Support Services Strategy
A report by the Senate Committee on Campus Operations (SCCO)
(Final report, December 15, 1998)

This report identifies additional strengths and problems in the Support Services Strategy (S3) Plan besides those described by the Campus Advisory Team (CAT). The SCCO is also very concerned with the problems identified by the CAT and believes the executive summary of the S3 Report does not convey the same degree of concerns as the actual CAT report. We strongly urge that Campus Administration carefully consider the CAT advice.

The Proposed Plan in the S3 Report provides considerable insight about problems (called Process Issues ) with University Support Services. Unfortunately, as indicated by the CAT report, the proposed Strategies are less thorough. The specific Strategies contain a significant amount of business consultant boilerplate, are often unrelated to a specific objective or identified problem issue, and generally ignore the realities of the Civil Service System.

Reviewing the objectives of any proposal is the first step in assessing merit. In the case of the Support Services Strategy Plan, reviewing the charge and purposes reveals problems that are not associated with a specific strategy in the Plan. While a strategy may appear sound and reasonable in isolation, it may be less so in light of the University Mission or the Plan's Objectives.

Mission Statement

In fulfilling its mission, the University of Illinois will be:

• a university engaged with the society it serves;
• a university delivering affordable education of internationally recognized stature to undergraduate, graduate and professional students;
• a university that continuously improves the quality of its academic, research and support programs;
• a university that operates its business affairs following the best business practices.

  The overall objective was to develop a strategic plan for administrative services that will support the mission of the University . . .

  Specific Objectives of the Support Services Strategic plan.

  • Assess the University's current practice and use of technology.
  • Benchmark current performance.
  • Identify principal strategies and priorities for future administrative change.
  • Develop a plan to meet strategic objectives for administrative services.
  • Identify factors critical to success and potential barriers to the plan.

    Because of the mission clearly articulated above, the University has unique responsibilities and needs when compared to any business which primarily functions to generate income. The University is also unique when compared to most businesses because Faculty Governance creates a fundamental distinction between University administration and administrative support services. This distinction is blurred in parts of the Proposed Plan, dealing with administrative career paths, functions and reporting responsibilities. Strategies that further isolate administrative services from the students and faculty they support are contrary to the mission of the University and face major obstacles to successful implementation.

    The Proposed Plan does not identify the unique needs of teaching or research nor does it define the concerns of students. It is noteworthy that of the more than 200 participants identified in the Plan, there are 0 students and 2 non-administrative faculty. Similarly, the Administrative Services Survey , used as a benchmark of performance for Specific Objective 2, omits students, and to a significant degree, faculty from the evaluation (0 students, 145 faculty, 1157 civil service staff surveyed). It cannot be considered a "customer satisfaction" survey . We have to realize that in an academic community we are all both providers and clients nearly simultaneously. Without considering the support services used by students and faculty, the current University practice cannot be fully evaluated or measured as intended by specific objectives 1 and 2. Without an assessment of support services needed by students and faculty, strategies designed as part of specific objectives 3, 4 and 5 will be incomplete.

    Fundamental components of best business practice are responsibility, accountability and efficiency. Therefore, we are concerned about talk of how much the proposed strategies will cost. By definition, improved efficiency and effectiveness will save money beyond the initial investment to make changes. However, none of the specific strategies provide any indication of how, or over what time frame, cost savings will occur as a consequence of the strategy. Creating tangible cost/benefit information for Proposed Strategies is at the heart of specific objective 5.

    Specific Issues:

    Strategy 1
    Support staff training and development are excellent goals. However, implementation considerations for performance evaluation and performance-based rewards largely ignore rules and regulation of the Civil Service System. No strategies for approaching this problem are presented.

    Strategy 2
    The Support Services Strategy Plan correctly identifies that administrative service is inconsistent and insulated from consequences of poor performance . Unfortunately, there is no strategy in the proposed plan that increases direct or indirect accountability to the "customers." Instead, creation of additional support services administrators and increasing centralization of decisions would seem to reduce direct responsibility and accountability further.

    The description of University faculty and students as "customers" is useful shorthand but reinforces the concept of administrative staff as belonging to a separate organization rather than providing supporting services as an integral part of the whole. This is directly contrary to the goal of proposed Strategy 1.

    Strategy 3
    The components of Strategy 3 define what administrative support services are and are therefore roughly equivalent to Specific Objective 3. This information is so central to developing strategies for change that it is difficult to see a completely tangible basis for creating subsequent strategies in the absence of this information. Plans under Strategy 3 for consolidating support-services-functions directly contradict the need for increased decentralization of "Information Technology" support identified as a problem issue. Strategy 3 is where those services, which need to be centralized, would be distinguished from those which should be decentralized.

    Strategy 4
    A lack of understanding of what administrative support services are is particularly apparent in Strategy 4. Strategy 4 is very focused on increasing centralization of procedures and decisions. Historically, such centralization has seldom benefited students, staff, or faculty and frequently results in the need for duplication of effort. Despite assurances about serving the "customer" and using technology for information distribution, it is not clear how the existing problems in this area will be solved by consolidation. Despite the stated intent of defining accountability and using formal performance measurement, Strategy 4 does not indicate a way to do this.

    Strategy 5
    Although the overall Information Systems Plan (ISP) will be a "continuously evolving document," continuous change can lead to instability. Of real concern is the existing "diversity in systems" recognized in the document. This diversity includes a range of capabilities, resources, and interests that must be accommodated in the ISP. By its very nature, academic computing and information systems must be utterly flexible, internally directed, and organic, especially on a campus with such an intense and established academic computing culture. Considering the range of interested stakeholders, and the probable need for stakeholder involvement throughout the ISP structure, the existing plans for representation should be adjusted to assure representation from all sectors of the university.

    The establishment of the position of Chief Information Officer (CIO) for the University should be approached with caution. We should have a CIO with the power to address planning issues at the University level, but the policy must meet the needs of the users, not simply the administrators. An alternative might be considered where the CIO responsibilities are divided into two positions, one who directs administrative computing and another acting as liaison between academic and administrative computing.

    Strategy 6
    There is a clear need to have an information base that is available to all who need it. Since there are a diversity of needs, and therefore a diversity of data types that must be made available, we must carefully consider what constitutes the core data set and how to assure that data quality is maintained (e.g. data must be both current and correct). Once a data set is developed, these data become a tool that can be used or abused. Clearly there is a need for oversight from the faculty as the "sharing of organizational information and data across the University community" is implemented.

    Strategy 7
    Strong support is given to the development of appropriate administrative performance measures for business processes, but there is concern about how performance measures are developed for the academic enterprise. Both performance management and training of supervisors should be possible and required under this umbrella. Rewards should be appropriately tailored to the system in which they are earned.

    Strategy 8
    The overall strategy should recognize that "external" entities may include federal, foundation, or industrial sponsor, as well as state requirements.

    SCCO Members:
    Bonnie Armbruster, Curriculum and Instruction
    Haydn Chen (Chair), Materials Science & Engineering
    Tina Chrzastowski, University Library
    Edwin Herricks, Civil Engineering
    Tom Jacobs, Plant Biology
    Carl Jones, Veterinary Pathobiology
    Liz Leifel, LAS
    Jan Novakofski, Animal Sciences
    Lois Pausch, University Library
    Robert Sala, LAS