WIXLIB

ACTION ITEM 1: CREATE INCREASED COMPETENCE ON CAMPUS IN COLLABORATIVE AND EFFECTIVEDISCOURSEWHAT? Train UCLA leadership, faculty and staff on how to use consultative processes andlead/engage in effective discourse. Our ability to deploy best practices in organizationalmanagement to improve the effectiveness of our institution is critically dependent upon keystakeholders having competencies related to clear, effective communication and the ability touse consultative processes to manage change. Consultative approaches are core to ourinstitutional value of shared governance, but not all Bruins have the skills needed to implementthese skills in practice. We recommend implementing a hands-on training program whose goalis to provide leadership, faculty, and staff across UCLA with practical skills needed to lead andengage in effective discourse and to employ consultative processes in their work. To ensureuptake of this program, Academic Senate, student organizations and staff representativesshould be involved in the development and implementation of the program.WHY? Enable us to tackle core issues and problems in a way that is direct, productive andcollaborative. Trust and effective communication are core to the effectiveness of our institutionand enhancing these capacities within UCLA would lead to significant improvements ininstitutional effectiveness. Improving vertical trust within our organization would help to us toidentify where layers of review could potentially be coordinated better. Improving horizontalcommunication within our organization would help to us to opportunities where centralizedservices would be more effective. Best practice example: Ohio State University’s Culture Shaping Initiative.1,2 Ohio StateUniversity’s launched a highly effective initiative in 2007 to move their institution from “visibleto visionary” that focused on aligning their culture with their institutional values. This initiativewas modeled on a smaller, parallel initiative within the OSU Medical Center that had been verysuccessful. They report that this initiative “created an enterprise mindset and greatercollaboration and agility” and resulted in improved national and international rankings.2HOW? Option 1: Hire a consulting firm with expertise in this area. A wide range of consulting firmsspecialize in providing trainings related to leading and participating in collaborative and effectivediscourse and hiring one of them could help UCLA to “jump start” the initiative. As just oneexample, OSU retained the firm Senn Delaney (http://www.senndelaney.com/) to develop anddeploy their institution’s “Culture Shaping Initiative”. 12Option 2: Build an in house training team. In the long run, it may be more cost-effective todevelop an in house training team. This would also allow for UCLA to develop a training programthat is tailored to our institutional culture and ents/case%20studies/senndelaney casestudy OSU.pdfPage 6 of 20

WHEN? Implement initial “train the trainer” program in AY2017-18; roll out broader training inAY2018-19. We recommend a hybrid approach, in which a consulting firm with expertise in thisarena is hired to conduct initial trainings in AY2017-18 and to help us develop our own in houseteam, which would then roll out training to a broader audience across campus starting inAY2018-19.Page 7 of 20

ACTION ITEM 2: DEVELOP INSTITUIONAL KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORSWHAT? Use participatory decision-making processes to develop a consensus set of key performanceindicators (KPIs) for UCLA. Clearly defined metrics for assessing institutional success are criticalto being able to identify opportunities for improvement and assessing whether changes that areimplemented to improve institutional effectiveness have the desired impact. To be consistentwith our institutional culture and values, these metrics (or “key performance indicators”, KPIs)need to be developed in ways that are both collaborative and transparent. Because prioritiesvary across the institution, schools should likewise be encouraged to develop and communicateKPIs that are specific to their units.WHY? To be in successful in make UCLA more effective and agile, we need to first have a commondefinition of what “success” would look like. Development of key performance indicators thatare agreed upon both vertically and horizontally within organizations is generally recognized asbeing critical to both institutional effectiveness and trust within organizations. The developmentof these KPIs necessarily requires broad-based discussions about institutional values andpriorities. For instance, discussions about what metrics to use for “instructional productivity”(e.g., student credit hours versus number of courses taught) should be tied to paralleldiscussions about what metrics should be used to assess academic excellence and studentlearning, to ensure that quality is not compromised as we strive for improved efficiency.Futhermore, these discussions should be conducted in an inclusive manner that involves broadinput from faculty and students. Best Practice Examples: Although KPIs are more frequently associated with for-profitorganizations, there are becoming more common among academic institutions. EAB has awebpage that focuses on Key Performance Indicators, that includes both frequently-used KPIsfor academic institutions and a more detailed example from the University of Kansas.3 However,these materials are primarily focused on service functions; examples related to academicexcellence and societal impact also need to be identified.HOW? Hire a consulting firm with expertise facilitating participatory processes in academicinstitutions to facilitate process. Because development of KPIs is a standard managementpractice, we recommend hiring a consulting firm with expertise in this arena that employsparticipatory processes that are aligned with our institutional culture and values. Once theinstitutional KPIs are developed, the dashboard system (which uses Tableau4) that has beendeveloped by The UCLA office of Academic Planning and Budget at UCLA could be adapted andused for monitoring and communicating the relevant indicators. Capacity should be built withindifferent schools and units at UCLA to be able to add and monitor unit-specific KPIs to mpendium4https://www.tableau.com/Page 8 of 20

WHEN? Launch in Fall 2017 with goal of having fully-vetted institutional KPIs no later than June 2018.Because the development of KPIs is so central to being able to monitor progress on strategicplanning goals, this action item should be given top priority with the goal of having fully-vettedinstitutional-level KPIs by the end of AY2017-18. Capacity should be built to facilitate thedevelopment of school-specific KPIs during AY2018-19.Page 9 of 20

ACTION ITEM 3: CREATE UCLA “LEAN TEAM”WHAT? Implement a UCLA “Lean Team” that identifies opportunities for improving processes acrosscampus, develop plans for addressing them, and facilitates their implementation. In additionto developing Key Performance Indicators, a process is needed to conduct rapid and iterativediagnosis of factors that impair effectiveness at UCLA and to develop effective, evidence-basedsolutions. UCLA should develop a “lean team” that can serve as a resource and “in houseconsulting group” for continuous improvement activities across campus.WHY? “Continuous improvement” is a evidence-based and data-driven approach for improving bothorganizational efficiency and effectiveness. Continuous improvement processes are designedto evaluate and improve products, services or processes and have rapidly become a standardapproach to improving both the effectiveness and efficiency of organizations. Many successfulmodels for continuous improvement programs exist, including Six Sigma (originally developed atMotorola) and Kaizen (used by Toyota). In recent years, more and more educational institutionshave embraced continuous improvement methodologies as well, in efforts to maintainexcellence in the face of rising costs and diminishing resources. Because academia is inherentlydifferent from for-profit institutions, it is critical that UCLA develop its own team in the long run(as opposed to simply relying on outside consultants). This will also ensure that the continuousimprovement mindset becomes engrained and integrated into our institution’s culture andoperations. Best practice example: UCLA Health System’s ValU Care Redesign Team.5 The UCLA HealthSystem developed an in house team (the ValU Care Redesign Team) that leads their initiativesrelated to enhancing patient experience at UCLA, improving care outcomes, improvingoperational outcomes, and lowering healthcare costs. Their work has resulted in shorterhospital stays and high patient satisfaction. Any initiative at UCLA should start by consulting withthe leadership of the UCLA Health System and the ValU Care Redesign Team to identify howtheir experience and expertise can be leveraged.HOW? Option 1: Hire a consulting firm with expertise in this area. A wide range of consulting firmsspecialize continuous improvement programs and hiring one of them could help UCLA to “jumpstart” the initiative. Option 2: Build an in house “lean team”. In the long run, it will likely be more cost-effective todevelop an in house lean team. This would also allow for UCLA to develop a continuousimprovement program that is tailored to our institutional culture and values.WHEN? Implement initial continuous improvement program in AY2017-18; roll out institutional teamin AY2018-19. We recommend a hybrid approach, in which a consulting firm with expertise incontinuous improvement programs is hired and focuses on “low-hanging fruit” in AY2017-18.5https://www.uclahealth.org/valu/Page 10 of 20

During this period, UCLA should focus on building in-house capacity (modeled on the UCLAHealth System’s ValU Care Redesign Team), to be launched in Summer 2018.Page 11 of 20

ACTION ITEM 4: CREATE “CENTRALIZATION” TASK FORCEWHAT? Empower a group on campus to create and implement a standard set of criteria and processfor determining what campus functions should (and should not) be centralized. AlthoughActions Items 1-3 will help to improve trust and communication as well as to improve bothefficiency and effectiveness of core units on campus, there is still a need for a standard process(including a standard set of criteria) for determining what campus functions should and shouldnot be centralized. Although some organizations choose to hire external consulting groups toperform this work, we did not feel this would be a tractable approach at UCLA due to theinstitutional culture of shared governance. In addition, the group felt strongly that this was not a“one-time” fix, but rather an ongoing challenge that would be best addressed by having astandard institutional approach over time. Therefore, we propose empowering a group oncampus to create and implement a standard set of criteria and process for determining whatcampus functions should (and should not) be centralized.WHY? Inefficiencies result when “wrong” functions are centralized. Like many academic institutions,UCLA struggles to balance the varied needs and desires for independence of its units with aneed to reduce inefficiencies, institutional costs, and risk. Although the literature oncentralization and decentralization provides many valuable lessons on what types of functionstend to benefit from centralization, any initiatives dealing with centralization of functions orservices at UCLA need to be well aligned with our culture and values to be successful. Overall,UCLA tends to be fairly decentralized and initiatives to centralize functions can be exacerbatedby unwillingness of different units or campus entities to relinquish control over a particularfunction, lack of trust and/or perceptions that better (or more appropriate) services can beprovided locally. Centralization initiatives that do not employ sufficiently collaborative processesare likely to fail because they are less likely to engender support from the units. Standard criteria and processes and regular review will improve transparency and trust oncampus. Examples of the types of criteria that might be employed to assess whether a particularservice are provided in Table A4 in the Appendix. The development of standard criteria andprocesses for determining whether specific functions and services at UCLA should be centralized(or not) combined with a regular review process would not only improve transparency and truston campus, but would also improve accountability and create a greater “customer-service”orientation for units that deliver centralized services.HOW? Option 1: Create and charge a “Joint Powers of Authority” committee with representativesfrom across campus. This option is modeled on local governance situations where two or morepublic authorities (e.g., local government, utilities, or transit authorities) have overlappingpowers and have the potential to benefit from working together to solve a particularly complexproblem or to achieve economies of scale. In the UCLA case, the “joint powers of authority”would include the central administration, each of the schools on our campus, and academicsenate. Ideally, the representatives serving on the committee would have sufficient authoritywithin the campus units that they represent that they could exercise the powers/authorities oftheir unit. As a result, the committee would both have the broad experience base needed toPage 12 of 20

assess the potential pitfalls of centralizing a particular function or service and be empowered todevelop a centralized solution that would meet the varied needs of UCLA units. Option 2: Create and charge a Campus Advisory Board with broad representation. A slightlydifferent model would involve the establishment of a campus advisory board that wouldprimary be made up of external advisors with management experience (e.g., consultants withexpertise in centralization initiatives) but would also include representatives from criticalstakeholder groups (including faculty, administrators, and students) from across campus. Thisapproach would have the benefits of leveraging external expertise in the area of centralizationand providing a fresh perspective on how to potentially solve some of our problems.WHEN? Create Centralization Task Force in Fall 2017 and charge the group with finalizing standardcriteria and process for review. We recommend that the central administration consult with theAcademic Senate and Deans of the Schools over the summer to determine what theorganization (e.g., Option 1 or Option 2 above or some combination thereof) of theCentralization Task Force should be and to obtain specific recommendations for Task Forcemembers. This would allow the Task Force to be formed in Fall 2017. The initial charge to thegroup should be developing and vetting the final set of standard criteria and process to use forassessing whether functions and services should be centralized, with the goal of finalizing theseby the end of AY2017-18. Charge Centralization Task Force implementing standard criteria and process starting in Fall2018. Starting in Fall 2018, the Centralization Task Force should identify the initial set offunctions and services to be reviewed to determine suitability for centralization and use thestandard criteria and processes developed in AY2017-18 to review the top priority functions andservices in AY2018-19.Page 13 of 20

APPENDIX. DETAILED RESULTS OF INDIVIDUAL TASK FORCE MEETINGS AND BRAINSTORMINGACTIVITIESTable A1. Revised List of Prioritized Questions Considered by the Institutional Effectiveness Task Force.Figure A1. Results of Root Causal Analysis to determine factors that impair institutional agility at UCLA(“fishbone diagram”).Figure A2. Results of brainstorming activity to develop list of potential action items that would help toaddress the two root causes of impaired institutional agility that were considered by the task forcemembers to be the highest priorities. Part 1: action items to address the problem that inefficienciesresult from too many layers of review.Figure A3. Results of brainstorming activity to develop list of potential action items that would help toaddress the two root causes of impaired institutional agility that were considered by the task forcemembers to be the highest priorities. Part 2: action items to address the problem that the “wrong”functions at UCLA are centralized (i.e., some functions that should be centralized are not and otherfunctions that should not be are centralized).Table A2. Examples of Pros and Cons of Centralization and DecentralizationTable A3. Examples of Areas Where Centralization is Advantageous and Where Decentralization isAdvantageousTable A4. Examples of Recommended Factors to Consider When Determining Whether Centralization orDecentralization is PreferablePage 14 of 20

Table A1. Revised List Questions Considered by the Institutional Effectiveness Task Force, Listed inOrder of Priority (where 1 was considered by the Task Force members to be the top priority forconsideration).1. How can we make UCLA more agile/ able to respond more quickly and effectively tochanges in the external environment, particularly changes in resources?2. How can we remove unnecessary bureaucracy?3. What types of facilities, activities and programs may benefit from centralization, and whichshould better reside within each unit? Can integrating certain central administrative serviceshelp lower costs and overheads for academic units?4. What types of facilities and resources can be shared to create greater efficiencies andreduce duplication? What should we do more and what should we do less? How can westreamline offices, programs, and activities? (e.g., where could we develop templates thatcould be disseminated institutionally?)5. What structures and policies are needed to facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration amongdifferent units?6. In what new ways can we employ technology to enhance institutional effectiveness?7. Can we offer principles/rules of engagement to guide us institutionally as we move forwardwith implementing strategic changes?8. How can we optimize autonomy of/empower individual UC campuses? Within UCLA, howcould be promote autonomy of units in ways that matter but not in ways that compromiseeffectiveness?4. How can we improve institutional responsiveness to (all) critical stakeholders? (Note thatthis might be a communication issue.)Page 15 of 20

Figure A1. Results of root causal analysis brainstorming activity to determine factors that impair institutional agility at UCLA (“fishbonediagram”)Ins6tu6onalIncen6vesLack of financial incen6ves tobe agile in developing andchanging educa6onal progsLack of incen6ves to back upcentral priori6esIns6tu6onalStructureIns6tu6onal org struct reflectshistorical resources & priori6es(not “new normal”)Historically, high level ofdecentraliza6on/delega6ngauthority to unitsNo mechanism for regularreview and restructuringCollabora6on valued forresearch but not necessarilyadministra6onWrong func6ons & processesare centralizedIneffec6ve communica6onacross units and betweencenter and unitsLack of systema6c criteriaand process for determiningwhat should be centralizedStudent needs/desires nothistorically given top priorityHistorically, priori6esreflected govt beingprimary source ofsupport (not tui6on)Too many layers of

Table 1. Guiding Principles for UCLA Strategic Planning Initiative 1. Focus: Strategic planning will aim to benefit the campus as whole; it will not intervene in the planning efforts of different campus units. 2. Inclusiveness: Strategic planning process will be incl