CSU 2.0Administrative Task Force Recommendations

December 2020

DRAFT

Objective

Assess organizational structure and campus support services and recommend reforms and changes to improve performance and reduce costs

DRAFT

Our TeamName Role

Cle

ve

lan

d S

tate

Michael Biehl Senior Vice President of Business Affairs and Finance & CFO

Jeanell Hughes Chief Talent and Human Resources Officer

David Bruce Associate VP & Chief Information Officer

Benjamin Baran Associate Professor, College of Business

Susan Carver Assistant Dean, College of Engineering

LaJuan Flores Associate Director, Office for Institutional Equity

Jody Milkie Administrative Operations Manager, College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences

Nicholas Petty Director, Undergraduate Inclusive Excellence

David Pratt Associate VP, Advancement & Associate Director, Cleveland State Foundation

Allyson Robichaud Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences

Jeremiah Swetel Executive Director Facility Services

Hu

ron

Co

ns

ult

ing Lee M. Smith Senior Director

Robert Spencer Senior Director

Nick Kozlov Manager

DRAFT

Executive Summary▪ Over the course of 12 meetings, the Administrative Task Force reviewed our administrative

organizational structure and campus support services

▪ Core analyses included reviewing the reporting structure through a spans & layers review and

deploying an administrative activity study to ~700 employees

▪ Quantitative data analysis was supplemented with interviews and focus groups of over 30

employees across administrative and academic units

▪ The Task Force identified opportunities to potentially reduce administrative expenditures by up to

$10M annually across organizational and operational structures

▪ Potential for multi year investment in our campus based on preliminary “visioning” discussions

with dining, housing & facilities vendors

DRAFT

Case for ChangeWhat’s Needed?• Simplify, standardize processes

• Digital transformation to support processes

• Creative organizational/operational

structures aligned with mission

Why?• Response to the financial deficit

• Shifting HE landscape, coupled with

turbulence sparked by the pandemic indicates a

prime opportunity change

Benefits

• Remove silos, increase transparency &

expand collaboration

• Prioritize strategic focus & growth

• Strengthen professional development,

career progression, and collaborative

networks

Consequences

• Inability to respond to deficit creating larger and

uncertain financial impacts

• Increased employee burn-out, declining

morale, and eventual turnover of top talent

• Loss of competitive advantage

CHANGE

DRAFT

Process

Current Operational Structure

Administrative Activity Study (AAS) to determine

where the functional administrative activities are taking place across

the university.

2

Organizational Readiness & Risk

Assessment *

Identify leadership’s perception of how ready

the university is for change and where additional

attention may be needed during implementation.

3Current Organizational Structure

Spans and Layers analysis of HR data illustrates the formal

organizational structure of CSU.

1

Vendor Interviews & Task Force Discussions

Integrate qualitative elements of experiences

and expectations for improvement with the quantitative analysis.

4

Final Recommendations

Integrate findings from all data sources will provide a clear picture of the current

state and a roadmap to achieve the future vision.

5

*pending

DRAFT

Organizational StructureSpans & Layers

63% of staff with management responsibilities have three or fewer direct reports.

1

10

70

268

435

232

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

In-Scope Employees: 1,021

9.0

6.95.6

3.5

3.0

0.8

Interpreting the Pyramid:

435 employees at Layer 5 are supervised by

124 supervisors at Layer 4, with an avg. span

of 3.5

Average span of control of 3.8, with nearly 46% of

supervisors only one or two direct reports.

DRAFT

Organizational StructureSpans & Layers

Savings opportunity between $3.3M and $5.8M can be achieved through increasing managerial span,

depending on how aggressively we pursue change.

$2,455

$4,326 $859

$1,514

$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

Span Increase of +0.5 Span Increase of +1.0

Savings Estimate for Cleveland State (000’s)

Salary Opportunity Opportunity w/ Fringe*

Supervisor Average

Salary

Change in Total

Supervisors (HCT)

Est. Salary

Opportunity (000’s)

Opportunity

w/ Fringe (000’s)*

Total Span Increase

of +0.5

Layer 4 Change 95,111 16 $1,521.8 $2,054.4

Layer 5 Change 75,069 11 $825.8 $1,114.8

Layer 6 Change 53,687 2 $107.4 $145.0

29 $2,454.9 $3,314.1

Total Span Increase

of +1.0

Layer 4 Change 95,111 28 $2,663.1 $3,595.2

Layer 5 Change 75,069 20 $1,501.4 $2,026.9

Layer 6 Change 53,687 3 $161.1 $217.4

51 $4,325.5 $5,839.5

*Assumes fringe benefit rate of 35%.

DRAFT

Operational Structure: Activity StudyInstitutional Administrative Spend

$12.6M

$5.3M

$7.8M

$3.8M

$4.1M

$3.7M

$3.7M

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Spend

Perc

en

t o

f to

tal S

pe

nd

Total Investment in Admin Activity ($56.0M)

Other

External Relations

Student Services

Academic Program Support (Advising, Course Scheduling)

External Reporting (Non-financial / Non-sponsored)

Alumni Affairs, Development, and Advancement

Enrollment Management

Enterprise Risk Management, Audit, and Compliance

Information Technology

Marketing & Communications

Human Resource Management (Including Benefits & Payroll)

Research Administration

Patient Access and Clinical Support Services

Procurement, Travel & Expense, and Accounts Payable

General Finance, Accounting, and Billing

General Management & Administrative Support

Note: Investment totals include Salary plus a 35% fringe rate;

CSU spends about $160M in salaries and benefits in total (FY20)

DRAFT

Activity StudyFragmentation of Roles

Significant opportunity to standardize roles and responsibilities, address current organizational

issues and create efficiencies in the work itself.

DRAFT

Activity StudyFragmentation of Roles

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

IT Activity GeneralFinanceActivity

ProcurementActivity

HR Activity Mar/CommActivity

% F

ocu

se

d E

ffo

rt

Fragmentation Across Org Units (Total)

FTEs in Centralized Units FTEs in Distributed Units

Ex. Only 17% of Finance activity and 32% of

HR activity is occurring in centralized units.

0

20

40

60

80

100

IT Activity GeneralFinanceActivity

ProcurementActivity

HR Activity Mar/CommActivity

Cu

mu

lati

ve F

TE

Fragmentation Across Org Units (Total)

FTEs in Centralized Units FTEs in Distributed Units

DRAFT

12

Activity StudyGeneral Administration

50.92

4.62

4.60 5.55

1.68 1.39

18.81

10.18 2.61

3.67

5.68

5.26

5.96

3.71

14.54

2.50 6.69

0.68 FTE Distribution, by Unit (149.05FTE)Academic Units

Academic Planning

Athletics

Business Affairs & Finance

Campus Police & Access Control

Division of University Engagement

Enrollment Management & Student Success

Facilities & Safety Administration

General Counsel

Human Resources

IS&T

Office of Advancement

Office of Campus Support Services

President

Provost's Office

Sponsored Programs and Research Services

Student Affairs

University Marketing & Communications

313 308270 255

233

161

80 65 62

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

05

1015202530354045

Adm

inis

tra

tive

Supp

ort

Supe

rvis

or

Adm

inis

tra

tio

n

Pro

ject

Man

age

men

t

Un

it E

ffe

ctivene

ss/

Impro

vem

ent

Eve

nt C

oord

ination

,S

ch

edu

ling,

and

Lo

gis

tics

Space S

ched

ulin

gan

d R

ese

rvation

s*

Oth

er

Volu

nte

er

an

dA

ffili

ate

Man

age

men

t

Intr

a-d

ay T

ransit

Head

co

un

t

Co

un

t o

f F

TE

FTE and Headcount, by Activity

FTE

Headcount

240

153

78

34 27

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 - 20% 21 - 40% 41 - 60% 61 - 80% 81+%

Co

un

t o

f E

mp

loyees

% of Time

Fragmentation

*does not include enterprise

classroom management

DRAFT

13

Activity StudyGeneral Administration Summary

Scale

• Largest administrative expense category, costing

$12.6M annually

• Work captures 149 FTE across 533 individuals,

representing 28% of each FTE on average

Distribution• Over a dozen units have more than 5 FTE

dedicated to General Administration activities

• Administrative Coordinators, Secretaries, and

Assistants makeup more than 60% of the effort

Fragmentation

• 61 individuals spend 60% or more of their time on

general administration activities

• 240 individuals recorded 20% or less of their time

towards general administration activities

Opportunity

• Identify solutions (process and/or technology) to

reduce the investment in administrative support

activities (e.g., reception, message relay,

calendaring)

• Consolidate specific administrative activities into

service center for scaled service delivery

General

Administration

DRAFT

14

15.51

0.78 1.70

10.52

0.30

0.29

11.26

3.61 0.64

0.79

1.66

3.25

4.53

0.55 4.12

0.80

1.90 0.22 FTE Distribution, by Unit (62.43FTE)Academic Units

Academic Planning

Athletics

Business Affairs & Finance

Campus Police & Access Control

Division of University Engagement

Enrollment Management & Student Success

Facilities & Safety Administration

General Counsel

Human Resources

IS&T

Office of Advancement

Office of Campus Support Services

President

Provost's Office

Sponsored Programs and Research Services

Student Affairs

University Marketing & Communications

233

120 118135 123

108

3916

0

50

100

150

200

250

02468

101214161820

Re

port

ing a

nd D

ata

Ma

nag

em

ent

Gen

era

l A

ccoun

tin

g

Fin

ancia

l A

naly

sis

an

d R

eport

ing

Syste

ms

Adm

inis

tra

tio

n a

nd

Co

nfigura

tion

Bill

ing a

nd

Re

ce

ivable

s/

Ca

sh

ieri

ng

Budg

eting,

Tre

asury

,an

d F

inan

cia

lM

anag

em

ent

Oth

er

Patient

Accoun

tin

g

Head

co

un

t

Co

un

t o

f F

TE

FTE and Headcount, by Activity

FTE

Headcount

Activity StudyFinance

275

64

24 7 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 - 20% 21 - 40% 41 - 60% 61 - 80% 81+%

Co

un

t o

f E

mp

loyees

% of Time

Fragmentation

DRAFT

15

Activity StudyFinance & Procurement

Scale

• CSU spends over $7.5M on finance activities

across general finance and procurement

• 380 individuals contribute 92.2 FTEs, equating to

21% of the average individual’s workload

Distribution• Only 17% of General Finance and 13% of

Procurement effort takes place in Business Affairs

• 233 individuals across CSU report spending time

on financial reporting and data management

Fragmentation

• 19 individuals spend 80% or more of their time on

General Finance and/or Procurement activities

• 77% individuals reported spending less than 20%

of their time towards these activities

Opportunity

• Establish standardized reports and/or roles within

distributed units to reduce the number of FTEs

dedicated to reporting and data management

• Centralize common transactional functions (e.g.,

invoicing, expense processing) at school or

administrative level

Finance

DRAFT

Implications of Current State

Current

State

▪ Employee burnout

▪ Limited opportunities for career progression

▪ Job/role inconsistency

▪ Knowledge, skills, ability development are hindered

Talent & Engagement

▪ Re-learning

▪ Re-working

▪ Researching/navigating

▪ Excessive effort

Efficiency

▪ Under-resourced areas are unable to pursue tactical growth opportunities

▪ Resources are being allocated to sustain inefficient models vs. reinvesting in faculty, staff & students

Growth

▪ Varied outcomes & levels of support

▪ Delays due to complexity

▪ Difficulty in leveraging scale and consistency

Effectiveness

DRAFT

Operational AssessmentFacilities Expenditures

Source: CSU FY21 Budget Data; all $s in thousands

Facilities, $21,553 ,

15%

Other Business Affairs (Oper. & GF),

$47,244

Other Business Affairs (AUX),

$21,260

EMSS, $33,431Univ. Development, $3,854

Univ. Engagement,

$1,175

Athletics, $8,571

General Admin. Units, $8,740

Total Administrative Expenditures(FY21 Budget, Unrestricted Funds)

Note: Facilities expenses include

$10,609,365 for utilities

Facilities, $7,740 , 11%

Other Business Affairs (Oper. & GF),

$23,032

Other Business Affairs (AUX),

$10,759

EMSS, $13,143 Univ. Development, $3,637

Univ. Engagement,

$1,023

Athletics, $5,705

General Admin. Units, $7,205

Administrative Salaries and Benefits(FY21 Budget, Unrestricted Funds)

Level of Facilities expenses not directly aligned with a primary mission of the institution presents

opportunities for potential savings

DRAFT

Recommendations❑Managerial Restructure

Integrated position management practices to better align managerial reporting structure and drive leadership “bench” strength & reinvest academic enterprise (i.e. student success)

❑Administrative Service Center Consolidation of common services and processes to reduce fragmentation, improve scalability and build our talent pipelines

❑New Facility Services Delivery ModelIdentify partner, with facilities as its core mission, best equipped to find opportunities in labor, expenses, procurement, energy management and productivity and provide improved services and financial savings

❑Create Transformative Student ExperienceNew P3 engagements in dining, housing and facilities

DRAFT

Recommendations (TBD)

❑Capital Utility Improvements

Evaluate privatization opportunities on our $10.3M spend/year on steam, electric, water, sewer,

and natural gas. (i.e. potential for significant capital investment and $2M+ annual savings on

steam purchases)

❑Monetize Physical Footprint

Recent space utilization efforts highlight the availability of space not previously understood.

Opportunities for extended virtual work coupled with a growing deferred maintenance backlog

makes reviewing the physical footprint timely

❑New model for IT Service Deliver

Modernize and “de-customize” administrative systems in a coordinated effort w/business

processes across administrative units, build a uniform data analytics platform to empower data-

driven decisions across campus, implement a sustainable funding model for IT with highly

effective governance to ensure campus technology needs are met and stakeholder interests

are represented.

DRAFT