14 Continuous Improvement Proposal
14 Continuous Improvement Proposal
14 Continuous Improvement Proposal
Continuous Improvement
in Business-Related Operations
Contact Persons:
Steve Beyerlein Wendi Secrist Ron Town
GJ 234G Boise Center Admin 201
sbeyer@uidaho.edu wendis@uidaho.edu rontown@uidaho.edu
885-4932 364-4082 885-2141
Business optimization was the term used to initially describe the concept for this proposal.
Through ongoing discussions, it was decided that continuous improvement better described
the intent. Both are somewhat ambiguous terms and could refer to a variety of activities (e.g.
fiscal and human resource processes, organizational structure changes, job redesign) that have
been suggested through RFI pre-proposals or are under consideration at various levels of the
university. Ideally the university would invest in organizational development staff to facilitate
continuous improvement among units. Without resources to hire staff at this time, this
proposal recommends a continuous improvement process be developed by a steering
committee (members are suggested below in the timeline section) as a critical first step to
transforming the culture of the institution to one where the business-side supports and
encourages teaching, scholarship and outreach of faculty and staff. It is important that the
outcome not create another administrative level that slows down progress. Instead, the
outcome should be viewed as an effective and efficient process or system to shepherd viable
ideas where the lines of authority are not clear. The system should also capture and retain
institutional memory about business operations ideas and initiatives that have been previously
considered and acted upon. To begin the conversation as to how the institution should
systematically handle business process or business system improvements, the following
delineation is offered:
1. Process reengineering at the broadest level, the institution may wish to look at large-
scale systems and reengineer them from the bottom up. This involves setting aside
existing structures, identifying the outcomes desired of the process and then
developing a structure that best supports the outcomes. This proposal suggests a
process whereby recommendations for process reengineering can be vetted, but the
review team recommended in number 2, below, would not be directly responsible for
reengineering projects they will require special facilitation and are being addressed by
the President and Provost outside this proposal.
3. Business Improvements with unit-wide impact the lowest level involves a business
system or process that impacts one unit (or is coincidental to units outside the one
proposing the idea). It may appear that no clarification is necessary the unit leader
should feel empowered to make the decision. In practice, though, the current culture of
the institution in many places leads to a lack of decision making as individuals wait for
someone else to decide. This continuous improvement process should address
empowerment of unit leaders and perhaps outline general limits of authority. A
decision making tree and/or examples could be developed. In addition, the model
developed for number two, above, could be modified slightly as a tool for unit leaders
to employ internally.
Finally, the steering committee may consider recommending that university leadership
embrace professional development opportunities in continuous improvement or other topics to
expedite adoption of this new process and the shift in culture it is expected to influence.
Internal expertise such as that possessed by Larry Stauffer, Rick Edgeman, and Deborah
Manning as well as service units such as Idaho TechHelp are likely to be a cost-effective way to
deliver needed development activities.
The Strategic Action Plan, Goals 3 and 4, are also specifically supported by this proposal. The
Goal 3 team, in its final report states the following as one of five recommendations:
Description of the impact the change will have on students, faculty, staff, and external
constituents
Properly implemented, a continuous improvement process will allow students, faculty, staff
and external constituents to reach their potential. Good business practices enable people to
accomplish their work and celebrate success, poor business practices delay completion of
important tasks and generate negative affect about the institution. We expect our academic
programs to engage in an annual cycle of outcomes assessment, data analysis, and actions for
improvement. The process has not yet been moved into areas outside academic, but could
provide a consistent approach to evidence based improvement and decision making. In
addition, the potential for cost savings is likely to be large, although it is not quantified in this
proposal.
Description of previous work on which the project builds, including work at the University
of Idaho (e.g., results of various implementation teams and task forces posted on Provost
website) and cited work at other institutions
As mentioned previously, this proposal builds on some of the recommendations of the Goal 3
and Goal 4 teams. It institutionalizes a system where viable ideas can be submitted, vetted
and implemented (or discarded) on an on-going basis. There were at least seventeen RFI pre-
proposals submitted that were either fundamentally business process recommendations or
had some component which should not be forgotten. Organizations throughout the
country/globe will or are doing the same kind of thinking in order to lower costs, increase
productivity, facilitate innovation, attract and motivate great employees, and become more
competitive - universities are no exception.
Details on the processes used to get feedback from faculty, staff, students, and external
constituents regarding the final proposal
The leads for this proposal requested feedback on a draft description/justification, timeline
and budget from the following groups:
The Suggested Steering Committee Members listed in the timeline section below.
The authors of the RFI pre-proposals that the review panel identified as business
process recommendations.
The Goal 3 team members.
Seven individuals responded to the request. Six were generally positive and one did not agree
with the premise of the proposal based on concerns that there is no monitoring of the
effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, of current business operations Some of their comments
have been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this proposal, but their responses to
the pros and cons of this proposal are summarized below:
Pros
If carefully thought out, and with proper training, a well-defined process could greatly
streamline process (and continuous) improvement at the university.
My personal belief is that the UI isnt very good at recommending and implementing
change. A clearly defined process may help to change that.
Being intentional about making work easier to do and more effective is critical for
creating a healthy, highly motivating work environment. The processes and that which
Cons
Making sure that there is top-down buy-in for this proposal. It may take some strong
leadership to be able to outline the general limits of authority within many of the
units. Specifying what they cannot have influence on is a task for strong leadership
The lack of resources assigned to the project. Ideally, you would have some investment
in organizational development staff, specific to this business process optimization.
I do not feel that this proposal will expedite business-related decision making. Weve
got to know where we are at in order to figure out where we want to be in terms of
systems. We have to analyze what works and what does not. Input from the
community of users is essential both in pinpointing the problems and weighing in on
possible solutions. However, the systems need to be put in place to insure internal
controls, good financial reporting and effective and efficient business processing.
Achieving that cannot be done by individuals without a knowledge of the whole.
I believe that attempting to change too much too quickly would defeat the RFI purpose
as institutions naturally abhor change. There needs to be a clear set of steps laid out
and followed as well as buy in from all the levels. My fear is that a new idea goes from
trying to streamline a specific process and turns into a 21 page essay request (example:
new budget request process).
I would ask who has this expertise on our campus. We do not have enough experience
in key managerial areas of this university. We are suffering because of this and the
Supply plan for soliciting input from the University of Idaho community during the RFI
project and for communicating achievements (e.g., processes and products) at its
conclusion
The proposal leads specifically recommend that Mary Gresch participate in the
implementation of this proposal for two reasons. The first is the utilization of her
communications expertise as this process is developed to solicit input and the second to
ensure that communication is built into the ultimate process designed by the steering
committee. It would be presumptuous of the proposal leads to finalize a communication plan
without involvement of the recommended steering committee.
Description of how the effectiveness and progress of the proposed program will be
evaluated relative to the vision and goals of our strategic plan
An emphasis for any continuous improvement process includes establishment of key metrics
and the evaluation of performance against those metrics to determine if continuous
improvement is actually occurring. However, given the nature of this proposal, it would be
presumptuous of the proposal leads to predetermine the metrics used to evaluate the
It is expected that this proposal will advance an added-value mindset that could broadly and
positively impact all four areas in the universitys strategic plan. This could be measured by the
degree to which faculty and staff demonstrate shared commitment to the following principles:
Minimize lead time from activity initiation to fulfillment (freeing up scarce time and
money).
Remove wasteful steps from processes (to reduce costs, increase efficiency and enhance
quality).
Take action early and collaboratively (to produce results quickly that are meaningful to
many).
Thoughtfully plan, monitor, and reflect on process changes(to validate results, ensure
repeatability, and maximize generalizability)
Develop workflows to increase efficiency and ensure adherence to process design.
Timeline
If this proposal is accepted for implementation the following steps are recommended:
0-3 months Form a team of senior leadership to identify general parameters for when the
process is used and outline general limits of authority for unit leaders. Develop a
prioritization process that is information driven including business case
statements, feasibility/cost-benefit analysis templates, and so forth to be used
for considering suggestions. Recommend training for university leadership.
3-6 months Conduct recommended training. Establish review committee and begin
evaluating suggested improvements. Prioritize first 5-10 test cases from multiple
university contexts to run through the recommended continuous improvement
process.
6-12 months Conduct and achieve closure on a least five test cases. Refine the continuous
improvement process as needed before beginning next round of test cases.
Budget/Financials
The implementation of this proposal has a cost in man-hours for the development of supporting
checklists, a business case statement template and other collateral that will support review of
suggested improvements. An ongoing investment in man-hours will be required for the review
process. However, anticipated cost-savings from the implementation of sound business
practices that currently have no clear outlet to be vetted should far outweigh the investment of
time. The only direct costs for implementing this proposal will be for training.
Yes
Local Unit
No
No
No
Proposer
Develop and
Start
analyze proposal
for consideration End
No
Optimization team
No
No
Reengineering
Team
Reengineering
Process
ProjectTeam
Develop
Analysis and Follow up and Adjustment n
implementation Implementation
design * review necessary?
plan **
Yes