE Website suggestion box ... – “greener” (less paper) systems and more secure data

Title of presentationumanitoba.ca

2014 W3 Conference

Resource Efficiency Projects Review Panel Discussion

University of ManitobaThe ROSE Program

Agenda Introductions Setting the Scene - The Case for Change Projects Change and the Gotcha Moments Standing Here Today What If…? Final Thoughts Q&A

2014 W3 Conference - The ROSE Program - University of ManitobaPage 2

Setting the Scene - The Case for Change

• In 2009, the University of Manitoba engaged in a change agenda of

significant size and scope. At that time, it was recognized that while budget

retraction was on the horizon, the University of Manitoba had to:

– meet priorities identified in the university’s latest Strategic Planning

Framework, and

– be able to provide more effective and efficient service delivery with it’s

staff and resources.


Phase 1 Assessment

October – December 2009

Phase 2 Design

March – July 2010

Implementation

July 2010 –March 2014

The Journey Continues

2014

Transition Phase

January – February 2010




• Specific areas to address and respond to:– financial constraints– unwieldy structures and manual processes that had accumulated over time– changing needs of students and of the economy– significant process and organizational inefficiencies across both central and

faculty areas (e.g., duplication of effort, use of substantial manual intervention)

– opportunities to leverage spending, operating, research and capital budgets– lack of standardization and defined service levels across all areas– lack of a consistent ‘user’ focus in all areas– low customer satisfaction with various services




Moving the Needle of Change – Where We Were



The ROSE Program


Resource Optimization and Service Enhancement (ROSE)• The ROSE program, a university-wide review of administrative and academic

support services, was launched in October 2009 to: be creative and proactive in the face of budgetary challenges, improve service levels, keep pace with changes in technology, and meet the changing needs of our stakeholders.

• The primary objectives of ROSE were to enhance service delivery and identify ways to reduce costs across the university community.

• The ROSE project was the largest and most ambitious business process transformation project undertaken by any Canadian university.

• 32 projects identified within nine functional “Streams” (IT, HR, Finance, Research Services, Student Services - Undergraduate, Student Services - Graduate Studies, Physical Plant, Legal, and External Relations).


ROSE Program Core Principles

1. Realize cost savings and operating efficiencies

2. Enhance quality of service

3. Be premised on fairness and equity

4. Advance shared responsibility

5. Promote accountability and transparency


ROSE Program History

Phase 1 Assessment


Phase 2 Design

March – July 2010

Implementation


• Engaged PwC - Rapid review of U of M administrative functions such as HR, Finance and IT.

• 150+ meetings with stakeholders across the University.

• ROSE Website suggestion box

• Assessment of opportunities based on information received.

• $19.3 - $32 Million in cost reduction opportunities identified by PwC

• Opportunity to improve service levels dramatically.

• Reviewed scope based on activities

• Detailed planning and costing completed to execute the Design Phase.

• 400 staff participated in collaborative workshops led by PwC.

• “As Is” processes documented.

• “To Be” processes documented.

• Detailed implementation plans presented

• Criteria set for prioritization of projects to proceed to implementation (cost, resource requirements, payback period, risk of failure, service benefits)

• Some “Quick Wins” savings obtained

• Pilot activities underway.


2014

Transition Phase




ROSE Program OrganizationAccountability that ROSE Initiatives are planned and executed according to program methods and quality standards. Delivery is achieved within the program framework

Accountability that initiatives support ROSE Program overall business strategy and meet business objectives within the program delivery framework


Phase 1 Assessment


Phase 2 Design

March – July 2010

Implementation

















• Implementation and migration plans approved.

• Implementation of 24 of the 29 identified initiatives completed

• ~250 staff part of the project teams in addition to vendor resources

• Initially managed by PwC but transitioned tonew Office of Continuous Improvement (OCI)

• Service level improvements began to be realized, processes adjusted as required.

• Benefits evolved and became more realistic. New benefits realized.


2014

Transition Phase



Streams & Projects


External Relations• MCO Restructuring• Philanthropy Restructuring

Physical Plant• Project Management

Improvements• Work Order Improvements• IWMS (Integrated

Workplace Management System)

Human Resources• ESS & MIP Portal• REACH-UM (eRecruitment)

Finance• Purchase Operating Model• FAST A/R & Billing to Cash• Research Accounting• Integrated T&E (Concur)• Monthly Reporting• EPIC (eProcurement)

Information Technology• eMail & Calendar• IT Procurement Centre• Managed Print• PCCD (PC Commissioning

& Decommissioning)• Shared Services

Legal• Policy Development

Research Services• Contracting• Compliance Systems

Implementation

Students - UnderGrad• FAA (Financial Aids &

Awards)• Classroom Scheduling• Future Student Website• Admissions• Student Recruitment CRM

Students - Graduate• GSEM (Graduate Student

Enrolment Management)• Advisor-Student Agreement


Xavier Leadership Centerhttp://xavierleadershipcenter.com/programs/advanced-leadership-workshop-thriving-during-change


Working Through the Change

Standing Here Today(How did we do and how far did we go?)


ROSE Program Benefits Summary• While we remain on track to meet projected annual combined cost savings

(reduction & avoidance) and revenue enhancement of $8 million to $15 million, the savings will be spread across the institution thus the actual impact on individual unit operating budgets will not be specific to a discreet area or excessively substantial.

– Over $3 million in strategic sourcing savings from negotiating new contracts and/or establishing new terms with existing vendors. All orders are committed in the system enabling better financial control of department budgets.

– Reductions in overtime and casual staff as less time is required to process forms during peak periods

– Projected revenue enhancement, for the most part, will be in the form of increased fundraising support, and increased revenue from research contracts.

• Services have been significantly enhanced through the leveraging of current technology.


ROSE Program Benefits (con’t)

• Re-engineered, standardized operating processes– significantly faster response to process customer(s)– reduced duplication of effort– fewer errors and rework– improved controls– shifting of staff work from transactional to more ‘value add’ activities– “greener” (less paper) systems and more secure data

• Improved utilization of classrooms• Improved service to students applying to the university• Ensuring compliance with research funding bodies• Improved financial and administrative reporting capabilities providing better

information for improved operational decision making• Reliable systems with less downtime


*Managing Successful Programmes – AXELOS Ltd – 2011 – pg 7

Elements Needed for Successful Program Management* Measure

Sufficient organization board-level & senior management support

Strong program leadership

Realistic expectations of organizational capacity and ability to change

A focus on delivering benefits


*Managing Successful Programmes – AXELOS Ltd – 2011 – pg 7

Elements Needed for Successful Program Management* Measure

A clearly defined vision of the future capability

A well communicated vision

Organization succeeds in changing its culture

Sufficient engagement of stakeholders


ROSE Core Principles Measure

Realize cost savings and efficiencies

Enhance quality of service

Be premised on fairness and equity

Advance shared responsibility

Promote accountability and transparency


What if? (Lessons Learned)


Lessons Learned – What went well

1. Strong senior level support over a long term was absolutely critical in the university governance setting.

2. Success was only possible through the commitment from the university resources working on all the projects.

3. Established a dedicated program team. Created a delivery framework that worked to balance program governance needs against project team and individual needs.

4. Understood that these change initiatives were not the only work that the university staff was assigned, and worked to plan around that situation.

5. Specific funding was committed to the program. Limits to that funding was well understood. Access to the funding was controlled a the program level.

6. Partnering the project manager with a functional (business area) led to a project team lead partnership that secured more buy-in and lower change resistance within the team.

7. Communicated, communicated, communicated – can never communicate too much.


Lessons Learned - What could be improved1. At the starting point of such a program, establish and thoroughly communicate

a sound, supported vision, blueprint for the future state, and a business case with clear and objective, measureable (as much as possible) benefits, both financially and service focused. Do not overlook operational support staff requirements as a result of the changed processes.

2. Effective organizational change management strategies are required and support is critical, and be cognizant of the risks of change fatigue/overload introduced with a large number of initiatives. Establish organizational change managers/leads within each area. Measure change across the program.

3. Realize in the planning activities that transformational change initiatives within an academic organization such as the university take significantly more communication effort and stakeholder relationship management.

4. Understand that there can be an inherent lack of interest from many stakeholders in the early stages – until it impacts them. Find methods to work through this attitude. Involve the unions.

5. The financial analysis regarding savings/benefits needs to be led and owned by individuals within the respective units of the university, not by consultants.


Lessons Learned - What could be improved

6. Be fully transparent and unambiguous on how the processes/structures will change and impact stakeholders. The status quo is often believed to be the unflawed process not needing to changed.

7. Secure funding for backfill resources for resources drawn into these long term initiatives. Such initiatives are not ‘off the corner of one’s desk’. If backfill is not available, understand that these change initiatives are not the only work that the staff are doing, and plan around that situation.

8. Ensure that operational support staff requirements as a result of the changed processes are accounted for in the business case and included in the design/blueprint of the future state.

9. Follow a proven, structured program and project management framework. Educate all participants in the value of the approach so that it isn’t viewed as overhead paperwork.

10. Really, really actively manage the total level of change. Engagement for change management to active and robust from beginning to end. Need to get Deans and Department Heads much more involved.


Final Thoughts



Phase 1 Assessment


Phase 2 Design

March – July 2010

Implementation


















2014

• Complete remaining projects.

• Continue to work to goal to create an embedded culture of continuous process improvement

• Additional opportunities for process and service improvements identified.

Transition Phase



• Implementation and migration plans approved.

• Implementation of 24 of the 29 identified initiatives completed

• ~250 staff part of the project teams in addition to vendor resources

• Initially managed by PwC but transitioned tonew Office of Continuous Improvement (OCI)

• Service level improvements began to be realized, processes adjusted as required.

• Benefits evolved and became more realistic. New benefits realized.

Moving the Needle of Change – Where we were


Moving the Needle of Change – The ROSE Program (and others)


Moving the Needle of Change – Where we should aim to be


Any other questions, issues, concerns…

Page 36Moving the Change Needle at University of Manitoba2014 W3 Conference - The ROSE Program - University of Manitoba

Title of presentationumanitoba.ca2014 W3 Conference - The ROSE Program - University of Manitoba

Page 37

Documents

Title of presentation · • 150+ meetings with stakeholders across the University. • ROSE Website suggestion box ... – “greener” (less paper) systems and more secure data