lbnl / ucsd lbnl/ucsd discussion june 29, 2005 business architecture and the balanced scorecard

LBNL / UCSDLBNL / UCSD

LBNL/UCSD Discussion

June 29, 2005

Business Architecture andBusiness Architecture andthe Balanced Scorecardthe Balanced Scorecard


Discussion Topics

• Components of the Business Architecture

• Business Portals

• Balanced Scorecard

• Marketplace


Drivers & Assumptions

• Unprecedented Growth of Enrollments

• Admin Resources Will Not Increase In Proportion to Campus Growth

• Increase in Complexity of Fed & State Relationship


• Competitive Labor Market

• New Staff Will Not Have Adequate Skills/Training

• Technology is Changing the Way Business is Conducted

Drivers & Assumptions


Why a New Business Approach?

• A Vision to Stimulate Initiatives

• A Context for Setting Priorities

• Strategies to Increase Staff Productivity

• Communication of Business & Infrastructure Requirements


Scope of Business Architecture

• Define Concepts of Scalable Model

• Focus on Business Processes, Tools, Operations

• Excludes Academic, Clinical, and Student Issues

• Set Stage for Discussion, Consultation, Feasibility of

Business Architecture


Key Components of a New Business Architecture

of ReportPage 7 of Report


Page 7 of ReportPage 7 of Report

Integration of business Integration of business transactions with policies, transactions with policies,

guidance, and trainingguidance, and training

A New Business Architecture for UC



Establish UC as a Establish UC as a competitive employer and competitive employer and provide staff the tools to provide staff the tools to

succeedsucceed




Redesign Processes to Redesign Processes to facilitate getting work facilitate getting work

done rather than cover all done rather than cover all potential transactionspotential transactions




Authenticate, authorize, Authenticate, authorize, provide effective toolsprovide effective tools





Employ emerging Employ emerging standards to improve standards to improve integration of financial integration of financial

datadata




Embed performance metrics Embed performance metrics into the way UC conducts its into the way UC conducts its

business and strengthen business and strengthen financial controlsfinancial controls


• Workflow Study

• Integrate Information, Transactions, Training, Templates

• Establish Super-Intuitive Navigation

• Develop Content that is Simple, Relevant, Recent

Business Portal

Pages 8-11 of ReportPages 8-11 of Report


DepartmentsDepartments

CentralCentralOfficesOffices

Where are Support Costs?


• Workflow Study

• Integrate Information, Transactions, Training, Templates

• Establish Super-Intuitive Navigation

• Develop Content that is Simple, Relevant, Recent

Business Portal




• Single Authentication/Authorization (Lightfoot Model)

• Move From HTML to Content Management System

• Focus on Those New To Roles

• Focus on Clarity vs. Completeness

Business Portal


• UC as an Employer of Choice

• New Application Processes Designed for Candidates

• Market-Based Compensation & Flexible Benefits

• Organize Effective Outreach to Increase Diversity

People



• Flexible and Effective On-Line Training

• Baseline Skills Development

• Invest Resources in Staff Positions

• Providing Intuitive Tools to Ensure Staff Success


People


• Initiate Aggressive Program to Eliminate Paper-Based Processes

• Remove Non-Value Added Steps

• Ensure Performance Metrics are Built-In To Processes

Processes/Policies



• Move From Proprietary Systems to Standards

• Promote A Model that Emphasizes Users & Departments

• Move Campuses to an E-Procurement Solution

• Leverage Size of UC Purchases for Cost Savings

Enabling Technology



• Initially Focus on High Dollars & High Transactions

• Make All Business Processing Web-Based

• Ensure Adequate Security & Authentication

• Identify & Develop Self-Service Applications


Enabling Technology


• Provide All Financial Reporting & Transactions on Web

• Provide Flexible Dept. Tools for Projections & Modeling

• Provide Instant Feedback on Functionality & Design

• Use XML Protocol to Link All Campus Financial Systems

Financial Systems



Financial Systems


• Develop Financial Dashboard for High-Level Diagnostics

• Establish Cycle-Time Metrics for Key Processes

• Develop Financial Practices Curriculum


Financial Systems


Source: Kaplan and Norton


Organizational Performance


• Develop Culture of Continuous Improvement

• Evaluate Changes to Business Processes

• Maintain our Focus on What is Important

• Assess Results and Develop Action Plans


Organizational Performance


UCSD MissionExcellence in Teaching,Research & Patient Care

Financial PerspectiveIf we succeed, how will we lookto our financial stakeholders

UCSDBusiness

Framework

Customer PerspectiveTo achieve our vision, how must

we look to our customers

Process PerspectiveTo satisfy our customers, financialstakeholders, and mission, what

business processes must we excel at?

People PerspectiveTo achieve our vision, how mustour people learn, communicate,

and work together?

Source: Kaplan and NortonSource: Kaplan and Norton


Strategic InitiativesWhat we need to do

Personal ObjectivesWhat managers and staff need to do

Strategic Outcomes

StrategyOur game plan

Balanced ScorecardImplementation & focus

A FrameworkFor Translating

Mission into Outcomes

DelightedDelightedCustomersCustomers

MotivatedMotivatedWorkforceWorkforceEffectiveEffective

ProcessesProcessesEffectiveEffective

ProcessesProcessesSatisfiedSatisfied

StakeholdersStakeholdersSatisfiedSatisfied

StakeholdersStakeholders

Mission, Values,And Vision


2004/05 2003/04 2002/03 2001/02

Business Unit 1

Excess Revenues as a Percent of Net RevenuesExcess Revenue $42,463 $71,844 ($4,544) ($15,180)Net Revenue $918,285 $848,649 $686,223 $674,541Percentage 4.62% 8.47% -0.66% -2.25%

Accumulated Earnings $46,144 $4,260 ($53,601) ($47,726)

Total Assets TurnoverNet Revenue $918,285 $848,649 $686,223 $674,541Total Assets $157,420 $57,151 $56,980 $71,689Ratio 5.83 14.85 12.04 9.41

Business Unit 2

Excess Revenues as a Percent of Net RevenuesExcess Revenue $35,262 $51,162 $93,827 $14,578Net Revenue $928,400 $852,679 $700,137 $808,994Percentage 3.80% 6.00% 13.40% 1.80%

Accumulated Earnings $366,354 $308,429 $229,592 $136,625

Total Assets TurnoverNet Revenue $928,400 $852,679 $700,167 $808,994Total Assets $473,300 $401,305 $323,886 $210,410Ratio 1.96 2.12 2.16 3.84

The Balanced Scorecard: Financial Perspective


3.2

3.2

3.2

3.0

3.3

3.3

3.0

3.4

3.2

3.6

3.4 3.5

3.4

3.7

3.6

3.4 3.

6

3.5

3.8

3.8

3.6 3.7 3.8

3.7

4.0

3.9

3.8

1

2

3

4

5

1994 1997 1999

Benefits

Top/Bottom 2-Box Ratio

99': 8.3 8.2 3.6 4.3 6.8 4.6 15.8 10.2 6.797': 5.0 4.5 2.6 3.1 3.7 3.2 5.3 5.3 3.594': 2.2 2.6 1.3 1.8 1.9 1.1 2.4 3.0 1.6

Percentage Evaluating: 1999 = 601997 = 601994 = 53

N = 354 for 1999372 for 1997333 for 1994

Extremely

Very

Somewhat

Not Very

Not At All

Satisfaction Mean Score

UCSD CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY: 1994 - 1997 - 1999

Overall%

22.6

43.9

25.5

6.6

1.4

2 Box2 BoxRatioRatio

OverallOverallRatingRating

AttributesAttributesAttributesAttributes


452376

449556

578

371391

527568

0

215

389

463

544578

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

NACUBO Cohorts UCSD

No. Extension Lines/Dept FTE

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

The Balanced Scorecard: The Balanced Scorecard: Internal Process PerspectiveInternal Process Perspective

UCSDUCSD

SimilarSimilarCampusesCampusesNationalNational

CohortsCohortsNationalNationalCohortsCohorts


2.02.22.42.62.83.03.23.43.63.84.0

The Balanced Scorecard: Innovation & Learning Perspective

WorkplaceWorkplaceCharacteristicsCharacteristics

MeanMeanScoresScores

MeanMeanScoresScores


JUNE - JULYReport

Benchmarkingand

Customer ServiceSurvey

Data

JULY - SEPTEMBERDevelop

Strategic Planand

Organization Goals

AUGUST - SEPTEMBER- Performance Reviews- Identify Individual Goals- Make Merit Increase Decisions

SEPTEMBER - OCTOBER- Implement Merit Increase- Develop Departmental Action Plans to Achieve Goals

OCTOBER -DECEMBERImplement

Employee RecognitionProgram

NOVEMBER -DECEMBERDevelop and Forward

Annual ReportTo Vice Chancellor

DECEMBER - JANUARYDevelop

BenchmarkingData

FEBRUARY - APRIL- Submit Benchmarking Data- Conduct Customer Satisfaction Survey

APRIL - MAYCollect Results

of Benchmarkingand

Customer Satisfaction Survey

The BSC Becomes a Foundation of Strategy


Implement NewTechnology

Strategy Map: Benefits Unit

Learning& Growth

CustomerPerspective

ResourceIssues

InternalProcesses

Team BuildingProgram

LeadershipDevelopment

Redesign Organizational

Structure

Enhance SkillsOf Staff

Change Telephone

Triage System

Invest in AdditionalStaffing

ImprovePerception of

Responsiveness

ImprovePerception of Quality

Of Advice

Benefits Service Delivery StrategyDeliver cost effective benefits

Services that are valued by our customers

Evaluate MethodsTo ReduceCycle Time


Strategy Summary

STRATEGY:

Opportunity Assessment 1994 High 1995 High 1996 Low 1997 Focused 1998

1994 1995 1996 1997 GOAL ACTUAL CHANGE GOAL 1998 ACTUAL CHANGE

CUSTOMER Perspective (Score, Rating*)

Academic Staff Rating 3 Marginal 3.4 Marginal 3.5 Marginal 4.0 3.6 Good 0.1 4.3 3.7 Good 0.1

Academic Staff 2 Box Ratio 1.1:1 Low 3.2:1 Good 4.2:1 Good 3.0 4.2:1 Good 0.0 8.5:1 7.5:1 Good 3.3

Administrative Staff Rating 3.2 Marginal 3.5 Marginal 3.5 Marginal 4.0 3.6 Good 0.1 4.3 3.7 Good 0.1

Administrative Staff 2 Box Ratio 2.2:1 Marginal 3.8:1 Good 4.8:1 Good 3.0 5:1 Good 0.2 8.5:1 5.0:1 Good -0.1

INNOVATION & LEARNING Perspective (Score, Rating*)

Organization Climate Rating 3.3 Marginal 4.0 3.9 Excellent 0.6

Organization Climate 2 Box Ratio 1.9:1 Low 3.0:1 8.55:1 Good 1.1

INTERNAL PROCESS Perspective (Score, Gap)

Faculty Staff Headcount/Dept. FTE 1804 Positive 1,663 Positive 1,212 Neutral Neutral 1,119 Positive -93 1,110 1,573 Positive 454

$ Value Benefits/Dept Cost $295 Positive $212 Positive $135 Negative $132 Neutral -$3 $135 $164 NAP $32

FINANCIAL Perspective (Score, Gap)Dept Cost/Faculty Staff Headcount $33 Neutral $41 Neutral $46 Positive $5 $50 $34 NAP -$12

*Rating Scale: Excellent >3.8, Good >3.5, Marginal =>3.0, Low <3.0

*2-Box Ratio Scale: Excellent >10:1, Good >3:1, Marginal =>2:1, Low <2:1

Work on team building within Benefits staff to address leadership, team work, morale, organizational structure/changes, and decision making deficiencies within the organization through -Monthly group interaction meetings to elicit feedback on operations and team work, and -A retreat for all staff to review strategic and climate survey results and to develop action plans.Employ additional electronic measures for continued development of cost reduction strategies; e.g., local b enefits WEB page, electronic processes for retirement applications and loan financing, expansion of BENCOM IVR

CustomerCustomerPerspectivePerspective

InnovationInnovation& Learning& Learning

FinancialFinancialPerspectivePerspective

FinancialFinancialPerspectivePerspective

ProcessProcessPerspectivePerspective

ProcessProcessPerspectivePerspective

StrategicStrategicComponentsComponents

OpportunityOpportunityAssessmentAssessment

ChangeChangeChangeChangeNumericNumericGoalsGoals

ActualsActuals & &RatingsRatings

ActualsActuals & &RatingsRatings


What Have Been the Results?

• Increased Productivity

• Reduction in Costs

• Understanding Customer Needs


Million Dollar Challenge Program

• Background– Target - Generate $1,000,000

• Increased non-student revenue

• Reduced costs

• Over a period of 5 years

• Outcome– $891,189 within 2 years– Exceeded goal 3rd year


Carpet Procurement Program

• Background

• Direct purchase

• Direct contracting of installation

• Team project

• Outcome

• 5-year savings : $1,121,000


Custodial - Conditions in 1994

• Low Productivity

• High Cleaning Costs

• Low Customer Satisfaction

Costs/sq ft .94 centsCosts/sq ft .94 cents

Customer Satisfaction

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

1994

Acad.

Admin.

Target


Custodial - Results in 2002

• Productivity Increases

• Reduced Cleaning Costs- $560,000

• Increased Customer Satisfaction 2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

1994 2002

Acad.

Admin.

Target


Costs/sq ft .84 centsCosts/sq ft .84 cents


Travel Reimbursement--1996

• High Level of Errors

• Average Cycle Time Over 20 Days

• Low Customer Satisfaction2.9

3

3.8

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

1996

Acad.

Admin.

Target



Travel Reimbursement--2002

• Error Level Reduced

• Cycle Time Down From 20 to 3 Days

• Customer Satisfaction Improved

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

1996 2002

Acad.

Admin.

Target



Payroll -- Conditions in 1995

• Paper-Based Update Process

• Paper-Based Time Reporting Process

• 50% Transaction Error Rate

• Inadequate Communication with Customers

3.4

3.6

3.8

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

1995

Acad.

Admin.

Target


Payroll -- Results in 2002

• Distributed Processes Implemented

• Error Rate Reduced from 50% to <5%

• Work Teams Established

• Phone Triage Process Implemented

• Customer Satisfaction Excellent

33.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.9

4

1995 2002

Acad.

Admin.

Target


Finance -- Conditions in 1995

• Difficult Data Extraction Process

• Paper-Based Financial Reporting Process

• Inadequate Functional Training

• Inadequate Communication with Customers

3.3

3.4

3.8

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

1995

Acad.

Admin.

Target


Finance -- Results in 2002

• Financial Link Implemented

• Financial Link Improved

• New Phone Triage Process Implemented

• Revised and Improved Training Delivered

• Customer Satisfaction Ratings Excellent 3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

1995 2002

Acad.

Admin.

Target


Public Confidence in University Management Practices

16%

84%

9%

91%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1994 2004

Survey of San Diego Voters: Is UCSD is a Well-Managed University?

Yes

No


Why Consider this Approach?

• It keeps an organization’s focus on what is important

• It is sustainable over the long-run

• It is explainable to your people

• It provides a context for decision making


• Efforts and planning are aligned with customer priorities

• It is a great way to evaluate changes to key processes

• It builds habits of balance, continuous improvement, and accountability to constituents

Why Consider this Approach?


Lessons Learned:Things That Can Go Wrong

Poor DataPoor DataQualityQuality

Poor DataPoor DataQualityQuality

Lack of ParticipationLack of Participation in Measurement in Measurement

DevelopmentDevelopment

A Culture that A Culture that Values ComplexityValues Complexity

No Linkage to No Linkage to Mission & StrategyMission & Strategy

No Linkage to No Linkage to Mission & StrategyMission & Strategy

One-Size-Fits-AllOne-Size-Fits-AllApproachApproach

One-Size-Fits-AllOne-Size-Fits-AllApproachApproach


Lessons Learned:Critical for Success

LeadershipLeadershipCommitmentCommitment

LeadershipLeadershipCommitmentCommitment

Assessment WillAssessment WillInfluenceInfluenceBehaviorBehavior

Results InfluenceResults InfluenceRewardsRewards

Results FormResults FormContext forContext for

PlanningPlanning

Results FormResults FormContext forContext for

PlanningPlanningCommunicateCommunicate

ResultsResultsCommunicateCommunicate

ResultsResults


Blink & Marketplace

lbnl / ucsd lbnl/ucsd discussion june 29, 2005 business architecture and the balanced scorecard

Documents

lbnl ucsd slide

uc slide

lbnl ucsd pages

lbnl ucsd flexible

new business architecture

business processes

way business

new business approach