Page1of20

UCLAStrategicPlanningInitiativeInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForce

FinalReport

July17,2017

Page2of20

EXECUTIVESUMMARY:AspartofUCLA’sStrategicPlanningInitiative,theInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForce(“theTaskForce”)waschargedwithdevelopingthreetofiveactionableitemsthatwouldimproveourinstitutionaleffectivenesswhileenhancingUCLA’sacademicqualityandsocialimpact.ConsistentwiththeguidingprinciplesofUCLA’sStrategicPlanningprocess,theTaskForceconsistedofabroadrangeofUCLAstakeholdersandusedacollaborativeanditerativeprocesstodevelopasetofrecommendedactionitems,whichwerethenpresentedtoabroadergroupofstakeholdersforinputandfeedbackataTownHallonJune1,2017.Notsurprisingly,theinstitutionaleffectivenessissuesfacedbyUCLAareonesthatarecommontomanyorganizations(includinglargeacademicinstitutions)astheyfindtheneedtoadjusttotheirchangingexternalenvironmentandhencepotentialsolutionstosomeoftheissuesarewelldocumentedinthemanagementliterature.However,theTaskForcestrovetolookattheseissuesfromaUCLAperspective,andtotakeintoaccountourowninstitutionalcultureandvaluesindevelopingspecificrecommendedactionitems.TheTaskForceelectedtofocusprimarilyonthequestionof“HowcanwemakeUCLAmoreagile/abletorespondmorequicklyandeffectivelytochangesintheexternalenvironment,particularlychangesinresources?”.Wefeltthatthisquestionwasthetoppriorityintheareaofinstitutionaleffectivenessandthatansweringthisquestioncouldhelptoaddressseveraladditionalquestionsthatthecommitteefeltwereimportant.TheTaskForceidentifiedtwofactorsthatwefeltwereofprimaryimportancethatimpairinstitutionalagilityatUCLA,namely:

• TherearetoomanylayersofinstitutionalreviewatUCLA,and• The“wrong”functionsatUCLAarecentralized(i.e.,somefunctionsthatshouldbecentralized

arenotandotherfunctionsthatshouldnotbearecentralized).FouractionitemswereidentifiedbytheTaskForcethatwouldhelptoaddresstheseissuesandhenceimproveUCLA’sinstitutionaleffectiveness,whileatthesametimeimprovingUCLA’sacademicqualityandsocialimpact.Thesefourrecommendedactionitemsareto:

1. TrainLeadership,faculty,andstaffonhowtoleadconsultativeprocessesandpromoteeffectivediscourse;

2. Usecollaborativeprocessestodevelopinstitutionalkeyperformanceindicators(KPIs);3. CreateaUCLA“LeanTeam”taskedwithimprovingprocessesacrosscampussothatwemeet

KPIs;4. Developanintercampusteamchargedwithaddressingcentralizationissues.

Takentogether,wefeelthattheseactionswouldnotonlygreatlyimprovetheinstitutionaleffectivenessofUCLA;theywouldalsoprovidesubstantialco-benefitstotheUCLAcommunity,including:

• Increasingtransparencyandcommunication;• Increasingtrust;• Fosteringamore“mission-oriented”culture;and• Fosteringagreatercustomer-serviceorientation.

Detailsregardingtheprocessbywhichtheseactionitemsweredeveloped,aswellaswhyandhowtheyshouldbeimplementedareprovidedinthereportthatfollows.Theseactionsarenotparticularlyresourceintensive,butwouldrequireasubstantialcommitmentacrosstheinstitutionintermsofself-reflectionandeffort.BecausetherecommendedactionshavethepotentialtobetransformativeforUCLAandarewell-alignedwithourinstitutionalcultureandvalues,wefeelthatthiseffortiswellworthwhileandsuchacommitmentwouldallowUCLAtorisetoanewlevelofexcellence.

Page3of20

PROCESSUSED:TheInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForcewaschargedbyUCLA’sExecutiveViceChancellorandProvost,ScottWaugh,todevelopthreetofiveactionableitemsthatwouldimproveUCLA’seffectivenesswhileenhancingouracademicqualityandsocialimpact.TheInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskwasoneoffivetaskforcesinvolvedindevelopingactionitemsaspartofthestrategicplanningprocess:EducationInnovation,ResearchInnovation,CivicEngagement/CommunityImpact,InstitutionalEffectiveness,andGlobalOutreach.Eachofthetaskforceswasprovidedwiththecoreprinciplesguidingthestrategicplanningprocess(Table1)andwithinitialquestionstobeusedtohelpguidetaskforcediscussions.TheseinitialquestionswereprovidedtoeachofthetaskforcesbytheEVCandProvostandweredevelopedbasedonaseriesofconversationsthatAssociateProvostAnastasiaLoukautou-SiderisandSeniorAdvisorYolandaGormanhadwithabroadrangeofstakeholdersacrosstheUCLAcampusabouttheirconcernsandpriorities.TheinitialquestionsprovidedtotheInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForce(referredtoashereafterinthisreportas“theTaskForce”)areprovidedinTable2.Table1.GuidingPrinciplesforUCLAStrategicPlanningInitiative1.Focus:Strategicplanningwillaimtobenefitthecampusaswhole;itwillnotinterveneintheplanningeffortsofdifferentcampusunits.2.Inclusiveness:Strategicplanningprocesswillbeinclusiveofthedifferentvoicesandstakeholdersoncampus.TaskForceswillbecomposedtoincluderepresentationfromfaculty,staff,administration,students,andalumni.Therewillbetownhallmeetingsforinput,aswellasopportunitiesforthecampuscommunitytoreviewthedraftplanandsubmitfeedbackonline.3.Action:Thestrategicplanwillleadtoactionableitems;itwilllinkactionstostrategicdirections.4.Flexibility:Thestrategicplanwillbealivingdocument;onethathastheflexibilitytobeenhancedandadaptedinthefuture.5.Transparency:Campusconstituentswillbeabletotracktheprogressandimplementationoftheplan’sinitiatives.Table2.InitialQuestionsProvidedtotheInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForcetoHelpGuideTaskForceDiscussions1.HowshouldUCLArespondtodecliningstaterevenuesandincreasinguniversitycosts?HowcanwekeepUCLAaffordableandexcellent?2.Whattypesoffacilities,activities,andprogramsmaybenefitfromcentralization,andwhichshouldbetterresidewithineachunit?Canintegratingcertaincentraladministrativeserviceshelplowercostsandoverheadsforacademicunits?3.Whattypesoffacilitiesandresourcescanbesharedtocreategreaterefficienciesandreduceduplication?Whatshouldwedomoreandwhatshouldwedoless?Howcanwestreamlineoffices,programs,andactivities?4.Whatstructuresandpoliciesareneededtofacilitateinterdisciplinarycollaborationamongdifferentunits?5.InwhatnewwayscanUCLAemploytechnologytoenhanceinstitutionaleffectiveness?TheTaskForceusedacollaborativeanditerativeprocessoveraperiodoftwomonths(fromMarchtoMay2017)todevelopasetofrecommendedactionitems,whichwerethenpresentedtoabroadergroupofstakeholdersforinputandfeedbackataTownHallonJune1,2017.ConsistentwiththeguidingprinciplesofUCLA’sStrategicPlanningprocess,theTaskForcewascomprisedofindividualsthatrepresentedabroadrangeofcampusunitsandstakeholdergroups(seeTable3).TheTaskForce

Page4of20

developedtheirproposedactionitemsviaaseriesofbrainstormingactivities;thesearesummarizedinTable4.TablesandfiguressummarizingtheresultsoftheindividualbrainstormingactivitiesareprovidedintheAppendix.Table3.InstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForceMembersNameofTaskForceMember Position/RelationshiptoUCLAAtkeson,Andy Professor,EconomicsBeck,Michael AdministrativeViceChancellorBuzzi,Meg AcademicPersonnelOffice,ProjectDirectordeStefano,April AssistantDean,GradDivision-AcademicServicesDickau,Devon UCLAAlumnus;ConsultantatDeloitte&ToucheEldredge,Jeff Professor,MechanicalandAeroEngineeringGodwin,Hilary(Chair) ProfessorandAssociateDeanPublicHealthGorman,Yolanda SeniorAdvisortotheChancellorforStrategicInitiativesLee-Garcia,Rebecca DirectorofProgramAnalysis,AcademicPlanningandBudgetLoukaitou-Sideris,Anastasia ProfessorandAssociateProvostNoriega,Chon Professor,TelevisionFilmTheaterOuchi,William Professor,AndersonSchoolofManagementandAssociateDirector,CTSI

Pardasani,Neil UCLAAlumnus;Partner&ManagingDirectoratTheBostonConsultingGroup

Parr,Tracey AssistantDeanforAcademicandStrategicPlanning,LawSchoolSands,Rafi UndergraduateStudent,BusinessEconomics/PoliticalScienceStaton,Paul CFO,UCLAMedicalCenterTucker,Belinda Professor,PsychiatryTable4.ProcessUsedbyInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForcetoDevelopActionItemsMeetingDate

PrimaryFocusofMeeting

Meeting1-March21,2017

• RefinedandprioritizedquestionsfortheTaskForcetoaddress(brainstormingactivity);SeeTableA1inAppendix.

Meeting2-April5,2017

• ReviewedhistoricaltrendsforUCLAandpeerinstitutions,includingmoneyspentperstudent,tuitionincreasescomparedtocostoflivingincreases,enrollments,andclasssizes(overviewprovidedbyRebeccaLeeGarcia)

• Performedrootcausalanalysis(brainstormingactivity)toidentifyfactorsthatcurrentlyimpairUCLA’sinstitutionalagility;SeeFigureA1inAppendix.

Meeting3-April19,2017

• Developedlistofpotentialactionitems(brainstormingactivity)thatwouldhelptoaddressthetworootcausesofimpairedinstitutionalagilitythatwereconsideredbythetaskforcememberstobethehighestpriorities(SeeFiguresA2andA3inAppendix),namely:o Therearetoomanylayersofinstitutionalreview;o The“wrong”functionsatUCLAarecentralized(i.e.,somefunctionsthat

shouldbecentralizedarenotandotherfunctionsthatshouldnotbearecentralized).

Page5of20

MeetingDate

PrimaryFocusofMeeting

Meeting4-May3,2017

• Reviewedinsightsfromtheliteratureoncentralizationversusdecentralization(overviewsprovidedbyHilaryGodwinandBillOuchi)

• Draftedsetof“selectioncriteria”fordeterminingwhetherfunctionsshouldbecentralizedornot;SeeTablesA2,A3andA4inAppendix.

Meeting5-May25,2016

• FinalizedlistoftopfourrecommendedactionitemsanddiscussedhowtheseshouldbepresentedattheJune1stTownHallmeeting.

Page6of20

ACTIONITEM1:CREATEINCREASEDCOMPETENCEONCAMPUSINCOLLABORATIVEANDEFFECTIVEDISCOURSEWHAT?

• TrainUCLAleadership,facultyandstaffonhowtouseconsultativeprocessesandlead/engageineffectivediscourse.Ourabilitytodeploybestpracticesinorganizationalmanagementtoimprovetheeffectivenessofourinstitutioniscriticallydependentuponkeystakeholdershavingcompetenciesrelatedtoclear,effectivecommunicationandtheabilitytouseconsultativeprocessestomanagechange.Consultativeapproachesarecoretoourinstitutionalvalueofsharedgovernance,butnotallBruinshavetheskillsneededtoimplementtheseskillsinpractice.Werecommendimplementingahands-ontrainingprogramwhosegoalistoprovideleadership,faculty,andstaffacrossUCLAwithpracticalskillsneededtoleadandengageineffectivediscourseandtoemployconsultativeprocessesintheirwork.Toensureuptakeofthisprogram,AcademicSenate,studentorganizationsandstaffrepresentativesshouldbeinvolvedinthedevelopmentandimplementationoftheprogram.

WHY?

• Enableustotacklecoreissuesandproblemsinawaythatisdirect,productiveandcollaborative.TrustandeffectivecommunicationarecoretotheeffectivenessofourinstitutionandenhancingthesecapacitieswithinUCLAwouldleadtosignificantimprovementsininstitutionaleffectiveness.Improvingverticaltrustwithinourorganizationwouldhelptoustoidentifywherelayersofreviewcouldpotentiallybecoordinatedbetter.Improvinghorizontalcommunicationwithinourorganizationwouldhelptoustoopportunitieswherecentralizedserviceswouldbemoreeffective.

• Bestpracticeexample:OhioStateUniversity’sCultureShapingInitiative.1,2OhioStateUniversity’slaunchedahighlyeffectiveinitiativein2007tomovetheirinstitutionfrom“visibletovisionary”thatfocusedonaligningtheirculturewiththeirinstitutionalvalues.Thisinitiativewasmodeledonasmaller,parallelinitiativewithintheOSUMedicalCenterthathadbeenverysuccessful.Theyreportthatthisinitiative“createdanenterprisemindsetandgreatercollaborationandagility”andresultedinimprovednationalandinternationalrankings.2

HOW?• Option1:Hireaconsultingfirmwithexpertiseinthisarea.Awiderangeofconsultingfirms

specializeinprovidingtrainingsrelatedtoleadingandparticipatingincollaborativeandeffectivediscourseandhiringoneofthemcouldhelpUCLAto“jumpstart”theinitiative.Asjustoneexample,OSUretainedthefirmSennDelaney(http://www.senndelaney.com/)todevelopanddeploytheirinstitution’s“CultureShapingInitiative”.

• Option2:Buildaninhousetrainingteam.Inthelongrun,itmaybemorecost-effectivetodevelopaninhousetrainingteam.ThiswouldalsoallowforUCLAtodevelopatrainingprogramthatistailoredtoourinstitutionalcultureandvalues.

1http://research.osu.edu/wp-content/themes/research.osu.edu/documents/orbo/CultureShapingInitiative.pdf2http://knowledge.senndelaney.com/docs/clients/case%20studies/senndelaney_casestudy_OSU.pdf

Page7of20

WHEN?• Implementinitial“trainthetrainer”programinAY2017-18;rolloutbroadertrainingin

AY2018-19.Werecommendahybridapproach,inwhichaconsultingfirmwithexpertiseinthisarenaishiredtoconductinitialtrainingsinAY2017-18andtohelpusdevelopourowninhouseteam,whichwouldthenrollouttrainingtoabroaderaudienceacrosscampusstartinginAY2018-19.

Page8of20

ACTIONITEM2:DEVELOPINSTITUIONALKEYPERFORMANCEINDICATORSWHAT?

• Useparticipatorydecision-makingprocessestodevelopaconsensussetofkeyperformanceindicators(KPIs)forUCLA.Clearlydefinedmetricsforassessinginstitutionalsuccessarecriticaltobeingabletoidentifyopportunitiesforimprovementandassessingwhetherchangesthatareimplementedtoimproveinstitutionaleffectivenesshavethedesiredimpact.Tobeconsistentwithourinstitutionalcultureandvalues,thesemetrics(or“keyperformanceindicators”,KPIs)needtobedevelopedinwaysthatarebothcollaborativeandtransparent.Becauseprioritiesvaryacrosstheinstitution,schoolsshouldlikewisebeencouragedtodevelopandcommunicateKPIsthatarespecifictotheirunits.

WHY?

• TobeinsuccessfulinmakeUCLAmoreeffectiveandagile,weneedtofirsthaveacommondefinitionofwhat“success”wouldlooklike.Developmentofkeyperformanceindicatorsthatareagreeduponbothverticallyandhorizontallywithinorganizationsisgenerallyrecognizedasbeingcriticaltobothinstitutionaleffectivenessandtrustwithinorganizations.ThedevelopmentoftheseKPIsnecessarilyrequiresbroad-baseddiscussionsaboutinstitutionalvaluesandpriorities.Forinstance,discussionsaboutwhatmetricstousefor“instructionalproductivity”(e.g.,studentcredithoursversusnumberofcoursestaught)shouldbetiedtoparalleldiscussionsaboutwhatmetricsshouldbeusedtoassessacademicexcellenceandstudentlearning,toensurethatqualityisnotcompromisedaswestriveforimprovedefficiency.Futhermore,thesediscussionsshouldbeconductedinaninclusivemannerthatinvolvesbroadinputfromfacultyandstudents.

• BestPracticeExamples:AlthoughKPIsaremorefrequentlyassociatedwithfor-profitorganizations,therearebecomingmorecommonamongacademicinstitutions.EABhasawebpagethatfocusesonKeyPerformanceIndicators,thatincludesbothfrequently-usedKPIsforacademicinstitutionsandamoredetailedexamplefromtheUniversityofKansas.3However,thesematerialsareprimarilyfocusedonservicefunctions;examplesrelatedtoacademicexcellenceandsocietalimpactalsoneedtobeidentified.

HOW?

• Hireaconsultingfirmwithexpertisefacilitatingparticipatoryprocessesinacademicinstitutionstofacilitateprocess.BecausedevelopmentofKPIsisastandardmanagementpractice,werecommendhiringaconsultingfirmwithexpertiseinthisarenathatemploysparticipatoryprocessesthatarealignedwithourinstitutionalcultureandvalues.OncetheinstitutionalKPIsaredeveloped,thedashboardsystem(whichusesTableau4)thathasbeendevelopedbyTheUCLAofficeofAcademicPlanningandBudgetatUCLAcouldbeadaptedandusedformonitoringandcommunicatingtherelevantindicators.CapacityshouldbebuiltwithindifferentschoolsandunitsatUCLAtobeabletoaddandmonitorunit-specificKPIstothedashboard.

3https://www.eab.com/research-and-insights/university-systems-forum/resources/shared-services-resource-center/key-performance-indicator-compendium4https://www.tableau.com/

Page9of20

WHEN?• LaunchinFall2017withgoalofhavingfully-vettedinstitutionalKPIsnolaterthanJune2018.

BecausethedevelopmentofKPIsissocentraltobeingabletomonitorprogressonstrategicplanninggoals,thisactionitemshouldbegiventopprioritywiththegoalofhavingfully-vettedinstitutional-levelKPIsbytheendofAY2017-18.Capacityshouldbebuilttofacilitatethedevelopmentofschool-specificKPIsduringAY2018-19.

Page10of20

ACTIONITEM3:CREATEUCLA“LEANTEAM”WHAT?

• ImplementaUCLA“LeanTeam”thatidentifiesopportunitiesforimprovingprocessesacrosscampus,developplansforaddressingthem,andfacilitatestheirimplementation.InadditiontodevelopingKeyPerformanceIndicators,aprocessisneededtoconductrapidanditerativediagnosisoffactorsthatimpaireffectivenessatUCLAandtodevelopeffective,evidence-basedsolutions.UCLAshoulddevelopa“leanteam”thatcanserveasaresourceand“inhouseconsultinggroup”forcontinuousimprovementactivitiesacrosscampus.

WHY?• “Continuousimprovement”isaevidence-basedanddata-drivenapproachforimprovingboth

organizationalefficiencyandeffectiveness.Continuousimprovementprocessesaredesignedtoevaluateandimproveproducts,servicesorprocessesandhaverapidlybecomeastandardapproachtoimprovingboththeeffectivenessandefficiencyoforganizations.Manysuccessfulmodelsforcontinuousimprovementprogramsexist,includingSixSigma(originallydevelopedatMotorola)andKaizen(usedbyToyota).Inrecentyears,moreandmoreeducationalinstitutionshaveembracedcontinuousimprovementmethodologiesaswell,ineffortstomaintainexcellenceinthefaceofrisingcostsanddiminishingresources.Becauseacademiaisinherentlydifferentfromfor-profitinstitutions,itiscriticalthatUCLAdevelopitsownteaminthelongrun(asopposedtosimplyrelyingonoutsideconsultants).Thiswillalsoensurethatthecontinuousimprovementmindsetbecomesengrainedandintegratedintoourinstitution’scultureandoperations.

• Bestpracticeexample:UCLAHealthSystem’sValUCareRedesignTeam.5TheUCLAHealth

Systemdevelopedaninhouseteam(theValUCareRedesignTeam)thatleadstheirinitiativesrelatedtoenhancingpatientexperienceatUCLA,improvingcareoutcomes,improvingoperationaloutcomes,andloweringhealthcarecosts.Theirworkhasresultedinshorterhospitalstaysandhighpatientsatisfaction.AnyinitiativeatUCLAshouldstartbyconsultingwiththeleadershipoftheUCLAHealthSystemandtheValUCareRedesignTeamtoidentifyhowtheirexperienceandexpertisecanbeleveraged.

HOW?

• Option1:Hireaconsultingfirmwithexpertiseinthisarea.AwiderangeofconsultingfirmsspecializecontinuousimprovementprogramsandhiringoneofthemcouldhelpUCLAto“jumpstart”theinitiative.

• Option2:Buildaninhouse“leanteam”.Inthelongrun,itwilllikelybemorecost-effectivetodevelopaninhouseleanteam.ThiswouldalsoallowforUCLAtodevelopacontinuousimprovementprogramthatistailoredtoourinstitutionalcultureandvalues.

WHEN?

• ImplementinitialcontinuousimprovementprograminAY2017-18;rolloutinstitutionalteaminAY2018-19.Werecommendahybridapproach,inwhichaconsultingfirmwithexpertiseincontinuousimprovementprogramsishiredandfocuseson“low-hangingfruit”inAY2017-18.

5https://www.uclahealth.org/valu/

Page11of20

Duringthisperiod,UCLAshouldfocusonbuildingin-housecapacity(modeledontheUCLAHealthSystem’sValUCareRedesignTeam),tobelaunchedinSummer2018.

Page12of20

ACTIONITEM4:CREATE“CENTRALIZATION”TASKFORCEWHAT?

• Empoweragrouponcampustocreateandimplementastandardsetofcriteriaandprocessfordeterminingwhatcampusfunctionsshould(andshouldnot)becentralized.AlthoughActionsItems1-3willhelptoimprovetrustandcommunicationaswellastoimprovebothefficiencyandeffectivenessofcoreunitsoncampus,thereisstillaneedforastandardprocess(includingastandardsetofcriteria)fordeterminingwhatcampusfunctionsshouldandshouldnotbecentralized.Althoughsomeorganizationschoosetohireexternalconsultinggroupstoperformthiswork,wedidnotfeelthiswouldbeatractableapproachatUCLAduetotheinstitutionalcultureofsharedgovernance.Inaddition,thegroupfeltstronglythatthiswasnota“one-time”fix,butratheranongoingchallengethatwouldbebestaddressedbyhavingastandardinstitutionalapproachovertime.Therefore,weproposeempoweringagrouponcampustocreateandimplementastandardsetofcriteriaandprocessfordeterminingwhatcampusfunctionsshould(andshouldnot)becentralized.

WHY?

• Inefficienciesresultwhen“wrong”functionsarecentralized.Likemanyacademicinstitutions,UCLAstrugglestobalancethevariedneedsanddesiresforindependenceofitsunitswithaneedtoreduceinefficiencies,institutionalcosts,andrisk.Althoughtheliteratureoncentralizationanddecentralizationprovidesmanyvaluablelessonsonwhattypesoffunctionstendtobenefitfromcentralization,anyinitiativesdealingwithcentralizationoffunctionsorservicesatUCLAneedtobewellalignedwithourcultureandvaluestobesuccessful.Overall,UCLAtendstobefairlydecentralizedandinitiativestocentralizefunctionscanbeexacerbatedbyunwillingnessofdifferentunitsorcampusentitiestorelinquishcontroloveraparticularfunction,lackoftrustand/orperceptionsthatbetter(ormoreappropriate)servicescanbeprovidedlocally.Centralizationinitiativesthatdonotemploysufficientlycollaborativeprocessesarelikelytofailbecausetheyarelesslikelytoengendersupportfromtheunits.

• Standardcriteriaandprocessesandregularreviewwillimprovetransparencyandtrustoncampus.ExamplesofthetypesofcriteriathatmightbeemployedtoassesswhetheraparticularserviceareprovidedinTableA4intheAppendix.ThedevelopmentofstandardcriteriaandprocessesfordeterminingwhetherspecificfunctionsandservicesatUCLAshouldbecentralized(ornot)combinedwitharegularreviewprocesswouldnotonlyimprovetransparencyandtrustoncampus,butwouldalsoimproveaccountabilityandcreateagreater“customer-service”orientationforunitsthatdelivercentralizedservices.

HOW?

• Option1:Createandchargea“JointPowersofAuthority”committeewithrepresentativesfromacrosscampus.Thisoptionismodeledonlocalgovernancesituationswheretwoormorepublicauthorities(e.g.,localgovernment,utilities,ortransitauthorities)haveoverlappingpowersandhavethepotentialtobenefitfromworkingtogethertosolveaparticularlycomplexproblemortoachieveeconomiesofscale.IntheUCLAcase,the“jointpowersofauthority”wouldincludethecentraladministration,eachoftheschoolsonourcampus,andacademicsenate.Ideally,therepresentativesservingonthecommitteewouldhavesufficientauthoritywithinthecampusunitsthattheyrepresentthattheycouldexercisethepowers/authoritiesoftheirunit.Asaresult,thecommitteewouldbothhavethebroadexperiencebaseneededto

Page13of20

assessthepotentialpitfallsofcentralizingaparticularfunctionorserviceandbeempoweredtodevelopacentralizedsolutionthatwouldmeetthevariedneedsofUCLAunits.

• Option2:CreateandchargeaCampusAdvisoryBoardwithbroadrepresentation.Aslightlydifferentmodelwouldinvolvetheestablishmentofacampusadvisoryboardthatwouldprimarybemadeupofexternaladvisorswithmanagementexperience(e.g.,consultantswithexpertiseincentralizationinitiatives)butwouldalsoincluderepresentativesfromcriticalstakeholdergroups(includingfaculty,administrators,andstudents)fromacrosscampus.Thisapproachwouldhavethebenefitsofleveragingexternalexpertiseintheareaofcentralizationandprovidingafreshperspectiveonhowtopotentiallysolvesomeofourproblems.

WHEN?

• CreateCentralizationTaskForceinFall2017andchargethegroupwithfinalizingstandardcriteriaandprocessforreview.WerecommendthatthecentraladministrationconsultwiththeAcademicSenateandDeansoftheSchoolsoverthesummertodeterminewhattheorganization(e.g.,Option1orOption2aboveorsomecombinationthereof)oftheCentralizationTaskForceshouldbeandtoobtainspecificrecommendationsforTaskForcemembers.ThiswouldallowtheTaskForcetobeformedinFall2017.Theinitialchargetothegroupshouldbedevelopingandvettingthefinalsetofstandardcriteriaandprocesstouseforassessingwhetherfunctionsandservicesshouldbecentralized,withthegoaloffinalizingthesebytheendofAY2017-18.

• ChargeCentralizationTaskForceimplementingstandardcriteriaandprocessstartinginFall2018.StartinginFall2018,theCentralizationTaskForceshouldidentifytheinitialsetoffunctionsandservicestobereviewedtodeterminesuitabilityforcentralizationandusethestandardcriteriaandprocessesdevelopedinAY2017-18toreviewthetoppriorityfunctionsandservicesinAY2018-19.

Page14of20

APPENDIX.DETAILEDRESULTSOFINDIVIDUALTASKFORCEMEETINGSANDBRAINSTORMINGACTIVITIESTableA1.RevisedListofPrioritizedQuestionsConsideredbytheInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForce.FigureA1.ResultsofRootCausalAnalysistodeterminefactorsthatimpairinstitutionalagilityatUCLA(“fishbonediagram”).FigureA2.Resultsofbrainstormingactivitytodeveloplistofpotentialactionitemsthatwouldhelptoaddressthetworootcausesofimpairedinstitutionalagilitythatwereconsideredbythetaskforcememberstobethehighestpriorities.Part1:actionitemstoaddresstheproblemthatinefficienciesresultfromtoomanylayersofreview.FigureA3.Resultsofbrainstormingactivitytodeveloplistofpotentialactionitemsthatwouldhelptoaddressthetworootcausesofimpairedinstitutionalagilitythatwereconsideredbythetaskforcememberstobethehighestpriorities.Part2:actionitemstoaddresstheproblemthatthe“wrong”functionsatUCLAarecentralized(i.e.,somefunctionsthatshouldbecentralizedarenotandotherfunctionsthatshouldnotbearecentralized).TableA2.ExamplesofProsandConsofCentralizationandDecentralizationTableA3.ExamplesofAreasWhereCentralizationisAdvantageousandWhereDecentralizationisAdvantageousTableA4.ExamplesofRecommendedFactorstoConsiderWhenDeterminingWhetherCentralizationorDecentralizationisPreferable

Page15of20

TableA1.RevisedListQuestionsConsideredbytheInstitutionalEffectivenessTaskForce,ListedinOrderofPriority(where1wasconsideredbytheTaskForcememberstobethetoppriorityforconsideration).1. HowcanwemakeUCLAmoreagile/abletorespondmorequicklyandeffectivelyto

changesintheexternalenvironment,particularlychangesinresources?2. Howcanweremoveunnecessarybureaucracy?3. Whattypesoffacilities,activitiesandprogramsmaybenefitfromcentralization,andwhich

shouldbetterresidewithineachunit?Canintegratingcertaincentraladministrativeserviceshelplowercostsandoverheadsforacademicunits?

4. Whattypesoffacilitiesandresourcescanbesharedtocreategreaterefficienciesandreduceduplication?Whatshouldwedomoreandwhatshouldwedoless?Howcanwestreamlineoffices,programs,andactivities?(e.g.,wherecouldwedeveloptemplatesthatcouldbedisseminatedinstitutionally?)

5. Whatstructuresandpoliciesareneededtofacilitateinterdisciplinarycollaborationamongdifferentunits?

6. Inwhatnewwayscanweemploytechnologytoenhanceinstitutionaleffectiveness?7. Canweofferprinciples/rulesofengagementtoguideusinstitutionallyaswemoveforward

withimplementingstrategicchanges?8. Howcanweoptimizeautonomyof/empowerindividualUCcampuses?WithinUCLA,how

couldbepromoteautonomyofunitsinwaysthatmatterbutnotinwaysthatcompromiseeffectiveness?

4. Howcanweimproveinstitutionalresponsivenessto(all)criticalstakeholders?(Notethatthismightbeacommunicationissue.)

Page16of20

FigureA1.ResultsofrootcausalanalysisbrainstormingactivitytodeterminefactorsthatimpairinstitutionalagilityatUCLA(“fishbonediagram”)

UCLAisnotasagilein

respondingtothechangingfinancialandeduca6onalenvironmentasitneedsto

be

Ins6tu6onalCulture&Prac6ces

Ins6tu6onalStructure

Ins6tu6onalIncen6ves

Ins6tu6onalRules&Policies

ExternalRegula6onsExternalIncen6ves

Lackoffinancialincen6vestobeagileindevelopingandchangingeduca6onalprogs

Lackofincen6vestobackupcentralpriori6es

Ins6tu6onalorgstructreflectshistoricalresources&priori6es(not“newnormal”)

Wrongfunc6ons&processesarecentralized

Historically,highlevelofdecentraliza6on/delega6ngauthoritytounits

Collabora6onvaluedforresearchbutnotnecessarilyadministra6on

Ineffec6vecommunica6onacrossunitsandbetweencenterandunits

Toomanylayersofreview

ReviewisoQensequen6alinsteadofcollabora6ve/simultaneous

IncreasinglevelofFederalregula6ons&compliancerequirements

Nottakingadvantageofopportuni6estobeexemptfromregula6ons

Studentneeds/desiresnothistoricallygiventoppriority

Historically,priori6esreflectedgovtbeingprimarysourceofsupport(nottui6on) Notsteppingbacktoeval

processesfromahighlevel

Increasingefficiencyisnotincen6vizedins6tu6onally

Commitmenttosharedgovernance

Unwillingnesstorelinquishpower/control

Lackofsystema6ccriteriaandprocessfordeterminingwhatshouldbecentralized

Nomechanismforregularreviewandrestructuring

Page17of20

FigureA2.Resultsofbrainstormingactivitytodeveloplistofpotentialactionitemsthatwouldhelptoaddressthetworootcausesofimpairedinstitutionalagilitythatwereconsideredbythetaskforcememberstobethehighestpriorities.Part1:actionitemstoaddresstheproblemthatinefficienciesresultfromtoomanylayersofreview.

ToaddressinefficienciesduetotoomanylayersofreviewatUCLA

Createa“leanteam”thatiden<fiesopportuni<esforimprovedprocesses

Createinventoriesofwhichpoliciesdrivesprocesses/processmapping

Iden<fysitua<onswhereunits(deptsorschools)couldmakefinaldecisions

Iden<fywherethereisoverlappingauthorityanddecrease

Iden<fy“non-controversial”situa<onsandcreateexpeditedreviewforthem

Leveragetechnologicaladvancesforgatheringandanalyzingdatatocreateevidence-based

solu<ons

Leveragetechnologicaladvancesforfacilita<ngbeIerprocesses

Holdunitsaccountableformee<ngdeadlines

Iden<fyandinvestincentralizedexpertsthatcanhelpunits

Improvecommunica<onbetweenandwithinunitsandbetweenunitsandcentraladmin

Page18of20

FigureA3.Resultsofbrainstormingactivitytodeveloplistofpotentialactionitemsthatwouldhelptoaddressthetworootcausesofimpairedinstitutionalagilitythatwereconsideredbythetaskforcememberstobethehighestpriorities.Part2:actionitemstoaddresstheproblemthatthe“wrong”functionsatUCLAarecentralized(i.e.,somefunctionsthatshouldbecentralizedarenotandotherfunctionsthatshouldnotbearecentralized).

Toaddressproblemthat“wrong”func7onsarecentralizedatUCLA

Createsystema7ccriteriaandprocessesfordeterminingwhat

shouldbecentralized

e.g.,Iden7fyingrela7vevalueofstandardizing,riskavoidance,

andagility

Iden7fyopportuni7esforcentralized“resource

hubs”(whiles7llallowunitstomaintaincontrol)

e.g.,Technologiesforinstruc7on

e.g.,Spaceforinstruc7on

e.g.,Databaseforstudentandalumnioutcomes

Differen7atebetweenwan7ngdecentralizedbecauseprocesses

areinefficientvs.doesn’tfundamentallymakesensethat

centralized

Page19of20

TableA2.ExamplesofProsandConsofCentralizationandDecentralization.6,7,8

Centralization DecentralizationPros • Enablesstandardsandconsistency

• Providesforgreatercontrol• Supportsmorecollaborationacross

units• Potentialeconomiesofscale• Leveragecompetitivestrengthsofthe

whole• Allowsforfasterdecisions

• Tendstopromotemorecreativityandinnovation

• Tendstobemakeorganizationsmoreflexible&responsive

• Moreeasilysupportsuniquenessofdifferentunits

• Empowerslocalunits• Ideallypromotesnormsof

collaborationandtrust

Cons • Canbecumbersome• Tendstobelessnimbleandslowerto

implementchange• Canresultininflexibility• Potentialfordecisionmakingtobe

removedfromareasthatareimpacted

• Canmakeithardtogainconsensus• Canincreaseriskandliability• Canresultinvaryingdegreesof

qualityandstandards• Potentialformore"stove

piping"/fragmentationTableA3.ExamplesofAreasWhereCentralizationisAdvantageousandWhereDecentralizationisAdvantageousAreasWhereCentralizationisAdvantageous AreasWhereDecentralizationis

Advantageous• ITInfrastructure• ITSecurity• Publicsafetyresources• Physicalinfrastructuredesign,construction,and

maintenance• Insurance• HumanResources/Benefits/laborrelatedissues• InstitutionalBrandManagement• FinancialAndAuditsystems• Academicstandards• Marketing/Branding• Classroomscheduling• Legalaffairs&contractmanagement• Communications/Media&communityrelations

• Faculty/staffhiringTendstobemoreflexible

• Studentselection(admissions)• Curriculumdevelopment

6R.Andrews“OrganizationalSizeandSocialCapitalinthePublicSector:DoesDecentralizationMatter”ReviewofPublicPersonnelAdministration2017,37,40-58.7R.Andrewsetal“Centralization,OrganizationalStrategy,andPublicServicePerformance”JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory2009,19,57-80.8http://smallbusiness.chron.com/centralized-vs-decentralized-organizational-structure-2785

Page20of20

TableA4.ExamplesofRecommendedFactorstoConsiderWhenDeterminingWhetherCentralizationorDecentralizationisPreferable• Arethereopportunitiesforeconomiesofscale?• Aretheresignificanthealth,safety,reputationalorfiscalcostsassociatedwithmistakes?• Isthecompetitiveenvironmentgoingthroughrapidchange?• Doesthearea/issuehavehistoricalconflictorlackofconsensus?• Willdecisionshaveimpactonotherentities?• Isalocalunderstandingoftheissuesessential/acompetitiveadvantage?• Istheresufficientdiversityintermsofneeds/prioritiesofunitsthatstandardizationis

counter-productive?• Canyoueffectivelydevelopauditorotherwisemeasuretoensurecompliance/meeting

minimumstandards?• Isunderstandingandmeetingtheneedsof"customers"atoppriority?• Whatarethekeyperformanceindicatorsthatmattertothedifferentstakeholders?