The April 2010 Executive Leadership Workshop identified the need to review the process for future budget allocations. This summer and fall, two teams will examine the university’s current processes and recommend criteria for future decisions: one team for academics and research and a second team for administrative and support functions. 

Scope
Our scope of work will be defined by the processes. Below is an initial list of areas classified as administrative and support:

• Administrative functions such as procurement, financial services, grants and contracts, proposal office and human resources, both in central offices and within operating units;
• Deans, provost, chancellor, vice chancellors and respective support personnel;
• Support functions in development, marketing, OIT, and recruitment, both in central offices and within operating units; and
• Areas such as registration, financial aid, advising, police, fire, risk management, and facility services.

This list is not exhaustive and may be refined as the process evolves. Auxiliary operations, athletics, and academic, public service and research programs are not included in the scope of our discussions, though their administrative and support functions are.

Review Process Goals

1. Develop a mechanism to understand the current status for various functions.
   This may include current funding and staffing levels, trend information, status of key activity indicators and ratios, benchmarking (both over time and across units), and other methods suggested by team members and functional area leads. The mechanism needs to be robust enough to provide valuable insight, but simple enough to continue on an annual or semi-annual basis.
2. Develop criteria for rating importance, efficiency, and effectiveness among functions.
   The criteria developed will be used to inform future resource allocation decisions. These criteria will consider operational effectiveness in light of organization risk, and compliance, and safety requirements.
3. Identify common processes to implement streamline.
   Given the organization-wide involvement of this review process, a byproduct will be the identification of key processes that if streamlined can improve overall administrative effectiveness.  One or more focused sub-committees will be assigned to systematically streamline those processes.   Achieving and documenting measureable cost savings or performance improvements is key to success on this goal.

• Phase I Report - January 2011 (PDF)
• Data used in analysis (Excel file)

Michelle Bartlett, Summer Sessions
David Christie, Alaska Sea Grant
Burns Cooper, CLA
Torie Foote, CRCD
   Alternate: Cecelia Chamberlain
Cathy Hanks, Faculty Representative
Mike Sfraga, Student Services
   Alternate: Ali Knabe
Jake Poole, Advancement & Community Engagement
   Alternate: Susan Gaudin
Maria Russell, Staff Representative
Roger Smith, GI
   Alternate: Janet Daley

Scott Bell, Facilities Services
Maggie Griscavage, Grants & Contracts
John Hebard, Procurement
Greg Krier, VCAS Office
Kris Racina, Human Resources
Stuart Roberts, Financial Services
Sean McGee, Police
Doug Schrage, Fire

Wanda Bowen, Grants & Contracts
Raaj Kurapati, SNRAS
Julie Larweth, OIT
Aron Vesper, VCAS student