New Mexico State University Peer Benchmarking Report - FINALhr.nmsu.edu/staffingstudy/wp-content/uploads/sites/77/2015/09/NMSU-Benchmark-Report...A summary Benchmarking report of findings

New Mexico State UniversityPeer Benchmarking Report - FINAL

Deloitte Global Benchmarking CenterDeloitte Consulting LLP

September 14, 2015

1 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

Purpose of Document

The points outlined below provide important context for reading this document. This document “New Mexico State University Peer Benchmarking Report” is a deliverable output of Phase I of NMSU’s

Staffing Study project developed by Deloitte in close consultation with University leadership and the NMSU Support Team.

This document is one of three outputs from this 10-week study. The other deliverables include: 1. Opportunities for Cost Reduction Report, 2. Business Cases and Recommendations Report.

The goal of the Staffing Study was to analyze staffing for administrative support functions on NMSU’s Las Cruces campus to identify opportunities for operational expenditure reductions and resource reallocations. As part of this effort, the University requested a peer benchmarking analysis.

The scope of this initial high-level assessment included 14 Administrative Functions – General Administration, Operational Management, Advancement, Finance, HR, IT, Procurement, Facility Services, Auxiliary Services, Communications, Student Administrative Services, Research Administration, Research, Public Service and Scholarly and Creative Activities, and Educational Programs. These areas were selected in collaboration with University leadership and the NMSU Support Team.

Contents include an Introduction to Benchmarking, Approach and Methodology, Executive Overview, and Detailed Functional Analyses for each of the 14 Administrative Functions within scope.

The benchmarking results contained in this document are intended to be combined with the results of the detailed activity analysis (contained within the deliverable entitled “Opportunities for Cost Reduction Report”) to provide directional input to understand and identify potential opportunities to further explore in more detail in phase II.

Please note that the gaps and opportunities identified in this benchmarking report document should not be taken alone when considering next steps forward for NMSU. Decisions about opportunities to implement should be made after careful consideration of the collective information and analysis contained across all the deliverables provided. NMSU needs to weigh the associated complexities, risks, associated costs and implementation timeframes for selected opportunities.


Overview of Project – Goals and Objectives

The NMSU Staffing Study is a 10-week project with the following objectives, scope and outputs.

Analyze staffing for administrative support functions on the Las Cruces campus to identify opportunities for operational expenditure reductions and resource reallocations. Support the best alignment of non-faculty staffing with the core mission of the University and Vision

2020 Strategic Plan within the available financial structure. Survey 3 peer institutions (MSU, USU, UNM) to understand Staffing levels (at FTE level) and budget

data for in-scope process and to document key demographic, operational, and technology information to normalize data for comparison. Use other, comparable national benchmark data sources for additional comparison where needed.

A final report containing analysis and findings related to non-faculty staffing levels at NMSU, to review document the Current State Operating Model Analysis and Improvement Opportunities), including a list of actionable recommendations to address immediate, short, and long-term goals. A summary Benchmarking report of findings for each of the peer institutions. Business Cases for Select Improvement Opportunities.

Project Goals & Objectives

Project Outputs

Step 1 – Assess Current Organization Gather and review as-is organizational data (e.g. employee HR/Fin data by function, key transactional

data by function). Conduct detailed analysis of employee-level engagement for core activities within a function. Compare current state assessment to peer institutions and national Higher Education Benchmarks. Document service delivery model and identify opportunity areas for consideration.Step 2 – Identify Organizational Improvement Opportunities Identify opportunities for cost reduction through improvements to service delivery model, business

processes, policies, and the implementation of enabling technologies. Create a business case and develop recommendations.

Project Scope

Approach and Methodology


Benchmarking is one component of NMSU’s Staffing Study approach and methodology.

Phase 1: Diagnostics and Benchmarking

Step 1: Assess Current

Organization

Step 2: Identify Organizational Improvement Opportunities

• Conduct project kick-off• Obtain required organization,

HR, and Finance Data• Develop and deploy activity

surveys and peer benchmarking survey

• Conduct detailed analysis of employee-level engagement within core activities within a function

• Cleanse data to create Span of Control model

• Conduct analysis of current state spans, layers, and labor costs

• Document current service delivery model and identify opportunity areas

• Compare current state assessment to peer institutions and national Higher Education Benchmarks

• Identify opportunities for cost reduction through improvements to service delivery model, business processes, policies, and the implementation of enabling technologies

• Create a business case and develop recommendations

• Develop high-level organizational design

• Align business processes and workflow

• Build governance and decision rights framework

• Design leadership job profile• Develop detailed organization

design• Build job profiles for detailed

organization• Assess organization

transformational business impacts

• Develop comprehensive organization transformation plan• Workforce transition• Processes and policies• Metrics and KPIs• Governance• Change Management and

Communications• Training• Rewards

• Implement organization transition

• Monitor and evaluate success of organizational transition

Phase 2: Design and Solution Development

Step 3: Design Future State Organization

Step 4: Transform Workforce and Organization

Phase 3: Implementation

Support and Consultation

NMSU Staffing Study Scope

Organizational changes should follow a four-step process from Assessment through Implementation. The NMSU Staffing Study represents the first two steps in the process. Additional analysis and design work is a

key component to consider prior to implementing organizational changes.

See Appendix for more detailed view of tasks executed in support of the benchmarking

Benchmarking


Benchmarking provides a method by which to conduct comparisons to obtain greater insight.

Benchmarking is the process of comparing one's business processes and performance metrics to those in other organizations. Benchmarking information should not be used as the sole source to identify opportunities to reduce costs, increase productivity, and raise quality. Instead, benchmarking information is best used to complement with other more direct assessments (e.g., activity analyses) to help identify opportunities.

Benchmark benefits:

• Identifies potential opportunities for improving efficiency and effectiveness using fact-based, industry-specific data

• Qualifies opportunities for improvement; helps to guide, confirm, or correct initiatives

• Provides point of view on current organizational functioning before mapping a strategy for the future

• Creates baseline for future measurements across entire organization to track progress during complex transition


A taxonomy breaks work performed within an organization into Functions and Processes to facilitate analysis and comparison. 14 Functions and 155 Processes were defined for NMSU.

NMSU developed an administrative taxonomy to normalize data collection and facilitate analysis.

FunctionA series of logically-related

processes performed together to produce a defined set of

results

Each function typically has 5-15 processes

e.g., Conduct Travel Expense Processing

Organizations typically have 5-10 functions

e.g., Finance

See Appendix for depiction of the complete NMSU Administrative Taxonomy.

NMSU Administrative Taxonomy - Functions• Research, Public

Service & Scholarly/ Creative Activities

• Communications• Educational

Programs

• Student Administrative Services

• Award Development, Compliance & Admin

• Information Technology

• Auxiliaries• Finance• Human Resources• Procurement

• General Admin Support• Operational Management

Activities• Advancement • Facilities

ProcessA collection of related actions

that accomplishes a significant portion or stage of a function’s

end goals


University of New Mexico

Founded: 1889

Location: Albuquerque, NM

Enrollment: 28,644

University Type: Public Research University

Montana State University

Founded: 1893

Location: Bozeman, MT

Enrollment: 15,421

University Type: Land Grant

Utah State University

Founded: 1888

Location: Logan, UT

Enrollment: 27,662

University Type: Land Grant, Public Research University

NMSU selected three peer institutions to participate in their benchmarking effort.


Collect personnel, labor cost, and select transaction data related to administrative

functions and costs

Analyze data and compare administrative functions to internal and external benchmarks

Utilize benchmark analysis in combination with activity analysis to identify improvement

opportunities

Collect NMSU personnel and labor cost data from Level 1 data request

Collect additional NMSU transaction data from interviews and from level 2 data requests

Collect NMSU FTE allocation data from Activity Analysis

Administer Benchmark Survey; Collect peer FTE, labor cost and transactional data using the established taxonomy to normalize data

Collect additional benchmark data public sources, Deloitte benchmarks (higher ed and industry)

Consolidate data into a comprehensive views

High-Level (Function)

Identify and document high-level benchmarks

Understand high-level personnel allocation and labor cost. Examples include:

‒ NMSU FTE count and labor cost by position location and by taxonomy component

‒ Total staff by function (FTE) per student ‒ Labor cost by function as percent of total

institution budget

Deeper Analysis

Analyze high-level benchmarks to identify areas for further exploration

Develop more detailed benchmarks for relevant functional areas to provide greater insight of overhead cost allocations. Examples include:

‒ Ratio of professional staff to support staff‒ Advancement staff per 1,000 living

alumni

Analyze benchmark outputs

Identify/quantify gaps between current performance and leading practice/benchmark

Compare benchmarking results with activity analysis

Document observations (leverage understanding of NMSU through interviews and validation)

Identify alternatives to close performance gap, leveraging peer benchmarking and leading practices

Benchmarking tasks leveraged the taxonomy to collect, validate, normalize and analyze data.

1. Gather Data 2. Perform Analysis 3. Identify Improvement Opportunities


An online benchmarking survey was administered to allow each institution to provide data for analysis.


Deloitte’s Higher

Education Bench-marking

Study

Publically available

Benchmarks(i.e., IPEDS

EDUCAUSE)

Pros: • All comparison are made to

Higher Education institutions• Measures costs across key

operational and administrative functions (e.g., Finance, HR,)

Cons: • Data is robust but participants

do not include immediate NMSU peers

• Function definitions slightly

Pros: • Readily available data • Allows comparison to direct

peers at high-level• Accepted by Higher

Education community

Cons: • Data variables are limited• Information only available at

Function level

In addition, Deloitte was able to conduct comparison using other data sources for select taxonomy functions.

As indicated below, the use of this data has drawbacks, but also facilitates further comparison and validation of the peer benchmarking data and activity analysis outputs. The uniqueness of the NMSU taxonomy in comparison those of others sources presents a constraint in conducting a proper comparison for some functions and thus comparisons with these benchmarks should be assessed appropriately.

Unless noted directly on the slide, the default source for all data and participant averages are from the NMSU peer benchmarking effort.


The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) is a system of interrelated surveys conducted annually by the U.S. Department’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

• More than 7,500 institutions complete IPEDS surveys each year. These include research universities, state colleges and universities, private religious and liberal arts colleges, for-profit institutions, community and technical colleges, non-degree-granting institutions such as beauty colleges, and others.

Compare

• Provides basic data needed to describe — and analyze trends in —postsecondary education in the United States, in terms of the numbers of students enrolled, staff employed, dollars expended, and degrees earned.Gain insight

For the Benchmarking component of the NMSU Staffing Study, IPEDS data was used to provide additional comparisons on NMSU’s overall staffing levels and labor costs per student FTE.


In the summer of 2014, 134 public doctoral research institutions responded to the CDS’s request for information on Information Technology.

EDUCAUSE’s Core Data Service (CDS) summarizes data for comparison across subsets of responding institutions.

• Understand core IT metrics (e.g. Central IT spend/Institutional FTE, Central IT FTEs/Institutional FTEs) across a broad range of similar institutions

• Understand metrics on standard IT services (IT strategy, Support Services, Educational Technology, Research Technology, Data Centers) across a broad range of similar institutions

Compare

• Obtain a deeper understanding of institution costs, staffing levels, productivity, and technology utilization in support of the IT function when compared across a large number of higher education institutions

• Review trend data for core and specific IT metricsGain insight

For the Benchmarking component of the NMSU Staffing Study, EDUCAUSE CDS data was used to provide additional comparisons on core IT metrics such as NMSU’s IT staffing levels and IT spend


Deloitte’s Higher Education Benchmarking Study includes over 100 performance metrics collected from 15 public/private institutions.

• Understanding what peer institutions are doing to realize efficiency gains in transaction-laden processes

• Relative strengths and weaknesses compared to other universities and institutions in more than 100 performance metrics

• Monetized areas of opportunity

Compare

• Identifies performance gaps, quantifies and prioritizes opportunities for process improvement;

• Data to help build the business case to support investment in function improvement initiatives such as more effectively targeted technology investments

• Identified and prioritized areas to help improve efficiencies & reduce costs

Identify and prioritize

• Fact-based, industry-specific insights and understanding to institution costs, staffing levels, productivity, and technology utilization

• Examination of functions of the utmost importance to the business, student services, and advancement leaders including facility services, admissions, finance, and procurement

• Understanding of not only where cost-cutting improvements can be realized but also where investments and efficiency opportunities exist in revenue generating areas

Gain insight

Deloitte has created a benchmark which compares performance of seven key institutional, general, and administrative functions for the higher education industry sector


To allow for the proper comparisons, each peer’s functional data was normalized and compared to the participant average.

Peer organizations are rarely of the same size, so for comparison purposes their data needs to be normalized and compared to a participant average.

Normalization is simply taking a data component like finance cost and dividing it by a size data component like budget.

Normalization allows for the determination of gaps (cost/percent differences) within functions between institutions which in turn can validate strong performance or identify opportunities for improvement.

What is normalization?

How does normalization help comparability?

Metrics Organization A Organization B Organization C Participant Average

Budget $1,000,000,000 $2,000,000,000 $2,000,000,000

Number of transactions 50,000,000 100,000,000 100,000,000

Finance cost $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000

Finance FTEs 75 150 95

Finance cost as a percent of budget 1.00% 1.00% 0.75% 0.92%

Finance FTEs per billion in budget 75 75 48 66

Transactions per finance FTE 666,667 666,667 1,052,632 795,322


Assumptions

• Functions and processes defined in the NMSU Taxonomy and incorporated into the online benchmarking tool were adhered to by all benchmarking participants in the submission of data.

• Data provided via the online benchmarking survey by all peers, to include NMSU, is valid and accurate.

• Validation of data provided by peers and NMSU successfully reconciled any discrepancies in peer data.

Constraints

• Due to the 10 week timeline for the entire NMSU Staffing Study, peers were provided only two weeks to respond.

• NMSU administrative taxonomy differed in comparison to the taxonomies used by other data sources. To accommodate for the differences in taxonomies between data sources, certain processes were excluded from comparisons to facilitate the best possible comparisons.

Understanding assumptions and constraints provide further clarity on NMSU’s benchmarking effort.

Executive Overview


Amongst the four benchmarking participants there is a high degree of demographic diversity.

15,829

967

NMSU

Staff

2nd Quartile MaxMin

Faculty

Total students

15,421 35,36221,74615,727 29,587

909 2,897976953 1,463

3,057 11,0426,8574,339 9,471

3rd Quartile1st Quartile

4,767

Note: All data is rounded for presentation purposes and the calculated results may differ slightly

11,489

2,612

Operatingbudget

New undergraduate

students

Livinggraduates

Financial aid recipients

2,612 7,7174,3942,860 6,312

11,028 24,84811,48911,259 18,169

93,773 145,201127,750110,762 136,476

$ 430.5M $ 1.3B$ 548.8M$ 486.4M $ 778.0M

3,741 16,1868,2556,219 11,1457,045

127,750

Employees

$505M

NMSU, FY15

Source: Peer Benchmarking


17.8

21.1

5.0

12.4 1.2

8.6 3.7

2.1 10.0

3.4

13.6

3.1

25.3

7.7

Labor cost ($US M)

General AdministrationOperational Management ActivitiesAdvancementFacility ServicesAuxilariesFinanceHuman ResourcesProcurementStudent Adminstrative ServicesResearch Development, Compliance and AdministrationITCommunications/University RelationsResearch, Public Service and Scholarly and Creative ActivitiesEducational Programs

Based on the activity analysis, NMSU spends $135.2 million on labor and has 2,323 FTEs across the benchmark functions.

426

183

61

328

26 150 55 47 184

45

185

55

430

149

Total FTEs

General AdministrationOperational Management ActivitiesAdvancementFacility ServicesAuxilariesFinanceHuman ResourcesProcurementStudent Adminstrative ServicesResearch Development, Compliance and AdministrationITCommunications/University RelationsResearch, Public Service and Scholarly and Creative ActivitiesEducational Programs



A combination of waterfall and bar charts present NMSU in comparison to the overall participant average.

Waterfall ChartsWaterfall charts are a form of data visualization that helps in explaining the differences between two related data elements. The “floating bricks” represent negative or positive values contributing to the difference for each function in the taxonomy.

Comparative Bar ChartsUsing the normalization process described on slide 13, NMSU’s data is compared to the participant average. Multiple views are presented for each function in the taxonomy. The title and accompanying text on the slide provide additional context on how NMSU compares to the average. The bullets in the right corner correspond with each chart, beginning with the top left chart and moving clockwise.


While there are differences by student type, NMSU's total FTEs per student is comparable to the participant average.

6.17.5

NMSU Average

Total staff per new enrolled graduate student

0.30 0.28

NMSU Average

Total staff per student

1.81.5

NMSU Average

Total staff per new enrolled undergraduate student

• NMSU’s total staff per student is similar to the participant average

• NMSU's total FTEs per new enrolled undergraduate student is 20% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's total FTEs per new enrolled graduate student is 19% lower than the participant average



• NMSU is slightly higher than the participant average regarding total employee FTE to student FTE

• NMSU is higher than the participant average regarding total staff FTE to student FTE

Utilizing IPEDS data, NMSU's total FTEs per student remains comparable to the participant average.

Source: IPEDs HR and Finance Survey FY ‘13


NMSU’s labor costs are generally higher than the participant average.

1.4 1.3

NMSU Average

Total professional FTEs to support FTEs

• NMSU's total FTEs labor cost per student (all students) is 24% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's total FTEs labor cost as a percentage of the institution's total operating budget (all, restricted, unrestricted) is 16% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's total professional FTEs to support FTEs is 8% higher than the participant average

$8,526$6,887

NMSU Average

Total FTEs labor cost per student


26.7%23.0%

NMSU Average

Total FTEs labor cost as a percentage of the institution's total operating budget


• NMSU is lower than the participant average regarding total labor cost per student FTE; however, faculty salaries are included.

• Utilizing IPEDs categories for spend, NMSU is slightly lower compared to the participant average; however, faculty salaries are likely included in some categories (instruction, research, public service)

• In FY13 – FY 15, NMSU conducted market adjustment activities for faculty salaries

Source: IPEDs HR and Finance Survey FY ‘13

Utilizing IPEDs data, NMSU's total labor cost per student FTE is lower than the participant average.


135.0

104.6

7.23.1 2.9 3.7 1.7 1.4 2.1 1.3 3.9 1.0 6.6

0.2 2.7

1.8

Labor cost variance to the Average by function ($US M)

• For each function we identify the variance between an institution and the Average comparator

• Variance calculations are based on each function’s primary driver / normalizer

NMSU has a total labor cost variance of $30.4 million compared to the average with all but three functions contributing to the difference.

*Responses for Advancement were received by only three institutions; therefore, an average will not be included in the results of this functional analysis.


Peers indicate higher degrees of shared service centers on average than NMSU which may contribute to their relative cost differential.

50%

50%

33%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

50%

67%

50%

50%

25%

50%

50%

50%

75%

50%

75%

50%

50%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

General Admin

Operational Management

Advancement

Facilities Services

Auxiliary Services

Finance

Human Resources

Procurement

Student Administrative Services

Research Development, Compliance,…

Information Technology

Communications

Research, Scholarship, Creative

Educational Programs

Degree of processing supported by a Shared services center

None Low Medium HighNMSU, FY15


Detailed Functional Analysis

Advancement


$37.09 $36.65$51.48

$81.79

NMSU Higher EdQ1

Higher EdQ2

Higher EdQ3

Advancement labor cost per living graduate*

0.460.60 0.70

0.97

NMSU Higher Ed Q1 Higher Ed Q2 Higher Ed Q3

Advancement staff per 1000 living graduates**

• Advancement labor cost per living graduate is in the first quartile when compared to the results from the Deloitte Consulting Higher Ed Benchmarking Study.

• Advancement FTEs per 1,000 living graduates is in the first quartile when compared to the results from the Deloitte Consulting Higher Ed Benchmarking Study.

*Sources: NMSU – NMSU Activity Analysis Higher Ed Q1-Q3: Deloitte Consulting Higher Ed Benchmarking Study

Note: To normalize data for comparison purposes the following processes were removed from the NMSU benchmarking data to allow for an “apples to applies” comparison - Manage Volunteerism, Manage University and Foundation Endowments.

While lack of data prevented comparisons to peers, NMSU’s Advancement function compares favorably to other data sources.


As compared to participant responses, NMSU may have an opportunity to utilize automated workflow across Advancement.

50%

50%

100%

50%

50%

Level of reporting capability

Self-service Portal capability in function

Degree to which supporting processesare accomplished via automated

workflow

Advancement capabilities

None Low Medium High

NMSU, FY15


Facility Services


NMSU’s Facility Services labor cost per irrigated acre and per building maintained is lower than the participant average.

$3.9 $3.9

NMSU Average

Facility services labor cost per square foot (education and general)

$63,506

$93,571

NMSU Average

Facility services labor cost per building maintained (education and general)

• NMSU's Facility Services labor cost per irrigated acre (Education and General) is 74% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Facility Services labor cost per building maintained (Education and General) is 32% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Facility Services labor cost per square foot (Education and General) is the same as the participant average

$29,287

$112,537

NMSU Average

Facility services labor cost per irrigated acre (education and general)



NMSU’s Facility services FTEs per irrigated acre and per building maintained is lower than the participant average.

0.00010 0.00008

NMSU Average

Facility services FTEs per square foot (education and general)

• NMSU's Facility Services FTEs per irrigated acre (Education and General) is 65% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Facility Services FTEs per building maintained (Education and General) is 11% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Facility Services FTEs per square foot (Education and General) is comparable to the participant average

0.8

2.3

NMSU Average

Facility services FTEs per irrigated acre (education and general)

1.7 1.9

NMSU Average

Facility services FTEs per building maintained (education and general)



NMSU’s Facility Services FTEs per square foot is lower while labor costs as a percentage of operating budget is higher than the participant average.

0.00015

0.00048

NMSU Average

Facility services FTEs per square foot (non education and general)

0.11

0.16

NMSU Average

Facility services professional FTEs to support FTEs

• NMSU's Facility Services FTEs per square foot (Non-Education and General) is 69% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Facility Services ratio professional FTEs to support FTEs is 31% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Facility Services labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget is 25% higher than the participant average


2.5%2.0%

NMSU Average

Facility services labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget


NMSU's Facility Services total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 53% higher than the participant average.

0.70% 0.50%

6.20%

4.00%

6.90%

4.50%

NMSU Average

Facility Services total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs

Professional Support



NMSU’s Facility Services uses a variety of different Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) tools for work management and utilities management.

50%

25%

25%

50%

25%

25%

Work Management System

Utilities Management System

Primary ERP tool in Facility Services

Standard ERP Customized ERP In-house system

NMSU, FY15



All participants appear to leverage technology to support facility services, but self-service portal capabilities present an opportunity.

50% 25%

25%

25%

50%

50%

75%

50%

25%

25%

Level of reporting capability used in theWork Management System

Level of reporting capability used in theUtilities Management System



workflow

Facility Services capabilities


NMSU, FY15


Auxiliaries


NMSU's Auxiliaries labor cost and FTEs per 100 individual beds is lower than the participant average.

1.8

4.4

NMSU Average

Auxilaries FTEs per 100 individual beds

$82,278

$236,374

NMSU Average

Auxilaries labor cost per 100 individual beds for student housing

$110,823

$2,368,265

NMSU Average

Auxilaries labor cost per 100 individual units for non-traditional housing

• NMSU's Auxiliaries labor cost per 100 individual beds for student housing is 65% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Auxiliaries labor cost per individual units for non-traditional housing is 95% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Auxiliaries FTEs per 100 individual beds is 59% lower than the participant average



NMSU’s Auxiliaries labor costs are lower while professional to support staff mix is comparable to the participant average.

0.7 0.5

NMSU Average

Auxilaries professional FTEs to support FTEs

• NMSU's Auxiliaries labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 78% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Auxiliaries professional FTEs to support FTEs is 40% higher than the participant average


0.2%

0.9%

NMSU Average

Auxilaries labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget


NMSU's Auxiliaries total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 78% lower than the participant average.

0.20%

0.50%0.30%

1.80%

0.50%

2.30%

NMSU Average

Auxiliaries total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs




• NMSU's auxiliaries labor costs as a percent of budget is in the first quartile when compared to the results from the Deloitte Consulting Higher Ed Benchmarking Study.

• NMSU’s auxiliaries FTEs per $100M in budget is in the first quartile when compared to the results from the Deloitte Consulting Higher Ed Benchmarking Study.

NMSU's Auxiliaries compared favorably regardless of data source.

Note: To normalize data for comparison purposes the following processes were removed from the NMSU benchmarking data to allow for an “apples to applies” comparison - Oversee Bookstore Management and related Contract Management and Oversee Golf Course Management.

*Sources: NMSU and Average – NMSU Peer Benchmarking Survey Higher Ed Q1-Q3: Deloitte Consulting Higher Ed Benchmarking Study .

0.14%

0.79%

0.29%

0.71%

0.86%

NMSU Average Higher EdQ1

Higher EdQ2

Higher EdQ3

Auxilaries labor cost as a percent of budget

2.97

16.93

4.63

8.5410.24

NMSU Average Higher EdQ1

Higher EdQ2

Higher EdQ3

Auxilaries FTEs per $100M in budget


NMSU Auxiliaries uses a Standard ERP similar to most participants.

75%

50%

100%

25%

50%

ID Card Services System

Parking Management System

Housing Management System

Primary ERP tool in Auxiliaries


NMSU, FY15



NMSU Auxiliaries may have an opportunity to utilize self-service portal capabilities and automated workflow more frequently.

50%

25%

50%

25%

25%

50%

75%

50%

75%

75%

Level of reporting capability within IDCard Services system

Level of reporting capability withinParking Management System

Level of reporting capability withinHousing Management System



workflow

Auxiliaries capabilities


NMSU, FY15


Finance


NMSU’s Finance labor cost and FTEs per AP invoice are generally higher than the participant average.

0.004 0.003

NMSU Average

Finance FTEs per AP invoice

$222,594$182,171

NMSU Average

Finance labor cost per 1,000 AP invoices

• NMSU's Finance labor cost per AP Invoice is 23% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Finance labor cost per 1,000 AP invoices is 22% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Finance FTEs per AP invoice is similar to the participant average

$223$182

NMSU Average

Finance labor cost per AP invoice



NMSU’s Finance labor cost per travel invoice/(s) is generally lower than the participant average.

• NMSU's Finance labor cost per travel invoice is 30% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Finance FTEs per 1,000 AP invoices is 22% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Finance labor cost per 1,000 travel invoices is 30% lower than the participant average

3.9 3.2

NMSU Average

Finance staff FTEs per 1,000 AP invoices

$267

$379

NMSU Average

Finance labor cost per travel Invoice

$266,938

$378,525

NMSU Average

Finance labor cost per 1,000 travel invoices



1.5 1.7

NMSU Average

Finance professional FTEs to support FTEs

• NMSU's Finance FTEs per travel invoice is 29% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Finance FTEs per 1,000 travel invoices is 29% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Finance professional FTEs to support FTEs is 12% lower than the participant average

0.005

0.007

NMSU Average

Finance FTEs per travel invoice

4.7

6.6

NMSU Average

Finance FTEs per 1,000 travel invoices

NMSU’s Finance FTEs per travel invoice(s) is generally lower than the participant average.



1.90%1.20%

1.20%

0.80%

3.10%

2.00%

Client Average

Finance total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs


• NMSU's Finance labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 66% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Finance total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 55% higher than the participant average

• When we compare the NMSU labor cost as a percentage of budget and total finance FTE per $100M in budget to the results from Deloitte’s Higher Ed benchmarking study, results are consistent with the comparison to NMSU peers. (LCP – Low Cost Performer; HCP – High Cost Performer)

NMSU’s Finance labor cost and FTEs as percent of the institution’s operating budget is comparable across all data sources.

*Sources: NMSU and Average – NMSU Peer Benchmarking Survey Higher Education LCP, Median and HCP: Deloitte Consulting Higher Ed Benchmarking Study

1.69%

1.02%0.66%

0.94% 0.99%

NMSU Average HigherEducation

LCP

HigherEducation

Median

HigherEducation

HCP

Finance labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget

29.64

17.759.28 12.95 14.09


LCP

HigherEducation

Median

HigherEducation

HCP

Total Finance FTE per $100M in Budget


NMSU Finance may have an opportunity to improve reporting, self service capabilities and automated workflow.

67% 33%Finance

Primary ERP tool in Finance


67%

67%

67%

33%

33%

33%

Level of reporting capability within thefinancial system


Degree to which supporting processes areaccomplished via automated workflow

Finance capabilities


NMSU, FY15


Human Resources


$532$378

$556

$993 $1,086


LCP

HigherEducation

Median

HigherEducation

HCP

Human Resource cost per Employee*

Human Resource Cost per employee is higher than the participant average, but lower when compared to other data sources.

Note: NMSU Human Resources data includes 9 FTE that are part of the medical staff

• NMSU's Human Resources labor cost per employee is 41% higher than participant average, but another data source indicates 47% lower

• NMSU's Human Resources professional FTEs to support FTEs is two times higher than the participant average

3.8

1.9

NMSU Average

Human resources professional FTEs to support FTEs

*Sources: NMSU and Average – NMSU Peer Benchmarking Survey Higher Education LCP, Median and HCP: Deloitte Consulting Higher Ed Benchmarking Study

7.85.7

11.1 13.215.5


LCP

HigherEducation

Median

HigherEducation

HCP

Human Resource FTEs per 1000 Employees


• NMSU's Human Resources labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 72% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Human Resources total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 38% higher than the participant average

0.90%0.50%

0.20%

0.30%

1.10%0.80%

NMSU Average

Human Resources total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs


Note: NMSU Human Resources data includes 9 FTE that are part of the medical staff

NMSU’s Human resources labor cost as a percent of the total operating budget is higher than the participant average.


0.74%

0.43%

NMSU Average

Human resources labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget


NMSU may have an opportunity for improvement in Human Resources reporting capability.

75% 25%Human Resources

Primary ERP tool in Human Resources


25%

50%

75%

75%

50%

25%

Level of reporting capability



Human Resources technology capabilities



Procurement


NMSU’s Procurement labor cost and FTEs per suppliers/vendors is higher than the participant average.

0.7

1.2

NMSU Average

Procurement professional FTEs to support FTEs

$21,948

$8,868

NMSU Average

Procurement labor cost per 100 Active Suppliers/Vendors

0.5

0.2

NMSU Average

Procurement FTEs per 100 active suppliers/vendors

• NMSU's Procurement labor cost per 100 active suppliers/vendors is 2.5 times higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Procurement FTEs per 100 active suppliers/vendors is 2.5 times higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Procurement professional FTEs to support FTEs is 42% lower than the participant average



0.42%

0.15%

NMSU Average

Procurement labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget

0.40%0.20%

0.60%

0.20%

1.00%

0.40%

NMSU Average

Procurement total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs


• NMSU's Procurement labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 2.8 times higher than the participant average*

• NMSU's Procurement total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 2.5 times higher than the participant average

NMSU's Procurement labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is higher than the participant average.

Source: Peer Benchmarking*One institution did not enter Procurement labor cost.


Self-service or automated workflow appear to be opportunities that NMSU should investigate as they consider changes to procurement.

67% 33%Procurement

Primary ERP tool in Procurement


33%

33%

67%

33%

33%

33%

33%

33%

Level of reporting capability within theprocurement system



Procurement technology capabilities



Student Administrative Services- Admissions- Financial Aid


NMSU's Admissions labor cost per new undergraduate student is slightly higher than the participant average.

$29 $31

NMSU Average

Admissions labor cost per application processed

$131 $129

NMSU Average

Admissions labor cost per new undergraduate student

$131,196 $129,328

NMSU Average

Admissions labor cost per 1,000 new undergraduate students

• NMSU's Admissions labor cost per new undergraduate student is 2% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Admissions labor cost per 1,000 new undergraduate students is 1% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Admissions labor cost per application processed (all application types) is 7% lower than the participant average



Differences exist between NMSU Admission labor costs per graduate and undergraduate for applications processed.

• NMSU's Admissions labor cost per undergraduate application processed is 3% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Admissions labor cost per graduate application processed is 45% lower than the participant average

$38 $37

NMSU Average

Admissions labor cost per undergraduate application processed

$126

$229

NMSU Average

Admissions labor cost per graduate application processed



NMSU’s Admissions FTEs per new undergraduate students is lower than the participant average.

0.61 0.66

NMSU Average

Admissions FTEs per 1,000 application processed (all application types)

0.0027 0.0028

NMSU Average

Admissions FTEs per new undergraduate student

2.7 2.8

NMSU Average

Admissions FTEs per 1,000 new undergraduate students

• NMSU's Admissions FTEs per new undergraduate student is 4% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Admissions FTEs per 1,000 new undergraduate students is 4% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Admissions FTEs per application processed (all application types) is 7% lower than the participant average


• NMSU's Admissions FTEs per 1,000 undergraduate applications processed is 1% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Admissions FTEs per 1,000 graduate applications processed is 48% lower than the participant average

0.797 0.802

NMSU Average

Admissions FTEs per 1,000 undergraduate application processed

2.6

5.0

NMSU Average

Admissions FTEs per 1,000 graduate application processed

NMSU's Admissions FTEs per 1,000 undergraduate and graduate applications processed is lower than the participant average.



NMSU’s Financial aid labor cost and FTEs per financial aid recipient is higher than the participant average.

0.0023

0.0015

NMSU Average

Financial aid FTEs per financial aid recipient

$98

$66

NMSU Average

Financial aid labor cost per financial aid recipient

$98,460

$65,513

NMSU Average

Financial aid labor cost per 1,000 financial aid recipients

• NMSU's Financial Aid labor cost per financial aid recipient is 49% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Financial Aid labor cost per 1,000 financial aid recipients is 50% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Financial FTEs per financial aid recipient is 53% higher than the participant average



• NMSU's Financial Aid FTEs per 1,000 financial aid students is 53% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Student Administrative Services professional FTEs to support FTEs is 85% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Student Administrative Services labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 11% higher than the participant average

NMSU’s Financial aid FTEs per financial aid students is higher than the participant average.

*One institution reports fractional support staff usage distorting the average results.

Average of the other two institutions is 0.9.

*

2.3

1.5

NMSU Average

Financial aid FTEs per 1,000 financial aid students

3.3

22.3

NMSU Average

Student administrative services professional FTEs to support FTEs


2.0% 1.8%

NMSU Average

Student administrative services labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget


NMSU's Student Administrative Services total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 15% higher than the participant average.

3.00%

2.10%

0.90%

1.30%

3.90%

3.40%

NMSU Average

Student Administrative Services total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs




25%

25%

75%

25%

25%

25%

25%

50%

25%

25%

50%

50%

50%

25%

Level of faculty involvement in theadvising process

Level of faculty involvement in therecruiting process

Level of reporting capability withinStudent Information System


Degree to which supporting processesare accomplished via automated…

Student Administrative Services process capabilities


Self-service and automated workflow appear to be opportunities to improve the student administrative service processes.

75% 25%Student Administrative Services

Primary ERP tool in Student Administrative Services


NMSU, FY15


Research Development, Compliance and Administration


NMSU’s Research labor cost per proposal submitted and administered are higher than the participant average.

6.1

3.5

NMSU Average

Research FTEs per 100 proposals submitted

$454,608

$260,450

NMSU Average

Research labor cost per 100 proposals submitted

$36,124

$24,164

NMSU Average

Research labor cost per 10 proposals administered

• NMSU's Research labor cost per 100 proposals submitted is 75% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Research labor cost per 10 proposals administered is 50% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Research FTEs per 100 proposals submitted is 74% higher than the participant average



NMSU’s Research labor cost as a percent of institution’s total operating budget is higher than the participant average.

13.5

9.5

NMSU Average

Research professional FTEs to support FTEs

• NMSU's Research Development, Compliance and Administration labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 52% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Research professional FTEs to support FTEs is 42% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Research FTEs per 10 proposals administered is 67% higher than the participant average


0.5

0.3

NMSU Average

Research FTEs per 10 proposals administered

0.67%

0.44%

NMSU Average

Research development, compliance and administration labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget


NMSU's Research Development, Compliance and Administration total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs is 73% higher than the participant average.

0.90%

0.50%

0.07%

0.06%

0.97%

0.56%

NMSU Average

Research Development, Compliance and Administration total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs

Professional SupportSource: Peer Benchmarking


Research Development, Compliance and Administrative process capabilities are moderate to strong across all participants.

50% 50%Research Development, Compliance and

Administration

Primary ERP tool in Research Development, Compliance and Administration


50%

50%

75%

50%

50%

25%

Level of reporting capability within theSponsored Projects System



workflow

Research Development, Compliance and Administration capabilities



Information Technology


NMSU’s IT labor cost and staff FTEs per help ticket is higher than the participant average.

-

4.5

2.8

NMSU Average

IT professional FTEs to support FTEs

$39,790$34,681

NMSU Average

IT labor cost per 100 IT help tickets

0.54 0.46

NMSU Average

IT staff FTEs per 100 IT help tickets

• NMSU's IT labor cost per 100 IT help tickets is 15% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's IT staff FTEs per 100 help tickets is 17% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's IT professional FTEs to support FTEs is 61% higher than the participant average



NMSU's IT labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is higher than the participant average.

• NMSU's IT labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 29% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's IT total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 26% higher than the participant average

3.20%1.90%

0.70%

1.20%

3.90%3.10%

NMSU Average

IT total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs



2.7%2.1%

NMSU Average

IT labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget


NMSU’s Central IT FTEs is lower than the National Average of the EDUCAUSE data, but Central IT spending is generally higher.

-

*National Average is from EDUCAUSE Data of 134 Public Research InstitutionsNOTE: Central IT refers to the NMSU’s central IT organization not only function.

• NMSU has 24% less than the EDUCAUSE National Average for central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs

• Total central IT spending as percentage of institutional expenses at NMSU is ~1% more than the EDUCAUSE National Average

• Total central IT spending per institutional FTEs (students, faculty and staff) is $36 less than the EDUCAUSE National Average.

5.47.1

NMSU National Average*

Central IT FTEs per 1,000 Institutional FTEs (students, faculty, and staff)

$905 $941


Total Central IT spending per institutional FTEs (students, faculty, and staff)

4%3%


Total Central IT spending as percentage of institutional expenses

Communications


NMSU's Communications/University Relations labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is higher than the participant average.

0.9%0.6%

0.2%

0.3%

1.2%0.9%

NMSU Average

Communications/University Relations total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs


• NMSU's Communications/University Relations labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 39% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Communications/University Relations professional staff to support staff is 3% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Communications/University Relations total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 33% higher than the participant average

3.7 3.8

NMSU Average

Communications/University relations ratio professional staff to support staff


0.61%0.44%

NMSU Average

Communications/University relations labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget

Research, Public Service and Scholarly and Creative Activities


NMSU's Research, Public Service, Scholarly and Creative Activities labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is higher than the participant average.

7.00% 5.70%

2.00%1.30%

9.00%7.00%

NMSU Average

Research, public service and scholarly, and creative activities total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs


• NMSU's Research, Public Service, Scholarly and Creative Activities labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 32% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Research, Public Service, Scholarly and Creative Activities professional FTEs to support FTEs is 3% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's Research, Public Service, Scholarly and Creative Activities total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 29% higher than the participant average

3.5 3.4

NMSU Average

Research, public service, scholarly and creative activities professional FTEs to support FTEs


5.0%3.8%

NMSU Average

Research, public service and scholarly and creative activities labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget

Education Programs


NMSU's Educational Programs labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is lower than the participant average.

1.9%3.6%

1.2%

1.2%3.1%

4.8%

NMSU Average

Educational Programs total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs


• NMSU's Educational Programs labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 32% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Educational Programs professional FTEs to support FTEs is 47% lower than the participant average

• NMSU's Educational Programs total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs is 35% lower than the participant average

1.6

3.0

NMSU Average

Educational programs professional FTEs to support FTEs


1.5%

2.2%

NMSU Average

Educational programs labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget

General Administration


NMSU's General Administration labor cost as a percent of the institution’s total operating budget is higher than the participant average.

2.50% 1.60%

6.50%5.90%

9.00%7.50%

Client Average

General Administration total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs


• NMSU's General Administration labor cost as a percent of the institution’s total operating budget is 30% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's General Administration professional FTEs to support FTEs is 33% higher than the participant average

• NMSU's General Administration total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 20% higher than the participant average

0.4

0.3

NMSU Average

General administration professional FTEs to support FTEs


3.5%2.7%

NMSU Average

General administration labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget

Operational Management Activities


NMSU's Operational Management activities labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget is lower than the participant average.

3.70%4.40%

0.20%0.20%3.90%

4.60%

NMSU Average

Operational Management activities total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs


• NMSU's Operational Management activities labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget is 13% lower than the participant average

• While NMSU has lower professional to support FTEs, cost as a percentage of budget is almost identical to the participant average

• NMSU's Operational Management activities total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs is 15% lower than the participant average

21.3

91.4

NMSU Average

Operational management activities professional FTEs to support FTEs


4.2%4.8%

NMSU Average

Operational management activities labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget

About DeloitteDeloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte LLP and its subsidiaries.

Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

http://www.deloitte.com/about

http://www.deloitte.com/us/about

Appendices

Appendix A –NMSU Function Taxonomy


New Mexico State University Administrative Taxonomy (1 of 3)1.0 General

Admin Support2.0 Operational

Management Activities3.0 Advancement 4.0 Facilities

Services5.0 Auxiliaries

• Provide Office and Operational Support

• Process HR Transactions

• Process Finance Transactions

• Provide Student Support

• Maintain Files and Provide General Reports

• Provide Communication Support

• Direct Departments or Division

• Manage Functions or Operations

• Perform Strategic Planning

• Oversee Government Relations

• Support Accreditation and/ or Assessment Activities

• Manage Gift Accounting and Receiving

• Conduct Prospect Research and Management Activities

• Execute Donations and Stewardship Reporting

• Execute Comprehensive & Capital Campaign Fundraising

• Manage Corporate & Foundation Fundraising

• Oversee Annual Giving

• Manage Planned Giving

• Manage Faculty, Staff, Student,Alumni Relations, Donors and Friends

• Manage Donor Relationships/Stewardship

• Manage Relations with ExternalOrganizations or Individuals

• Coordinate Event Planning

• Facilitate Marketing

• Coordinate Communications

• Manage Donor and Alumni Records

• Manage University Scholarships Inventory

• Manage University/Foundation Endowment

• Manage Volunteerism

• Perform Facility Development and Renovation Administration

• Perform Maintenance

• Manage Grounds

• Manage Environmental Services

• Oversee Utilities

• Confirm Regulatory Compliance

• Oversee Management and Development of Real Estate

• Oversee University Parking, Transportation and Mail Services

• Oversee University Housing and Related Contract Management

• Oversee University Food Services, ID Card Services, and related Contract Management

• Oversee University Conference Services

• Oversee University Student Union

• Oversee University Special Events

• Oversee Bookstore Management and related Contract Management

• Oversee Golf Course Management


New Mexico State University Administrative Taxonomy(2 of 3)6.0 Finance 7.0 HR 8.0 Procurement 9.0 Student Admin Services

• Execute Accounts Payable

• Conduct Accounts Receivable

• Manage/ Execute University-level budgeting

• Perform department-levelbudgeting

• Perform debt management Accounting

• Perform Central Accounting

• Perform General Accounting

• Perform External Financial Reporting

• Perform Rate Development and Review

• Conduct Travel Expense Processing

• Support External Audit

• Conduct Internal Audit

• Plan/Execute Tax Considerations

• Perform Treasury Activities

• Perform Bursar/ Collection Activities

• Perform Risk Management

• Administer Research Accounting

• Manage/Execute Payroll, Time, and Attendance Administration

• Manage Applicant Recruiting

• Manage Compensation Planning

• Manage HR Benefits & Payroll Data Admin

• Perform I-9 Processing

• Perform Visa Processing

• Conduct On Boarding/OutProcessing

• Manage/ Execute LeaveAdministration

• Perform Benefits Administration

• Conduct Employee Relations

• Conduct Labor Relations

• Conduct Performance Management

• Manage Learning andDevelopment

• Oversee Workers’ Compensation

• Administer Health & Wellness Programs

• EEO

• Conduct Position Management, Success Management and Workforce Planning

• Perform Purchasing Requirements and Supplier Evaluation and Selection Activities

• Conduct Requisition Processing

• Process and Maintain Purchase Orders

• Manage Procurement Contracts and Requests for Quotes

• Monitor and Manage Supplier Contracts

• Oversee property casualty claimsProcess

• Oversee Warehouse, Inventory, and Property Management

• Conduct Student Recruitment

• Manage/Execute Applications Processing and Admissions

• Onboard Students

• Advise Students

• Enroll Students

• Manage Student Employment

• Plan/Maintain Academic Calendar

• Plan/Execute Convocation and Commencement

• Manage/ Maintain Student Records

• Manage, Report, and Counsel Students on Financial Aid

• Support Financial Aid, Grants, Scholarships Application

• Process Financial Aid, Grants, Scholarships

• Provide Career Services

• Manage Student Health and Wellness Programs

• Oversee Student Conduct

• Manage Student Life Activities

• Provide Academic Support

• Develop/ Maintain Course Catalogs

• Manage Classroom Scheduling

• Develop and Maintain Class Schedule

• Support International Studies


New Mexico State University Administrative Taxonomy (3 of 3)10.0 Award

Development, Compliance & Admin

11.0 Information Technology 12.0 Communications

13.0 Research, Public Service & Scholarly/ Creative Activities

14.0 Educational Programs

• Identify Grant Funding and Manage Limited Submissions

• Provide Proposal Development Support

• Support Grant Proposal Preparation, Review and Submission

• Manage AwardNegotiation and Acceptance

• Support FinancialRegulatory Management

• Process Awards

• Perform Award Project Management

• Manage Licensing,Commercialization, and Technology Transfer

• Manage Conflicts of Interest (COI) related to Sponsored Activities

• Manage Research Compliance

• Conduct Subcontractor Procurement

• Administer & Manage University-wide IT

• Program, Project and/or Service Mgmt.

• Conduct Application Support & Main.• Manage App. Dev. & Implementation• Conduct Business Requirements

Analysis• Support Data Centers• Provide End-user Support• Manage Hardware & Software

Acquisition• Support Research Computing• Manage Telecommunications• Manage IT Vendors• Design, Implement, Maintain

Networks• Support IT Life Safety Systems• Maintain Information Security• Oversee Document Management• Perform Computer & Op System

Admin• Oversee Disaster Recovery/Business

Continuity• Oversee Identity & Authentication

Mgmt. • Perform Database Admin• Administer/Maintain Data Warehouse• Oversee Decision Support & Data

Model• Facilitate Business Process

Automation and Operational support• Execute Operational and Longitudinal

Report Development

• Plan/Execute Communications

• Plan/Execute Marketing

• Plan/Execute Cooperative Extension Services and Agricultural Extension Services Publications

• Product Broadcast Television Programs

• Manage Public TV and Radio Stations

• Develop News Stories and Conduct Media Relations

• Handle Sports Information Duties

• Provide Strategic Direction for University Website

• Manage Research, Discovery, and/or Development Unit

• Manage Research and Development Program

• Coordinate Program Activities

• Conduct Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities

• Provide Research Support

• Provide Technical Support

• Support Machining Operations

• Develop Software

• Support Artistic Activities

• Manage R&D Site Operations

• Provide Training

• Provide Agricultural Support

• Develop Educational Programs

• Implement Educational Programs

• Develop Outreach Programs

• Evaluate Educational Programs

• Provide Library Services

Documents

New Mexico State University Peer Benchmarking Report - FINALhr.nmsu.edu/staffingstudy/wp-content/uploads/sites/77/2015/09/NMSU-Benchmark-Report...A summary Benchmarking report of findings