The University of Kansas, in an effort to find efficiencies and free up money to invest in academic programs, is undertaking 11 different change initiatives simultaneously. See a summary.

1. How Much Change Can A
University Absorb At Once?
1

2. 2
CFE Project Background

3. 3
University of Kansas
Founded in 1866, the University of Kansas has
become a major public teaching and research
university.
• 28,000 students
• 2,600 Faculty
• 5 Campuses
• 13 Schools
• 345 Degree Programs in 200 Fields
KU has been a member of the AAU since 1909.
Point of Pride: The KU basketball program was
founded in 1898 by James Naismith, the inventor
of basketball.

4. 4
assure administrative
functions are maximally
efficient
focus on enrollment
management as many
state universities are
aggressively recruiting
redesign budgeting and
planning capabilities to
orient all funds towards
strategic priorities
The University leadership launched Changing for Excellence to identify
strategies to become more effective, reduce costs and increase revenues in
service and program areas.
Competition from
Other Universities
Bold Aspirations
Strategic Plan
Reduction in
State Support
KU considered multiple approaches for more effective and strategic management of resources

5. 5
Our aspirations are bold: to be recognized as a top-tier
public international research university.
Our plan is organized around six goals to achieve our goal:
1. Energizing the Educational Environment
2. Elevating Doctoral Education
3. Driving Discovery and Innovation
4. Engaging Scholarship for Public Impact
5. Developing Excellence in People
6. Developing Infrastructure and Resources
The primary goal of administrative transformation is to
create savings to fund the strategic plan.

6. 6
CFE Initiatives
• Budgeting Process Redesign
• Construction Management
• Enrollment Management
• Facilities Consolidation
• HR Process Redesign
• IT Initiatives
• Libraries
• Procurement
• Research Administration Process Redesign
• Shared Service Centers
• Strategic Sourcing

7. 7
KU’s approach to transform the institution has
established a model for success comprised of:
• Leadership commitment, at all levels of the
institution
• Grassroots input, and the incorporation of
staff ideas and innovations
• Faculty and staff support related to
reinvestment of the results in the academic
mission
• Internal KU project ownership, supported by
small teams of Huron resources
• Involvement of faculty experts in the area of
change management in public sector
organizations
KU is beginning to see the results of transformational change across campus.
.
Transformational Change is hard.

8. 8
Phase 1
Opportunity
Identification
Phase 2
Business Case
Development
Phase 3
Implementation
Executive
Committee
• Chancellor,
Exec. Vice
Chancellors
• “Decision
makers”
• Meets
monthly
Advisory
Committee
• Cross-
campus
stakeholders
• Represented:
faculty,
operational
leaders, staff,
students
Opportunity
Work Groups
• TBD
Opportunity
Work Groups
• TBD
Opportunity
Work Groups
• TBD
Work Groups
• “Champion”
• Key
stakeholders
Opportunity
Work Groups
• TBD
Opportunity
Work Groups
• TBD
Opportunity
Work Groups
• TBD
Implementation
Teams
Including project
champion &
ambassadors
Project
Leadership
• John Curry,
Managing
Director
• Mike Phillips,
Senior
Director
day to day
project
management
Project Delivery
1 team/campus
• Consultants
• Functional
Specialists
• Subject
Matter
Advisors
Opportunity
Work Groups
• TBD
Implementation
Support Teams
Select areas
only
Project Approach

9. 9
Change Management

10. 10
Key
9 + Connections
1 to 4
Connections
5 to 8
Connections
HR Facilities
Business
Centers
IT
Construction Procurement
Project Interdependencies Required High Coordination

11. 11
Awareness of the need for change  Initiative communications
 Campus customer input
 Ready-access to solution/project information
Desire to participate and support the change  Top down communication within ‘Unit’
 Address fear of job loss
 Discontent with current state
 Affiliation and sense of belonging
 Career advancement / Enhanced job security
 Trust and respect for leadership
 Hope in future state
Knowledge on how to change  Training
 Policy and process changes
 Information access
 Examples and role models (champions)
Ability to implement required skills and behaviors  Software configured to user business needs
 Practice applying new skills or using new processes and tools
 Coaching / Mentoring
 Removal of barriers (technology / processes)
Reinforcement to sustain the change  Top down reinforcement within ‘Unit’
 Celebrations / personal recognition
 Continuous analysis and refinement focus
What Is Change Management?

12. 12
Project Organization
KU
Huron
Joint
Key
Sourcing
Champion
Sourcing
Lead
Sourcing
Team
HR
Champion
HR
Lead
HR
Team
Shared Service
Champion
Shared Service
Lead
Shared Service
Team
IT
Champion
IT
Leads
IT
Teams
Procurement
Champion
Procurement
Lead
Procurement
Team
Facilities
Champion
Facilities
Lead
Facilities
Team
Executive Steering
Committee
Executive Sponsor
PMO
Advisory
Committee

13. 13
Committee/Group Roles Meeting Frequency
Executive Steering
Committee
Project Leadership
• Provide overall project guidance and
direction
• Approve/make decisions
• Monthly With
Executive Sponsor and
PMO
KU Advisory Committee
Project Stewardship
• Review project status
• Provide institutional insight and guidance
• Validate findings and vet
recommendations
• Monthly With Project
Champions and PMO
Executive Sponsor
Institutional Project Oversight
• Monitor progress of all projects
• Make institutional level decisions
• Resolve escalated project issues
• Weekly with PMO
• Weekly with Project
Champions
Project Champions
Individual Project Oversight
• Manage progress and coordinate KU
resources
• Make project specific decisions
• Resolve/escalate project issues
• Weekly With PMO,
Project Leads and
Project Teams
Project Roles

14. 14
Project Timelines
Year
Month May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct
PhaseI
PhaseII
PhaseIII
HRProcessRedesign
FacilitiesConsolidation
Sourcing
ProcureToPay
SharedServiceCenters
BudgetProcessRedesign
ConstructionManagement
InformationTechnology
2011 2012 2013
Simultaneous implementations affected everyone on campus and required constant coordination and
communication between project teams and stakeholders.

15. 15
Procure-To-Pay

16. 16
 Pre-2006
State of Kansas
• $500 Bid Limit – No Delegated Authority
• $2K Bid Limit – $25K Delegated Authority
• $5K Bid Limit – $25K Delegated Authority
• $5K Bid Limit – Unlimited Delegated Process Authority
 2006-Current
• SB 52 Passed – 1 Year to Develop Policy and Procedure (KU and
FHSU Only)
• 2007 - 2010 – Pilot Project (KU and FHSU Only)
• July 1, 2010 – Full Autonomy for All Board of Regents
KU Procurement Background

17. 17
Findings and Opportunities
• Develop strategic sourcing program as part of ongoing operations and shift focus to
commodity management in collaboration with campus departments
• Implement an eProcurement solution to
 channel spend to University contracts
 streamline the approval and settlement process
 address the low utilization and efficiencies of procure to pay technologies
• Merge procurement organizations, resulting in additional resources for commodity
management expertise and strategic sourcing activities
• Merge Purchasing and Accounts Payable to form Procurement Services
Goals
• Develop a Purchasing organization focused on commodity management and strategic sourcing
• Optimize technology and operations to address the drivers behind the low utilization
• Implement procurement/payables technology to automate processes and routine transactions
• Increase communication and collaboration with campus departments
KEY CHALLENGE: Organizational resistance was substantial due to a failed eProcurement attempt
several years ago.
Procurement - Overview

18. 18
Strategic
Sourcing
Overview
• Classroom
style training
Data Gathering
and Contract
Review
• Identify target
suppliers
• Supplier data
request
• Market/industry
research
Data Analysis
• Contract
review/summary
• Pricing analysis
• Benchmarking
• Estimate savings
opportunities
Business
Case
• Develop
industry and
internal
perspectives
• Build
business
case
• Summarize
savings
• Develop recs
Presentation
and Action
• Finalize
business case
• Present to
stakeholders
• Determine
implementation
strategy
Negotiations,
Compliance
and Audit
• Ongoing Huron
remote support,
as needed
Before conducting the sourcing training,
Huron negotiated contracts in six areas:
After negotiating six commodity areas, Huron provided training and guidance for the KU
sourcing team, using the Express Shipping commodity area.
Procurement – Strategic Sourcing Approach

19. 19
Task / Timeframe Campus Impact Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Wave I
KUPPS Optimization integration
Wave 1
Supplier Data
Collection
All Business Suppliers
Available in KUPPS
Wave 2
Transformation
P2P Organizational
Changes and Centralized
Invoicing
Wave 2
Design
Streamlined Settlement
and Approvals
Wave 2
Build
Workflow
Systems Integrations with
KUPPS, PeopleSoft, DEMIS
and ImageNow
Wave 2
Conference Room
Pilots
Wave 2 Central and
Department CRP Sessions
Wave 2
Testing and Validation
Wave 2 Testing and
Validation
Procurement – Procure To Pay Approach

20. 20
Facilities

21. 21
Goals
Reduce costs by consolidating operations, improving workforce morale and enhancing
worker productivity, improving customer service, and implementing a preventive model to
reduce deferred maintenance backlog over time.
Implementation Objectives
• Consolidate Student Housing and central facilities operations reducing total FTEs
and capitalizing on economies of scale
• Implement a zone maintenance program focusing on preventive maintenance and
customer satisfaction
• Implement mobile technologies to optimize the work order system
• Implement energy conservation and sustainability initiatives
KEY CHALLENGE: Achieving cost savings required organizational and operational changes, with
little initial support among facilities leadership or the workforce to undertake these changes.
Facilities - Overview

22. 22
• Existing workforce and supervisors had little input into the
management and direction of the central Facilities organization
• Apprehension on the part of Student Housing with respect to
consolidating operations’ impact to customer service
Challenge 1: Initiating Change
• Organization was focused on construction and large, re-billable projects
• Little preventive maintenance and growing deferred maintenance
backlog
• Centralized shops and storeroom led to significant ‘windshield’ time and
reduced worker productivity
Challenge 2: Determining the right organizational structure and
operating model
Facilities - Key Challenges (1 of 2)

23. 23
• Low workforce morale and disenfranchisement needed to be overcome
• Campus customers resistant to change and feared reduction in service
levels
Challenge 3: Obtaining Buy-in from Workforce and Customers
• Breaking old habits and practices difficult post-implementation with respect
to billing practices and customer service
• Workforce and supervisors have tendency to confront operational
challenges in new model with old ways of thinking about service
delivery
Challenge 4: Maintaining Change Momentum
Facilities - Key Challenges (2 of 2)

24. 24
Facilities - Key Success Strategies (1 of 2)
Leadership Commitment & Making the Case to Stakeholders
1.Replaced facilities leaders who were not committed to change
2.Continually communicated commitment of leadership to change and to
improving the organization for employees and customers
3.Included Student Housing in design of future state from the beginning
Focused the Organization on a Preventive Maintenance Model
1. Separated construction function from the maintenance organization
2. Organized maintenance work into campus zones to improve productivity and
to create a sense of ownership of buildings and systems
3. Utilized work-order software and mobile technologies to enhance new
operating model

25. 25
Involved Stakeholders & Employees in Creating Change
1. Created workgroups composed of mostly front-line employees,
stakeholders, and customers from across campus to design future
state operating and organizational models
2. Focused early on addressing employee morale concerns and create buy-in
Aligned Performance Objectives with the New Operating Model
1. Made new leadership and supervisors accountable to new model
2. Developed organizational and operating KPI’s to align with new model
3. Continued involvement of workforce post-implementation in new change
initiatives and continued focus on improving employee morale and welfare
Facilities - Key Success Strategies (2 of 2)

26. 26
IT Initiatives

27. 27
• Poor cross-campus collaboration and sharing of resources
• Non-standard identity management services across
campuses
• Distributed IT environments across campus
• No career path for IT professionals
• No standard level of service
• Redundant solutions across campus
• Hundreds of personal printers, scanners, fax machines
• Poor governance on enterprise software licensing
Information Technology - Before CFE

28. 28
Information Technology CFE Initiatives
KU Lawrence Projects
• Server Centralization and Virtualization
• Reorganize and Redefine IT Staff
• Increase MFD Usage
Cross-campus Projects
• Single Identity Management System
• Network Optimization
• Leveraging Software Purchasing

29. 29
Information Technology – After CFE
KU IT viewed as...
• Trusted Business Partner
• IT Service Provider
• Nimble
• Accessible
• Helpful
• Successful
• Impressive

30. 30
Shared Service Centers

31. 31
Goals
Increase customer service and reduce costs by creating shared service centers (SSCs) across campus to
organize staff around job functions and increase training effectiveness for business processes
Findings and Opportunities
• SSCs are service-driven, using periodic assessments of customer service and metrics to ensure high
performance
• Improved performance of administrative functions will free up funds for strategic initiatives
• Unorganized demands on staff time are replaced by balanced, focused workloads
• SSC teams allow staff to have backup during leave time and to develop new skills and expertise
• SSCs build teams of staff with common experience and goals, bolstering camaraderie, knowledge sharing
and fostering a professional and experienced work environment
KEY CHALLENGE: SSCs represented a substantial culture shift for both faculty and staff.
Gaining buy-in for the change required persistent, focused effort with stakeholders
across campus.
Shared Service Centers Overview

32. 32
HumanResources
Support all of the department’s
hiring needs, including:
• All aspects of the recruiting
process
• All components of the
University-wide onboarding
process
• Perform the Time Reviewer
role Accounting
Support all of the department’s
Accounting Needs (state, KUEA
and sponsored funds)
• Provide routine and as-needed
reports on the department’s
budget status
• Process department
purchases
• Pay invoices and process
reimbursements
• Act as travel proxy for
department
• Support the identification and
processing of scholarships
• Create invoices, track
shipping, billing and deposits
for departmental programs
• Process departmental
deposits
PostAward
Support the administration of
sponsored awards:
• All related accounting and HR
support
• Monitor award balances,
progress report due dates;
apply for award renewal,
conduct allowability reviews
and facilitate effort reporting
• Request no cost extensions,
budget revisions, provisional
requests or award closeouts
• Monitor cost share
agreements for both payroll
and non-payroll expenses
SSC Activities

33. 33
SSC Model at KU
Climate and Energy Center
Biodiversity Research Institute
(BI)
Center for Environmental
Beneficial Catalysis (CEBC)
Transportation Research
Institute (TRI)
Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
(TORP)
Center for Remote Sensing of
Ice Sheets (CReSIS)
KS Biological Survey (KBS)
KS Geological Survey (KGS)
Music, Architecture, Law &
Libraries SSC
School of Music
School of Architecture
School of Law
Libraries
Education, Journalism & Social
Welfare SSC
School of Education
School of Journalism
School of Social Welfare
Center for Research on
Learning (CRL)
Achievement and Assessment
Institute (AAI)
Business, Engineering &
Pharmacy SSC
School of Business
School of Engineering
School of Pharmacy
Biomedical Research SSC
Bioengineering Research
Center (BERC)
Higuchi Biosciences Center
(HBC)
Biobehavioral & Social
Research SSC
Juniper Gardens Children’s
Project
Kansas Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities
Research Center
Kansas University Center on
Developmental Disabilities
The Research and Training
Center on Independent Living
Child Language Doctoral
Program
Beach Center on Disability
Gerontology Center
The Merrill Advanced Studies
Center
Work Group for Community
Health and Development
Center for Physical Activity
and Weight Management
Biobehavioral Neurosciences
in Communication Disorders
Center
The Kansas Center for Autism
Research
Institute for Policy and Social
Research (IPSR)
Liberal Arts & Sciences SSC
College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences
Hall Center for the Humanities
Technology, Climate & Energy
SSC
Information &
Telecommunication Technology
Center (ITTC)
Biodiversity Research Institute
(BI)
Center for Environmental
Beneficial Catalysis (CEBC)
Transportation Research
Institute (TRI)
Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
(TORP)
Center for Remote Sensing of
Ice Sheets (CReSIS)
KS Biological Survey (KBS)
KS Geological Survey (KGS)
Campus Administration &
Operations SSC
Administration & Finance
Business & Financial Planning
Office of the Provost
Office of the Chancellor
International Programs
Student Affairs, EM, UG
Studies, DE
Public Affairs
Information Technology
Facilities Services
Sustainability
Purchasing
Design & Construction
Management
Parking & Transit
Environmental Health & Safety
Continuing Education
University Press
Research & Graduate Studies
Edwards Campus

34. 34
SSC Timeline
FY14 FY15 FY16
SSC Campus Rollout Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Liberal Arts & Sciences SSC
Biobehavioral & Social Research SSC
Campus Administration /Operations SSC
Biomedical Research SSC
Music, Architecture, Law & Libraries SSC
Business, Engineering & Pharmacy SSC
Education, Journalism & Social Welfare
SSC
Technology, Climate & Energy SSC
Fully Implemented

35. 35
Campus Involvement
• SSCs bubbled up through Efficiency study
• Town Hall meetings to vet and gather input
• Establish SSC Project Team
• Assess SSCs already operating on campus
• Study and visit other institutions
• Build a business case with broad input and representation

36. 36
Central Mandate: Making the Decision
• Decision must come from Senior Leadership
• Make key framework decisions early
• Communicate the decision publicly to campus
• Process review committees
• Communicate, communicate, communicate!

37. 37
The shared service center
implementation is
dependent on several
committees comprised of
KU faculty and staff from
all facets of the university.
Changing for Excellence Executive
Steering Committee
SSC Executive Team
Assistant Vice Provost
for SSCs
Communication
Ambassadors
Project
Director
Business Process
Analyst
Process
Improvement and
Training
Transition Planning
and Space
SSC Steering Team
Communication and
Change
Management
HR
Researc
h Admin
FinanceIT
Central Offices
• Research
• HR
• Comptroller
Shared Service Centers – Stakeholder Input

38. 38
Ongoing Feedback Loops: Continuous Improvement
• Ongoing survey of customers and staff
• Process improvement – “relentless incrementalism”
• Establish governance and oversight
• Develop strong relationships with central offices

39. 39
Lessons Learned

40. 40
Keys to Success / Lessons Learned
• Clearly articulating campus and leadership initiative objectives and desired end-goals at the
start – and reiterating often – builds agreement among stakeholders, even those directly
impacted by the change: at KU, administrative efficiencies in support of BOLD academic
ASPIRATIONS
• Understanding the University’s appetite for change and capacity to change based on
available resources
• Engaging faculty, process owners, and key campus stakeholders at every stage of the
process
• Utilizing data-driven business cases and objective measures to depersonalize and
depoliticize change
• Committing to achieving implied staff reductions through vacancy management
• Pursuing opportunities for enhanced enterprise-wide resource management
• Using the budget process to sustain efficiency gains
Lessons Learned (1 of 2)

41. 41
Keys to Success / Lessons Learned
•Identifying “quick win” opportunities to demonstrate success and transformational
opportunities to effect significant and sustainable change
•Establishing methods for measuring savings achieved and tracking progress following
implementation
•Seamlessly transitioning from assessment to implementation to ensure forward momentum is
maintained
•Demonstrating results to the University community through both internal communications and
public, third-party media reinforces the reasons for and commitment to change
•Blocking pathways to the old ways to re-enforce commitments to change
•Careful selection of initiative champions is necessary to instill trust with stakeholders and
serve as the foundation for transformation
Above all, University leadership must show a clear and consistent commitment to change
and an intolerance for the organizational inertia which can sabotage transformational efforts.
Lessons Learned (2 of 2)

42. 42
Final Lesson Learned
Q: How much change can a university absorb at one time?
A: Two to three times as much as they initially think they can.

43. 43
Contact Information
Diane Goddard
Vice Provost for Administration & Finance
dgoddard@ku.edu
Barry Swanson
Associate Vice Provost for Campus Operations
bswanson@ku.edu
Jason Hornberger
Assistant Vice Provost for Shared Service Centers
jfh@ku.edu
Bob Lim
Chief Information Officer
blim@ku.edu
Mike Phillips
Senior Director – Huron Consulting
mphillips@huronconsultinggroup.com

44. 44
Q & A