Introduction
October 16, 1995
CONFIDENTIAL
TO: UNH Planning Council
c/o Walter Eggers, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
FROM: Task Force on Administrative and Personnel Services
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE AND PERSONNEL SERVICES TASK FORCE
REPORT
Background____________________________________________________________
The University of New Hampshire is facing a critical time financially.
Clearly, UNH has budget problems that demand fundamental changes in the
way we do business. The current budget shortfall results from level
State funding, a decline in tuition revenues, and increasing costs of
financial aid. Carrying funds forward from the freeze on expenditures
in FY 95 and using other one-time funds, UNH will manage to cover the
shortfall during the current fiscal year (FY 96) but these one-time
funds will give out by FY 97. Without addressing these problems now
with a permanent restructuring of revenues and expenditures, deficits
will continue, and the University will suffer from increasing
shortfalls and the need to make annual cuts.
It is anticipated that the shortfall for UNH in FY 97 will be
approximately $3.5 million depending on what salary increases may be
given in FY 96. Further, projections using the current trend in
tuition revenues suggests there could be a deficit of as much as $8
million entering FY 98.
Since it seems prudent and wise to plan for fundamental changes prior
to the beginning of FY 97, several task forces were established and
given targets to reach to cover the $8 million need. These targets
were determined by attributing current year expenditures to the domains
of the task forces. It was understood, however, that the task forces
and their targets will overlap and such targets are somewhat arbitrary.
One of the six task forces established is the Task Force on
Administrative and Personnel Services.
Charge to the Task Force_______________________________________________
The purpose of the Task Force on Administrative and Personnel Services
is to review administrative services including, but not limited to,
personnel, accounting, business and clerical to see if there is an
opportunity to redesign services and/or offices to accomplish tasks
through consolidation and economies of scale. The review will explore
possibilities to provide needed services and functions across campus in
other than traditional ways. Pooling staff in order to provide
essential services will be considered. Attention will be given to
simplifying systems and/or increasing or streamlining technology to
reduce the time required to accomplish tasks. The distribution of
workload; academic and fiscal year, status and hourly appointments; and
the duplication of functions and services will be evaluated as well.
The target assigned to the Task Force on Administrative and Personnel
Services was $878,018. This figure included the transfer made annually
to the University System of New Hampshire which, for FY 95, amounted to
$6,948,231. Since $2,818,803 of this transfer is allocated directly to
administrative functions within the University System, exclusive of MIS
and the Controller's Office operations, this amount was considered
beyond the domain of the Task Force. Therefore, the Task Force felt
unanimously that its target should be reduced proportionately thereby
creating a revised target of $747,200.
Membership of the Task Force___________________________________________
The members of the Task Force include:
Victor Benassi, Professor and Chair, Psychology
Kim Billings, Director, News Bureau
Donna Brownell, Assistant General Manager, New England Center
Bob Blanchard, Professor, Plant Biology
Stephanie Behan, Manager, USNH Disbursements
Ken Cody, Controller
Dick Clukay, Assistant Director, MIS
Sharon Demers, Senior Personnel Officer
Frankie Dineen, Manager, Administration and Contracts, MIS
Matt Grant, Student
John Kraus, Director, Institutional Research
Leigh Anne Melanson, Assistant to the Provost
Carol Powers, Assistant Director, Budget and Finance
Kate Roberts, Business Manager, CEPS
Jean Smith, Administrative Secretary, Cooperative Extension
Gregg Sanborn, Executive Assistant to the President (Chair)
Patsy Stuart, Finance and Budget Analyst, Student Affairs
Roy Torbert, Dean, CEPS
Neil Vroman, Associate Professor, Kinesiology
Meeting Schedule and Process___________________________________________
The first meeting of the Task Force was held on June 21, 1995. At this
time, President Fairchild and Provost Eggers delivered the charge to
the Task Force. Subsequently, 23 regularly scheduled meetings of
either the full Task Force or its subcommittees were held. It should
be further acknowledged, that one subcommittee, the Business Service
Centers Subcommittee, devoted extraordinary time and energy to
formulating its primary goal and subsidiary goals.
Initial meetings provided an opportunity to determine areas of focus
and to establish operating guidelines. It was determined that the Task
Force and its subcommittees would operate by consensus (not necessarily
unanimity of belief but rather general acceptance of the group's
position) and be action oriented. Additionally, all agreed that the
goals presented to the Planning Council must be realistic and
achievable, result in cost savings, take into account the impact on
students, faculty, and staff, and be in the best interest of UNH
considering financial circumstances and the criteria of demand, cost,
quality and centrality.
Three subcommittees evaluated their areas of focus and developed goals
which they felt were appropriate for consideration by the full Task
Force. The subcommittees were - a) Voluntary Reductions/Downgrades/Po-
sition Reviews/Vacancies/Pay Cuts with John Kraus serving as convener;
b) Business Centers with Ken Cody and Kate Roberts serving as
conveners; and c) Outsourcing/Outside Consultants/Increased Revenue
with Gregg Sanborn serving as convener.
Reports were given to the full Task Force at intervals throughout the
summer and fall. On October 11 and October 16, all goals were
discussed, revised, and either voted by the Task Force or withdrawn by
individual subcommittees based upon Task Force discussion.
Format for Goals and Recommendations___________________________________
All but one goal for recommendation is formatted with the initial
statement of the goal or recommendation followed by rationale,
conditions and assumptions, strategies for achievement, and projected
outcomes and consequences. To the extent possible, outcomes and
consequences are projected in concrete terms with estimated savings,
additional costs, and/or increased revenue estimates.
Also, all goals are of equal priority and should be implemented. The
additional recommendation is suggested for implementation as well.
Goals and Recommendations______________________________________________
The Task Force presents nine goals or recommendations for consider-
ation by the UNH Planning Council. Of the nine goals or
recommendations, the Business Service Center goal contains eight
subordinate goals which are interdependent but individually significant
to the primary goal. Goals numbered A through H and additional
recommendation I are proposed for implementation under any
circumstances since they should benefit the University over the long
term either by generating additional revenue or improving the quality
of service.
Goal A: delay FY96 and FY97 salary increases
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DELAY FY96 AND FY97 SALARY INCREASES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goal A: Delay FY96 and FY97 pay increases for non-unionized personnel
to at least mid-year.
Rationale: Delaying pay increases for non-unionized personnel to
at least mid-year each of FY96 and FY97 could potentially reduce a
budget deficitby $900,000 to $1.8 million per year.
Conditions and Assumptions: Though trustees have not announced any
pay increases for staff thus far this fiscal year, we know
historically that the board has made every attempt to keep UNH
staff salaries as close to market value as possible. We would
suggest that if they are considering a pay increase this fiscal
year and next, that it not be effective until at least January 1
of each year.
Strategies to Achieve Goal: Encourage trustees to accept this
formula in light of the fact that is really is a compromise
between the board's wishes to keep positions competitive with the
outside market and yet, at the same time, shows a staff
understanding of the magnitude of the financial problems facing
the University at this time.
Publicize the decision in Campus Journal and the New Hampshire.
Projected Outcomes/Consequences:
Initially, some staff may be unhappy, but if it is explained to
staff in newspaper articles and perhaps even a letter from the
administration, we would hope the decision would be more
palatable.
Although the pay increase would not be retroactive to July 1 of
each of the fiscal years, as is traditionally the case, a staff
person's gross salary would increase.
A potential reduction in deficit of between $900,000 and $1.8
million for each fiscal year.
Goal B: voluntary reduced time
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUNTARY REDUCED TIME
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goal B: To determine, on a purely hypothetical basis, what savings
might accrue if anyone in PAT/EE and OS ranks could reduce their
fulltime, permanent employment by as much as 20 percent.
Rationale: Savings are available from reduced percent time.
On the average, PAT responding preferred about a 5 percent
reduction or a 95 percent level while operating staff responding
wanted a reduction of almost 14 percent or 86 percent overall. As
a result, operating staff respondents, paid less as a group and
individually, provided a larger dollar total. Also individually,
it appears that many higher salaried PATs selected the lowest
reduction level (95 percent). The combination of these factors
tilted the amount total toward operating staff.
If a voluntary reduction policy was enacted to attempt to achieve
the levels of savings that this suggests, then supervisory
considerations and workplace staffing requirements would need to
be included. All requirements would have to be factored in. Many
persons who desired reductions might not, at least initially, be
able to get the reduction they wished. The amounts available in
overall savings might, then, be less than this effort provides;
perhaps a level of $75,000 could be achieved.
Conditions and Assumptions: If employees wished to select
permanent reduced time, then savings would be possible. Further
reviews and discussions would be required to factor in supervisor
and workload/workforce requirements. A standard application for
staff to fill out and send directly to a central administrative
location may help the UNH administration determine the actual cost
savings from voluntary reduced time.
Actual implementation would obviously require supervisor and
staffing considerations.
Strategies to Achieve Goal: To determine the level of interest,
we developed and administered a short survey through the August 31
Campus Journal as attached. This was simple, at no cost, and
insured a theoretical distribution to every employee. To insure
anonymity, ease of completion and to increase the likelihood of
response, we asked a minimum of information.
A total of 74 surveys were received, five of these were comments
only and not codeable. There were 37 PAT/EE and 32 OS useable
responses or 69 total. Detail is attached. These responses gave
us the ability to gauge amounts possible to apply to a savings
goal.
The total count of fulltime PAT/EE and operating staff is
currently 1,565, so 4.4 percent expressed an interest (assuming
all are fulltime). The total count of only Fund 1000 PAT/EE and
operating staff is 1,385. With this theoretical base the percent
rises to 5.0.
Projected Outcomes/Consequences: Calculating a potential savings
using the salaries and percentage reductions indicated on each of
the 69 useable returns received, we get $149,293 or about
$150,000. Segmenting that total, savings from PAT/EE were $57,416
or 4.4 percent of the response salary base and from operating
staff it was $91,877 or 13.4 percent of the base of those that
responded.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goal C: reduce advertising costs for vacancies
Goal C: Reduce the advertising costs for vacancies by using block ads.
Conditions and Assumptions: Currently the University pays $94,774
(from all funds) in advertising costs for vacant positions. The cost
is broken down as follows:
# of Jobs Advertising Cost
Faculty 52 $36,105.02
PAT 80 47,760.55
OS 23 1,752.56
Hourly/Temp 54 6,265.69
Generic 9 2,890.80
--- ----------
Total 218 $94,774.62
Strategies to Achieve Goal: The use of block ads for advertising,
could save dollars for the University and the hiring departments
and would be in keeping with all Affirmative Action and Equal
Opportunity regulations. It is recommended that block ads be
handled through the Personnel Office and the cost be split by the
hiring departments. Advertisements for PAT and Operating Staff
positions could be handled every two weeks or monthly basis.
Faculty block ads could be done at the beginning of each semester
in the Chronicle, Fosters, Union Leader, and Globe. In addition,
it is recommended that the Personnel Office work with local
newspapers to explore the possibility of negotiating rates and
standardizing the format of advertisements. The Internet should
also be used as a vehicle to guarantee coverage for these
positions.
Projected Outcomes/Consequences: The Personnel Office provides up
to $150 for each position advertised. The current budget in the
Personnel Office is $8,000. It is recommended that the Personnel
Office budget be cut by $8,000. Currently, PAT's must give a 30
day notice and Operating Staff must give a 2 week notice. If
advertisements are done every two weeks, there should be no
adverse affect for PAT positions but there may be a hardship for
Operating Staff positions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goal D: offer deferred payment plans for tuition
Goal D: The University should maximize the interest revenue earned from
offering deferred payment plans for tuition.
Rationale: Many parents and students pay tuition by using a
deferred payment plan option. The University has a contract with
the Tuition Management Systems (TMS) to provide these services.
For FY96, TMS charges parents a fee of $60 if enrolled before
7/1/95, and $75 after 7/1/95, on an average contract of $7700
(gross dollars represent over $14 million per year). The
University receives from TMS a piece of this fee, or $20 before
July 1 and $35 after July 1. TMS then acts as a liaisonbetween
parents and the University, and forwards payments to UNH each
month for 10 months. There is a deliberate delay between when TMS
receives the payments from the parents, which they can then
invest, and when these payments reach the University. This
represents a potential loss of revenue to UNH, which should be
weighed against the amount of investment the University would earn
if we either brought the service in-house, or increased the amount
received from TMS.
Conditions and Assumptions: There has been a steady rise in the
number of people preferring to spread their tuition payments --
from 870 in FY92 to an estimated 1793 in FY96. It is assumed that
given the magnitude of tuition payments, this option will continue
to be appealing. In fact, in order to remain competitive, we must
offer some type of deferred payment plan. It should be noted that
Business Services is very satisfied with TMS, and believe they
provide good and timely service. No difficulty has been
experience with the tape feed or other logistical information
provided by TMS.
Strategies to Achieve Goal: UNH is currently in the last year of a
three-year contract with TMS. The Business Services Office should
work with Purchasing to solicit bids for a deferred payment plan.
At the same time, Business Services should calculate the cost of
operating this service in-house taking into consideration all
personnel and operating costs. A comparison should be undertaken
to determine the most cost effective way to offer a deferred
payment plan.
Projected Outcomes/Consequences: If UNH continues to outsource
this service, we should experience an increase in the amount of
the fee charged per client - thus, our revenues should go up. If
we decide to offer this service in-house, the cost of providing
this service (staff and supplies) should be netted against the
benefit of investing our tuition money quicker, and we could earn
additional short-term investment income. In either case, it is
anticipated that by increasing the fee by an additional $40, UNH
will yield an additional $71,960 in revenue. It should be noted
that short-term investment revenue is distributed to the USNH
campuses on a formula- driven basis. This formula should be
reviewed to ensure that UNH is receiving its appropriate share.
set left 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goal E: increase volume of parking permits issued
Goal E: To realize revenues by increasing the volume of parking
permits issued and by collecting fines issued to non_permit parking
violators.
Rationale:
1. The University campus is currently accessible for parking
without permit after 3:00 p.m. With the opening of the new
Recreation Sports Center, the volume of parked vehicles on
the core campus is expected to increase. University
personnel requiring accessible parking space after 3:00 p.m.
include shift workers, faculty, graduate students, and DCE
students attending night classes. Core campus parking ought
to be accessible to these people.
2. For first_time violators the University pursues collection of
parking fines only for those holding permits.
Conditions and Assumptions: Those with regular parking permits
would continue to enjoy 7:30 a.m. _ 11:00 p.m. parking. Permits
would be issued only to those with UNH ID or those who are
registered for courses.
Strategies to Achieve Goal:
1. Require evening parking permits for University personnel and
students using core campus parking lots after 3:00 p.m.
2. Include permit application forms in the DCE catalogue.
3. Display information in all parking lots indicating penalties
for illegal parking and information as to how temporary
permits can be obtained.
Projected Outcomes/Consequences:
1. Those who presently are exempt will need parking permits.
2. Microfiche must be purchased to track license numbers of
non_permit parking violators.
3. Sports arena participants will be fined.
4. Public relations could be strained
5. Estimated revenues are:
$20,000 _ parking permits, based on a fee of $10/semester
$75,000 _ fines assessed for parking violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goal F: increase tuition late fee received beyond deadline
Goal F: Increase the amount of the late fee charged for tuition
payments received beyond the published deadline.
Rationale: In FY95, the University received $100,000 from the
current late fee of $50. Obviously, this fee is not significantly
large enough to act as a deterrent. Thus, tuition is not received
in a timely fashion, and the University looses short-term
investment income. In addition, late deposits affects our ability
to accurately predict headcounts and tuition revenues. An
increase in the fee should positively affect these counts.
Conditions and Assumptions: Processing late paperwork means extra
work for our Business Services staff. The assumption is that the
current late fee is too low to act as an effective deterrent
against paying tuition in a timely manner.
Strategies to Achieve Goal: A review should be undertaken with
comparable institutions to determine the current average late
fee charged for tuition payments. The University's fee should be
increased to at least the market average.
Projected Outcomes/Consequences: It is anticipated that, at a
minimum, the fee should at least double in size from $50 to $100.
This increase should be become effective in FY97. Doubling the
fee does not necessarily mean doubling the revenue. Two issues
should be taken into consideration. First, the late fee is a
deterrent, and as such, if the fee is raised the number of people
paying their tuition late should decrease. Second, tuition
revenues are invested in the USNH short-term investment income
fund. A distribution formula is then used to provide each campus
with a share of this revenue. This formula should be reviewed in
order to reaffirm that the University's share is appropriate with
the amount invested. Conservatively, we estimate this will cause
an increase in revenue of an additional $50,000.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goal G: centralize/standardize hiring of temporary help
Goal G: Realize savings to departments/offices by centralizing and
standardizing procedures for hiring temporary help.
Rationale: Currently the University provides the opportunity for
individual departments and offices to hire hourly labor and
non-status employees (temporary help) at their discretion.
General guidelines exist for recommended hourly wages but there
are no standardized or centralized procedures for hiring temporary
help. It is estimated that close to $1 million is spent annually
by the University for hourly and non-status employment.
Conditions and Assumptions: Presently some 600 employees annually
work for the University one week or longer, some go over six
months. It is believed that a more effective and efficient labor
pool would be created through centralization which would cut down
on training costs and hiring costs. In addition, a more effective
standardized hourly rate could be established. This service
could be either managed by Personnel Services or outsourced to a
private enterprise. If outsourced, liability for unemployment,
workers compensation, etc., which are keyed to 1250 hours worked
per year, would be transferred to the contractor and would no
longer rest with the University as long as the relationship is
defined in accordance with taxation laws. Employees would also
receive a different paycheck.
Strategies to Achieve Goal:
A. Have Personnel Services complete an RFP to outsource
temporary help. In preparing the RFP, consider whether or
not to exempt technical and trade positions. On the basis of
the responses, determine if outsourcing is cost beneficial.
B. Have Personnel Services evaluate keeping the service in-
house and determine if this approach is cost beneficial.
C. Develop procedures and policies on hiring and hourly rates
for temporary help.
D. Communicate information to University offices/departments
by June 1, 1996, to be effective July 1, 1996.
Projected Outcome: Centralizing and standardizing the procedures
and process for hiring temporary help will likely save some money
(between $25,000 - $50,000 per year) to campus departments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goal H: reducing cost of administrative overhead
Goal H: To maximize resources devoted to teaching, research and public
service by reducing the cost of administrative overhead, improving
administrative services to faculty and staff, improving financial
controls, and improving the quality of information for decision-making.
Below are eight subordinate goals which are interdependent but
individually significant to the primary goal:
1. Consolidate all departmental business functions (accounting,
budgeting, purchasing, grants & contracts accounting,
personnel, payroll, financial analysis, and management
reporting) into 10 to 20 comprehensive Business Service
Centers (BSCs) and require all business transactions from all
UNH units (including all funds with the authority to use CUFS
or pay a UNH employee) to be processed by a BSC.
2. Share and/or consolidate secretarial and clerical services.
3. Reduce administrative support positions primarily through
active management of natural attrition across all UNH units
and by emphasizing retraining, upward mobility, early
retirement, and other personnel programs designed to enable
an orderly transition to the new way of doing business.
4. Implement procurement cards as the primary vehicle for making
small dollar, high volume purchases of goods.
5. Implement emerging technologies (document imaging, workflow,
computer output to laser disk, electronic data interchange,
etc.) and CUFS enhancements to further automate routine
financial transaction processing.
6. Automate personnel and payroll document processing to reduce
steps/time to process employee transactions.
7. Ensure that all BSCs have adequate resources in terms of the
quantity and quality of personnel, equipment, physical space,
and support for business, programming, documentation and
training.
8. Delegate significant authority and responsibility from
central offices (Controller's Office, Purchasing, Personnel,
Office of Sponsored Research, etc.) to BSC managers.
Rationale:
Some UNH units (defined as colleges/schools, departments, areas,
institutes, etc.) have been more pro-active in their pursuit of
efficient administrative support in the past. Another
across-the-board budget cut would further erode the already
fragile administrative support of these departments but not cause
a ripple in other departments. Therefore, an informed,
quantifiable and rational approach based on actual data and
consistently applied productivity benchmarks was necessary.
Assuming there is a conceptual business model which would reduce
costs while optimizing service, control and management information
for UNH units, it should be applied to all UNH units, regardless
of funding source, current budgetary pressures, and specific
dollar targets. The Task Force believes that costs can be reduced
and administrative services can be improved or maintained by
properly aligning the need for services with consolidated
resources of sufficient quantity and quality to allow for
economies of scale, pro-active management, flexibility,
cross-training, continuous improvement, and teamwork.
Effective internal control systems provide reasonable assurance
that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or
disposition, that transactions are executed in accordance with
proper authorization, policy and sound business practice, and that
transactions are recorded properly to permit the preparation of
accurate and complete financial statements and management
analyses for decision-making. Key to effective internal control
systems is an organization structure which provides for careful
recruitment and training of qualified personnel.
There are too many steps in the current processing of business and
personnel transactions. By reducing the number of steps, the
University can reduce the resources required to conduct business,
increase productivity and improve timeliness of service. However,
adequate controls must be maintained and information for
decision-making must be enhanced to properly carry out the
University's fiduciary responsibilities. Technology can be
utilized to a greater extent to help in reducing manual processing
steps while at the same time improving the quality of controls and
information. But, if the University simply implements technology
and reduces processing steps, it will not save one budgeted
dollar. To capture budget dollars, the University must first
implement sweeping consolidations of business personnel. For
example, we expect the technology and process changes proposed
herein to increase business productivity by about 20%. If BSCs
are implemented, the 20% productivity enhancement could result in
the elimination of one in every five business FTE's. However, if
the 20% productivity enhancement is applied to the University's
current organization of highly decentralized business processing,
it would only free up a portion of each person's time to do other
things.
Conditions and Assumptions:
The current environment for conducting business on the financial
administrative system (CUFS) is, on the whole, inefficient and
ineffective. There were 551 total USNH active CUFS users who
entered 223,000 documents in FY95. 132 users (24%) entered
178,000 (80%) of the documents. The other 419 users entered the
other 45,000 documents. The average number of documents processed
in FY95 for the top 132 users was 1,348, whereas the average for
the other 419 users was 107. Although the number of users and
transactions are fewer, the human resources system (HRS) usage
reflects a similar "80/20" pattern.
CUFS and HRS are sophisticated administrative systems requiring a
background in accounting, a working knowledge of computers, and
continual in-service training and practice for a user to be
proficient. Low volume users don't get enough experience to
become efficient or effective at CUFS or HRS. The result is that
faculty and others who depend on these users are not well served.
Low-volume users usually have a large number of other
responsibilities, including direct faculty support, student
assistance, secretarial and clerical duties, and programmatic
functions. Attempting to concentrate on entering an on-line
requisition in CUFS while also covering the phone, walk-in
students and other important tasks just adds to job stress and the
lack of CUFS proficiency.
Low-volume users require a disproportionate amount of central
office support and strain central resources to the point of
diminishing service on the large volume processed correctly. In
addition, central training resources are inadequate to keep
hundreds of users properly trained in all aspects of these
administrative systems.
Deans, directors and department heads not only count on their
financial and administrative staffs for quick, complete and proper
processing of transactions, but they also require management
information and analysis for decision-making. Management decisions
must be made based on complete and accurate data. CUFS and HRS
are basically transaction processing systems. Management
information is best obtained via the System 1032 database, yet few
administrative support staff at UNH have a working proficiency
with 1032 as it pertains to financial and human resource data.
Monthly training sessions in 1032 are provided by Computing and
Information Services and the Controller's Office with sparse
attendance. Proper administrative use of 1032 requires a
background in accounting and computers. CUFS and HRS users
sometimes re-enter transactional detail into PCs for spreadsheet
analysis, rather than analyze data directly with 1032 or download
data directly to their PCs. Based on observations and interviews,
duplicative, manual "shadow systems" (second sets of books) are
often maintained at an undeterminable cost of human resources.
Elaborate account structures are sometimes established with
inordinate details. Redundant controls (such as excessive numbers
of approvals or multiple records of the same transaction) are
established in some departments.
Technology has improved tremendously in recent years in terms of
functionality, dependability and affordability, thereby creating
significant opportunities for redefining administrative work.
Most personnel/payroll transactions are prepared on paper
documents and entered via batch processes. Paper document
routing consumes more time and human resources than electronic
routing. Sending paper promotes duplicative files and logs and
unnecessary concentration of effort on small dollar, high volume
transactions. Approximately 85% of UNH purchasing volume is for
items costing less than $1,000 each, yet it only represents 8% of
the total purchasing dollars. By empowering the initiator with
authority to approve transactions up to $1,000, significant
productivity can be obtained without significant loss of control.
Dean, director, department head, and central office oversight
responsibility can be exercised without approving every individual
transaction.
Administrative support staff have been called on to provide more
and varied services in recent years. The computer revolution,
electronic mail, voice mail, and fax have radically changed the
functions performed by our support staff, including secretaries.
The University is leaning more heavily on the secretarial resource
for nontraditional secretarial responsibilities. Many secretaries
have developed skills in the use of spreadsheet, database, and
desktop publishing software. Secretarial time is now devoted more
and more to programmatic, technical, managerial and
student/customer support functions. The Task Force's sample
survey of 96.86 FTE administrative and clerical personnel at UNH
included 55.53 FTE of secretaries and word processors. We found
that on average 64% of secretaries' time is spent on secretarial
and clerical functions, whereas 23% of their time was devoted to
other administrative and programmatic activities, and 13% was for
accounting/financial and personnel/payroll services.
Responsibility for UNH departmental accounting and
personnel/payroll functions is often placed on secretaries,
requiring them to access CUFS and HRS on-line computer systems.
Given the heavy dependence on the secretary and the myriad of
skills expected of them, secretaries often find it impossible to
break away for the many training programs required to be
proficient in all areas.
Nearly every department, regardless of size, has at least one
secretary. Most smaller departments presumably receive excellent
secretarial support. The larger departments, however, may not be
able to keep up with the workload because the ratio of support
personnel to programmatic personnel may be less favorable. When a
secretary is on vacation, out for extended illness, or has
terminated, the smaller departments are especially hurt because
there is no backup support available. Efficiency is lacking in
these smaller departments because the resource remains constant
even if workload decreases. And if workload increases beyond the
capability of the secretary, there is no flexibility to get
additional resources.
Strategies to Achieve Goals: BSCs should be mandated by the
President. Fair and equitable standards for distribution of
administrative and clerical resources between all UNH units should
be set based on consistently applied productivity benchmarks.
Implementation of BSCs is best left to the appropriate dean,
director or department head, with assistance from an
implementation team and a change management team appointed by the
President. The implementation team's function would be to assist
deans, directors and department heads with analysis of current
state, planning for establishing proper organization, review of
procedures and systems, development of appropriate management
information tools, and assurance of proper and reasonable internal
control mechanisms. The implementation team would assist in
developing plans to address training needs, physical work space
requirements, and equipment needs. The change management team
would address issues of counseling, retraining programs, internal
promotional opportunities, reclassifications, early retirements
and other incentives, etc. Change management issues are likely to
be significant with this plan because the BSC and secretarial
consolidation concepts are major changes in the UNH culture.
The changes recommended are substantial and therefore should be
implemented in a planned, thoughtful manner over a time period of
sufficient length to provide reasonable assurance of success. We
believe all eight goals can be implemented and operational by July
1, 1998, thereby producing savings for budget year 1999. Goals 4,
5 and 6 (procurement cards, emerging technologies, and automated
personnel forms) would be undertaken immediately and should be
fully operational by December, 1996. Completion of these goals
would be a formidable task in its own right, requiring dedication
of substantial human and financial resources. The USNH Long-
Range Plan for Administrative Systems may need alteration to
accommodate these new priorities. Implementation of goals 1, 2
and 7 (BSCs, secretarial consolidation and proper resources) may
begin immediately at one or two units that are ready and able to
proceed. The implementation team can apply the lessons learned
and knowledge gained from the earlier conversions to future
implementations. Goal 8 can only be completed after the other
goals are completed and fully operational.
Although a significant number of administrative positions (both
PAT and Operating Staff) will be eliminated with these
recommendations, we believe it is possible -- and highly desirable
-- to minimize layoffs by immediately committing to the BSC and
secretarial consolidation concepts, and actively managing natural
employee attrition (goal 3). UNH has experienced voluntary
terminations of PAT and operating staff of 138, 141, and 159 in
fiscal years 1993, 1994 and 1995, respectively. We can therefore
anticipate attrition in roughly the same numbers over the
implementation period of fiscal years 1996, 1997 and 1998. When a
staff person leaves the University, it is incumbent upon
administrators across all units to exercise prudence and long-term
planning when considering whether to fill the position or to
reallocate responsibilities. It may be necessary to hire a
temporary hourly employee to bridge the time until the unit is
ready to fully implement BSCs and secretarial consolidations. By
actively managing attrition and by providing adequate
encouragement and retraining opportunities to existing staff over
the next three fiscal years, the need for layoffs can be
minimized.
The BSC envisioned would be staffed with the best qualified
employees or candidates. Vacant positions would be filled through
a competitive process to ensure that qualified candidates are
hired. Compensation would reflect increased responsibilities.
The Controller's Office and other appropriate central offices
would be included in the hiring of BSC managers and professional
staff. A recertification program for non-read only users would be
initiated to ensure that only well-trained users are permitted
entry/update access to administrative systems. CUFS, HRS, 1032
and PC training provided by Computing and Information Services and
Controller's Office would be mandatory for BSC staff. Continuing
professional education budgets and plans would be established for
BSC professional staff. Training in supervision, team building,
performance evaluations, and other management topics would be
required for BSC managers. Documentation of USNH/UNH policies and
procedures would be expanded for reference and training of BSC
staff.
BSC managers would be held accountable for providing excellent
transaction processing and information/analysis service to their
units, and for maintaining adequate internal controls over
financial operations, including strict adherence to policy and
good business practices. BSC Managers would be held accountable
for establishing and maintaining properly qualified and trained
staffs of adequate size and complexion to carry out all of the
financial and administrative functions expected of them by the
central offices ultimately responsible for UNH policy adherence
and control. If good business practice and adherence to USNH/UNH
policies, procedures and practices is not followed, the Vice
President for Finance and Administration would have the
authority and the responsibility to correct the situation at the
BSC by working with the appropriate administrators.
Deans, directors, and department heads would still be held fully
accountable for financial results of operations (staying within
budget, etc.); they would retain their fiduciary responsibility
and their responsibility for policy compliance. The BSC Manager
would report directly to the vice president, dean, director, or
department head in charge of the units being serviced. The BSC
Managers and other administrators would be fully accountable to
the Vice President for Finance and Administration to the extent
that central financial responsibilities and authority are
delegated to them.
We recommend BSCs be established for units with combined volumes
of at least 4,200 CUFS transactions per year. This equates to
BSCs with generally no fewer than 3 staff. There may be certain
exceptions to the 4,200 transaction minimum for BSCs. For
example, NHPTV is under 4,200 documents per year, but because of
its separate status within the University, it probably requires
its own BSC.
Secretarial consolidations should be encouraged by the President
but not mandated since circumstances vary greatly within each
college or division. For example, a dean, director or department
head may decide our strategies for secretarial consolidations are
inappropriate in his/her unit's situation and may decide instead
on cutting programmatic positions or permanently reducing support
budgets. However, it should be realized that, since BSC's will be
mandated, the cost to a unit may actually increase unless
secretarial consolidations take place. This is because
approximately 13% of the work currently performed by secretaries
will now be accomplished by the BSC.
While not mandated, secretarial resources for an entire unit
should be viewed as a shared pool of service providers. Under
this model, the BSC manager would be responsible for general
oversight, workload monitoring and assignments, training, and
performance evaluation. For example, secretaries could be
assigned to more than one department and/or one location per
building, or in larger buildings, one location per floor. The
secretarial offices would have one to four secretaries in each
location, thereby providing for cross-coverage during peak periods
or absences. The combination of more than one secretary in an
office allows for superior coverage of phones and walk-ins, and
also allows for cross-training, specialization (e.g., in word
processing or desktop publishing), and career advancement
opportunities (presumably in the larger secretarial locations,
there would be a senior secretary with daily office management
responsibilities). Just as important, secretarial consolidations
in this manner provide for much greater flexibility to deal with
important and urgent tasks due to double-teaming and delegation
opportunities. Academic year appointments and reductions in
percent time appointments of support staff are strategies which
could result in budget savings. These strategies should be
easier to implement in a secretarial location of more than one
secretary because while the unit may need multiple secretaries for
nine months of the year, it may need only one secretary for the
summer.
Projected Outcomes/Consequences: By FY99, UNH would be able to
reduce its annual operating budget (funds 1050, 1000 and related
PAU's) by $1 million to $1.5 million, net of additional costs.
Business services, controls and information for decision-making
would be enhanced. Secretarial services would be maintained for
most units and improved for the others. Career advancement
opportunities would be greater due to clear career paths, stronger
training programs, and greater visibility within the University.
UNH would be well positioned to handle future growth and
additional responsibilities such as increased complex regulatory
requirements.
Projected savings from implementation of goals 1 and 2 have been
computed by applying current UNH benchmark productivity and
average salary figures for business, secretarial, and other
administrative/programmatic functions to each UNH unit. Analysis
of data collected by the Task Force indicates a disparate
distribution of administrative support personnel between UNH
units. We have developed several computer models to gauge the
appropriate level of administrative support, and while each one
differs in its assumptions and specific targets by unit, each
model correlates highly with the others. Specific targets for
each unit will differ from our projected savings as a result of
information obtained in the implementation phase, but we feel the
overall fund 1000/1050 savings of at least $1 million is accom-
plishable, especially since the productivity gains from
implementation of goals 4, 5, 6, and 7 (estimated at approximately
20% for departmental business activity) have not been directly
factored into the total savings projection. In addition, by
implementing goals 4, 5, 6, and 8, another estimated six FTE
(approximately $160,000 per year with benefits) can eventually be
eliminated in central offices; however, these savings must be
reinvested in training and business systems analysis/programming.
Beginning immediately and continuing for the next 2 1/2 years, the
University must commit to making these goals reality. By fully
committing to the BSC and secretarial consolidation models now,
the University may avoid a hasty across-the-board response to
budgetary crisis in the future, which would result in massive
layoffs and bad morale. Investments and decisions should be made
now that are consistent with the long-term goals of BSCs and
secretarial consolidations. Investments of human and financial
resources must be made now, requiring reprioritization of
long-standing plans made by the University. For example, the USNH
Long-Range Plan for Administrative Computing may need alteration
to accommodate these new projects with tight deadlines, and goals
set by individual departments may need to be deferred to provide
sufficient release time for staff to properly plan and execute the
changes recommended herein.
Significant time and effort by current financial, computer,
personnel and other administrative staffs will be necessary to
implement these changes. Financial investments of approximately
$2.0 million (primarily personnel related) will be required to
renovate physical spaces appropriate for BSCs; to purchase
necessary computing equipment (PC's, scanners, fax's, high speed
printers, etc.) for BSCs; to purchase and install emerging
technologies; to provide early retirement and other incentive
programs; and to add staff for training and business systems
analysis/programming. Some of these investments would be required
even without BSCs and some investments will actually be less than
they would be if we did not implement BSCs. For instance,
client/server-based administrative systems will be delivered by
our current systems vendors in the coming months and years,
requiring all users to access these systems with upgraded PC's.
If the number of administrative users is reduced, the cost of
purchasing the new PC's will obviously be less. The estimated
marginal investment over the next 2 1/2 years is in the $2.0
million range.
To summarize, by investing approximately $2.0 million of
additional funds over the next 2 1/2 years, we believe the
University can save annually at least $2.0 million (at least $1.0
million from fund 1000/1050 sources) beginning in FY99.
Additional recommendation
I: Additional Recommendation: Evaluate the Office of Affirmative
Action, the Women's Commission, ACCESS, SHARPP, and other functions
that might be logically grouped to determine if savings could be
realized through consolidated or shared resources.
Conditions and Assumptions: Currently the Office of Affirmative
Action and ACCESS are connected organizationally, but they are in
separate locations. The Women's Commission and SHARPP operate
independently from one another and from Affirmative Action and
ACCESS.
It has been suggested that a reorganization of the Affirmative
Action, Women's Commission, ACCESS, and SHARPP functions to one
location, all reporting to one administrator could result in
improved communication, coordination and shared resources to
improve efficiency.
It is unclear that the functions of these offices are compatible
and could function more effectively and efficiently if placed in
one location. However, it is believed that thorough analysis of
this suggestion occur to determine if efficiency could be improved
without a decline in the quality of service provided.
Strategies to Achieve Recommendation:
A. The Office of Affirmative Action and the Women's Commission
are in a period of transition. A report is due from the
Women's Commission Task Force on the future of the Women's
Commission and the Office of Affirmative Action and its
functions/responsibilities will be evaluated over the next
12 - 18 months.
B. A small group of individuals should be appointed to
methodically evaluate the recommendation. The staff of the
offices involved should be participate in the evaluation.
C. Provide a report to the President of the University by
January 1, 1997. If approved by the President, the plan
would be effective on July 1, 1997.
Projected Outcome: Substantial savings could be realized through
consolidation and shared resources of functions logically grouped
and located in one place.
Summary
Summary________________________________________________________________
Implementation of the goals and recommendations putforward by the Task
Force would result in potential savings or increased revenue on a
permanent basis amounting to $299,960 exclusive of Goals A, G, H and
Recommendation I. Goal H would require a marginal one-time invest-
ment over the next two and a half years of $1.5 to $2 million in order
to save the University an annual $1.7 million ($1 million from Fund
1000/1050 sources.) Implementation of Goal A would result in the
reduction in the anticipated deficit for FY 97 and FY 98 of between
$900,000 and $1,800,000 in each of the years for a total reduction of
between $1,800,000 and $3,600,000. Implementation of Goal G will
provide savings to individual departments of an estimated $25,000 to
$50,000 in total but this would not be realized as direct savings to
Fund 1000 since it could not be captured centrally. Any savings
generated from Recommendation I is yet to be determined.
The Task Force feels that goals of the respective task forces which
result in efficiencies and greater effectiveness operationally be
considered for implementation throughout the University System.
Furthermore, any changes made at the USNH Central Offices could save
UNH as a result of a lower central transfer to support USNH.
The Task Force worked hard and demonstrated a seriousness of purpose
throughout its deliberations. It was difficult, to say the least, to
consider recommended actions that ultimately could affect colleagues
throughout the University. Nevertheless, the Task Force maintained its
commitment to its charge and developed a set of goals and recommenda-
tions which it believes are worthy of implementation for the future of
the University of New Hampshire as long as continuing budget shortfalls
are faced.
Please feel free to contact the committee chair or conveners of the
respective subcommittees if questions arise or more information is
desired.