Transform CSCU 2020 - CSU-AAUPDRAFT – for discussion Transform CSCU 2020 Presidents Meeting...

DRAFT – for discussion

Transform CSCU 2020 Presidents Meeting

August 07, 2014

DRAFT – for discussion only


Agenda

Welcome and updates Value proposition Initiative discussion Lunch Metrics Organizational effectiveness & efficiency Stakeholder engagement Closing

Description

• Sibson, background checks, GBTBA, credit restrictions, sexual misconduct compliance

• Introduce and facilitate conversation around value proposition

• Discussion of initiatives

• Review updated set of metrics • Discuss how metrics will be used

• Share process for developing

recommendations and proposed recommendations

• Town Hall agenda, schedule • Business survey highlights

• Recap from day

Presenter

Dr. Gray Dr. Gray All M. Kozlowski E. Steiner M. Kozlowski Dr. Gray

Topic Timing

8-9am 9-9:30am 9:30-11:30am 11:30-noon Noon-1pm 1-2pm 2-2:45pm 2:45-3pm

2


Value proposition answers "why CSCU" for students A natural extension of existing inputs

CSCU mission & vision CSCU strategic goals Institution missions & visions

CSCU value proposition …

... stems from system’s and institutions’ input

3


CSCU value proposition

• Lowest tuition in state of Connecticut

• Minimal time to degree • Enhanced student-facing

financial aid resources

• Flexible career pathways utilizing online offerings

• Improved transfer and articulation

• State of the art classrooms • Cross-registration options • Degree variety (e.g., through

Charter Oak)

• Targeted student services (e.g., embedded tutoring)

• Enhanced academic advising

• Diverse program mix, aligned to workforce needs

• High-caliber faculty • Student diversity

• Enhanced career-related programming (e.g., PTECH)

• Expanded partnerships with business community

• Growth in centers of excellence more closely tied to CT workforce needs

Affordable price

Greater preparation

to achieve life and career

goals

Superior access

to courses & programs

Quality student

experience

Value proposition to students

4


Poll question: How well does this value proposition articulate the essence or spirit of the value of the collective system of Connecticut colleges and universities?

1. Not at all

2. Somewhat, but not well

3. Moderately well

4. Well

5. Very well

0 / 17 Cross-tab label

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 2 3 4 5

5

Com


Introduction to discussion of Transform initiatives

Discussion questions Format

Academics and student experience (including Workforce of Tomorrow) • 40 min on Q1 • 40 min on Q2

Short 10 minute break between questions Operational initiatives • 15 min on Q1 • 15 min on Q2

Round robin for discussion—each President speaks to the proposed discussion questions

1. What are the most important things that you are doing at a campus level related to Transform CSCU 2020?

2. Where do you see opportunities to collaborate more as a system related to Transform?

6


Academics and student experience initiatives



Enrollment and retention Academics and

student experience Workforce of Tomorrow

• Early college programs • Cross-campus registration and

admissions • Go Back to Get Ahead • Veterans recruitment • Recruit non-resident students • Study abroad • Graduate recruitment • Academic advising • First-year student experience • Philanthropic

campaign to go from CCs to CSUs

• Academic calendar • Academic program

optimization • K-12 system alignment • Career preparation COEs • Strengthen liberal arts core • Faculty skill and development • Applied research –graduate

students • Seamless system-wide

transfer • State-of-the-art classrooms • Blended learning and online • Distance learning study skills • After-hours support • Invest in co-curriculars • Enhanced career services • Shared metrics

• Labor needs & workforce programs

• Career-related programs (e.g., P-Tech)

• Collaboration with business community

• Career pathway alignment— CT Tech. system

7


Poll question

Question 1: How important is it to enhance the academic and student experience by leveraging

collective resources across the system?

1. Not at all important

2. Of little importance

3. Moderately important

4. Important

5. Very important

Question 2: How far along are we to realizing the potential of leveraging the collective resources

for colleges and universities?

1. Not yet started

2. Initial progress

3. Mid-way

4. Considerable progress

5. Fully there

8


How important is it to enhance the academic and student experience by leveraging collective resources across the system?




4. Important

5. Very important


0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 2 3 4 5

9

Com


How far along are we to realizing the potential of leveraging the collective resources for colleges and universities?

1. Not yet started

2. Initial progress

3. Mid-way


5. Fully there


0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 2 3 4 5

10

Com


Operational initiatives

System-wide policy transparency

Revenue management

Organizational effectiveness and efficiency

IT systems assessment

IT organizational structure

Facilities master plan

Code compliance/infrastructure improvements



11

System-wide shared metrics

12


Objectives for this conversation

Share a revised set of system-wide metrics

Share and discuss go-forward plan for how metrics can be used, including

• Defining what success looks like for each metric

• Sharing how different stakeholders might use shared metrics

• Discussing ways to measure institutional performance

• Sharing proposed plan and timing for how metrics scorecard can be rolled out

13


Recall: Purpose of system-wide shared metrics is to transparently track progress towards CSCU system goals

Provide transparent way to track CSCU system-wide progress towards goals

• BOR, system and campus leadership

• Other key stakeholders, e.g., students, prospective students/parents, faculty, community

Track and share

progress

Inform decision making

Enable leadership to make data-driven decisions in improving performance against goals

• In the short term, track institutional performance over time and in comparison to other CSCU institutions (accounting for differences in context)

• In the long term, consider tracking institutional performance in comparison to external peer institutions

Metrics tracked at institution level to provide system-wide view; individual institutions may track other metrics independently

14


Proposed set of 25 CSCU system-wide shared metrics (I/II) Reflects feedback from Presidents workshop and system leadership discussions

Goal Category Metric Detailed metric definition (segments listed are examples and not exhaustive)

A successful first year

First year progress

First year English/Math completion rate (including remedial students)

Percent of first-year students who completed a credit-bearing English or Math course over their first year (segment by students who take/do not take a remedial course and by full/part-time)

First year credit completion rate Percent of degree-seeking, first-year students who completed 15 credit hours (part-time) or 30 credit hours (full-time)

First year retention

First year retention rate First to second year retention rate for degree-seeking students (segment by full/part-time and by degree)

Student success

Overall progress

Overall credit completion rate Percent of degree-seeking students who completed an average of 30 credits/yr over their time of enrollment (indicates on-track to graduate in 100% of normal time), 20 credits/yr (150%), 15 credits/yr (200%) (segment by first-time/transfer, full/part-time, degree)

Overall completion

Cohort graduation rate in 100%, 150%, 200% of normal time

Percent of degree-seeking, first-time full-time cohort who graduated in 100%, 150%, 200% normal time from a higher education institution (segment by graduation from a CSCU institution/from a non-CSCU institution and by degree)

Average time to degree Average time to degree for full-time students (segment by degree and first-time/transfer)

Undergraduate transfers and completions per 100 undergraduate FTE

Number of CSCU undergraduate students who transferred or graduated per 100 undergraduate FTEs (segment by transfer to and graduation from CSCU/non-CSCU institution)

Graduate completions per 100 graduate FTE

Number of graduate students who graduated per 100 graduate FTEs

Exam performance

National exam performance (e.g., licensure)

Number of students who passed national exams on the first attempt (e.g., licensure exam) compared to a fixed year baseline

Affordability and

sustainability

Student enrollment

Student enrollment Student enrollment (headcount and FTE) (segment by degree and by full/part-time)

CSCU share of state HS graduates Percent of state high school graduates that enrolled in a CSCU institution

Student exposure to distance education

Percent of students taking fully online or hybrid courses (segment by fully online/hybrid courses)

High school and early college student enrollment

High school (dual enrollment programs) and early college (high school credit-granting programs) student enrollment compared to a fixed year baseline

Metric is BOR approved

15


Proposed set of 25 CSCU system-wide shared metrics (II/II) Reflects feedback from Presidents workshop and system leadership discussions

Goal Category Metric Detailed metric definition (segments listed are examples and not exhaustive)

Affordability and

sustainability

Affordability Out-of-pocket cost to student Change in net price (tuition and fees less grant aid) over time (e.g., 1 year, 3 year, 5 year) (segment by degree)

Resource sustainability

State appropriations as a percent of revenue

State appropriations as a percent of total revenue

Education and related expense as a percent of expenses

Education and related expenses (instruction, student services, and the instructional share of academic support, operations and maintenance, and institutional support) as a percent of total expense

Average credits to degree Average credits earned by students at time of degree (segment by degree and by first-time/transfer)

Credit hours taught per faculty Average number of credit hours per faculty (segment by type of faculty)

Innovation and

economic growth

Grant funding

Grant funding (e.g., for specific research projects)

Revenues from governmental and non-governmental agencies that are for specific research projects, other types of projects, or general institutional operations (e.g., training programs)

Placement of graduates

Awards in workforce-aligned fields Awards in STEM, healthcare, education, other priority fields compared to a fixed year baseline and as a percent of total awards

Rate of graduate employment in state

Number of graduates employed within one year in CT compared to fixed year baseline and as a percent of total graduates

Rate of graduate enrollment in graduate programs

Number of graduates enrolled in graduate program within one year compared to a fixed year baseline and as a percent of total graduates

Jobs filled through partnerships Number of jobs filled through institution-sponsored programs (e.g., P-Tech) compared to a fixed year baseline

Equity

Student diversity

Diversity of student population Underrepresented student group enrollment (headcount and FTE) (segment by race/ethnicity, gender, Pell-grant, adult)

Equity of outcomes

Equity in outcomes Underrepresented student group success on other CSCU shared metrics (segment by race/ethnicity, gender, Pell-grant, adult)

Metric is BOR approved

16


Metric feedback received Treatment Updated shared metric

Include success of students in remedial programs

Added students in remedial programs as a key segment to first year English/Math completion rate metric

Percent of first-year students who completed a credit-bearing English or Math course over their first year (segment by students who take/do not take a remedial course)

Include transfers to or graduations from any higher ed. institution as student success

Updated undergraduate transfer and completion rate metric

Number of CSCU undergraduate students who transferred or graduated per 100 undergraduate FTEs (segment by transfer to and graduation from CSCU/non-CSCU institution)

Include graduate student success

Added metric to measure graduate student success

Number of graduate students who graduated per 100 graduate FTEs

Remove student loan default rate

Removed the metric NA

Include focus on research Added metric to measure capacity to invest in research, understanding that this is not fully comprehensive


Back-up: Revisions made to shared metrics to incorporate input from 7/21 workshop

17


Goal Category Metric Aspiration Rationale

A successful first year

First year progress

First year English/Math completion rate (including remedial students)

Higher More students completing English or Math in their first year indicates first year progress

First year credit completion rate Higher More students completing 15 credits (PT) or 30 credits (FT) in their first year indicates first year progress

First year retention

First year retention rate Higher More students re-enrolled indicates first year success

Student success

Overall progress

Overall credit completion rate Higher More students accumulating the required credits for graduation each year indicates progress

Overall completion

Cohort graduation rate in 100%, 150%, 200% of normal time

Higher Graduating more students within 100% of normal time for 4 year institutions and 150% of normal time for 2 year institutions indicates efficiency in completing degree

Average time to degree Lower Lower average time to degree indicates efficiency in completing degree

Undergraduate transfers and completions per 100 undergraduate FTE

Higher More undergraduate students who successfully transfer from a 2 year to 4 year institution or graduate from a higher education institution indicates undergraduate student success

Graduate completions per 100 graduate FTE

Higher More graduate students who graduate indicates graduate student success

Exam performance

National exam performance (e.g.,licensure)

Higher More students who pass national exams on the first attempt indicates degree effectiveness

Affordability and

sustainability

Student enrollment

Student enrollment Higher Greater enrollment indicates accessibility and attractiveness

CSCU share of state HS graduates Higher More state high school graduates who enroll indicates accessibility and attractiveness to residents

Student exposure to distance education

Higher Greater use of distance education indicates accessibility through technology

Definition of success for each shared metric needs to be consistent across institutions to measure performance (I/II)

18


Definition of success for each shared metric needs to be consistent across institutions to measure performance (II/II)

Goal Category Metric Aspiration Rationale

Affordability and

sustainability

Student enrollment

High school and early college student enrollment

Higher Greater high school and early college enrollment indicates accessibility to local high school students

Affordability Out-of-pocket cost to student Lower Lower out-of-pocket cost (tuition and fees less grant aid) to students

indicates affordability

Resource sustainability

State appropriations as a percent of revenue

Within range Consistent state funding share of total revenue indicates financial sustainability

Education and related expense as a percent of expenses

Within range Consistent education and related expense share of total expense indicates sustainability of education-related programs

Average credits to degree Within range Consistent average credits to degree indicates effectiveness of TAP and student support services

Credit hours taught per faculty Within range Consistent credit hours per faculty indicates sustainability of faculty workload

Innovation and

economic growth

Grant funding


Higher Greater grant funding indicates capacity to invest in research

Placement of graduates

Awards in workforce-aligned fields Higher More awards in priority fields indicates alignment of programs to workforce needs

Rate of graduate employment in state

Higher Greater graduate employment indicates marketability of graduates

Rate of graduate enrollment in graduate programs

Higher More graduates enrolled in graduate programs indicates marketability of graduates

Jobs filled through partnerships Higher More jobs filled by students indicates success of business partnerships

Equity

Student diversity

Diversity of student population Higher Greater student diversity indicates accessibility to all students

Equity of outcomes

Equity in outcomes Higher Greater equality in performance across groups indicates institutional effectiveness

19


Stakeholders can use shared metrics for strategic planning and for understanding system performance

Engagement

Periodic meetings, e.g., • Workshops on system-wide progress • Workshop deep dives on subset of

metrics • Individual meetings on institutional

progress

Annual update

Executive staff meetings

Self-directed

Annual BOR update, e.g., to Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee

Briefing by CSCU

Use of shared metrics

• Identify strategic areas for improvement • Inform policies, procedures, and operations to

improve performance on shared metrics • Share best practices across institutions

• Inform strategic direction • Inform areas for further investigation

• Inform strategic planning • Inform resource allocation

• Understand performance of the system on key higher education metrics

• Inform state goals and initiatives in higher education

• Inform resource allocation to BOR

• Understand performance and strategic direction of the system

Stakeholder

Presidents

BOR

System leadership

Students, faculty, staff, general public

State legislature

Press

20


Performance can be tracked and reported on an institutional level and rolled up to a system-wide view

Current state Future state

Each institution tracks performance on institutional metrics that reflect its unique mission

Each institution tracks performance on system-wide metrics that reflect CSCU goals

Institutional performance is rolled up to view performance by institution type

Institutional performance is rolled up to view system-wide performance

4 CSUs CO

12 CCs

Each institution tracks performance on institutional metrics that reflect its unique mission

Many CSCU shared metrics may be redundant to metrics currently

measured by institutions

Select metrics can be collected centrally for broader reporting

CSCU Shared Metrics Progress Metric Goal

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

CSCU Shared Metrics Criteria Metric Goal

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 CSCU Shared Metrics Criteria Metric Goal

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

21


Four ways to measure institutional performance Institutions can be measured by one or any combination of approaches

Description

Performance indicator

Above average

Near average

Below average

Exceeds target

Meets target

Below target

Above average

Near average

Below average

Pros

Cons

Improved

No change

Declined

Improvement over time

Performance on metric improves over last period

Most direct measure of institutional progress and feasible to implement

Does not reflect if institution performance is competitive

Performance against institutional target

Performance on metric is above institutional target set by system and institution leadership, e.g., increase enrollment by 1%

Target can be set to reflect system needs and aspirations

NA

Comparison to peers within CSCU

Performance on metric is above the average of peers within CSCU, i.e. amongst CCs and amongst CSUs

Exposes learning opportunities and focus areas within CSCU

Comparison may not take specific institutional differences into account

Comparison to peers external to CSCU

Performance on metric is above the average of IPEDS and aspirational peers external to CSCU

Reflects competitiveness of CSCU performance against relevant peers

Comparison may not take specific institutional differences into account

System roll-up can be created in all approaches

b c d a

22


Poll question: Which of the ways to measure performance do you believe will be most helpful to inform progress against system-wide goals?

1. Improvement over time

2. Performance against institutional target

3. Comparison to peers within CSCU

4. Comparison to peers external to CSCU


0% 0% 0% 0%

1 2 3 4

23

Com


Sample scorecard: performance indicator highlights areas for leadership and improvement on a metric level

Illustrative

Sample scorecard for CSCU institution

Metrics with aspiration to be higher or lower

Within range

Out of range

Key

Improved

No change

Declined

Metrics with aspiration to be in

range

Institution performance over time for each metric can be

rolled-up to view system performance over time

Needs focus

Learn from

24


Approach to shared metrics scorecard roll-out Target June 1 internal release and January 1 public release of 2013/14 data

2014 2015 2016

Plan Communicate Execute Refine

Roll-out activities

Plan shared metrics initiative and engage stakeholders

Collect and validate data

Generate scorecard

Refine scorecard Develop public

communications plan, e.g., website

6/1 Internal scorecard

1/1 Public scorecard

9/1 Supplemental analysis

6/1 1/1 Release timing

9/1 3/1 12/18 Seek BOR approval

September Workshop to discuss system progress

June Feedback on preliminary scorecard Stakeholder

engagement

7/21 Workshop on set of shared metrics

8/7 Feedback on go-forward plan

October Meeting to align on communications to students, faculty, staff

Institution IR | Executive Sponsors | Executive Steering Committee | BOR

Scorecard release President engagement

25

Organizational effectiveness and efficiency initiative

26


Objectives of the organizational effectiveness and efficiency initiative

To increase the accessibility and affordability of our system for our students

To respond to a challenging budget environment while maintaining highest quality of support services To identify ways in which we can improve the effectiveness of our organization and address our current pain points

To identify ways to reinvest in enhancing the value of our system to our students

Building a fact-base on how support functions are organized and served across the CSCU system today

• What is working well • What are the pain points • Where are there opportunities to improve

Identifying opportunities to increase organizational effectiveness and efficiency through

• Adoption of best practices across institutions

• Increasing administrative scale through shared services

• Strategic partnerships, strategic purchasing

What is the focus of this initiative Why do we have this initiative

Goal is to develop a prioritized set of recommendations and establish a plan for implementation

27


System and campus level stakeholder input informed proposed recommendations

Conversations with system leadership across functions

on early hypotheses

Insight from Presidents at budget hearings on potential

for shared services

Workshops with heads of IT, Finance, and HR

from each of the 17 campuses

Analysis of size and spend of support functions across the system

28


Insight from Presidents during budget hearings on what functions have potential for shared services

Finance

• Purchasing • Accounting • Travel reimbursement • AP/AR • Grant writing • Payroll

• Payroll • Compensation and benefits • Training & development • Affirmative action reporting • Recruiting

HR

• Financial aid processing • Call center – General information, financial aid, tech

support • General business services • Marketing

• Processing for enrollment/admissions • Online low-enrolled courses • Regionally shared academic programs • Genius classrooms

Other Academics

Source: Budget presentations given by presidents to Finance committee in June 2014

29


Other higher education institutions around the country are also exploring shared services

Other

State of Ohio University of Georgia system (28 institutions) Oregon University system (7 institutions) University of North Carolina Virginia Community College System

Financial management support Financial reporting Budget support Expense management Accounts payable

IT Accounts Payable/Accounts Receivable HR call center Purchasing/strategic sourcing

Developing a lessons learned / best practices portfolio

30


Highlights from finance workshop with CFOs and Deans of Administration

What's working well

Collective use of resources across the system can be beneficial to institutions • Call center support for financial aid from Charter

Oak can be extended

Use of technology can help simplify work • Use of technology in the cashier's office helps

streamline billing, refunds, and collections

Local resources allow for fast response • Localized purchasing allows for timely, quick

response

Pain points

Several paper intensive processes can benefit from more automation and centralization • Accounts payable • Purchasing contracts • Data collection process for financial aid (currently

causes delays for students) • Equipment inventory (impacts audit process) • Data collection for budget and reporting

Some areas lack system-wide expertise • Need system-wide expertise on financial aid to

communicate changes, interpret regulations, and confirm method of implementation

Lack of consolidation of one financial system means duplication of work

Not enough staffing for grants

Source: Workshop with CFOs on June 17, 2014

31


Highlights from workshop with heads of HR

What's working well

Some practices are working in pockets but should be expanded across the system • Self-service timesheets if used more broadly

can reduce administrative burden • Diversity training exists at Universities and

should be expanded to Community Colleges • Charter Oak's online training could be

expanded Pooled sourcing of contracts can help us become more efficient • E.g., Universities have a group pricing for

background checks

Pain points

Paper intensive processes can benefit from automation • Payroll is very paper-intensive; direct deposit

and self-reporting timesheets should be required

Need for more best practice sharing and training across institutions in the system related to: • Contract administration • Training on how to use classified job lists

Need for better system-wide expertise • Related to workers compensation and FMLA

Source: Workshop with heads of HR on June 16, 2014

32


Less need for in-person interaction

Interaction can be virtual; quick response time not critical or can be enabled by technology

High level of standardization

Activities are fairly standardized across campuses and benefit from, or require, consistent approach

Less need for local knowledge

Low functional complexity, requiring CSCU familiarity rather than deep campus-specific knowledge

High scale potential High potential for economies of scale

High level of specialization

Requires specialized or deep technical skills

Benefit by central coordination

Central decision-making/oversight or consolidation of output needed

Criteria for considering move to shared services or centers of excellence (centrally or regionally)

33


Key recommendations to increase organizational effectiveness and efficiency across functions (I/II)

Create centralized

shared services

• Centralize payroll and comp & benefits and a team of experts for workers comp & FMLA

• Centralize purchasing, AP, accounting , and certain grant writing activities • Consolidate compliance and accountability reports centrally for IR & Planning • Centralize Tier 2 help desk by expanding existing COSC function to serve

entire system • Centralize facilities master planning function at the system office

Create regional

centers of excellence

• Create regional teams for diversity & equity, training & development, and retirement

• Regionalize instructional design and support for firewall, telecom and network

• Implement regional communications crisis response teams

Facilities Finance HR

Other

Financial Aid and Admissions

Public Affairs IR & Planning

IT

34


Key recommendations to increase organizational effectiveness and efficiency across functions (II/II)

Build strategic vendor

partnerships

• Consolidate use of strategic partners for HR benefits & policies (e.g., background checks) • Identify and partner with a vendor to streamline travel bookings and reimbursement

process • Engage with strategic partners for IT network infrastructure (WAN, telecom) • Combine into single ERP, move to the cloud, and eliminate single point of failure • Partner with a strategic vendor to streamline back-end processing of admissions and

financial aid applications

Use technology to increase

efficiency and effectiveness

• Implement self-service timesheets across community colleges and system office • Expand use of online training system to offer more trainings and track compliance • Expand use of P-cards across the system • Expand use of barcoding for fixed assets across the system • Deploy virtual desktops to reduce overall operating costs and increase security • Establish single chart of accounts and enable pull reporting from ERPs across all

institutions

Streamline policies/processes & share best

practices

• Increase effectiveness and efficiency in custodial/maintenance activities, potentially through expanded use of vendor partnerships

• Many policies, processes, and best practices have been identified as needing further examination to increase effectiveness & efficiency within functions—currently in a "parking lot" as not in scope for current phase of the initiative

Facilities Finance HR

Other

Financial Aid and Admissions

Public Affairs IR & Planning

IT

35


Proposed prioritization criteria

Lower Higher

Higher

Approach opportunistically

Quick win

Little use to pursue

Long running project

Ease

of

imp

lem

en

tati

on

Payback potential

Lower

Criteria • Implementation risk • External complexity • Political resistance • Timeline to

implement

Criteria • Ability to address pain-

points • Monetary potential • Timing to realize

benefits

36


Next steps

Work on prioritizing recommendations using proposed criteria

Continue dialogue on what can be reasonably achieved in what time frame

Begin laying out implementation next steps related to these recommendations

37


Poll question: Given the value proposition of keeping our system affordable and accessible for students, how important is it to pursue the recommendations to enhance organizational effectiveness and efficiency?




4. Important

5. Very important


0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 2 3 4 5

38

Com

Stakeholder engagement: town halls and business survey results

39


Proposed agenda for Town Halls Target for at least one Board member and one Executive Sponsor at each Town Hall

Topic Description Slides Who presents

Transform intro (~15 minutes)

• What is Transform, why we are doing it, where we are in the process

• Description of Transform • Summary of stakeholder

engagement • Value proposition • Where we are with Transform • What is the campus impact

• Combination of Campus President, BOR member, and Dr. Gray (based on who is available)

Initiative spotlights (~15 mins)

Focus on those most important to stakeholders (faculty, staff and students)

• Academic priorities: e.g., seamless transfer, smart classrooms

• Organizational effectiveness and efficiency

• Few pages on initiative highlights—progress to date and path forward

• Transform Executive Sponsor (all materials will have talking points)

• System and campus leadership

Discussion, Q&A (80 mins)

• Some “thought starter” questions

• Comments, questions, input

• Display the value proposition slide

What's next and how to get involved

(~10 mins)

• What remains for Transform (e.g., December report)

• Summary of options for how to get involved in Transform, who to contact

• High-level timeline • Options for getting involved

• Campus President

40


Transform Town Hall calendar

41

September/October 2014

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

1 2 3 4 5

8 9 10 11 12

3:00 pm - CCSU 11:00 am - Three Rivers 3:00 pm - ECSU 1:00 pm - SCSU

15 16 17 18 19

2:30 pm - Asnuntuck 3:00 pm - WCSU 3:30 pm - Manchester

9:00 am - Naugatuck Valley 3:00 pm - Middlesex

1:30 pm - Tunxis 2:30 pm - Quinebaug

22 23 24 25 26

6:00 pm - Charter Oak 2:00 pm - Gateway 3:00 pm - Capital

2:30 pm - Norwalk

29 30 1 2 3

2:00 pm - Northwestern 2:00 pm - Housatonic


Poll question

How important are business partnerships to realizing the full value of Transform?




4. Important

5. Very important

Where are you relative to where you want to be in the extent to which your institution is forming partnerships with the business community?

1. Not yet started

2. Initial progress

3. Mid-way


5. Fully there

42


How important are business partnerships to realizing the full value of Transform?




4. Important

5. Very important


0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 2 3 4 5

43

Com


Where are you relative to where you want to be in the extent to which your institution is forming partnerships with the business community?

1. Not yet started

2. Initial progress

3. Mid-way


5. Fully there


0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 2 3 4 5

44

Com


Context for Transform Business and Civic Community Survey

220 respondents to business and civic community survey, representing all major NAICS industry categories

• Greatest number of responses are from manufacturing (64), public administration (28), and health care (23) sectors

• Nearly 200 open-ended responses

Survey results can be used for three primary purposes:

1. To gain insight into the business community perspective, and to articulate the value of Transform to this community

2. Gain additional input from open-ended responses, to be used to inform

– Programming, to align to CT workforce in the near-term

– Create alignment of system-wide program offering with business needs in the longer-term

3. To inform potential partnerships at both the institution and system level

– 61 (28%) of respondents provided personal information and wish to be contacted directly

45


For reference: full set of survey questions

Question 1: What sector is your business/organization in? (drop-down) Question 2: What is your business/organization size? (drop-down) Question 3: What is your role? (drop-down) Question 4: On average, how many new graduates has your business/organization hired annually in the past 3 years? (drop-down) Question 5: On average, how many new graduates do you anticipate your business/organization will hire annually in the next 3 years? (drop-down) Question 6: What skills, qualifications and expertise are needed for new employees at your business/organization today? How do you envision this changing in the next 5-10 years? (open ended, optional) Question 7: If you have hired graduates from one or more of the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities, how have these graduates performed relative to your expectations? (Option to rank for each institution: highly satisfied (1), neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3), highly dissatisfied (5) Question 8: Today and going forward, how do you envision your business/organization will engage or collaborate with individual Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU) or the CSCU system overall? (For all that apply, select if already partner today or are interested in forming a partnership) Question 9: Please feel free to share any other comments, questions or suggestions that would be helpful to the CSCU system in the Transform effort (open-ended, optional) If you are interested in a follow-up from CSCU, to further your engagement per question 8 above, please provide your name and e-mail address here: (open-ended, optional)

46


Respondent summary 220 respondents from all 17 sectors, primarily CEOs or EVPs at smaller companies

By sector

Sector #

responses Total (%)

Accommodation and Food Services 4 2

Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services

1 0

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 2 1

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 16 7

Construction 4 2

Education Services 17 8

Finance and Insurance 7 3

Health Care and Social Assistance 26 12

Information 2 1

Management of Companies and Enterprises 1 0

Manufacturing 64 29

Other Services (except Public Administration) 23 10

Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 13 6

Public Administration 28 13

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 3 1

Retail Trade 5 2

Transportation and Warehousing 1 0

Wholesale Trade 3 1

Total 220 100

By company size

Company size # responses Total (%)

0-50 employees 127 58



501-1,000 employees 11 5

1,000+ employees 21 10

Total 220 100

By role

Respondent role # responses Total (%)

CEO, President or Chairman 96 44

Executive Vice President or Executive Director

37 17

Vice President or Divisional Manager 45 20

Sub-divisional manager or assistant manager

16 7

Other staff member 14 6

Other 12 5

Total 220 100

Source: Transform CSCU 2020 Business and Civic Community Survey, July 2014

47


Key findings

Respondent businesses expect to increase hiring of new graduates modestly in next 3 years

• Percentage of respondents with businesses hiring 6-10 graduates annually up from 9% (3-year historical) to 11% (3-year forecast); increase from 5% to 9% for those hiring 11-25 graduates per year

Overall, respondents are satisfied with performance of graduates from CSCU institutions

• Respondents had option to rank satisfaction with graduates from specific institutions

• Of 372 responses, 257 (69%) indicated satisfaction or high satisfaction with graduate performance; only 14 responses (4%) indicated dissatisfaction or higher dissatisfaction

Respondents view their role primarily in providing internships, with growing interest in volunteer-based partnerships (e.g., mentors)

Respondents highlighted that soft and basic skills are needed in new employees in addition to domain-specific or other intellectual skills

• Respondents suggest it is institutional role to fill basic skills gaps—professional and personal

The business community is supportive of strengthening the CSCU system through Transform

• Respondents reinforce system value, suggest ways to improve efficacy

1

2

3

4

5

48


Annual hiring of respondent businesses expected to increase modestly in next three years

7972

911

9

5100

75

50

25

0

Respondents by hiring volume (%)

Hiring timeline

Next 3 years

220

2 5

Past 3 years

220

5 2

0-5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-75 75+

Increases anticipated in the categories of businesses hiring 6-10 graduates annually and 11-25 graduates annually Industries anticipating hiring the most workers annually in the next 3 years include: • Health Care and Social Assistance • Manufacturing • Education Services • Professional, Scientific, and Technical

Services

1

Number of new graduates business/organization hired annually in the past 3 years; and anticipated hiring in the next 3 years

Respondent businesses expect to increase hiring slightly in next 3 years

Respondent businesses expect to increase hiring slightly in next 3 years

Questions: 1) On average, how many new graduates has your business/organization hired annually in the past 3 years? (n=220) 2) On average, how many new graduates do you anticipate your business/organization will hire annually in the next 3 years? (n=220) Source: Transform CSCU 2020 Business and Civic Community Survey, July 2014

49


Overall, respondents satisfied with performance of graduates from CSCU institutions

0

35

70No. responses

Institution

26

35

41

61

15 18

16 14

11 13

19 16

26

14 17

11

19

Highly dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither satsified nor dissatisfied Satisfied Highly satisfied

Colleges Universities

Of 372, 257 (69%) responses indicate businesses was satisfied or highly satisfied with performance of institution graduates

2

Question: If you have hired graduates from one or more of the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities, how have these graduates performed relative to your expectations? (n=120) Source: Transform CSCU 2020 Business and Civic Community Survey, July 2014

Overall, respondents satisfied with performance of graduates from CSCU institutions

50


Respondents most interested in providing internships, with growing interest in volunteer-based partnerships

0

50

100

150No. responses

Mode of partnership

Scholarships

26

65%

35%

Donating money

37

70%

30%

Employee volunteer

38

39%

61%

Advocating

41

66%

34%

Mentors

37%

63%

Fnd. or Regional

Ad. Board

71

39%

61%

Program Ad. Board

77

42%

58%

Cont’d ed for

employees

86

69%

31%

Contributing to course

88

60 56%

Guest lecturers

89

36% 44%

Internships

145

54%

46%

64%

Interested in partnering Partner today

Least interest in scholarships and donating money

3

Most interest in internships

Growing interest in volunteer-based partnerships (e.g., mentors, advisory board

membership)

Question: Today and going forward, how do you envision your business/organization will engage or collaborate with individual Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU) or the CSCU system overall? (For all that apply, select if already partner today or are interested in forming a partnership) (n=173) Source: Transform CSCU 2020 Business and Civic Community Survey, July 2014

Respondent interest in partnering with CSCU institutions and/or system (for each mode of partnership, option to select if already partnering or interested in partnering)

51


Respondents seek specific skills in new employees, but also soft skills and basics—both personal and professional

What skills, qualifications, and expertise are needed for new employees at your business/organization today (open-ended)

• E.g., teamwork, multi-tasking, flexibility, collaboration, patience, understanding • "Excellent "soft" skills and people skills" • "Being sensitive to needs of others"

Soft skills

Basics—personal and professional

Basic skills are critical, and lacking in many graduates Basic professional skills are a necessity ... • "Basic math, grammar, sciences, computer skills" • "I would like my new employee to be able to read, write …"

... but new employees also need to have basic life skills • "... be organized and always on time" • "I need people who are prepared to work and interact in a professional environment …

graduates have no social skills or ability to interact with the public" • "Too many graduates lack basic life skills"

Intellectual skills2

• Analytic proficiency • Communications • Social media

Broad & integrative knowledge3

• Critical thinking and problem-solving

Specialized knowledge4

• Engineering, science • Nursing • Computer-based • Basic business (e.g., marketing)

Themes

Specific skills1

4

1. Categories from Association of American Colleges & Universities 2. Skills applied to complex challenges within majors and to broader problems 3. Includes key concepts and methods of inquiry; areas include sciences, social sciences, humanities, arts 4. Knowledge or applied skills in a field. Question: What skills, qualifications and expertise are needed for new employees at your business/organization today? How do you envision this changing in the next 5-10 years? (open ended, optional) Source: Transform CSCU 2020 Business and Civic Community Survey, July 2014

52


Business community sees value in strengthening CSCU system Respondents desire to improve graduate ability to meet their business' needs

"I expect the college system to pick up the pieces where the local school systems have failed to teach

the student adequately in math and English"

"This is a great idea and will help streamline many of your operations allowing you to provide better

services to the community …"

"We are excited about the Transform effort and the impact it will have on our business and civic

communities …"

"Design curriculum for the jobs of current and future employers in Conn. so Conn. students stay here in the state instead of all our young people

leaving for Boston and New York..."

"Great idea. Should have happened years ago" You have resources that are best-in-class at CCSU in downtown NB...maybe they should take the lead or

be the clearing house within the system …"

Business community is supportive of Transform …

… and has ideas for how to leverage system effectively …

5

Questions: Please feel free to share any other comments, questions or suggestions that would be helpful to the CSCU system in the Transform effort. What skills, qualifications and expertise are needed for new employees at your business/organization today? How do you envision this changing in the next 5-10 years? Source: Transform CSCU 2020 Business and Civic Community Survey, July 2014

53

Transform CSCU 2020 - CSU-AAUPDRAFT – for discussion Transform CSCU 2020 Presidents Meeting...

Documents

Transcript of Transform CSCU 2020 - CSU-AAUPDRAFT – for discussion Transform CSCU 2020 Presidents Meeting...