Report on Organizational Effectiveness...Report on Organizational Effectiveness: General Administration of the University of North Carolina System 2016 strategic plans. Similarly,

Report on Organizational Effectiveness General Administration of the University of North Carolina system

March 28, 2016

Report on Organizational Effectiveness: General Administration of the University of North Carolina System 2016

March 28, 2016 Margaret Spellings President University of North Carolina 910 Raleigh Road Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Dear President Spellings, We are pleased to enclose the report of The Boston Consulting Group's (BCG's) organizational assessment of the University of North Carolina's General Administration (GA). It has been a pleasure working closely with you, GA leadership, and stakeholders across the system over the past two months. BCG’s remit was to:

Assess how effectively General Administration is supporting its legislative mandate, strategic priorities, and the needs of individual institutions

Clarify roles among General Administration, the Board of Governors, and institutions

Determine specific actions to improve the organizational effectiveness and general efficiency of GA in supporting UNC system priorities and mandates

To do this, we interviewed more than 150 stakeholders, including institution-level leadership, Board of Governors members, GA leaders, faculty, staff, and students across the UNC system and held regular meetings with GA leadership; closely examined GA operations via an employee survey and time allocation exercise; and reviewed a range of foundational documents and information provided by the GA. Ultimately, we found that the UNC system is widely seen as a tremendous asset for the state of North Carolina. However, there are also real and urgent concerns. In particular, there is a feeling that the system as a whole lacks a unifying set of strategic priorities; that the GA, the Board of Governors, and individual institutions have more recently diverged from their respective roles; and that the GA can play a more focused and distinctive role to better support institutions. To help address these concerns, we have developed 15 recommendations addressing strategic priorities, role clarity, GA organizational design, and system-wide enablers to facilitate change. In the pages that follow, we provide more detail on our approach, diagnostic findings, the recommendations, and the implementation path forward. We are grateful for the opportunity to work closely with leadership, faculty, staff, and students across the UNC system, and look forward to its continued contribution to North Carolina. Sincerely,

J. Puckett Lane McBride Senior Partner and Managing Director Partner and Managing Director Global Education Practice Leader Member of US Education Leadership Team


Executive Summary With a mission to discover, create, transmit, and apply knowledge to address the needs of individuals and society, the multi-institution University of North Carolina (UNC) system is a leader in U.S. higher education. In 1795, UNC became the first public university in the United States to open its doors to students. Today, the system encompasses 17 distinct institutions, including elite research universities, leading liberal arts institutions, five Historically Black Colleges and Universities, a world-class arts conservatory, a residential high school for gifted math and science students, and a university founded to educate American Indians. Together these institutions contribute to the state; generate intellectual talent, research output, and jobs; and teach and train the next generation of North Carolina citizens. The UNC system has made significant progress on a number of dimensions in recent years. The system has seen a growth in enrollment, recently reaching 225,000 students. This is up from around 202,000 students in 2006. Completion rates have also increased to 67.5 percent for the cohort entering in Fall of 2008, up four percentage points over the past four years1. Additionally, research awards have increased to $1.36 billion in FY15, a 34% increase since in FY05, far outpacing national trends2. However, this progress has come at the same time as the system has faced a series of challenges, including funding pressures, high turnover within the Board of Governors, and enrollment declines at some institutions. Additionally, in our interviews throughout the system, stakeholders expressed that while the UNC system is a tremendous asset, it has lost some direction in recent years, suffering from a lack of consensus and buy-in on strategic priorities and a lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities across different stakeholder groups. In this context, The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) was brought in to analyze the current effectiveness of the General Administration (GA) and to report on our findings and recommendations. In our study, we interviewed over 150 individuals, including institution-level leadership, Board of Governors members, GA leaders, faculty, staff, and students across the UNC system; held regular meetings with GA leadership; closely examined GA operations via an employee survey and time allocation exercise; and reviewed a range of foundational documents and information provided by the GA. Based on our study, we have developed 15 recommendations addressing strategic priorities, role clarity, GA organizational design and focus, and system-wide enablers to facilitate change. Each of these broad categories is described below. Strategic focus Across institution leadership, Board of Governors members and GA leaders, stakeholders expressed concern that, while several individual institutions are excelling, the UNC system lacks a clear sense of direction and unified purpose. Some felt the priorities were unclear. Others stated that there was little connection between system-level strategic goals and institutional

1 Employee data provided by GA HR department. Student data from UNC General Administration Data Dashboard; http://www.northcarolina.edu/?q=content/unc-data-dashboard 2 University of North Carolina system sponsored program activity FY15 annual report https://www.northcarolina.edu/sites/default/files/documents/presidents_report_on_research_sponsored_programs_2015.pdf

http://www.northcarolina.edu/?q=content/unc-data-dashboard

https://www.northcarolina.edu/sites/default/files/documents/presidents_report_on_research_sponsored_programs_2015.pdf



strategic plans. Similarly, only 53 percent of the GA employees surveyed agreed with the statement, "I know what is going on at General Administration." This issue can be addressed by creating a unified set of priorities for the system. When our interviewees were asked what the system priorities should be, their answers coalesced around five themes:

Access. Provide opportunity for all

Affordability & Efficiency. Ensure a UNC education is within the financial means of all in the state

Student Success. Increase degree attainment and ensure value and relevance for students

Economic Impact. Contribute to the state

Excellent & Diverse Institutions. Help institutions achieve excellence against their missions

These priorities should be used to align the wide-ranging stakeholders of the UNC system behind a common set of goals, ensuring all are moving in the same direction.

Role clarity Despite an impressive breadth and depth of talented leaders, and positive intentions across the system, there is a sense that some stakeholders are underutilized and that roles are unclear. Stakeholders cited a number of factors causing the lack of role clarity, including not having strategic alignment on priorities across the system, rapid turnover of the Board of Governors, and the change in state political leadership, leading to confusion on the responsibilities and norms for different entities. For example, Chancellors reported frustration with their inability to exercise autonomy in small-scale operational details. Institution leadership reported confusion about their relationship with the GA—"are they our partners? Advisors? Regulators? Are they policing us?" Many stakeholders expressed concern that the Board of Governors is excessively involved in managerial details. Additionally, several Board of Governors members cited feeling insufficiently supported by or under-informed by the GA and institutions. As one interviewee vividly put it, "There is a quadrilateral of mistrust between and across the Legislature, the Board, the GA, and institutions." An important aspect of re-establishing trust is clearly articulating roles for each stakeholder group. Those with governance roles should be well-supported and well-informed by constituents of the broader system, and should hold the President and institutions accountable for meeting system targets. The President and Chancellors, meanwhile, should have the autonomy to direct and lead the system and the individual institutions, respectively, that they have been charged

Recommendation: 1. Align on a set of strategic

priorities

Recommendations:

2. Clarify and honor roles for the Board of Governors, President and GA, Chancellors and institutions, and Boards of Trustees and affiliates

3. Ensure Chancellor talent is fully leveraged as part of the President's team

4. Focus GA on priority roles in support of system strategic priorities and empower institutions where GA is not well-placed to add value


with leading. And the GA should focus its efforts on a set of priority areas where it can add value, while conversely empowering institutions in areas where the GA is not positioned to do so. General Administration organizational design and focus Stakeholders across the system reported that the GA plays a critical role in the system's success and called out several distinct strengths. However, they also believe that there is room to improve the GA's effectiveness and efficiency. This sense was also reflected in interviews with GA leaders and the GA employee survey where many suggestions were raised on how the GA can improve.

The GA is seen as playing several critical and value-adding roles within the UNC system. Chief among these is an advocacy role, particularly to the state legislature, but also at the federal level and to other external stakeholders. Another frequently cited area of strength was shared services. GA employees felt that shared services were the GA’s second-most valuable role, and institutions—particularly smaller ones—agreed that a number of shared services, such as Banner hosting and payroll processing, were helpful. The GA is also viewed to add value by facilitating coordination across institutions, providing topic area expertise, and giving targeted assistance when unexpected circumstances arise. Balanced against these strengths, many improvement opportunities were also surfaced. First, opportunity exists for the GA to focus on high-value roles where it can uniquely drive value to the system. Frequently cited examples included advocacy; internal and external communications; policy and strategy development; institutional and system performance management; attracting, retaining and developing leaders; data and analytics; and enterprise risk management. A second opportunity is for the GA to improve its internal coordination and focus. Our time allocation exercise revealed that, currently, the GA performs a wide array of activities, with relatively few resources for each one. This limits overall effectiveness. In contrast, focusing resources on fewer activities would help the GA make a tangible difference in critical areas for the system. Additionally, the time allocation exercise identified a number of activities, such as policy development and advocacy, occurring in different parts of the organization. Concentrating similar activities in

one part of the organization can help improve coordination and result in greater effectiveness.

Recommendations:

5. Elevate and expand external affairs to provide a powerful voice for the system

6. Create a lean strategy and policy unit focused on the system priorities

7. Strengthen the linkage between finance & budget and strategy & policy

8. Institute a holistic approach to institutional and system performance management

9. Align and strengthen data & analytics in support of academic affairs, strategy & policy, performance management, and operations

10. Focus academic affairs on a select set of initiatives to catalyze system-wide progress on strategic priorities

11. Integrate and strengthen enterprise risk management, compliance, and legal affairs

12. Implement targeted approach for attracting, retaining, and developing leaders in the system

13. Focus Chief of Staff role to support President and coordinate within GA and across institutions


A third opportunity is to empower institutions where GA is not positioned to uniquely provide value. One such area is research, which has been an area of critical growth for the UNC system: with 34 percent growth in research funding over the past ten years, UNC has substantially outperformed national benchmarks. However, this growth has largely been driven by investment in research at institutions, and the role GA plays, beyond administrative system support, was largely not reported as high-value by institutions. GA has an opportunity to empower institutions within research, and other activities where GA does not have a uniquely valuable role, which would provide capacity at the GA to focus on other priorities. Together recommendations in this area will help GA realize the opportunities listed above to improve its focus and increase the value it delivers to the UNC system. System-wide enablers For these recommendations to be implemented successfully, they need to be done in an environment that is conducive to change. Many organizations focus primarily on the "hard" side of change—the technical or process elements of change. Equally important is the "soft" side of change, or how the change impacts employee engagement and organizational culture. At the UNC system, in particular, there is an opportunity to make several improvements to the system culture and context. One opportunity is in reducing reporting requirements across the system. Throughout our interview process, stakeholders both within the GA and in the wider system held the view that significant GA and institution time is spent on low-value reports, as well as responding to ad-hoc requests for information. While there is recognition that a number of reports are mandated by the legislature or legislatively directed and are beyond the purview of the GA or the Board of Governors, reporting requirements collectively consume valuable resources. For example, one institution's Finance Division estimated that they received over 300 ad-hoc reporting requests over the past year. Another institution's Academic Affairs Division indicated they received 2-3 requests per week from the GA and that half of a senior position is spent managing requests, in addition to the time spent actually collecting and organizing data. And at the GA, around 10 percent of staff time, or 27 FTEs, is spent responding to ad-hoc requests. The time spent on these reports and requests comes at the expense of focusing on other priorities. Across the board, reporting requirements should be examined for their usefulness in light of current context, and ad-hoc requests should be prioritized based on their value to the wider system. Additionally, there is need to create an environment supporting system success. Specific recommended actions include:

Stakeholders across the system (including the President and GA leaders; Chancellors and other institutional leaders; faculty; students; Boards of Trustees; and the Board of Governors) should invest in their relationships with each other. This may sound obvious,

Recommendations: 14. Reduce ad-hoc reporting

and low-value recurring reporting

15. Create an environment to support system success a. Strengthen relationships b. Instill a culture of

excellence and innovation across the system

c. Strengthen GA communication both internally and with institutions

d. Support the Board of Governors to increase its effectiveness and focus on system priorities


but we believe effort in building individual relationships matters in building trust and bridging differences, particularly given recent turnover in many roles

The President and GA should instill a culture of excellence and innovation both within the GA and across the system through increasing transparency, rewarding high performing teams and individuals, employing a holistic approach to institutional performance management and recognizing excellence across institutions

The GA should strengthen its communication both internally and with institutions. This will increase effectiveness both within and beyond GA and could include using a simple technological platform to streamline information requests to institutions

The GA should support the Board of Governors to increase its effectiveness. This includes ensuring that materials are distributed in a timely manner and are thorough and well-organized, enabling the Board to drive action on strategic priorities and other critical policy issues

Implementation Improvement across the four areas identified—strategic focus, role clarity, GA organization effectiveness, and system–wide enablers—will result in greater effectiveness and efficiency. Throughout our interviews, stakeholders expressed optimism that change was possible, in spite of their anxieties about the system's current state. Coordinating implementation of the 15 recommendations across stakeholders will require a clear and transparent process. The President and her staff should set up a system to communicate changes both within the GA and to external stakeholders, clearly identify owners of these changes, and develop action plans for each of the recommendations. In the near term, organizational changes supporting the recommendations should be made at the GA. In the medium term, processes should be put in place to improve strategic agility such as a strengthened process for engaging Chancellors and other institutional leaders on system-wide issues and re-visiting GA resource allocation regularly to ensure focus on the highest priority roles.


1 Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Section A – Introduction and Context ................................................................................................. 2

Section B – Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 4

Section C – Diagnostic Findings ........................................................................................................... 5

Section D – Summary of Recommendations .................................................................................... 19

Section E – Strategic Priorities ........................................................................................................... 20

Section F – Role Clarity ...................................................................................................................... 23

Section G – General Administration Organization Design ............................................................... 28

Section H – Enablers ........................................................................................................................... 34

Section I – Implementation ................................................................................................................ 38

Appendix 1: Detailed Methodology ................................................................................................... 40

Appendix 2: List of Interviews ........................................................................................................... 43

Appendix 3: Activities used in Time Allocation Exercise ................................................................. 47

Appendix 4: Current GA Organizational Design .............................................................................. 53

Appendix 5: Glossary of Terms .......................................................................................................... 54

Endnotes .............................................................................................................................................. 55


2 Section A - Introduction and Context

Section A – Introduction and Context

The multi-institution University of North Carolina (UNC) system is a leader in U.S. higher education with a mission to discover, create, transmit, and apply knowledge to address the needs of individuals and society. In 1795, UNC became the first public university in the United States to open its doors to students. Currently, the UNC system has over 45,000 employees—including around 14,000 faculty members, a total budget of $9.5 billion, and more than 225,000 students enrolled across 17 diverse institutions1. These include elite research universities, leading liberal arts institutions, historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), an arts conservatory, a residential high school for gifted math and science students, and a university founded to educate American Indians. The UNC system also includes affiliated entities such as UNC Health Care and UNC-TV.2 According to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, the state of North Carolina ranks in the top five in the country in terms of total state funding for higher education, including $2.6 billion in FY 2015-16 for the UNC system.3 The UNC system is overseen by the UNC Board of Governors (Board), comprised of 32 voting members. The voting members are elected by the North Carolina General Assembly to serve overlapping four-year terms. The Board is charged with “the general determination, control, supervision, management, and governance” of the UNC system.4 The board also elects the UNC system President and the Chancellors of the individual institutions. The General Administration (GA) is the central office for the UNC system, comprised of the President and senior administrative staff. The GA executes legislative and Board policies and provides system-wide leadership "in the areas of academic affairs, business and financial management, long-range planning, student affairs, research, legal affairs, and government relations."5 The GA currently consists of 270 full-time employee equivalents and has an annual operating budget of $46 million.6 The UNC system has made significant progress on a number of fronts in recent years. The system has seen growth in enrollment, reaching 225,000 students in the 2015-2016 academic year (combined undergraduate and graduate). This is up from just over 202,000 students in 2006, an 11 percent increase in less than a decade. Completion rates have also increased (six-year graduation rates increased four percentage points to 67.5 percent over the past four years) while research funding across the system grew 34 percent between 2004-05 and 2014-15 to $1.36 billion.7 The GA has led a number of initiatives to support this growth. In recent years the GA has developed statewide articulation and reverse transfer agreements between the UNC system and the North Carolina Community College System to facilitate student transfer; launched the Faculty Recruitment and Retention Fund to help institutions recruit and retain top faculty; piloted innovative approaches such as competency-based education; and expanded shared services utilized by institutions to achieve greater efficiencies. At the same time, the UNC system faces a number of challenges. While enrollment in the system as a whole has grown over the past 10 years, not every institution has experienced an increase. Several institutions have seen enrollment declines since 2006. Similarly, while completion rates have generally increased throughout the system, again, not every institution has seen growth, and the system as a whole still has room for improvement. Six-year graduation rates are under 40 percent at three institutions, and have declined at several institutions since 2006.


3 Section A - Introduction and Context

While the 2013 "Our Time, Our Future" strategic plan laid out goals and a highly detailed set of strategies, there is a sense that the system as a whole has not reached consensus on the highest priority initiatives to pursue. Across the UNC system, from the GA to the individual institutions, there is also a lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities, leading to duplicative and uncoordinated efforts. At the institution level, there are concerns about a lack of transparency and effectiveness from the GA and the Board of Governors, and a sense that resources are not allocated in line with strategic priorities. To help address some of these challenges, The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) was brought in to analyze the current effectiveness of the General Administration and to report on our findings and recommendations. Specifically, our charge was to:

Assess how effectively the General Administration is supporting its legislative mandate, strategic priorities, and the needs of individual institutions

Clarify roles among the General Administration, the Board of Governors, and institution leadership

Determine specific actions to improve the organizational effectiveness and general efficiency of the General Administration in supporting UNC system priorities and mandates

In the pages that follow, we detail the approach taken, explain our understanding of the current state of the General Administration, and provide recommendations to help the GA best serve the UNC system going forward.


4 Section B - Methodology

Section B – Methodology

Over the course of eight weeks, the BCG team conducted several analyses to better understand the current state of the GA and the UNC system, and to make recommendations based on our findings. Throughout the process, we worked closely with GA leadership. Inputs. Inputs included more than 150 interviews with stakeholders across the UNC system, including GA leadership; the Chancellors, Provosts, and Chief Financial or Business Officers for every UNC institution and a sampling of institution-level General Counsels, CIOs, heads of HR, heads of Research, and Board of Trustees chairs; each member of the Board of Governors; faculty and student leaders; and state policymakers. Interviews were conducted both in-person and by phone; members of the team visited each of the 17 institutions and UNC Health Care in-person. In addition, the team conducted a survey of GA employees (104 respondents) to gauge their level of workplace engagement and their perceptions on the strengths and weaknesses of the GA, a time allocation exercise of the GA to understand how resources are currently used, and a review of foundational UNC governing documents and GA-prepared materials. Project governance. The BCG team was co-located at the GA each week throughout the project, allowing for consistent communication between BCG and GA leadership to discuss findings and next steps. This included weekly project management meetings between BCG and the GA's Chief of Staff to provide project updates; steering committee meetings for BCG to communicate interim findings and solicit feedback from a larger group of GA leadership; weekly check-ins with the President-elect to discuss interim results and next steps; and informal check-ins with many members of the GA staff during the day-to-day operations of the project. Current-state diagnostic. The inputs described above were synthesized to understand the current state of the GA, including sentiments across stakeholders, views about strategic priorities and role clarity across the UNC system, mapping of GA activities and resource allocation, understanding GA strengths and weaknesses, and implications from the inputs for the GA. Underpinning the synthesis was a codification of interviewees to quantify the frequency of sentiments across a range of dimensions, including strategic priorities, role clarity and strengths and weaknesses of GA, as well as the survey of GA employees. An initial summary of the current state diagnostic was presented to the Board of Governors at its retreat in Greensboro on February 12. Recommendations. Based on the current state diagnostic, we developed a set of 15 recommendations to help create a more effective General Administration that is better able to support the UNC system. The findings were grouped into four categories: strategic priorities across the UNC system, role clarity among the UNC system stakeholders, GA organizational design, and enablers to create the conditions necessary for success. An initial summary of the recommendations was presented to the Board of Governors at its meeting on March 4. For a more detailed explanation of the approach, please see Appendix 1: Detailed Methodology.


5 Section C – Diagnostic Findings

Section C – Diagnostic Findings

There is widespread recognition that the UNC system is a tremendous asset for North Carolina and plays a distinctive role within U.S. higher education more broadly. Throughout our interview process, many stakeholders emphasized the ways in which the UNC system contributes to the state, generating intellectual talent, research output, and job creation capacity. As one interviewee put it, "The UNC system makes people want to live here when both young and old, and gets businesses to locate here." One stakeholder called it "the goose that laid the golden egg for North Carolina," while another put it in starker terms: "The UNC system is the biggest asset the people of North Carolina have." These sentiments reflect a common belief that UNC institutions serve as economic drivers for North Carolina and help develop and attract talented individuals and businesses to the state. The system is also perceived by stakeholders as unique in terms of the diversity of the student body and the distinctness of its institutions. In the words of one respondent, "No other state university system serves the diverse set of student segments and has the truly different types of institutions that we have." It is also a relatively stable system with growing enrollment. One interviewee, summarizing a sentiment we heard across the system, commented, "It has taken centuries to build what we have...we should be proud of it." However, this pride in the UNC system was tempered by a palpable sense of anxiety. "[The UNC system] used to be the crown jewel of North Carolina," said one interviewee. "Now, it is seen as isolationist and lagging behind other states." Stakeholders cited a number of factors—including state budgetary pressures, reductions in state funding for higher education, lack of strategic alignment across the system, rapid turnover of the Board of Governors, change in political leadership, and lack of accountability system-wide—as contributing to a sense of tumult and lack of role clarity. Representative was the response from one interviewee when asked about the "swim lanes," or roles for the system-level stakeholders: "Swim lanes?! It is a splash party—someone doing a cannon ball into the pool!" The quotes above are representative of fears and concerns expressed broadly across the whole system: that while the UNC system is a tremendous asset, it has lost some direction in recent years, and changes need to be made. These findings come from a wide-ranging set of interviews and analyses (which are outlined in full in Appendix 1: Detailed Methodology). A total of 150 stakeholders across the system participated in interviews, and nearly 40 percent of GA employees responded to a survey on GA effectiveness. The combined efforts provided a wide range of perspectives on the current state of the General Administration and the UNC system. These efforts were supplemented with an in-depth analysis of GA activities and departmental time allocation. The main aims were to understand:

I. UNC system strategic priorities that resonated with stakeholders across the system, as well as perspectives on the current state of strategic clarity

II. The perceived role clarity of system-level stakeholders, including the Board of Governors, President and General Administration, Chancellors and institutions, and institutions’ Boards of Trustees

III. The activities currently undertaken by staff at the General Administration, specifically how staff time is currently being used



IV. Effectiveness of the General Administration, including: a) Current strengths b) Current weaknesses c) Areas with mixed reviews d) Areas to prioritize and grow

V. Implications for the General Administration

The results of these diagnostic efforts are presented in this section. Subsequent Sections D through H discuss the recommendations that stem from this diagnosis. I. UNC system strategic priorities In each of the 150 interviews with UNC system stakeholders, we asked a set of questions about strategic priorities for the system as a whole. What we found was consensus that the UNC system lacks clear strategic priorities today. Throughout our interviews, many voiced either that the system priorities were unclear or that they didn't understand how to act upon the priorities they did know. One interviewee remarked, "There is a system plan, but I don't know if anyone follows it." Another said, "The system strategic plan has no connection to our universities." At the same time, when interviewees were asked specifically about what the strategic priorities for the UNC system should be, the responses coalesced around five themes:

1. Access. Provide opportunity for all 2. Affordability & Efficiency. Ensure a UNC education is within the financial means of all

in the state 3. Student Success. Increase degree attainment and ensure value and relevance for

students 4. Economic Impact. Contribute to the state 5. Excellent & Diverse Institutions. Help institutions achieve excellence against their

missions

"It is our obligation to provide access to opportunity to all people in North Carolina," one interviewee noted; another emphasized the future of North Carolina: "We need to educate the next generation to be leaders of a civil society and build the economy." And, stakeholders agreed, this should be done within the context of a diverse set of institutions. "We need to champion individual schools," one said, cautioning that, "The one-size-fits-all mentality does not work." Another stated, "We need to attract and retain quality faculty. We are competing with the rest of the world for them." These quotes are representative of widely-held views, and point to several areas of consensus from stakeholders across the UNC system. In Section E, each of these priorities is discussed in greater depth. II. Role clarity The sentiment that the UNC system lacks a clear sense of direction and unified purpose likely stems, at least in part, from a perceived lack of trust and confusion over the roles that various stakeholders play. These feelings were expressed by numerous stakeholders across the system, suggesting that significant organizational and cultural changes will be needed to put the system back on track. As one interviewee vividly put it, "There is a quadrilateral of mistrust between and across the Legislature, the Board, the GA, and institutions."



Others cited specific examples of inefficiency caused by a lack of role clarity. For example, a number of stakeholders reported feeling that the Board of Governors is too involved in managerial details. Several institutions recalled proposals for new construction that were derailed during Board meetings by requests for minute details. These proposals had already been vetted by the finance departments of the relevant institutions, as well as the Boards of Trustees. "The issue isn't that there are expectations," one Chancellor said. "The issue is that there aren't guidelines—you never know which detail is going to blow up in your face." Institutions also cited the low thresholds in place for needing Board authorization on capital projects—because the thresholds are low and varied, the Board is compelled to get involved in managerial decisions. As one Vice Chancellor explained, "It takes forever to make a [moderately sized] purchase, because it needs Board approval." Chancellors pointed to their Boards of Trustees as important advisors and challengers that can provide oversight and input on critical decisions such as capital projects. Though the involvement of the Board of Trustees varies across institutions—they are a resource used heavily at some, while they are used less often at others—every institution has an institutional board made up of alumni, business leaders, and community members at its disposal. Some Board of Governors members also suggested that the Boards of Trustees should be used to more deliberately vet institutional projects and provide explicit support of projects before they are presented to the Board of Governors for final action. In a different example of role misalignment, Chancellors reported frustration with their inability to exercise autonomy in small-scale operational details. For example, the recent system-wide practice on pay raises was that any raise greater than 10 percent must be approved by the Board of Governors (policy changed in March 2016 where raises above 15% and $10,000 must be approved by the Board of Governors). New hires, meanwhile, are not subject to such extensive pay grade scrutiny. One reported consequence of this practice is increased turnover of high-performing employees, because it is easier for a good employee to find higher-paying work at an external organization or another UNC institution than to wait for a deserved raise. Another reported effect is that it is often easier to fill a position with an external hire than an internal one. These effects are especially pronounced at smaller institutions, which tend to pay less. As one frustrated Chancellor put it, "I am bleeding my best people. Why should they stay at [my smaller UNC institution] when they can make $20,000 more a year [elsewhere]?" Individual Chancellors have been appointed by the Board and are directly responsible for budgets in the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars, in some cases more. Many stakeholders pointed out that it is in the Chancellors' best interests to use these funds wisely, and feel that Chancellors and their teams should be given the necessary freedom to make the kinds of operational decisions they feel will best-serve their institution. Confusion about the role of the GA was also a common theme throughout out interviews. "Are they our partners?" one interviewee at an institution asked. "Advisors? Regulators? Are they policing us?" One GA leader said, "We are in an identity crisis. And when people don't know what we're supposed to be, they interpret our role for themselves." A GA employee put it more simply: "I just wish someone would tell me what our goals and roles are." Finally, several Board of Governors members cited a lack of internal clarity regarding their respective responsibilities to each other, the UNC system, and the North Carolina General Assembly. "It seems like no one knows who we're working for," one Board member lamented. Another said, “When I joined the board, nobody told me what my role should be. We need better board education.”



Key insights

GA activities serve a number of constituencies, including individual institutions, the broader UNC system, the GA and Board of Governors, and external stakeholders

The majority of GA time is spent on reactive, rather than strategic, activities: o Initiated by law, policy, or

regulation o Initiated by ad hoc

requests o Response to unexpected

events o Initiated by institutional

request

There is an opportunity to assess reactive activities and prioritize those that add most value to the system. If non-critical reactive activities are de-prioritized, GA resources can be reallocated to more strategic roles

GA divisions are fragmented in their resource allocation, often performing a wide range of activities

There is an opportunity to concentrate and better coordinate activities and processes currently spread across GA

To address these concerns, roles need to be clarified as part of a cultural shift across the system, and system actors need to focus on a set of strategic priorities to guide future actions. Recommendations for role clarity can be found in Section F. III. Activities currently undertaken by General Administration staff

The GA is the administrative body for the UNC system, and plays a critical role in the system's functioning. To understand how time is spent, we conducted a time allocation exercise with GA leadership. (Details are available in Appendix 1: Detailed Methodology). The exercise relied upon self-reported estimates from GA departmental leaders. GA departments (excluding affiliates such as UNC-TV, UNC Press, and the North Carolina Arboretum and external centers such as the North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority) identified activities in their areas and how much staff time was spent on each, resulting in a total list of over 200 activities. Also identified was the driver of each activity—or "activity trigger"—such as a legal requirement, an unexpected request from an institution, or a discretionary task that was actively advancing a strategic priority. For a full list of activities and FTEs allocated against each, see Appendix 3: Time Allocation Analysis. The time allocation exercise revealed that GA allocates its resources to a diverse range of activities, aimed at serving a variety of constituents (see Exhibit 1).

40 percent of GA's time is spent directly supporting institutions through activities such as programmatic initiatives aimed at improving the student, faculty, and staff experience; shared services; convening and sharing best practices; temporary staffing support for institutions; and providing advice and counsel to institutions

Over 20 percent of time is spent on system-level activities (activities aimed at ensuring consistency of standards and operations across the system) such as managing the UNC system budget and capital projects; developing system policy and advocating externally; setting and implementing IT and HR policies; and engaging in academic program portfolio management

Over 20 percent of time is spent supporting GA internal operations and the Board of Governors, including budgeting, managing legal affairs, and preparing for meetings of the Board of Governors

About 15 percent of time is spent serving external system actors; for example, through involvement with state boards and councils and support for K16 issues and new teachers



across the state. Most of these externally-focused activities involve external funding, but that funding generally does not cover the full cost of resources dedicated to the activity

Exhibit 1: GA time categorized by division and beneficiary

The analysis further revealed that the GA faces constraints on how it allocates its time (see Exhibit 2). One-third of resources at the GA are dedicated to performing activities initiated by law, policy, or regulation. An additional ten percent of time is spent responding to ad hoc requests from the legislature, Board, or members of the public, and seven percent of time is spent responding to unexpected events, such as an incident at an institution or an extreme weather event. On the other hand, 30 percent of time is spent on discretionary activities pursuing strategic priorities, and 19 percent of time is spent responding to requests for support from institutions. These findings have a number of implications for the outcomes and impact that the GA is able to achieve. The GA is largely reactive in the work that it does; most of its activities are either heavily influenced by law, regulation, and policy, or are direct responses to institutional requests, ad hoc requests, or unexpected events. This theme was mentioned by a number of interviewees, particularly those within the GA. "We spend so much time running around, doing all the things we think we have to do, that we have no time to think strategically," lamented one GA leader.



Exhibit 2: GA time categorized by division and activity trigger

In understanding the impact of reactive activities, each category—those initiated by law, policy or regulation, those initiated by ad hoc request, responses to unexpected events, and responses to institutional requests—can be considered separately. Institutional stakeholders generally praised GA for its responses to unexpected events, particularly those involving staffing crises. Smaller institutions, in particular, sometimes have leadership positions filled in interim by GA staff members while a permanent replacement is sought. Institutions also praised GA for its responsiveness to institutional needs. Whether GA is advising on a proposed capital project, assisting with a grant application, administering institutional councils, or providing litigation support, institutions tend to appreciate their efforts. However, interviewees both inside and outside GA had less positive reviews of activities initiated by ad hoc request or law, policy and regulation. These activities tended to be seen as less flexible, less helpful, and significantly time-consuming. While compliance with law, policy, and regulation is critical to the mission of a public body, the amount of time the GA spends on these activities limits its ability to be agile in resource allocation. In some areas, like Operations and Legal Affairs, compliance activities are inherent in GA's role, ensuring that finances are properly managed, laws are followed, and risk is appropriately controlled. However, in other areas, such as Academic Affairs, while some compliance activities are similarly necessary, one might expect the GA to have more discretion over resources in order to flexibly allocate time where it is most valuable to the system. The time allocation exercise revealed that Academic Affairs is the most constrained department, with 39 percent of activity triggered by law, policy, or regulation. It is important to note that law, policy, and regulations are not necessarily the antithesis of system priorities or institutional support. Rather, the laws, policies, and regulations governing organizational action should align well with the strategic priorities of that organization. However, interviews with stakeholders across the UNC system revealed that while some laws and policies further strategic priorities (such as policies providing for oversight of tuition, fees,



and financial aid, which further the goals of access and affordability), policies requiring extensive data collection and oversight of institutional affairs are often perceived to add little value to the system and do little to further the system's strategic priorities. Similarly, ad hoc requests, which primarily originate from the legislature or the Board of Governors, often require the GA to collect and synthesize data on a particular issue, prepare a report, or engage in a mini-project. Interviews with stakeholders revealed that ad hoc requests can involve identical requests to multiple people within the GA, requiring a response within a tight timeline, and forcing prioritization of urgent but less important work over less urgent but more valuable activities. The impact of ad hoc requests is multiplied when the requests require input from institutions: the disruption to the GA's regular working rhythm can be amplified up to 17 times. According to time allocation data, the GA currently spends 10 percent of its time, or approximately 27 FTEs, responding to ad hoc requests. Multiple employees within the GA called for greater coordination of ad hoc requests, as well as an across-the-board review of the turnaround time, scope, and necessity of all requests. Analyzing data at the division level revealed two further insights about how the GA uses its resources. First, there is general fragmentation of resources across activities—46 percent of all activities are performed by 0.5 FTEs or fewer. Second, activities are often dispersed across several divisions. In some places, the activities reflect similar processes occurring in more than one department (such as procurement, which is performed in Finance, IT, and Technology-Based Learning and Innovation). In other areas, the activities represent different stages in a process (for example, transfer and articulation activities exist in multiple Academic Affairs departments, but each department has a different focus). In some instances, spreading activities across departments can allow for each department to add its particular expertise to an activity. However, in areas requiring a united and coordinated approach, spreading activity across departments may undermine coordination to the detriment of system outcomes. Most notably, external affairs (e.g., communications, public relations) and policy formation and response activities exist in multiple departments within Academic Affairs, the Chief of Staff, and Operations. That no one area has ownership of these important areas suggests that there is an opportunity for improving the impact of GA operations by concentrating resources, focus, and capabilities for major activities. In sum, the majority of GA activities are reactive, rather than strategic; GA operates in a heavily regulated environment, where resource allocation is significantly influenced by the need to meet requirements set by law, policy, and regulation; and, while GA employees have expressed a desire to work in alignment with priorities and proactively work to achieve their objectives, ad hoc requests draw employees away from priority activities and towards urgent, but less important, tasks. Finally, the activity analysis revealed an opportunity to concentrate activities both within, and across, divisions. IV. Effectiveness of the General Administration In parallel to the time allocation exercise, we conducted a survey of GA employees to assess their level of engagement and to solicit open-ended feedback on the GA's effectiveness. We also asked the stakeholders we interviewed across the system to provide perspectives on their experiences with the GA, as well as strengths and areas to improve. The results of these efforts are reported in this section. a. Current Strengths



The GA is seen as playing several critical and value-adding roles within the UNC system. Chief among these is an advocacy role, particularly to the state legislature, but also at a federal level and to other external stakeholders. As one interviewee argued, "This is the most important thing [the GA] does for us." Similarly, another interviewee commented that, "As a smaller institution, I would have no voice in Raleigh without the GA." Likewise, when GA employees were asked about areas in which the GA currently adds value, the most commonly cited was advocating to the state legislature (see Exhibit 3). As one employee summarized, "The GA adds value by shepherding campus business before the legislature, acting as a statewide spokesperson and advocate for the system." Many GA employees and system stakeholders felt that further focus in this area from the GA was warranted. Another frequently cited area of strength was shared services. GA employees felt that shared services were the GA's second most important value-add, and institutions—particularly smaller ones—agreed that a number of shared services offerings were helpful. "If we didn't have GA's Banner hosting or payroll support, we would have 6 to 7 additional FTEs" said a CFO at an institution. Exhibit 3: GA employee responses to the open-ended question "Name up to three ways in

which GA currently provides value"

The GA is also perceived to add value by facilitating coordination across institutions, providing topic area expertise, and giving targeted assistance when unexpected circumstances arise. "They are invaluable when it comes to helping us navigate capital planning," one institution leader

GA's current strengths:

Advocating on behalf of institutions

Delivering select shared services (e.g. Banner hosting)

Facilitating coordination across institutions

Responding to staffing needs and institutional crises

Staff seen as responsive, highly professional, and responsible



said, while another cited a short-term staffing solution negotiated by the GA: "The interim [senior leader] they have given us is great." Meanwhile, the employee survey highlighted the value of facilitating collaboration system-wide. As one employee put it, "The GA facilitates the flow of information across the system in many functional areas which helps best practices take root at multiple institutions." GA staff members are widely seen as professional and responsible by stakeholders across the system. Most interviewees reported positive experiences interacting with GA. As one stakeholder put it, "They are true professionals, always responsive and always helpful to our institution." b. Current Weaknesses A range of answers emerged when stakeholders were asked about the GA's weaknesses. One common response was that communications from GA are sometimes uncoordinated (e.g., two GA departments email the same institution asking for the same data in different formats), and often not as effective as they could be. Although GA employees believe that advocacy to the legislature is a top priority for the GA, some reported opportunity to improve in how effectively it was carried out (see Exhibit 4). This sentiment was reflected in interviews with representatives of the General Assembly, who generally felt that their present relationship with the UNC system had room for improvement.

These sentiments are echoed within the GA, where many GA employees lamented poor internal communication and effectiveness. As one employee put it, "GA has so many different areas, and is so spread out, that at times duplicate efforts are made across different departments." Another put it more simply: "We reinvent the wheel a lot." In addition, some employees called out inefficient business practices: "There are some people who cling very tightly to inefficient practices and systems, just because 'that is how things have always been done.'" Others lamented bureaucracy at the GA: "[It] would be nice to streamline some byzantine business processes (purchasing, budgeting, time-keeping, etc.), but maybe this is just part of being a state entity." Stakeholders across the system also commented on the lack of institutional experience among GA staff. As one Chancellor put it, "[The employees of GA] don't know my students. They don't know what my students' needs

are, and that means they don't serve them very well." Another institutional stakeholder stated, "I think dynamics across the system would improve if more faculty had worked in administration, and vice-versa." Exhibit 4: GA employee responses to the open-ended question "Name up to three ways in which GA currently does not provide value"

GA's current weaknesses:

Uncoordinated or inefficient communications practices; opportunity to improve engagement with various stakeholders, including the Board, institutions, and the state legislature

Internal inefficiencies, including internal duplication and ineffective business processes

Reactive, rather than strategic, mode of operation

Lack of institutional experience among staff

Often perceived as "not a good place to work"



Exhibit 5 shows the results of part of the GA employee survey, adapted from BCG's Engaging for Results survey. For this part of the survey, GA employees answered questions gauging their satisfaction and engagement with the GA as a workplace. Their responses were then compared to the responses of employees at 456 other public sector workplaces. As seen below, GA employees of all tenures and types reported satisfaction with working at the GA, with 90 percent of respondents agreeing with the statement "Overall, I am satisfied working here."8 However, responses to the more specific questions (2 through 5) were less positive. There was some confusion about overall GA activities, especially among SHRA staff, with less than half responding that they know what is going on at the GA. The majority of employees also felt that there is a low level of recognition for strong-performing teams. Only 38 percent of respondents felt teams that perform well are recognized for it. Only 64 percent felt that they were receiving the help they needed to learn and grow. Exhibit 5: Results of the BCG Engaging for Results survey

Note: Quartiles benchmark UNC General Administration to 456 public sector organizations. Note that numbers represent percent positive ("agree" or "strongly agree") responses.

Employees that joined most recently (with tenure of 0 to 2 years) felt more positive overall, while employees in the 6 to 10 year group felt particularly concerned about the culture, with answers in the bottom quartile for each of the four more specific questions. However, even this group cited being satisfied overall. Interviews suggest that the disconnect stems from mixed



satisfaction with day-to-day work, but a near-uniform sense of satisfaction of being part of and contributing to the UNC system as a whole. Overall, results indicated that the work culture at the GA has room to improve, but also a foundation of pride and purpose to build on. c. Areas with Mixed Reviews Through interviews across the system, there were certain GA activities that received mixed reviews. One such area was military affairs. North Carolina is home to a large population of armed service members, who are served by a variety of UNC institutions. All acknowledge that it is important to serve this population well; GA's efforts to provide leadership and support, however, have received mixed reviews from institutions. "GA has no place setting up administrators at military bases," one institution opined; another institution stated, "GA forced us out at [a nearby base], and I'm unsure what they are trying to accomplish. This doesn't seem like it should be a function of the system office". Several suggested that institutions with closer “on-the-ground” ties to the military would be better-positioned than the GA to take the lead. Similarly, mixed reviews were received regarding GA's online education efforts. Most stakeholders agreed that online education is an important area in which UNC must excel—as one stakeholder put it, "Short-term and long-term, online education is critical to the success of every public and private university"— but not all agreed that GA efforts had been effective. Several stakeholders cited the GA's efforts to expand online education as having positive effects on system-wide pedagogy and improving online offerings for specific institutions. Additionally, several institutions, particularly smaller ones, indicated a desire for greater support from GA in online education; one Chancellor remarked, "The support we've received from GA has been helpful thus far and we're about to make a big push online and I want as much help from the GA team as possible." However, others highlighted ongoing struggles. "I think [UNC Online] has had trouble moving the needle," said one stakeholder. Another remarked that "It's been confusing the way it has been organized being separate from Academic Affairs which has limited the group's ability to work with our faculty." Several pointed to budgetary and policy deficits as the causes of inefficacy. "Online education lives in a policy vacuum," one GA employee opined. "We can't get the movement we need without help from the Board." While online education is a clear priority for several stakeholders, opportunity exists to improve the support GA provides institutions. The GA's efforts to drive research also have mixed reception across the system. Research is a high priority for the UNC system, which saw 34 percent growth in research funding between 2004-05 and 2013-14. But no institution raved about GA's research efforts, and some were dismissive. "The GA approach is random and piecemeal," said one institutional stakeholder. "They make decisions without consulting with the relevant researchers." Another said, "The GA could help create a cooperative environment, which would help [small schools] partner with [large schools]. But right now I'm not sure what they do." d. Areas to Prioritize and Grow

GA activities: mixed reactions

Military affairs

Online education

Support for research



In our interviews, we also asked stakeholders how they believed the GA could improve its contribution to the UNC system, and specifically what areas the GA should prioritize. Many of their views stem from the points raised above: they would like the GA to continue to achieve in areas where it adds value, and to address its current weaknesses. One frequent suggestion was that the GA improve its communication, both with UNC system stakeholders and with the wider North Carolina and national ecosystem. Institutions and Board of Governors members tended to suggest a change in process for GA communications—better consolidation of institutional data requests, for example, or earlier communication on Board meeting materials. As far as external communications are concerned, stakeholders system-wide thought there should be a stronger approach: "I don't think people know the UNC story," one stakeholder said. Another said, "I would like to see prominent UNC alumni championing the system.

Imagine if you could hear about UNC Wilmington from its famous writers, or UNC Chapel Hill from [a prominent scientist.]" Another suggestion was that GA strengthen the role it plays in developing policy and advocating on behalf of the UNC system to lawmakers. "GA's lack of success in the last couple of years to build political support at the legislature and the governor's office has negatively impacted the system," wrote one GA employee. Another stakeholder opined, "GA executives should be familiar faces at the state legislature." On the topic of policy specifically, one interviewee said, "Information and policy recommendations are the key roles of the GA." Exhibit: 6: GA employee responses to the open-ended question "Name up to three ways in which GA could provide more value"

Priority areas for GA

Improving internal and external communications

Driving policy development in addition to strengthening existing legislative advocacy

Implementing best practices such as enterprise risk management and performance management system-wide

Strengthening system-wide talent development and retention

Strengthening data and analytics capabilities

Promoting a culture of excellence at the GA and system-wide



Stakeholders system-wide believe that talent retention and development is an important system-level need. "We need to be attractive to the best and brightest faculty," one stakeholder said. "We need to give them reasons to choose North Carolina over the rest of the country." Another stakeholder lamented the lack of clear development paths for talented individuals: "If there's an opening at a [particular UNC system institution], I should have visibility into whether one of my people could be tapped to fill it." The GA, several noted, is well-positioned to set a new bar for talent and leadership development. Additionally, many across the system indicated a need for the UNC system to improve in areas like enterprise risk management. "We need to look at risk more holistically," one stakeholder said. On the topic of data and analytics—widely considered important in order to increase insight into issues like academic performance—one stakeholder said, "The GA should take advantage of the wealth of data it has access to and undertake substantial research, which would benefit the institutions in areas of student success, academic programming, funding, and other areas." Finally, many voiced a need for a cultural shift in GA toward efficiency, clarity, and excellence (as seen above in Exhibit 5). V. Implications for the General Administration The diagnostic has a number of implications for how the GA could better contribute to the UNC system. In general, activities performed by GA are most valuable when the GA is strategically positioned to lead in a unique way. For example, in policy development, the GA can be more effective than individual institutions by representing the needs of all 17 institutions collectively. The GA also is uniquely positioned to make use of economies of scale via shared services—with the caveat that shared services need to be carefully assessed before implementation to ensure that they add value to the institutions and do not simply add a bureaucratic overlay. A current example of an effective shared service is payroll processing, with several institutions indicating that they are saving resources. In contrast, GA activities are least valuable when the services provided are not perceived as valuable by institutions or other stakeholders, or when they could be provided more effectively elsewhere. For example, many institutions reported that system-level financial aid verification services were less effective than the institutions' own financial aid verification services, and in some cases caused extra work. The primary reason cited for this disconnect was the institutions' deeper knowledge of their own students. Similarly, institutions voiced strong concerns about pending proposals for centralized residency verification efforts. Stakeholders agreed that the GA would become more effective by shifting its resources from low-value activities to high-value activities. In the case of financial aid verification and other activities better performed by institutions, those institutions should be empowered to do so. In the case of low-value reporting, the policies requiring those reports should be re-examined for their usefulness. This would have the beneficial effect of freeing up GA, as well as institutional resources, to focus on higher value activities. In the following sections, we have laid out 15 recommendations to move the GA from low-value to high-value activities, and to increase effectiveness across the UNC system more generally. The recommendations address strategic focus and role clarity across the UNC system, the organization of the General Administration, and a set of processes that will enable



improvement. We provide a summary of the recommendations in Section D, and then go into more detail on each of the recommendations in the following sections.


19 Section D – Summary of Recommendations

Section D – Summary of Recommendations

Based on the diagnostic findings above, we have developed 15 recommendations. Our recommendations draw upon input from and dialogue with stakeholders across the UNC system. The recommendations fall into four broad categories:

Strategic focus, uniting the UNC system around a set of common strategic priorities

Role clarity, providing clear expectations about responsibilities for each system actor, alleviating confusion and perceived micromanagement

General Administration organizational design, structuring GA to both better support individual institutions and better deploy resources in areas that are most important for the system as a whole

Critical enablers such as strong relationships, trust, and good communication that are essential to support necessary changes

Sections E through H go into more detail on each set of recommendations. Exhibit 7: Recommendations span several areas


20 Section E – Strategic Priorities

Section E – Strategic Priorities

The diagnostic revealed a prevalent concern amongst UNC stakeholders: the UNC system as a whole lacks a clear set of strategic priorities. Having a short list of system-wide priorities serves a number of purposes. At the most basic level, a thoughtful set of strategic priorities could align the wide-ranging stakeholders of the UNC system behind a common set of goals, bringing needed focus to the system. It would also help clarify roles, provide guidance on how to prioritize resources, inform the decision-making process at both the institution and system-levels, and allow institutions to take actions in ways that fit their context. Such clarity is important for any organization, but is especially important for a large system of diverse institutions with many different stakeholder groups. Making sure all are pulling in the same direction is essential for enduring success. As such, the first recommendation deals specifically with strategic priorities. 1. Align on a set of strategic priorities: access, affordability & efficiency, student success, economic impact, and excellent & diverse institutions These five strategic priorities emerged from our 150 interviews throughout the UNC system. In addition to being consistent with stakeholder feedback, they also adhere to the North Carolina constitutional mandate for affordability and the recent emphasis more broadly in U.S. higher education on access, student success, and institutional excellence. Specifically, the five strategic priorities are: Priority 1: Access. Opportunity for all

The UNC system has a proud heritage of access and student diversity. In 2014, 37 percent of undergraduates across the system received Pell Grants, up from 26 percent in 2006.9 Additionally, the UNC system has a rich history of providing access to diverse populations, including six institutions that have historically served minorities. Currently, African-American and Hispanic students comprise 26 percent of total enrollment.10 Ensuring that the system remained open to all was an issue raised by numerous stakeholders. Said one interviewee, "The diversity of our students needs to be at the forefront of the discussion." Said another institution leader, "I wouldn’t be here today if not for the UNC system."

Priority 2: Affordability & Efficiency. Ensure a UNC education is within the financial means of all in the state

Many stakeholders referenced the state's clear constitutional mandate for affordability: that public higher education should "as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense."11 This is a unique aspect of the UNC system; as one interviewee noted, "We are one of the few states that has the affordability of higher education in our constitution."

Priority 3: Student Success. Increase degree attainment and ensure value and relevance for students

A college degree is increasingly important for career success. According to a study from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, by 2020, 61 percent of jobs in North Carolina will require some form of postsecondary education and training, while between 2010 and 2020 there will be an estimated 1.5 million new job openings—two-thirds of which will require higher education.12 At the same time, the "attainment gap"



between white and minority students in North Carolina is one of the largest in the country; while 50 percent of white students earn a postsecondary degree, only 28 percent of African-American and 24 percent of Hispanic students do so.13 Ensuring students graduate ready for their career is a critical priority for the UNC system, and there was broad agreement among our interviewees that each institution must provide a clear value proposition to students. At the same time, interviewees were quick to point out that student success takes a wide variety of forms beyond graduation rates and job prospects and should also include a sense of overall well-being. As one stakeholder put it, reflecting the diverse objectives of the system, "It's about earnings somewhat…but also well-being, setting up for long-term personal and professional success, [and] citizenship." Any notion of student success must also consider the diverse student make-up of the system, including non-traditional and adult students.

Priority 4: Economic Impact. Contribute to the state

The UNC system contributes in myriad ways to the economic needs of North Carolina. A statewide analysis released in 2015 on the impact of higher education on the state's economy estimated that in 2013 the UNC system contributed $27.9 billion in added state income through alumni, faculty research, start-ups, and other sources, the equivalent of 426,000 new jobs.14 The UNC system brings in $1.36 billion annually in research funding as well.15 Several stakeholders surfaced the need for the UNC system to contribute in many ways to the state, including educating the next generation of civic leaders, partnering with employers to shape the state's future workforce, providing leadership and innovation in health care, and supporting faculty in impactful academic research and community outreach.

Priority 5: Excellent & Diverse Institutions. Help institutions achieve excellence against their missions

The UNC system is comprised of a collection of highly distinct institutions, each with a unique mission and goals. Some of these institutions have a proud heritage of serving minorities, some are centers of excellence for the liberal arts, and one is a world-class arts conservatory. Some are top-tier research institutions, and some offer excellent education in technology and agriculture. A successful model for the UNC system will acknowledge the strengths and contributions of every UNC institution. It will also be important to retain the diversity of institutions within the system, a view expressed repeatedly in our conversations. Said one interviewee, "We need to champion individual schools. The one size fits all mentality does not work." Said another, "Each school plays its own part in the system. And we should make sure that each school is the best at its mission."

The Board of Governors, the President and the General Administration, and the individual Chancellors and institutions can take specific actions in the near-term to support these five strategic priorities: For the Board of Governors:

Support the President in refocusing the General Administration on system-level strategic priorities and build upon the unique assets of the institutions

Leverage the General Administration and President to manage the system day-to-day while providing governance and strategic guidance

Support policies that improve system performance toward the five strategic priorities and empower institutions to execute against their aligned strategic goals



For the President/General Administration:

Reorganize the General Administration to better support institutions in pursuit of strategic priorities. Specifically, invest in certain areas (e.g., external affairs to provide a powerful voice for the system, a policy unit to create policies that support system priorities) and decrease focus in others (e.g., required reporting that does not add value)

Form teams (including selected Chancellors/other institution leaders) as appropriate to define and launch initiatives in support of these priorities

Provide innovation funding that supports strategically-aligned programs at the institution level

Invest in the capability to develop policy proposals, for use with both the UNC Board of Governors and the North Carolina state legislature, that support strategic priorities and drive excellence in the UNC system

For institutions/Chancellors:

Adapt institutions' strategic plans to drive progress toward the system-level strategic priorities, and build upon the unique assets of the institution

In conjunction with the General Administration and the President, define appropriate goals and performance metrics for each institution

Invest in institution-specific initiatives to further system priorities

Work more closely with the President through a revamped Chancellor engagement model (see Section F, recommendation #3, for more on Chancellor engagement)


23 Section F – Role Clarity

Section F – Role Clarity

Another pervasive theme from the diagnostic was a sense of uncertainty over roles. The UNC system has the opportunity to clearly interpret and re-align on the roles for each system actor and then honor them. This would mitigate current frustration across the system and establish the realm of authority for each actor. Increased clarity can help ensure each system actor is focused on its unique set of roles, leading to more effective governance and management of the UNC system. Three recommendations address role clarity. They include: 2. Clarify and honor roles for Board of Governors, GA/President, and institutions/Boards of Trustees/affiliates 3. Ensure Chancellor talent is fully leveraged as part of the President's team 4. Focus GA on priority roles in support of system strategic priorities and empower institutions where the GA is not well placed to add value

Each is described, in turn, below. 2. Clarify and honor roles for Board of Governors, GA/President, and institutions/Boards of Trustees/affiliates

The foundational documents of UNC16 establish role-defining principles for the Board of Governors, the President/GA, Chancellors/institutions, and the Boards of Trustees. In keeping with the intent of the principles, we recommend system actors align their roles according to the following interpretations:

The Board of Governors should focus on system-level policy, oversight, strategy, and budget and delegate managerial and operational responsibilities to the President17

The President and General Administration should coordinate closely with the Board of Governors in its policy decisions. In addition, the President and GA should develop and execute strategy and implement policy at the system-level. To do so, it may delegate responsibilities to Chancellors and institutions and preserve institutional autonomy. The President and GA also play important roles in legislative advocacy and institutional accountability

Chancellors/institutions should be empowered to shape and propose their unique mission and, in collaboration with the President, to translate system and strategic priorities into actions at the institution level

Boards of Trustees should advise Chancellors and their teams in significant decisions, as well as provide advice to the Board of Governors regarding institution-specific decisions, by making their endorsement clear

Below, three examples illustrate the application of these roles in situations that were flagged in the diagnostic as areas where role clarity could improve system effectiveness. Example 1: Institution Performance Management


24 Section F– Role Clarity

Currently, there is no clear process for institution performance management (see Section G for more specific details regarding performance management). To achieve a strong system of institution performance management, clear roles are needed where the Board provides oversight; the President tracks system and institution-specific metrics and engages with institutions on their improvement; and the Chancellors, in collaboration with their faculty, Board of Trustees, and stakeholders, have autonomy to manage and make decisions that drive their institutions forward in pursuit of their missions. Board of Governors:

Provide oversight to the performance management process

Intervene when issues are escalated

Set policies to support improved institution performance

During Board meetings, engage with each institution periodically (e.g., annually) on its progress

President/GA:

In collaboration with the Chancellors, determine set of common and institution-specific metrics

Team with individual Chancellors to set targets in each of the metrics

Meet with Chancellors to discuss progress

Maintain scorecards/dashboards

Escalate issues to Board as needed Boards of Trustees:

Provide advice to Chancellors on how to best meet targets

Stay up to date on institution progress

Endorse metrics and targets that are set by the institutions

Chancellors/Institutions:

Set targets and craft the institution-level efforts to reach those targets

Report progress to the GA

Example 2: Capital Projects Currently, Board of Governors authorization of capital projects must occur for capital improvement projects that are projected to cost more than $500,000, while capital projects between $300,000 and $500,000 must be approved by the President. Institutions find the approval process slow and onerous. In order to strike the right balance between oversight and autonomy, enhanced role clarity is needed. The Board should review projects in greater depth where the magnitude is significant and/or public funding sources are drawn upon, and provide more autonomy when the magnitude is smaller and/or private funding sources are drawn upon with minimal anticipated impact on operational budgets. This also could entail raising the thresholds for Board and President approval. Additionally, the Board might emphasize reviewing institutions' aggregate capital spending in the context of an institution's strategic plan, versus one-off reviews on a project-by-project basis. Board of Governors:

Approve capital projects when they affect tuition/fees, or when they impact the use of public funds or indebtedness and/or meet a particular threshold

Provide oversight of capital spend in aggregate in context of institutional strategic plan

President/GA:

Aid the Chancellors in developing capital project plans and proposals as needed

Provide advice and relevant benchmarks

Set metrics for system-level capital spending

Boards of Trustees:

Advise and review all capital project plans

Demonstrate endorsement or lack thereof with a vote

Aid Chancellors in preparing plans for submission to the Board


Drive planning and budgeting for capital projects consistent with institutional strategy

Raise private funding



Example 3: Salary Increases Until recently, most individual pay raises of more than 10 percent required Board approval. As described in Section C, this threshold results in several consequences that restrict the Chancellor's ability to optimize local staffing decisions to best meet the needs of the institution. To improve oversight of salary increases while reducing the micromanagement of Chancellors, enhanced role clarity is needed. Chancellors and their teams should be able to set salaries within the bounds of their overall budget, as well as the relevant salary band for a given position, while the Board provides oversight on an aggregate level. Board of Governors:

Review overview annual report on salaries and raises to stay informed

President/GA:

Consolidate raise information from all institutions into one report to distribute annually to the Board; use data to help inform budgeting and financial analysis

Provide advice and benchmarking Boards of Trustees:

Advise and counsel Chancellors on raises as needed

Provide oversight of the salary increases


Determine when employee raises are warranted, within the bounds of the institution budget, as well as the appropriate salary band

Administer raises

Compile salary data for Boards of Trustees and GA

These examples are meant to be illustrative of how enhanced role clarity can lead to more effective governance and management of the UNC system. More specifically, the benefits of clarifying and honoring roles include:

Eliminating Board time spent on minor issues and providing the Board opportunity to spend more time on critical issues for the system's success

Eliminating reports and proposals from institutions on small details, unlocking time for Chancellors and their teams to execute strategically

Encouraging Boards of Trustees to provide support and oversight to Chancellors in significant decisions

Expediting decisions 3. Ensure Chancellor talent is fully leveraged as part of the President's team Currently, the role of Chancellors as part of the President’s team is de-emphasized. As such, there is an opportunity to leverage Chancellor talent to better serve the UNC system and as close collaborators with the President on matters such as policy recommendations and performance management. In order to engage the Chancellors as partners, the President can take the following actions:

Cultivate routine engagement with the Chancellors

Actively include Chancellors in the decision making process for larger system-wide issues (e.g., Chancellor task forces on specific policy recommendations)

Involve Chancellors more strategically in Board of Governors meetings to leverage their expertise



Including Chancellors as part of the President's team will empower Chancellors to be stewards of the strategic priorities and system goals. This, in turn, will help improve engagement of talent at each institution, including faculty and staff. For example, faculty might pilot and organize around programs and initiatives regarding student success. Business offices might partner with other institutions to develop shared partnerships that drive savings. Chancellors might engage students on discussions around access and affordability. A center of excellence around big data and policy might be founded at a university, utilizing the statistical and policy expertise of the faculty in order to answer system-level questions regarding policy. Some of these activities are already happening today. But if done in the context of greater clarity on system-wide strategic priorities, the system will be able to unleash the wealth of talent at institutions against its greatest needs and challenges, with potential for significant positive impact on students, institutions, and the state. 4. Focus the GA on priority roles in support of system strategic priorities and empower institutions where the GA is not well placed to add value With system actors' roles clarified, the General Administration can refocus on what matters most, namely, those activities that drive forward strategic priorities. To identify those activities, we used information from the GA interviews, employee survey, and time allocation exercise to map activities using a set of questions:

Is this activity required of the GA?

If not, how much value does the GA add doing this activity? Could the GA empower institutions instead to perform this activity?

Which activities should be prioritized and invested in because they relate to strategic priorities and drive value?

Based on this analysis, we sorted GA activities into four categories:

Required activities: those activities that the GA is mandated to do by law or policy or that is an intrinsic aspect of a central system office (e.g., GA internal operations)

Priority areas for GA to be distinctive: those activities that the GA is best equipped to do of any system actor and that drive the most value in executing on strategic priorities

Valuable activities: those activities where GA can drive value, but are a lower relative priority. Should be continued, subject to resource constraints

Activities that the GA should empower institutions to do: those activities that institutions have the capacity for and are best placed to own and drive, without the need for coordination or investment by the GA

Exhibit 8 shows the result of this analysis.



Exhibit 8: Priority areas for the GA to be distinctive

i. Includes classification and position management, compensation and salary admin, payroll, benefits admin, employee relations, equal opportunity, policy training; ii. Includes system development and maintenance, and training; iii. Includes,

for example, immigration support and other specialized support In order to re-focus the GA on the above roles, we have made a series of specific organizational structure recommendations that are covered in Section G.


28 Section G – General Administration Organization Design

Section G – General Administration Organization Design

Effective organizations identify their most important priorities, and then concentrate their resources on those areas. While this might sound straightforward, many organizations can become accustomed to cultures, routines, and rules and regulations that, while well-intended, have outlived their purpose or provide minimal value. In Section F, we identified a set of functions that we recommend GA prioritize. These include external affairs, policy development, academic areas such as program portfolio management, and required activities like budget development and capital project planning. Reorganizing the General Administration so that it can focus on these activities will enable the organization to maximize its contribution to the UNC system, while also giving institutions greater autonomy to carry out their unique missions. It will increase system effectiveness and reduce duplicative efforts. It would also address the belief, prevalent in stakeholders across the UNC system, that while the GA has a number of strengths, it could play a far more distinctive role in the services it provides—to the benefit of the entire system. We have nine recommendations on GA organizational design. These recommendations are based on where the GA can add the most value. We discuss the rationale for each recommendation and provide an overview of the resulting proposed GA organizational structure. We then discuss the implications of this new structure for how staff time is spent, and close with some specific actions leadership can take to get started. For reference, the current GA organizational design can be found in Appendix 4. 5. Elevate and expand external affairs to provide a powerful voice for the system

Rationale: External communications (e.g., advocating to the North Carolina state legislature and federal policymakers; maintaining a strong relationship with the media; communicating directly with the public) is a priority for the UNC system, and an opportunity to tell the "UNC story" to people in North Carolina and across the country. It is also a role that GA is uniquely positioned to fill by uniting the voices of the constituent institutions.

Action: Establish a new External Affairs division that reports directly to the President, uniting the State Relations, Federal Relations, Communications, and International, Community, and Economic Engagement departments.

6. Create a lean strategy and policy unit focused on the system priorities

Rationale: As the central administrative body of the UNC system, the GA is uniquely positioned to develop unified strategies for the system and to drive policy change in support of those strategies, both within the system and in the larger North Carolina context. However, the system currently suffers from a lack of alignment on strategic priorities, and policy development functions are dispersed throughout GA. Establishing a new strategy and policy unit will ensure greater clarity and focus on two highly critical roles for GA.

Action: Establish a new Strategy & Policy division, uniting policy development activities currently dispersed throughout the GA. This division will also include a new Performance Management department (see recommendation 8).



7. Strengthen the linkage between finance & budget and strategy & policy

Rationale: Since the University of North Carolina is a publicly funded system, the budget—and relevant analysis pertaining to budget allocations—is a critical strategic function, with substantial linkages to policy development. As one stakeholder put it, "the budget is the policy." For this reason, it would be helpful for the Finance & Budget officer to serve on the President's senior team to ensure seamless integration with other critical functions such as External Affairs and Strategy & Policy.

Action: Elevate the Finance & Budget unit, including its constituent departments, to report directly to the President. Foster collaboration between the newly elevated Finance & Budget division and the new Strategy & Policy division.

8. Institute a holistic approach to institutional and system performance management

Rationale: There is a noted lack of holistic institutional and system performance management in the UNC system. The current focus is on overseeing highly specific issues (e.g., salary increases) and measuring institutions against a set of pre-determined metrics, which some institutions feel are biased toward the populations served at the system's largest schools. For example, all institutions are frequently measured and compared by six-year graduation rate, a metric that schools with large populations of students who enroll part-time, require remedial coursework, and/or support a family do not perform as well against as schools with traditional, full-time students. A stronger performance management system would use metrics and targets that consider each institution's unique mission and ambitious goals and hold Chancellors and their teams accountable for reaching those goals.

Action: Establish a dedicated Performance Management department, in tandem with the creation of a more robust President-Chancellor engagement model. Provide greater efforts from Board of Governors leadership to understand the holistic context of each institution and greater input from the institutions on what should be measured. Due to strong linkages to system-wide strategy—i.e., a need to understand how successful individual schools are in reaching their goals in support of the system priorities—as well as the substantial managerial importance of the Performance Management effort, we recommend placing this department in the new Strategy & Policy division.

9. Align and strengthen data & analytics in support of academic affairs, strategy & policy, performance management, and operations

Rationale: Institutions comment that while a large amount of data is collected by the GA, it is often requested in an inefficient manner (e.g., duplicate data requests from different GA departments) and not effectively used. Meanwhile, many stakeholders underscored analytics as a priority area for the GA, which is not a current strength and ought to be further developed. Predictive analytics, a field of growing importance, is still nascent within the UNC system.

Action: Strengthen the GA's Data & Analytics effort by uniting current functions (currently in Institutional Research and Academic Policy, Planning, and Analysis) within a single department. Leverage this new structure to support Academic Affairs, strategy and policy recommendations, performance management, and operations.

10. Focus academic affairs on a select set of initiatives to catalyze system-wide progress on strategic priorities

Rationale: Interviewees throughout the system affirmed the centrality of academics and students' academic success to the mission of the system and its institutions. However, many also reported confusion about the role of the GA's Academic Affairs division, and a sense that not all of its activities were high-value. Academic Affairs could increase its impact by putting more resources into a smaller set of high-priority goals.



Action: Focus the Academic Affairs division on a narrower set of areas aligned with system strategic priorities, and empower institutions to perform activities that they are better-positioned to address. Within this process, there are four primary actions:

o Move activities that are not aligned with the core mission of Academic Affairs to divisions better aligned with those activities' goals (e.g., move policy development functions to new Policy department; move International, Community, and Economic Engagement department to External Affairs)

o Move in functions or departments that are closely aligned with Academic Affairs' core mission (such as Technology-Based Learning & Innovation)

o Within Academic Affairs, consolidate activities to improve their impact (e.g., consolidate Transfer & Articulation and Research & Graduate Education within a renamed Programs, Research, and Instructional Strategy department)

o Leverage faculty as partners in GA-led initiatives (e.g., faculty as members of task forces, growth of the Faculty Fellows program)

11. Integrate and strengthen enterprise risk management, compliance, and legal affairs

Rationale: For enterprises of the size and reputation of the UNC system, there are many potential risks. A best practice across higher education systems is to institute a robust enterprise risk management (ERM) framework that accounts for risks across all system stakeholders and creates strategies to mitigate risks. Currently, there is no dedicated approach to enterprise risk management at the General Administration. Furthermore, the departments that a future ERM effort would rely on are fragmented across the GA.

Action: Establish a lean ERM department that supports the creation of a strong ERM framework system-wide, and place it beside the Compliance & Audit (currently in Operations), Safety & Emergency Operations (currently under Chief of Staff), and Legal Affairs departments under a strengthened Governance, Legal & Risk division.

12. Implement targeted approach for attracting, retaining, and developing leaders in the system

Rationale: The system's faculty and staff are one of its most critical resources and being at the center of the system, the GA is uniquely positioned to bolster the system's approach for attracting, retaining and developing leaders in the system. Currently, the system as a whole lacks a strategic approach to leadership and talent; for example, there are deep pockets of talent throughout the UNC system, and while high-performing individuals often yearn for the opportunity to expand their professional horizons by working in challenging new situations, the system has minimal formal pathways for mobility within the system.

Action: Create a dedicated Leadership & Talent department, combining the existing Chancellor search function with HR's current people performance management function. This department should proactively identify high performers across the system, drive talent retention of both administrators and faculty throughout the system, and ensure development and training opportunities exist for UNC system leadership. More specifically, the GA might:

o Hire for system leadership and GA positions strategically, identifying the skills necessary for a candidate to be successful in the position.

o Create leadership training and on-boarding programs through which potential new leaders across the system can acquire leadership skills and technical knowledge, or where a new leader can become better-versed in system processes and policies

o Offer rotations at the system-level office for high-performing institutional staff. The Faculty Fellows program that the GA is in the process of launching would be an excellent model to emulate across different position types.



o Encourage collaboration across institutions by providing mobility opportunities for talented individuals to advance their careers and building upon recent efforts in HR to share high-quality applicants across institutions.

o Launch programs through which GA staff are seconded to institutions for a defined period of time in order to increase the share of GA staff who have institutional-level experience, while also allowing institutions to benefit from the unique system-level perspective and experience GA staff would provide.

o Analyze reasons for faculty or administrators leaving the system, and determine if any system-wide strategy or policy change should occur to retain talent

o Ensure thorough succession planning is undertaken for critical roles at institutions and at the GA.

13. Focus Chief of Staff role to support President and coordinate within GA and across institutions

Rationale: GA employees and interviewees across the system cited internal GA communication, as well as GA communication to institutions, as an area that could be substantially improved. The Chief of Staff role—which currently oversees a disparate range of operational functions, most of which will be moved to other divisions (per above recommendations)—should be repurposed to support the President and to improve coordination and communication.

Action: Focus the Chief of Staff role on three primary directives: coordinate communication from the GA to institutions (including processes discussed in Section H on enablers below), manage the GA's internal communications, and strategically manage the President's time and priorities, including support of the Chancellor engagement model described in Section F.

In addition, there are other changes which will complement the above. These changes are more tactical than strategic, but are suggested due to ripple effects of the above recommendations:

Secretary of the University. Many policy proposals discussed by the Board of Governors invoke legal considerations, and the Secretary is often responsible for interpreting and acting upon Board policy. Hence, we recommend moving the Secretary from its current position under the Chief of Staff into the new Governance, Legal & Risk division.

UNC-TV. We recommend moving UNC-TV from under the Chief of Staff and placing it within Academic Affairs. UNC-TV is a strong asset that, through high-quality programs, can contribute to the academic mission of the UNC system and support alternative forms of learning from traditional in-person delivery. UNC-TV will be better able to fulfill this vision reporting to Academic Affairs.

North Carolina Arboretum. The North Carolina Arboretum in Asheville currently reports to Research & Graduate Education within Academic Affairs. Since we recommend research functions be consolidated within Programs, Research, & Instructional Strategy, the Arboretum may require a new reporting line. In the short term, we suggest that it report to the Chief of Operations division to ensure strong ongoing operations. In the longer term, the Board may consider transferring oversight of the Arboretum to one of the institutions in the region (i.e., Western Carolina University or UNC Asheville).

Taken together, the result of these changes is a new organizational structure that shifts investment toward priority areas.



Exhibit 9: Proposed organizational structure for the General Administration

i. Compliance & Audit also reports to President and Board Audit Committee

Results of the New GA Organizational Design

The changes to the GA organizational design mean a shift in resources from lower-value areas to higher-value ones within the GA, and correspondingly empowering institutions to own areas they are better-positioned to handle. Based on our time allocation analysis, today, 63 FTEs18 are allocated to areas that directly advance strategic priorities, such as policy and data & analytics. Meanwhile, 22 FTEs are allocated to areas that should be de-emphasized at the GA level so that institutions, which are better placed to add value in these areas, are empowered to do so. Examples of these activities include career services initiatives, select areas of research support and residency verification. The remainder of GA time is spent on a mix of required activities (those mandated by law or regulation, such as compliance and financial oversight—81 FTEs today) and other valuable, but lower-priority, areas (such as convening and sharing best practices—105 FTEs today). By reducing time spent on required activities and eliminating time spent on areas that institutions are best positioned to handle, the new proposed GA organizational structure allots 77 FTEs toward highest-priority areas for GA, and also decreases allocation of FTEs against required activities by 8 FTEs. Exhibit 10 below outlines this shift in resources. Based on thorough investigation of the GA's current financial allocations, the estimated financial impact of the reorganization is neutral.



Exhibit 10: Changes in resource allocation against GA priorities as result of proposed organizational design

Note: numbers may not add due to rounding. 1. Current state based on estimated FTEs allocation by 206 distinct activities. Activities were identified as either required, priority areas to for GA to be distinctive, valuable activities or activities in respect of which GA should de-emphasize, empower institutions. 2. Required activities fall within 3 sub-categories: GA internal operations (recommended reduction of 36 FTE to 33 FTE), system activities (maintains 30 FTE), and reporting (recommended reduction from 16 FTE to 11 FTE).


34 Section H – Enablers

Section H – Enablers

The previous three sections discussed recommendations on UNC system priorities, role clarity and GA effectiveness. For these recommendations to be implemented successfully, they need to be done in an environment that is conducive to change. Indeed, in many change efforts organizations focus primarily on the "hard" side of change—the technical or process elements of change. Equally important is the "soft" side of change, or how the change impacts employee engagement and organizational culture. The last two recommendations focus on enablers or the process and cultural changes that are foundational to the success of the prior recommendations. Recommendations include: 14. Reduce ad hoc reporting and low-value recurring reporting. 15. Create an environment to support system success.

a) Strengthen relationships b) Instill culture of excellence and innovation across the system c) Strengthen GA communication both internally and with institutions d) Support the Board of Governors to increase its effectiveness and focus on system

priorities Each is described in turn below: 14. Reduce ad hoc and low-value recurring reporting. While a number of reports19 serve a valuable purpose in fostering transparency to the public and holding the system accountable, there are instances of GA and institution time being spent generating low-value reports. Low value-reporting can take on a variety of forms, including:

Reports whose purpose has outlived their usefulness

Reports where more work is required than value is provided

Reports where the information gathered is already reported elsewhere in a slightly different format

Reports that are overly complex or detailed, or require all institutions to report on a dimension that is only relevant to some

Throughout our interview process, stakeholders both within the GA and across the system held the view that significant GA and institution time is spent on low-value reports, as well as responding to ad-hoc requests for information. While there is recognition that a significant number of reports are mandated by the legislature or legislatively directed and are beyond the purview of GA or the Board of Governors, reporting requirements consume finite resources. One institution's Finance Division, for example, estimated that they received over 300 ad-hoc reporting requests over the past year. Another institution's Academic Affairs Division indicated they received 2-3 requests per week from GA and that half of a senior position is spent managing requests, in addition to the time spent actually collecting and organizing data. The time spent responding to these requests comes at the expense of focusing on other priorities. Across the board, reporting requirements should be examined for their usefulness in light of current context. Reports absorb significant time and resources at both the GA and institutions. An instructive example is UNC FIT (UNC Finance Improvement and Transformation), an initiative that began in 2008 and included the introduction of standard business processes for institutions in several areas (e.g., contracts and grants, financial aid, student accounts). The


35 Section H– Enablers

introduction of these processes was accompanied by a requirement for detailed monthly compliance reporting. Institutions indicated this initiative had value: it helped to strengthen their processes and significantly lowered the risk of audit findings. Per a 2014 update, the number of audit findings in the UNC system decreased from 58 in FY 2007 to 1 in FY 201320. However, at the same time, one Chief Business Officer called the reporting requirements associated with UNC FIT that persist today a "time-sucking beast," and several others expressed similar sentiments. Institutions told us the scope and monthly frequency of the report requires the equivalent of 1 FTE year-round for a mid-sized or large institution to complete. Some suggested that these reporting requirements should be eliminated as the related processes became standard operating procedures, while others suggested significantly reducing reporting frequency. Additionally, reports such as the UNC Engagement Report, which requires institutions to report on activities impacting their surrounding communities and to track progress over time, and the Report on Post-Tenure Review and Phased Retirement Report, were identified as requiring moderate to significant resources at both institutions and GA to complete, with stakeholders unclear about its ultimate benefit. Reporting requirements should be assessed to determine how best to balance compliance and oversight with the burden required to meet them. For example, for reports initiated by UNC FIT, a risk-adjusted approach could be employed where greater frequency and scope is required of those institutions identified through objective criteria as requiring greater oversight. If reporting were reduced—by reducing the frequency of recurring reports, by simplifying their content, or by stopping them completely—these resources could be put toward more strategic uses. Reducing reporting would improve efficiency across the UNC system. The GA and institutions should reduce reporting not mandated by Board policy or state or federal law. Board policies requiring GA reports should be examined and scaled back if the effort required to develop them does not justify the value derived. The GA should continue to consider processes to automate the generation of recurring, high-value reports, while policymakers should consider which legislatively mandated reports introduced over the years merit elimination. Additionally, the Board and GA should very carefully consider all future proposals that create new reporting requirements, and only support them if highly valuable. In doing so, they should balance an evolving understanding of risks and priorities over time with restraint in being overly reactionary; institutions frequently remarked that the Board will often respond to an incident at one institution with a one-size-fits-all reporting requirement for all institutions. Finally, there should be a clear “sun-setting” process that leverages input from multiple stakeholders including the Board and institutions to ensure that reports instituted for specific, time-constrained reasons are appropriately phased out when they are no longer useful. 15. Create an environment to support system success a.) Strengthen relationships

Rationale: Interviewees across the system lamented that distrust has grown in recent years among stakeholder groups. Nurturing strong relationships among the President and the GA; Chancellors and other institutional leaders; faculty; students; Boards of Trustees; the Board of Governors; and other stakeholders such as the General Assembly, Governor's office, other P-20 education organizations, civil rights community, and business and civic leaders will improve trust across the UNC system, decrease inefficiency and miscommunications, and improve morale.

Action: Clarify roles in line with recommendations in Section F and improve communications between GA and other internal and external stakeholders. Additionally,



the President and other GA leaders should invest time to engage key stakeholders frequently on a formal and informal basis, and should help facilitate relationship-building among other system-level stakeholders. Finally, the President should engage and help lead dialogue on strategic priorities, not only within the UNC system, but also with other stakeholder groups across the state.

b.) Instill culture of excellence and innovation across the system

Rationale: The GA survey highlighted the need to improve employee engagement and morale. Additionally, several stakeholders noted a need for the Board and GA to support excellence and innovation in the system.

Action: Several steps can be taken to strengthen a culture of excellence and innovation both within the GA and across the UNC system, including:

o Fostering a culture within GA of deeply engaging employees, providing transparency across the organization and recognizing high-performing teams and individuals

o Employing a holistic approach to institutional performance management that: sets ambitious but attainable targets for institutions; provides them the support, autonomy, and resources required to reach respective targets; and regularly measures progress

o Offering catalyst funding to institutions to support innovative initiatives to advance progress against system strategic priorities

o Recognizing excellence across institutions to inspire further innovation c.) Strengthen GA communication both internally and with institutions

Rationale: Many employees at GA described "silos," or artificial separations, as driving ineffective communication between divisions and leading to inefficiency. Additionally, institutions reported that ineffective communication from the GA (e.g., duplicative data requests from different GA departments) created unnecessary work at institutions.

Action: In order to improve communications with institutions, the GA should address the causes of duplicative requests. The Senior Vice Presidents of Strategy & Policy, Finance & Budget, and Academic Affairs, and the Chief Information Officer should jointly choose a cloud-based platform that tracks data requests that have been issued to and fulfilled by institutions and GA departments. This will support a streamlined data-request process, as well as the opportunity to analyze the amount of time spent on data requests, ad hoc reports, and recurring reports, as well as their relative value. In order to improve GA internal communications, the GA might improve co-location so that staff in multiple GA buildings who frequently collaborate are able to physically be near each other, and consider a cross-functional team-based model for specific GA projects, where staff are pulled from various divisions to collaborate to achieve specific objectives.

d.) Support the Board of Governors to increase its effectiveness and focus on system priorities

Rationale: Interviews with the Board of Governors highlighted a sentiment that the Board is not consistently supported by the GA, as several remarked that materials are not delivered in a timely manner, information is not synthesized effectively, and analyses sometimes lack sufficient depth and rigor. Several members also remarked that the Board could operate more effectively if it focused more on system strategic priorities and critical policy issues and less on relatively small-scale topics.

Action: The GA, via the Board Secretary role, should better support Board communications and processes, including ensuring agendas and supporting materials are distributed well in advance of Board meetings and materials are focused on strategic priorities and critical policy issues. Additionally, areas such as Strategy and Policy,



Academic Affairs, and Finance & Budget can closely collaborate with relevant Board members to ensure analyses presented to the Board are rigorous, synthesized, and easily digestible. The Board, meanwhile, should assess the frequency of Board meetings and committee meetings and determine whether the current Board committees most effectively address the system's current needs, or whether their focus can be changed.

By pulling these levers across the system, the GA, institutions, and other stakeholders can improve their impact and effectiveness.


38 Section I – Implementation

Section I – Implementation

Sections E-H discuss specific actions needed to implement each of the 15 recommendations. This section highlights five general principles for coordinating the implementation of these recommendations both within the GA and across many UNC system stakeholders, including:

Identify clear owners and develop action plans for each of the recommendations

Set up a project management function to oversee all implementation efforts and coordinate the actions for each recommendation

Create a tracking method for all recommendations to foster an environment of transparency and urgency

Establish proactive internal communications within the GA regarding implementation

Deploy an external communications plan Each is described in more detail below.

Identify clear owners and develop specific action plans for each of the recommendations

Define clear owners or co-owners for each recommendation who can drive its realization and deploy the appropriate talent from the GA, Board of Governors, and institutions

Create tactical plans for the actions required for each recommendation

Set milestones (with target timing) for each recommendation

Clarify roles of relevant system actors in order to achieve milestones Set up a project management function to oversee all implementation efforts and coordinate the actions for each recommendation

Create a cross-functional team to oversee all efforts and communicate progress

Track progress of recommendations

Analyze overall progress of recommendations with a dashboard

Act expeditiously to solve for roadblocks

Coordinate efforts across recommendation owners Create a tracking method for all recommendations to foster an environment of transparency and urgency

Gather updates from recommendation owners through one-on-one meetings, a cloud-based system, and/or templates that owners can complete independently

Consolidate recommendation progress into one dashboard that can be disseminated to multiple stakeholders

Clearly indicate successes towards milestones and flag issues Establish proactive internal communication within the GA regarding implementation

Describe the purpose and the benefits of the recommendations

Publicize a timeline for action and adhere to it

Utilize multiple methods of communication to reach all GA employees (e.g., mass communication, individualized communication, and dialogue with GA staff about potential changes in response to recommendations)

Ensure ample opportunities for GA employees to provide feedback and ask questions

Provide regular updates on the process Deploy an external communications plan


39 Section I – Implementation

Launch implementation with separate but aligned communications to institutions, Board of Governors, and the public

Clearly message the purpose and plan for the changes

Provide relevant and routine updates on progress to stakeholders

Create a summary dashboard that is digestible to stakeholders and can be used repeatedly throughout the implementation process

Engage all stakeholders with transparency


40 Appendix 1: Detailed Methodology

Appendix 1: Detailed Methodology

Over the course of eight weeks, BCG conducted a detailed diagnostic to both better understand the current state of the UNC system and to make informed recommendations. The process was overseen throughout by an overarching project governance structure comprised of BCG and General Administration leadership. Project Governance Throughout the project, the BCG team was in regular contact with GA leadership. Beyond frequent informal check-ins with numerous members of the GA, there were three sets of formal meetings to guide the work. Project management check-ins occurred weekly between BCG staff and the Chief of Staff of the GA to provide project updates and discuss next steps. Over the course of the two-month study, there were steering committee meetings for BCG to communicate interim findings to and solicit feedback from a larger group of GA leadership, including the President-elect, Interim President, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, Chief of Staff, Chief Operating Officer, General Counsel, and the seconded Special Advisor. Finally, BCG also had weekly check-ins with the President-elect to review interim results and next steps. It is important to note that while BCG worked in collaboration with the President-elect and the GA leadership team, the recommendations in this report are BCG's and do not necessarily reflect the views of GA leadership. Diagnostic In order to come up with a set of recommendations, there were five sets of inputs that were analyzed. Exhibit 11: Inputs to the diagnostic and recommendations Interviews • Interviewed institution leadership (e.g., Chancellors, provosts, and chief

financial officers at every institution plus other senior leaders), Board members, student and faculty representatives, select legislators, GA leadership, and other stakeholders (e.g., former chairs of the Board, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction)

• Interviews covered strategic priorities, stakeholder roles, GA strengths and weaknesses, and ideal future state of the system

General Administration survey

• Sent a survey to all GA employees via Chief of Staff

• Questions covered satisfaction & engagement of GA employees and GA areas of strengths and weaknesses

General Administration time allocation exercise

• Worked with the Senior Vice Presidents and Vice Presidents of the GA to map how GA employees spend their time and what drives this work (e.g., legislature, policy, ad hoc request, etc.)

• Determined which GA activities are valuable and require investment, are not valuable and require de-emphasis, and are required

• Allocated budget to activities to ensure that any org changes are budget-neural (i.e., they do not impact the overall budget)

Information provided by the GA

• The GA provided information working documents, public documents, and spreadsheets upon BCG request

Interviews: to understand how all stakeholder groups viewed the current state of the UNC system and the GA, 150 in-depth interviews were conducted across the state. These included:

Each member of the Board of Governors



The head of each General Administration department and other GA leaders

All Chancellors, provosts, and chief financial officers at each UNC institution, plus selected additional leaders across institutions in areas such as IT, legal, human resources, and research

Selected faculty leaders from across faculty types and institutions

Selected student leaders from across institutions

Selected leaders from the state legislature

Other stakeholders, including past chairs of the Board of Governors and selected chairs of the Boards of Trustees

Each interview focused on both the current and future state of the UNC system. Topics included GA strengths and weaknesses, role clarity, and strategic priorities. Interviews were synthesized for the themes that emerged from across UNC stakeholders. Exhibit 12: Topics for UNC system interviews Topic Questions GA strengths and weaknesses

In what areas does the GA currently add value? In what areas does it not add value? What is the ideal role of the GA?

Role clarity What are the current roles of all system actors? To what degree do system actors adhere to their roles? Ideally, what should the roles be for each system actor group?

Strategic priorities What are the priorities of the system? What should they be?

General Administration survey: in order to gain an inside perspective of GA operations, a survey was administered to all employees, seeking their insight on GA strengths, weaknesses, and employee engagement. The survey was sent to all GA employees by the GA Chief of Staff and ran from January 22-29, 2016. Participants were assured of anonymity and were asked only their employee type (EHRA or SHRA) and tenure at the GA (0-2 years, 3-5 years, 6-10 years, 11+ years). The survey consisted of a total of nine questions. Five questions were multiple choice and concerned employee engagement, excerpted from BCG's Engaging For Results (EFR) survey tool. The EFR survey is a diagnostic that has been used by upwards of 1,000 public and private organizations across a range of industries to measure employee engagement. The next three questions were open-ended, asking respondents to list up to three ways in which the GA currently adds value to the UNC system, three ways in which the GA is spending time on activities that are not adding value to the UNC system, and three opportunities for the GA to add more value to the UNC system. The final open-ended question solicited any other feedback. In total, 39 percent of GA employees responded to the survey. Of the respondents, 64 percent were EHRA employees and 36 percent were SHRA employees. The majority of respondents (65 percent) had been at the GA for between 0-5 years, although 19 percent had been at the GA for 11 or more years. Results for the survey are reported in terms of the percent of respondents who answered "strongly agree" or "agree" to each question. General Administration time allocation exercise: in order to get a bottom-up view of what activities the GA currently pursues, a time allocation exercise was done with GA staff. Activities were then sorted into those that are required, those that should be prioritized, those that are



valuable and should be performed pending sufficient resources, or those that the institutions are better placed to perform rather than the GA. Based on GA leadership interviews and GA documentation, roughly 40 broad categories of activities were identified and divided into 240 granular activities. For example, the broad activities included items like "external affairs" and "policy formation and response"; granular activities included items like "Oversee faculty compensation/personnel" and "Support GEAR UP North Carolina." In addition, five "triggers" were identified to better understand the rationale for why these activities are being done by the GA. The five triggers were:

1. Law, policy, regulation 2. Ad hoc requests 3. Unexpected events 4. Institutional requests 5. System priorities

Senior Vice Presidents, selected Vice Presidents, and selected Associate Vice Presidents at the GA approximated the number of FTEs that currently perform each activity and which triggers initiated each activity. This provided a snapshot view of how time is currently spent at the GA—which activities required the most FTEs and which triggers initiated the most activity. Subsequent workshops were conducted with all Senior Vice Presidents and some additional leaders at the GA to understand how the current state should change to help allow the GA to spend more time on system priorities. Finally, with this future vision of the GA organization in mind, preliminary cost estimates were developed to understand how the GA could refocus on priorities while remaining budget neutral. Information provided by the General Administration: the GA provided a wide range of documentation, including current organization charts; compliance and regulatory requirements; funding model and budget explanations; the "Our Time, Our Future" strategic plan; a description of UNC system governance and legislative mandates; and GA departmental briefs, descriptions, and task lists. The BCG team reviewed each of these documents.


43 Appendix 2: List of Interviews

Appendix 2: List of Interviews

Name Organization Title Roger Aiken UNC Board of Governors Vice Chairman Johnson Akinleye North Carolina Central University Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic

Affairs C. Neal Alexander Jr. North Carolina Office of State

Human Resources State Human Resources Director

Brenda Allen Winston Salem State University Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

Robert Allen School of Science and Mathematics Vice Chancellor for Finance and Operations James Anderson Fayetteville State University Chancellor and Professor of Psychology Warwick Arden NC State University Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor June Atkinson North Carolina Department of

Public Instruction State Superintendent (K-12)

Michael B. Shivar UNC Wilmington Board of Trustees Chair Steve Ballard East Carolina University Chancellor Pernell Bartlett UNC Staff Assembly Chair David Belcher Western Carolina University Chancellor Phil Berger North Carolina Senate President Pro Tempore Lindsay Bierman UNC School of the Arts Chancellor W. Louis Bissette, Jr. UNC Board of Governors Chairman Leslie Boney UNC General Administration Vice President for International, Community,

and Economic Engagement Molly C. Broad UNC system Former President of the UNC system Matthew Brody UNC General Administration Vice President of Human Resources Christopher Brown UNC General Administration Vice President for Research and Graduate

Education Kyle Brown Winston Salem State University Student Government Association President Barry Burks North Carolina A&T University Vice Chancellor for Research and Economic

Development Pearl Burris-Floyd UNC Board of Governors Member Michael Byers Western Carolina University Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance C. Philip Byers UNC Board of Governors Member Joanna Carey Cleveland UNC General Administration Vice President for Legal Affairs and Deputy

General Counsel Alisa Chapman UNC General Administration Vice President for Academic and University

Programs James Clotfelter UNC Greensboro Vice Chancellor for Information Technology

Services and Professor of Political Science Daniel Cohen-Vogel UNC General Administration Associate Vice President of Institutional

Research Dayton Cole Appalachian State University The General Counsel Thomas Conway Elizabeth City State University Chancellor Ken Craig Fayetteville State University Vice Chancellor for Business and Finance Robin Gary Cummings UNC Pembroke Chancellor Walter C. Davenport UNC Board of Governors Member

James Dean UNC Chapel Hill Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Meredith Didier UNC General Administration Transition Advisor to Senior Staff Karrie Dixon UNC General Administration Vice President for Academic and Student

Success Scott Douglass NC State University Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration Philip Dubois UNC Charlotte Chancellor Dana Dunn UNC Greensboro Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Benjamin Durant North Carolina Central University Vice Chancellor of Administration and Finance Sheri Everts Appalachian State University Chancellor Matthew Fajack UNC Chapel Hill Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration Kevin FitzGerald UNC General Administration Senior Vice President and Chief of Staff Carol Folt UNC Chapel Hill Chancellor



Name Organization Title George Fouts North Carolina Community

Colleges System Interim President

Jocelyn Foy Elizabeth City State University Interim Assistant Vice Chancellor, Enrollment Management

Hannah D. Gage UNC Board of Governors Member; Emeritus Member Franklin Gilliam UNC Greensboro Chancellor Junius Gonzales UNC General Administration Interim President and Senior Vice President for

Academic Affairs Ann Goodnight UNC Board of Governors Former Member Thom Goolsby UNC Board of Governors Member H. Frank Grainger UNC Board of Governors Member Mary Grant UNC Asheville Chancellor David A. Green UNC Faculty Assembly Delegate Peter Hans UNC Board of Governors Former Chairman Beth Hardin UNC Charlotte Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs Christopher Hayes United States Senate Deputy Chief of Staff to US Senator Thom Tillis Kate Henz UNC General Administration Associate Vice President of Academic Policy,

Planning and Analysis Brent Herron UNC General Administration Associate Vice President of Campus Safety and

Emergency Operations Henry W. Hinton UNC Board of Governors Member Marc Hoit NC State University Vice Chancellor for Information Technology

and CIO, Professor of Civil, Construction & Environmental Engineering

James L. Holmes, Jr. UNC Board of Governors Member Rodney E. Hood UNC Board of Governors Member Daryush Ila Fayetteville State University Associate Vice Chancellor for Research Carin Ioannou UNC School of the Arts Senior Director of Business Affairs, Financial

Services Spoma Jovanovic UNC Faculty Assembly 4 Member Delegation Representative Dan Kenney UNC Pembroke Chief of Staff Zack King UNC Board of Governors Member; Ex Officio and Student Government

Association President Brian Kloeppel Western Carolina University Associate Dean Graduate School; Associate

Professor, Department of Geosciences and Natural Resources

Camille Kluttz-Leach Winston Salem State University The General Counsel Joe Knott UNC Board of Governors Member William Marty Kotis III UNC Board of Governors Member Darrell Kruger Appalachian State University Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Scott Lampe UNC Board of Governors Member Josh Lassiter Elizabeth City State University Vice Chancellor for Business and Finance Ann Lemmon UNC General Administration Secretary of the University Steven Leonard UNC Faculty Assembly Chair John Lewis UNC Healthcare CFO John Leydon UNC General Administration Vice President for Information Resources and

Chief Information Officer Zoe Locklear UNC Pembroke Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic

Affairs Steven B. Long UNC Board of Governors Member Joan Lorden UNC Charlotte Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic

Affairs Greg Lovins Appalachian State University Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs James Lucas UNC School of the Arts Director of Human Resources Gabriel Lugo UNC Faculty Assembly President-Elect Joan G. MacNeill UNC Board of Governors Member Charles Maimone UNC Greensboro Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs Harold Martin North Carolina A&T University Chancellor Ann Maxwell UNC Board of Governors Member Samantha McAuliffe UNC General Administration Director for Special Projects and Strategic

Assessment



Name Organization Title Sharyn Miller UNC Wilmington Chief Information Officer Randy Mills Winston Salem State University Vice Chancellor of Finance and Administration Timothy Minor UNC General Administration Vice President for University Advancement J. Alex Mitchell UNC Board of Governors Member W. G. Champion Mitchell

UNC Board of Governors Member

Burley Mitchell, Jr. UNC Board of Governors Former Member Ron Mitchelson East Carolina University Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor Academic

Affairs Drew Moretz UNC General Administration Vice President for Government Relations Alison Morrison-Shetlar Western Carolina University Provost David Nelson UNC School of the Arts Provost, Office of Chief Academic Officer Anna S. Nelson UNC Board of Governors Member Vann Newkirk Elizabeth City State University Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic

Affairs Maya Newlin UNC Asheville Student Government Association President Rick Niswander East Carolina University Vice Chancellor Administration and Finance David Parker UNC Chapel Hill The General Counsel R. Doyle Parrish UNC Board of Governors Member Donna Payne East Carolina University University Counsel and Vice Chancellor for

Legal Affairs Mary Peloquin-Dodd NC State University Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance and

Administration and University Treasurer Joan Templeton Perry UNC Board of Governors Member; Secretary Charlie Perusse UNC General Administration Senior Vice President and Chief Operating

Officer Jim W. Phillips, Jr. UNC Board of Governors Former Chairman Therence O. Pickett UNC Board of Governors Member John Pierce UNC Asheville Vice Chancellor for Finance and Campus

Operations Robert Pompey North Carolina A&T University Vice Chancellor for Business and Finance David M. Powers UNC Board of Governors Member

Jonathan Pruitt UNC General Administration Vice President for Finance Matthew Rascoff UNC General Administration Vice President for Technology-Based Learning

and Innovation Bill Reed UNC Wilmington Former Chief Information Officer Angela Revels UNC Pembroke Assistant Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Kimrey Rhinehardt UNC General Administration Vice President for Federal Relations Robert S. Rippy UNC Board of Governors Member Todd Roberts School of Science and Mathematics Chancellor Elwood Robinson Winston Salem State University Chancellor William Roper UNC Healthcare CEO of the UNC Health Care System; Dean of

the School of Medicine and Vice Chancellor for Medical Affairs at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Lynne Sanders UNC General Administration Vice President for Compliance and Audit Services

Jose Sartarelli UNC Wilmington Chancellor Debra Saunders-White North Carolina Central University Chancellor Erica Shrader North Carolina Senate Phil Berger Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Thomas Shanahan UNC General Administration Senior Vice President and General Counsel Marilyn Sheerer UNC Wilmington Provost and Vice Chancellor O. Temple Sloan III UNC Board of Governors Member Nell Smith UNC General Administration Executive Assistant to the President Harry L. Smith, Jr. UNC Board of Governors Member Clayton Somers North Carolina House of

Representatives Chief of Staff to Tim Moore, NC Speaker of the House

Dan Soucek North Carolina Senate Senator and Co-Chairman of Senate Committee on Education/Higher Education; Co-Chairman of Senate Committee on Education/Higher Education Appropriations



Name Organization Title J. Craig Souza UNC Board of Governors Member Carlton Spellman UNC Pembroke Interim Vice Chancellor for Finance and

Administration George A. Sywassink UNC Board of Governors Member Karin Szypszak UNC General Administration Legal Assistant/Paralegal to the Senior Vice

President and General Counsel Joseph Urgo UNC Asheville Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic

Affair Michael Vollmer UNC General Administration Assistant Vice President for Finance Bertram E. Walls NC A&T Board of Trustees Board Chairman William Webb UNC Board of Governors Member Joe Whitehead North Carolina A&T University Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic

Affairs Rick Whitfield UNC Wilmington Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs Laura I. Wiley UNC Board of Governors Member Robert Wilhelm UNC Charlotte Vice Chancellor, Research and Economic

Development Michael Williford UNC Board of Governors Member Andy Willis UNC Healthcare Chief of Staff to the University of North

Carolina’s Dean of the Medical School and CEO for the University of North Carolina Health Care System

Brad Wilson UNC Board of Governors Former Chairman Randy Woodson NC State University Chancellor Joni Worthington UNC General Administration Vice President for Communications Jon Young Fayetteville State University Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic

Affairs


47 Appendix 3: Activities used in Time Allocation Exercise

Appendix 3: Activities used in Time Allocation Exercise

For the time allocation exercise described in Section C, subsection III, GA department heads were asked to identify the primary activities their department performed. 3a. Operations

Operations Activity

Department

Current state FTE

Report on business, budget, & audited financials for UNC GA Finance 14.5 Provide shared services: system maintenance (e.g., ERP support)

Information Technology 9.8

Provide shared services: system development (e.g., data warehouse); Banner


Oversee facility operations & maintenance for UNC GA Finance 7.0

Provide payroll services and administration Human Resources 7.0 Collect/ share best practices and encourage collaboration between institutions


Perform internal system maintenance/development Information Technology 5.5

Provide UNC Online support Information Technology 3.8

Provide temporary staffing support for institutions Information Technology 3.5

Administer payroll and benefits Human Resources 3.4

Plan and budget for UNC capital projects Finance 3.0

User support / help desk Information Technology 2.8

Create policy for IT security Information Technology 2.5

Develop and execute UNC operating budget Finance 2.5

Planning and special projects Human Resources 2.5

Provide shared services: prospect development University Advancement 2.3

Provide shared services: procurement/ strategic sourcing Finance 2.2

Authorize UNC capital projects Finance 2.0 Enact fundraising activity (consultation, design strategic solicitation, back office support, gift processing, stewardship, etc)

University Advancement 2.0

Manage and set strategy for Operations division, interface with BoG

COO 2.0

Oversee tuition, fees, and financial aid Finance 2.0

Perform system financial analyses Finance 1.8

Advise / support institutions Finance 1.5 Management reporting and human resources information systems

Human Resources 1.5

Ensure equal opportunity employment and staffing for GA Human Resources 1.5

Determine classification and position management for GA Human Resources 1.4 Optimize procurement (e.g., system-wide vendor contracts) and manage business office


Manage University's Business Process Compliance Program, including providing financial policy guidance and analysis to campuses

Compliance & Audit Service

1.1

Prepare UNC system external financial reporting Finance 1.1 Provide direct internal audit services for UNC-GA, UNCTV, NCSSM and NCSEAA; provide special internal audit projects to be performed on a campus as delegated by the President or BoG

Compliance & Audit Service

1.1

Business office functions Information Technology 1.0

Development of policy Human Resources 1.0 Provide shared services: gift planning (North Carolina Gift Planning, LLC)

University Advancement 1.0

Report on state fundraising registration and compliance University Advancement 1.0


48 Appendix 3: Activity Groups used in Time Allocation Exercise

Operations Activity

Department

Current state FTE

Support UNC Banner campus financial systems Finance 1.0

Training around policy Human Resources 1.0

Manage employee relations for GA Human Resources 0.9

Administer compensation and salary administration for GA Human Resources 0.9

Conduct legislative research and state liaison Human Resources 0.8 Ensure equal opportunity employment and staffing for institutions

Human Resources 0.8

Administer professional development/training/recruitment University Advancement 0.8

Oversee and approve University Advancement 0.8

Perform University-wide internal audit Compliance & Audit Service 0.7

Research best practices and shared services Human Resources 0.5 Determine classification and position management for institutions

Human Resources 0.5

Advise campus on system energy and sustainability policies Finance 0.4 Administer approvals for UNC System Treasury & University Indebtedness

Finance 0.4

Manage employee relations for institutions Human Resources 0.3 Administer compensation and salary administration for institutions

Human Resources 0.3

Collect / share best practices (Advancement Council support) University Advancement 0.3

Conduct other special projects Finance 0.3

Support performance management (for institutions) Human Resources 0.3

Support performance management (for GA) Human Resources 0.3

Train GA employees Information Technology 0.3 Monitor business compliance and do campus visits Compliance & Audit Service 0.2

Perform UNC real estate acquisition / disposition Finance 0.2 Plan / organize professional education sessions Compliance & Audit Service 0.2

Report on system energy and sustainability Finance 0.1

Report on UNC System Treasury & University Indebtedness Finance 0.1

Research enterprise risk management for UNC system Compliance & Audit Service 0.1 Serve as a liaison between University and other agencies/organizations

Compliance & Audit Service 0.1

Total

121.7

3b. Academic Affairs

Academic Affairs Activity

Department

Current state FTE

Support statewide globalization efforts (NC CIU) International, Community & Economic Engagement

10.0

Support College Foundation of North Carolina Pathways Partnership (CFNC)

Academic & Student Affairs 7.8

Support NC New Teacher Support Program Academic & University Programs 7.1

Perform state approving agency operations/state and federal VA compliance


Support internship programs, career advising, presidential interns


Manage, set strategy for division, interface with the Board of Governors

Office of SVP: AA 4.0

Produce recurring reports: UNC data dashboards, NCHED, IPEDS, other state and federal reporting submissions

Institutional Research 3.8

Support sponsored programs and Electronic Research Administration (system)

Research & Graduate Education 3.0

Support GEAR UP North Carolina Academic & University Programs 2.9

Administrative support Various 2.2

Support teacher recruitment / NC INSPIRE Academic & University Programs 2.2

Perform ad hoc or project-specific analysis `and reporting Institutional Research 2.0




Department

Current state FTE

Provide enrollment services, ensure campus compliance with policies and regulations, implement data-driven strategies and outreach


Support international student recruitment International, Community & Economic Engagement

2.0

Support licensure of face-to-face and online programs Academic Programs & Instructional Strategy

2.0

Support NC Principal Fellows Program Academic & University Programs 2.0

Support North Carolina Research Campus Research & Graduate Education 2.0

Implement BoG recommended K16 initiatives Academic & University Programs 1.9

Perform educator quality research Academic & University Programs 1.9

Perform system and project management: Student Data Mart Institutional Research 1.8

Conduct performance assessment (programs and institutions) Academic Programs & Instructional Strategy

1.5

Manage grants for GA Research & Graduate Education 1.5

Provide leadership and analysis for university system academic policy and program assessment, proposed policies, evaluation, and effectiveness

Academic Policy & Analysis 1.5

Support Mathematics and Science Education Network (MSEN) / MSEN Pre-College Program

Academic & University Programs 1.4

Work with institutions on student success best practices, assess and evaluate student success programs


Analyze and disseminate policy and program information to support system level decision-making, policies, and planning


Provide shared services: financial aid verification/technology support and financial aid compliance, residency verification


Support Comprehensive Articulation Agreement/transfer regulation/website


Support Reverse Transfer Program Academic Policy & Analysis 1.1

Advising student government Academic & Student Affairs 1.0

Perform other data management Institutional Research 1.0

Seed and support research Research & Graduate Education 1.0

Support competency based education initiatives Academic Programs & Instructional Strategy

1.0

Support technology transfer / commercialization efforts Research & Graduate Education 1.0

Provide ASA financial oversight and admin Academic & Student Affairs 0.9

Support internships International, Community & Economic Engagement

0.9

Support NC QUEST / Title II-A state funding Academic & University Programs 0.9

Provide system and project support: HR Data Mart Institutional Research 0.8

Support military enrollment / achievement Academic Programs & Instructional Strategy

0.8

Develop and design system-wide survey instruments and assist with survey needs


Support system international data, build international relations International, Community & Economic Engagement

0.6

Collect / share best practices Research & Graduate Education 0.5

Perform academic planning and program portfolio management

Academic Programs & Instructional Strategy

0.5

Support Council of Education Deans Academic & University Programs 0.5

Support councils (International Programs, UNC Economic Transformation Council, UNC Engagement Council)

International, Community & Economic Engagement

0.5

Support undergraduate research Research & Graduate Education 0.5

Work with Vice Chancellors for Student Affairs on student well-being


Assist state, businesses with economic recruitment & workforce efforts


0.4

Implement UNC Campus Security Initiative recommendations Academic & Student Affairs 0.4




Department

Current state FTE

Support social entrepreneurship community efforts International, Community & Economic Engagement

0.4

Attorney/non-attorney legislation and compliance Academic & Student Affairs 0.3

Implement and monitor the Fostering Undergraduate Student Success (FUSS) Policy


Support research communication Research & Graduate Education 0.3

Collect / share best practices in teaching Academic Programs & Instructional Strategy

0.3

Conduct state and federal gov't advocacy Academic & University Programs 0.3

Develop, maintain data on community and economic engagement


0.3

Perform System and Project Management: SAS Institutional Research 0.3

Provide compliance / regulation advice Academic Programs & Instructional Strategy

0.3

Support BWF Scholars Academic & University Programs 0.3

Support Faculty Fellows, Faculty Assembly Academic Programs & Instructional Strategy

0.3

Support prior learning accreditation / evaluation (non-military) Academic Programs & Instructional Strategy

0.3

Support University Library Advisory Council Academic Programs & Instructional Strategy

0.3

Collect / share best practices International, Community & Economic Engagement

0.2

Assist system office divisions in planning appropriate assessment and evaluation measurements on initiatives and programs


Administer Distinguished Professors Endowment Trust Fund Research & Graduate Education 0.1

Provide faculty support services: HMI Faculty Assembly, Unit Host for Faculty Fellows Program


Report on remedial/ developmental activities and fall enrollment


Support centers and institutes Research & Graduate Education 0.1

Support global certification efforts International, Community & Economic Engagement

0.1

Total 102.4

3c. Chief of Staff

Chief of Staff Activity

Department

Current state FTE

Maintain and create digital communications (including website/technical and editorial)

Communications 1.5

Provide direct education advising and support services for active duty military, veterans, dependents, etc.

Federal Government Relations 1.4

Maintain relationship with institutions' Military Affairs Federal Government Relations 1.1

President activities Office of the President 1.0

Provide direct service to Chief of Staff Office of the President 1.0

Provide direct service to President Office of the President 1.0

Chief of Staff activities Office of the Chief of Staff 1.0 Provide general admin support (materials prep, website management, etc.)


Manage external relationship building for military partners Federal Government Relations 0.9 Support to BoG and Office of the President (speech and presentation support, clips, advice, etc.)

Communications 0.8

Support/advise other offices within GA Communications 0.8

Prepare for BoG meetings Secretary of the University 0.8 Advocate for federal funding Federal Government Relations 0.7 Advocate for state funding State Government Relations 0.7



Chief of Staff Activity

Department

Current state FTE

Advocate on policy to the BoG State Government Relations 0.7

Advocate on federal policy Federal Government Relations 0.7 Maintain relationship with institutions around federal policy and funding


Create responsive and proactive media relations Communications 0.5 Collaborate on strategic priorities/messaging with UNC Communications Council and other entities

Communications 0.5

Facilitate/run BoG meetings Secretary of the University 0.5 Communicate with 17 UNC police chiefs Safety & Emergency Operations 0.5 Communicate with campus emergency mgt. coordinators Safety & Emergency Operations 0.5 Manage external relationship building with Congress, White House


Manage external relationship building with other higher education stakeholders


Manage UNC GA security clearance program at the top secret level


Facilitate Chancellor searches / selection Secretary of the University 0.4

Manage relationship with institutions State Government Relations 0.4

Communicate with senior GA staff on campus safety/security Safety & Emergency Operations 0.4 Seek defense and military contracts, manage grants Federal Government Relations 0.4

Manage / maintain Board Vantage, Board book Secretary of the University 0.4 Manage external relationship building with the defense/military private industry


Provide administrative support ( materials prep, website management, etc.)


Maintain social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) Communications 0.3

Complete public records requests Communications 0.3 Provide crisis communications support/advice for GA and institutions

Communications 0.3

Perform special projects (special publications, graphic design support, special events, etc.)

Communications 0.3

Support BoG Committee: Special Committee on Military Affairs Federal Government Relations 0.3

Support other BoG functions Secretary of the University 0.3

Manage events at President's house Secretary of the University 0.3

Support BoG Committee: Public Affairs Federal Government Relations 0.2

Communicate with BoG members Secretary of the University 0.2

Manage BoG expenses Secretary of the University 0.2

Maintain policy manual/BoG records Secretary of the University 0.2

Communicate externally the policies and decisions of the BoG Secretary of the University 0.2

Facilitate BoG orientation, including campus visits Secretary of the University 0.2

Select and support Trustees Secretary of the University 0.2

Support BoG Committee: Public Affairs State Government Relations 0.2

Support Clery Act requirements Safety & Emergency Operations 0.2 Train campus PD, campus emergency teams, campus threat assessment teams

Safety & Emergency Operations 0.2

Plan security for BoG meetings, coordinate security for President, manage crises, communicate w/ stakeholders

Safety & Emergency Operations 0.2

Support Chancellor/other meetings as needed Secretary of the University 0.1

Onboard Trustees Secretary of the University 0.1

Support BoG Committee: Governance Secretary of the University 0.1

Total

26.0

3d. Legal Affairs

Legal Affairs Activity

Current state FTE

Provide support for management 2.0



Legal Affairs Activity

Current state FTE

Manage public records 1.5

Provide governance support by articulating, interpreting policies and practices across system 1.5

Provide legal opinions and advice on non-compliance issues for GA 1.4

Prepare / review contracts for GA 1.2

Support litigation for GA 1.0

Support litigation for institutions 1.0

Oversee compliance investigations 0.8

Provide immigration support to institutions 0.8

Provide compliance advice to institutions 0.8

Provide legal opinions and advice on non-compliance issues to institutions 0.6

Review complaints, funnel to institutions 0.5

Prepare / review contracts for institutions 0.3 Total 13.3

3e. Technology-Based Learning and Innovation

Technology-Based Learning and Innovation Activity

Current state FTE

Build and manage technology systems with economies of scale and network effects 3.5

Advocate on online quality strategy 1.0

Support faculty development efforts 0.5

Develop new programs 0.5

Run digital and traditional marketing campaigns 0.5

Coordinate marketing strategy 0.4

Share marketing best practices and data 0.2

Support procurement: Learning Technology Commons 0.2

Convene Marketing Council of institutions' online marketers 0.1

Write grants / seek funding 0.1

Total 7.0


53 Appendix 4: Current GA Organizational Design

Appendix 4: Current GA Organizational Design


54 Appendix 5: Glossary of Terms

Appendix 5: Glossary of Terms

1. Activities: Specific processes or tasks performed within the GA (e.g., developing Faculty Workload report, convening Deans of Education council)

2. Activity groups: Categories that describe groups of activities that the GA performs (e.g., GA Internal Operations, Shared Services: Procurement)

3. Ad-hoc reporting: Reports that result from Board of Governors, North Carolina legislature, and other stakeholder one-off requests (e.g., long distance phone call expenses from each institution)

4. Departments: Sub-groups within the GA that report directly to Division heads (e.g., Human Resources, which reports to the Chief Operating Officer)

5. Division: A group within the GA that reports directly to the President (e.g., Academic Affairs)

6. Enterprise risk management (ERM): Understanding potential risks across the organization and then determining the level and nature of resources necessary to mitigate those risks

7. Full time equivalent (FTE): A unit of staff time that allows for simple comparison between full- and part-time or temporary employees. Hours worked on an activity across multiple employees can be added up to understand the FTE cost. For example, if a particular activity takes up 25 percent of four employees’ time, that activity would be said to be driven by 1 FTE

8. GA Time Allocation exercise: An analytical exercise with GA departments describing all activities performed by their departments and determining how many FTEs currently drive that activity

9. Institutional performance management: Systematic process by which the performance of each institution is overseen and managed, e.g., setting targets and scheduling interim check-points to ensure each institution is making adequate progress toward these targets

10. Mandatory reporting: Includes reports mandated by legislation, board policy, or compliance requirements

11. Steering Committee: The group of GA leadership that provided governance and guidance for the development of this report

12. Strategic priorities: Areas of focus for the UNC system 13. System actors: The employees and governing bodies of the UNC system; specifically,

the Board of Governors, the President and General Administration, the Chancellors and institutions (including faculty and staff), and the Boards of Trustees

14. System-level stakeholders: All those who have a vested interested in the UNC system, including, but not limited to, system actors (see definition above), students, faculty, Governor's office, other P-20 education organizations, civil rights community, and business and civic leaders

15. System performance management: Systematic process by which the overall performance of the UNC system is overseen and managed, e.g., the Board of Governors holding the President accountable to agreed-upon system-level goals

16. UNC institutions: Term used in this report to refer to the 17 constituent academic institutions as well as the UNC affiliates (e.g., UNC Health Care, UNC Press)


55 Endnotes

Endnotes

1 Employee data provided by GA HR department. Student data from UNC General Administration Data Dashboard; http://www.northcarolina.edu/?q=content/unc-data-dashboard

2 In the remainder of the report, we will use the term “institutions” to collectively refer to the 16 institutions of higher education, the constituent high school, and affiliates such as UNC Health Care

3 See Ellen Wexler, "State Support on the Rise," Inside Higher Ed, January 25, 2016,

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/25/state-support-higher-education-rises-41-percent-2016

4 North Carolina General Assembly, G.S. 116-11,

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_116/gs_116-11.html

5 UNC General Administration, http://www.northcarolina.edu/?q=content/system-offices

6 The 270 full-time employee equivalents is based on self-reporting from GA division and department leaders. The

headcount includes part-time, vacant, and temporary positions

7 University of North Carolina system sponsored program activity FY15 annual report

https://www.northcarolina.edu/sites/default/files/documents/presidents_report_on_research_sponsored_program

s_2015.pdf

8 Numerical scores are "percent positive" responses to each question (i.e., a response of "strongly agree" or "agree")

9 UNC General Administration Data Dashboard, http://www.northcarolina.edu/?q=content/unc-data-dashboard

10 UNC General Administration, The Statistical Abstract of Higher Education in North Carolina,

http://www.northcarolina.edu/apps/stat_abstract/index.php

11 North Carolina Constitution, Article IX: Education, http://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/article9.html

12 Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, North Carolina state report,

https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/NC-South.pdf

13 According to the 2016 Student Impact Project from the Young Invincibles, the gap between African-American and

white students in North Carolina is the third largest in the U.S., while the gap between Hispanic and white

students is the ninth largest. See Young Invincibles Student Impact Project, "2016 State Report Cards,"

http://younginvincibles.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/YI-State-Report-Cards-2016.pdf

14 UNC General Administration, "Impact of Higher Education in NC Totaled $63.5 Billion in 2012-13," February 18,

2015,

http://www.northcarolina.edu/news/2015/02/impact-higher-education-nc-totaled-635-billion-2012-13

15 UNC General Administration Data Dashboard; research funding excludes stimulus dollars;


16 Provisions of Chapter 116 of the North Carolina General Statues, The Code of the University of North Carolina, and

compliance and regulatory mandates

17 There are multiple ways in which the Board can delegate: directly to the President, to the Board of Trustees

through the President, or to the Chancellors through the President.

18 FTE, or full-time equivalent, is a unit of staff time that allows for simple comparison between full- and part-time

or temporary employees. If a full-time position’s responsibilities are split equally between two departments, it is

easy to think of each department as having one-half of a full-time equivalent position, or 0.5 FTEs. As a result, "10

FTEs" is the same as saying "the equivalent of 10 positions," and is not synonymous with 10 employees. In the rest

of this section, we speak about FTE allocation, not individual employees

19 Report refers to any reporting requirement or request that calls for providing data and information in various

forms including, but not limited to, narrative reports

20 According to an update submitted from UNC GA to the North Carolina state legislature in 2014.

http://www.ncleg.net/DocumentSites/committees/JLPEOC/Minutes%20and%20Handouts/2014/12-17-

2014/UNC%20Response%202014.pdf (page 8)


https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/25/state-support-higher-education-rises-41-percent-2016

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_116/gs_116-11.html

http://www.northcarolina.edu/?q=content/system-offices




http://www.northcarolina.edu/apps/stat_abstract/index.php

http://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/article9.html

https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/NC-South.pdf

http://younginvincibles.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/YI-State-Report-Cards-2016.pdf

http://www.northcarolina.edu/news/2015/02/impact-higher-education-nc-totaled-635-billion-2012-13


http://www.ncleg.net/DocumentSites/committees/JLPEOC/Minutes%20and%20Handouts/2014/12-17-2014/UNC%20Response%202014.pdf

http://www.ncleg.net/DocumentSites/committees/JLPEOC/Minutes%20and%20Handouts/2014/12-17-2014/UNC%20Response%202014.pdf

Documents

Report on Organizational Effectiveness...Report on Organizational Effectiveness: General Administration of the University of North Carolina System 2016 strategic plans. Similarly,