Support process review

 

The University of Bristol has a Support Process Review (SPR) programme designed to streamline the support service. The programme is made up of a number of projects (process areas) each looking at the cost and efficiency of different services.

 

The overall objective of the SPR programme is to:

 

• Reduce the cost of support functions (in order to optimise the funding available for academic activities and student support)
• Reduce administrative workload of academic staff (in order to allow the academic community to pursue academic objectives)
• Improve and standardise support functions (in order to improve efficiency, effectiveness and resilience)
• Improve the standards of customer service to staff and students (in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness)
• Ensure that single process owners are identified with clear responsibility, accountability and authority for the quality and delivery of support functions (in order to ensure greater control over resources, flexibility to respond to changing demand and capacity to manage future growth)
• Strengthen the career progression opportunities of support staff (in support of the University's aim of being a first class employer and enabling staff to make an excellent contribution)
• Develop resilient, well-supported corporate systems that are fit for purpose and applied across the University without duplication (in order to improve efficiency and to remove single points of failure)

 

All process areas were set the target of improving their service by reviewing what they do, the processes used to deliver them, their cost base and staffing levels. The University's website identifies the drivers for SPR:

 

• Overall core salary costs represent a higher proportion of the cost base than at many peer institutions
• Evidence that the University's present support structure gives rise to poorly supported systems, leading to lack of resilience, local system obsolescence and single points of failure; does not encourage sharing of best practice, which results in inconsistent support for students and academics; and allows or even encourages inefficiency and duplication of activity, therefore wasting scarce resources

 

Indications were that the current situation could not be improved significantly by small operational changes at the margin, but would require a major programme of transformation, underpinned by continued investment in improved systems and processes.

 

The University set out clear steps at the outset:

 

1. Process Owners will be established

 

For each identified process there will be a single process owner with clear responsibility, accountability and authority for the design, service quality and overall delivery objectives of the process and any IT systems that support it. Process owners will have the necessary resourcing to exercise their responsibilities, which are to:

 

• Specify the way in which processes are organised and delivered
• Specify the resources required to deliver processes (people and IT systems)
• Direct the work of staff who deliver the process regardless of their physical location and
• Deliver an appropriate level of service

 

Processes will be standardised in order to achieve efficiency gains, and only process owners will be able to authorise variations to the University standards.

 

2. Support staff roles will change

 

Because the same processes and systems will be used everywhere, support staff will be able to move more easily between similar roles in different parts of the University. Members of staff who provide support to faculties, academic departments and divisions will be deployed in the most appropriate place, using the following principles as a guide:

 

• There is to be no duplication of tasks within a process
• Use of electronic systems or tools will be considered provided that quality of service can be maintained, and
• The University will be aiming to achieve economies of scale, provided that quality of service does not suffer adversely

 

3. The way IT systems are defined, developed and supported will change

 

Process definitions and IT systems needs and specifications will be challenged and informed by user groups comprising both academics and the relevant process community to ensure that the resulting developments are fit for purpose.

 

All systems developments will be based on an agreed enterprise-wide IT system architecture, with no duplication of systems at departmental, faculty, or central locations. Where possible, the flow of information will be managed through common electronic systems, with data captured electronically.

 

System support resources will be aligned to support development, maintenance and delivery of the enterprise-wide systems.

 

4. The annual financial planning process will change

 

The annual financial planning process will be grounded on an annual review and prioritisation of strategic academic and support goals that are in line with the University's long-term financial imperatives. There will be a closer and visible link in budget setting between investment in academic infrastructure and the necessary academic and financial performance to deliver the benefits of that investment.

 

The annual support budget setting process will focus on the total resource requirements of each major University support process, service or specialist activity. Support budgets will be set with input from process owners, Deans and representatives of the key users of that process or service, and will determine the number and profile of support staff to be deployed within each Faculty, School/Department and Division to operate the process or service.

 

Phase 1 looked at costs and opportunities with the key question of where activity should be focused. There was a high-level costing of staff time spent on support process and each manager was asked to identify the full-time equivalent of their support staff spent on each activity, with the aim of identifying priority areas for further analysis and process change. Eight areas were identified for focused review.

 

Phase 2 implemented detailed review in the eight areas with the key question: where are the specific opportunities to streamline processes and systems. Process review workshops were put in place with internal benchmarking of school-level activity. The outcome of the workshops was identification of:

 

• Inefficiencies in every major process area
• Considerable duplication of effort with multiple inputting of the same data into a plethora of systems
• Multiple points of authorisation with consequent lack of ownership

 

School benchmarking outcomes showed:

 

• A wide range of approaches to administration
• Different staffing profiles for similar sets of tasks
• Wide variation in standards and practices but also best practice which could be shared
• A plethora of local home-grown systems, some of which were excellent
• Clarity over discipline-specific needs and practices against custom and practice (with consequent clarity over what can be standardised)
• Varying levels of academic input into support processes

 

Phase 3 has been the implementation phase, of 'top to toe' support structures controlled by Process Owners with the primary focus (at Faculty level) of 'one activity, one process, one place'.

 

The University has achieved greater standardisation, greater resilience and economies of scale, with:

 

• More generic staff roles focused on a single process
• Staff appointed to process and not School/Department
• Processes overseen by the Process Owner with minimal exceptions

 

There has also been a renewed programme of investment in IT systems. New structures were put in place in September 2011, and there will be an ongoing focus on continuous improvement.

 

Phase 4 focuses on delivery of the benefits and measurement of 'success'. The focus will be on benchmarking relative to previous position (distance travelled) rather than position relative to peers.

 

Measures will include:

 

• Staff survey (on a three-monthly basis to the same group of staff)
• Review of academic staff time spent on administration
• KPIs such as response times, complaints, cost of time spent on key processes, reports from service desk systems
• Student surveys including NSS, the international Student Barometer and Bristol Students' Union survey
• Business cases for systems with identified benefits/measures

 

However external benchmarking has taken place, with sector-wide interest in process review:

 

• Sharing best practice in managing structural change
• Some use of external consultants
• Multiple site visits to explore usage of key systems
• High level analysis of HESA data (although structural, physical and cultural factors posed challenges for 'normalisation' of data including services in medical schools and the costs of professional services delivered outside the centre and across multiple sites)
• Work with the University's Planning Department on an 'administration benchmarking group'