Draft - The University of Western Australia

Foreword
On behalf of the Executive and the Office for Operational Excellence (OOE), I would like to thank
UWA staff and students for all the input and support provided during Stage 1 of the Functional
Review Program.
Over the past several weeks the Executive has carefully considered the recommendations put
forward in the Stage 1 report by EY. This first stage of the Program was a high-level, broad brush
analysis of University functions in order to inform prioritisation for Stage 2, which will involve
performing the actual functional reviews.
Below you will find a summary of the EY report, including the context of the Program, key findings,
defined benefit categories and an overview of IT as a key enabler. However, there are a few points I
would like to make regarding this report.
Firstly, this report is an EY document. This was not written by, nor does it necessarily reflect the
views of the University. The findings contained within the report are the result of 84 engagements
with various representative staff and student groups from across campus. These findings have been
discussed with functional heads and while a few discrepancies have been detected, inevitable due to
the short timeline and high level nature of Stage 1, on the whole there is a general consensus that
the report does reflect the current state of the University.
In terms of the report content, some key themes have emerged. These are:




Overall UWA’s operating model is highly decentralised; which is largely resulting in
duplication, complexity and inefficiency;
We need to address inconsistent service and fragmentised practices to ensure the University
is working in concert and providing consistently excellent service;
Complex governance structures and a risk-adverse culture impacts decision making and
organisational agility; and
The current IT landscape does not support a ‘digital first’ work practice or digital learning.
We have decided to proceed with EY for Stage 2A of the Functional Review Program. Stage 2A will
be a detailed diagnostic which involves detailed mapping and analysis of selected University
processes; this is expected to be completed by mid-December 2014. At the end of Stage 2A there
will be a decision gate where, after reviewing the output from the detailed analysis, the Executive
will decide which areas will be progressed in-house and which will move forward into Stage 2B – the
detailed design. This stage will involve re-designing the process to meet the University’s needs,
ensuring that every step of the process is necessary and adds value.
The functional scope for Stage 2A will include selected processes within the 11 functions of,
Marketing and Community Engagement, Research Support, Student Services, Information
Technology, Human Resources, Finance, Procurement, General Admin, Facilities Management,
Governance and Academic Administration.
At a recent OOE open forum a question was asked regarding the inclusion of so many functions. The
reason is simple, over the course of Stage 1 it became clear that many of our functions and
processes are inherently inter-related or highly inter-dependent, therefore we would risk not
realising the full benefit should the analysis of these be done in isolation.
Furthermore, the findings detailed in the EY report have been validated with functional heads to
identify potential quick wins that can be managed and progressed internally. I can assure you that
these ‘quick wins’, while not in the Stage 2A scope, will be picked up outside of the Program scope.
1
In light of UWA’s current position and the looming deadline of deregulation of the higher education
sector in 2016, there are several critical areas that must be addressed to ensure we are prepared for
the changing sector. This is particularly true of the market-facing services of Marketing and
Community Engagement, Research Support, Student Services and IT as a key enabler. It is vital that
our service offering in these areas is competitive.
It is important that we also take this opportunity to build our internal capability for change and
embed an authentic culture of continuous improvement. For this reason we have chosen to weight
the Program with UWA staff to work in partnership with the OOE and EY. Not only will they be able
to provide practical input into the Program but they will also develop valuable change management
skills to support the University, throughout both the course of the Program, and also into the future
as we move to a culture of proactive continuous improvement.
Stage 2A of the Functional Review Program has now begun and will be, as it was for Stage 1,
coordinated through the Office for Operational Excellence.
I thank you for your time and look forward to your continued support. We will keep you updated as
the Program progresses.
Professor Dawn Freshwater
Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor
2
UniForum Terms of Use
RESPONSIBLE INTERNAL USE
This Report is provided to the recipient on the following conditions:
1. Reports containing UniForum information (UniForum Reports), including UniForum Data Reports generated from UniForum on-line reporting tools,
UniForum Presentation Reports created in support of UniForum activities and University Presentation Reports created by Universities using
information from UniForum Data Reports, contain confidential information from other Universities. UniForum Reports are accepted by the recipient
on condition the recipient agrees to ensure that use is governed by the “Responsible Internal Use” principles set out below:
2. Internal use of UniForum Reports is permitted on condition that, they are not used in any way that is detrimental to the other Universities who are
members of UniForum (“Member Universities” are identified on the UniForum website at https://uniforum.co/members/full-member-list/), and other
Universities are de-identified.
3. UniForum Reports are only to be shared with the University’s management who have a relevant executive management interest in the material. In this
context “sharing” covers physical, electronic copies, and visual / verbal presentations.
4. Other than UniForum Data Reports, UniForum Reports may only be circulated in a secured pdf format (not permitting selection or copying), and must
be accompanied by a university specific executive summary that includes these Responsible Use Principles immediately after the front cover.
5. University Presentation Reports to internal audiences with a general non-executive interest in the information may be created using comparative data
for other Universities only if essential to the audience and only if provided in a way that the other Universities cannot be identified.
6. Access to UniForum Data Reports will be managed by the person nominated by the University to govern access to the UniForum Data Reports (the
“UniForum Data Manager”). The UniForum Data Manager may only provide UniForum Data Reports to University users on the condition that the
Responsible Internal Use principles are adhered to.
7. UniForum Data Reports for the University Only (not comparing to Other Universities) can be produced at a more detailed level. These UniForum Data
Reports must be used in accordance with the University’s Privacy Policy.
8. The use of UniForum Data Reports to support analysis by other Users of the data in the University must be approved by the University’s UniForum
Data Manager. Where this involves sharing data with other UniForum Member Universities, only UniForum Data Reports that compare Universities at
the summary UniForum category level may be used so as to prevent disclosure of personal information and contravening the University Privacy Policy.
9. The UniForum Data Manager and the party creating the University Reports using the UniForum Data Reports, shall be responsible for ensuring these
Responsible Internal Use terms are applied.
10. Information contained in the UniForum Reports relating to the other UniForum Member universities cannot be used in studies involving Universities
who are not members of UniForum without prior unanimous approval of all UniForum Executive Sponsors. Requests for approval must be made
through Cubane.
11. External Parties, including but not limited to universities that are not members of the UniForum Chapter, the media, consultancies or advisers, shall
not be provided with access to UniForum databases, either through the UniForum reporting tools or as databases held by the University, unless the
University is required by law to provide such access.
12. External Parties may only be given UniForum Reports where this is to support the University on internal projects. In these cases the UniForum Reports
shall only be used in accordance with these Responsible Internal Use conditions.
13. The University can use the information and data it has provided to UniForum studies for any purposes it sees fit. This does not include Information
obtained by the University from the UniForum Data Reports.
14. For further information on these conditions please contact the coordinator for the UniForum Information sharing policy:
Dr Edward Curry-Hyde
Cubane Consulting Pty Ltd
[email protected]
Draft
UWA Functional Review Program
Stage 1 Report Summary
30 May 2014
Draft
Disclaimer
The summary of findings contained in this report are based on the findings of the Stage 1 Functional Reviews report, prepared at the request of
UWA solely for the purposes of communicating select information to the wider University community, and is not appropriate for use for other
purposes. It should be noted that Stage 1 was not the detailed Functional Review. Stage 1 was a brief, seven week ‘scoping-level diagnostic’
across UWA’s Functions, Faculties and Offices. Its purpose was to mobilise a joint UWA-Consultant team and develop a high-level assessment of
the areas of greatest opportunity for UWA, including a prioritisation of functions and end-to-end processes to be reviewed in the Stage 2
Functional Reviews.
This summary is provided for information purposes only in order to provide context for Stage 2 (the Functional Reviews), and should not be
taken as providing specific advice on any issue, nor may this summary be relied upon by any party other than UWA. In carrying out our work and
preparing this summary Ernst & Young has worked solely on the instructions and information of UWA, and has not taken into account the
interests or individual circumstances of any party other than UWA. Ernst & Young does not accept any responsibility for use of the information
contained in this summary and makes no guarantee nor accept any legal liability whatsoever arising from or connected to the accuracy,
reliability, currency or completeness of any material contained herein. Ernst & Young expressly disclaims all liability for any costs, loss, damage,
injury or other consequence which may arise directly or indirectly form use of, or reliance on, this summary.
Page 2
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
Draft
Ernst & Young Building
11 Mounts Bay Road
Perth WA 6000 Australia
GPO Box M939 Perth WA 6843
Tel: +61 8 9429 2222
Fax: +61 8 9429 3436
www.ey.com/auC
Professor Paul Johnson
Vice Chancellor
The University of Western Australia
30 May 2014
Dear Paul,
EY has now completed Stage 1 of the Functional Reviews, including over
50 interviews and 30 workshops with stakeholders from across the
University. Engagement was very high with all stakeholders – researchers,
educators, professional staff, administrators and students. Undoubtedly,
the highest commendation we can affirm is that UWA has a culture that
cares and serves. You have highly committed staff who truly care for their
students, the institution and the community, and they often go beyond the
call of duty.
Midway through Stage 1, the release of the Federal Budget created a
significant shift throughout the University sector, and we have taken this
into account in preparing our report and recommendations. The need for
the Functional Reviews is even more critical than before. On one hand,
deregulation of the Australian university system and the opening up of the
Commonwealth Grant Scheme to new entities creates the urgent need to
review and improve UWA’s marketing and student-facing functions and
processes. UWA must find new ways to win the ‘acquisition contest’ for the
best students and academics in an ever-increasingly competitive market.
On the other hand, the University must improve its underlying operational
and financial performance; processes, roles and accountabilities,
capabilities and systems must be reviewed to improve overall efficiency
and effectiveness.
Through the course of Stage 1, we observed a high degree of
organisational devolution that has formed organically over time, resulting
in duplication, complexity and inefficiencies. The University also has
complex governance structures and an overly risk-averse culture that
contributes to slow decision-making and a lack of organisational agility. In
addition, IT has been under-invested in over many years and the University
is not yet ready for a digital future. Last but not least, marketing practices
are inconsistent and fragmented, leading to potential student leakage.
Page 3
Our insights into UWA’s organisation and business over the past seven weeks
lead us to clear imperatives for Stage 2. A number of key improvements are
critical to enabling UWA to achieve its top 50 by 2050 vision:

Strengthening and streamlining functional operating models to improve
service, customer satisfaction, and increase efficiency and quality;

Consolidating marketing functions and creating an integrated marketing
and student experience strategy to help UWA win in the market with a
focus on student-centric cohorts and specific acquisition and retention
strategies;

Investing in IT enablement to support UWA’s vision and future-proof its
operating model, with improvements in service, collaboration and process
automation;

Reducing procurement and working capital costs.
We believe that a rigorous, University-wide transformation effort is required
to position UWA for 2016, when new Federal changes will be implemented.
We recommend a combined UWA-EY transformation team over the next 12
months. While the investment will be significant, the benefits will be large,
both financially and strategically. We believe that UWA cannot afford to do
nothing or do less. You will need a committed and capable partner, and we
trust that EY has already demonstrated our expertise and commitment to
UWA.
Yours sincerely,
Bill Farrell
Partner
Stephanie Fahey
Partner
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
Darren Chua
Partner
Catherine Choate
Partner
Draft
UWA’s changing strategic landscape
In response to the changing market landscape, UWA must decide how it will compete along the
University value chain
STRATEGIC CHALLENGES
Funding challenges
 Federal government contribution to funding clusters is
changing, exposing universities to uneven funding challenges
across Faculties and Schools
 Research-intensive universities may need to find an additional
30% on top of existing CGS levels (just to retain current levels)
Evaluate
Market
Opportunities
Student
Marketing
&
Acquisition
Evaluate
Market
Opportunities
Researcher
&
Academic
Attraction
Continue to
deliver
Learning
Experience
Campus &
Community
Experience
Research &
Innovation
Industry
Partnerships
Cement long-term
2 relationships
Career
Placement
&
Alumni
Relations
Commercialisation
&
Research
Dissemination
Student Services & Wellbeing
ENABLERS
Increasing student expectations & pedagogical changes
 Students increasingly expect their education experience to
match their everyday digital experience: anywhere, anytime
and any how
 Digital creates opportunities in blended and adaptive learning
STUDENT
ATTRACTION &
RETENTION
Competition for domestic students
 Online delivery of learning is opening up the domestic market
to universities with premium brands (e.g. Harvard, Oxford)
and new entrants: Edx, Coursera, Udacity, FutureLearn
 Private providers will be able to access the Commonwealth
Grant Scheme (CGS). UWA must therefore tailor its offerings
by student cohort to meet and exceed expectations
the ‘acquisition contest’
1 Win
or risk losing relevance
RESEARCH
DEVELOPMENT &
COMMERCIALISATION
The “unshackling” of Australian universities
 The Federal government is committed to deregulating the
higher education market. Australia’s demand-driven system
will be expanded and student fees deregulated
 To succeed in the new market, UWA will need to have a more
“market oriented” strategy, in terms of cohorts, course
offerings, student & researcher recruitment, pricing and cost
optimisation
CRITICAL AREAS TO WIN ALONG THE VALUE CHAIN
Student Administration
Teaching & Research Support
Corporate Services – HR, Finance, IT, Facilities etc.
3 Increase efficiency, effectiveness and service orientation
Page 4
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
Draft
Financial sustainability is a vital concern
Costs have increased at pace with revenue, and UWA has been operating in underlying deficit
Historical Underlying Revenue and Cost
$ Million
Cost
Historical Underlying Surplus
$ Million
Underlying Revenue
21.5
860
11.5
814
853
776
787
733
702
680
790
(7.6)
695
717
653
604
(24.3)
(26.4)
(31.1)
565
2007
(39.6)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2007
2008
2009
Note: Underlying profits = Operating profit – (Capital Grants + Capital Donations + Investment Income + Grant & Donation Surplus)
Source: UWA Annual Reports
Page 5
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
2010
2011
2012
2013
Draft
UWA has made important operating improvements
in recent years
Underlying revenue per staff
member
$ ‘000:wFTE ratio
4.7%
223.2
193.2
204.8
231.9
-0.9%
1.52 1.48 1.54 1.50
1.47
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
5.25 5.38
5.61 5.52 5.60
= Compound Annual Growth Rate
Source: UWA 2013 Annual Report
Page 6
Professional to academic staff
wFTE ratio
1.6%
214.4
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
CAGR
Student load per staff member
EFTSL:wFTE ratio
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
Draft
However, Uniforum analysis indicates that UWA
lags significantly in key benchmarks
AHEIA Workforce composition (including
Casuals): Ratio of Professional to Academic Staff
wFTE Ratio
UniForum Chapter B: Ratio of Professional to Academic
Staff
wFTE Ratio
1.73
1.56
1.57
1.50
1.44
1.39 1.38
Δ = 0.35
1.20 1.20
Δ = 0.34
Peer group
average
1.22
Average Go8
Average
Australia
1.11
UWA Uni A Uni B Uni C Uni D Uni E Uni F Uni G Uni H
UWA
Sources: UniForum Channel B Executive Briefing to UWA 2012, 2012 AHEIA Universities HR Benchmarking Report – UWA vs Go8
Page 7
1.24
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
Affirmation and commendation summary
FUNCTIONAL AREAS
KEY COMMENDATIONS AND AFFIRMATIONS

University wide



Community Engagement



Student Services


UWA has a culture that cares about their students, the institution, and the community
UWA staff are dedicated and passionate, and often go beyond the call of duty
UWA staff recognise the need for change and actively contributed to developing the Stage 1 outcomes
The appointment of new leadership
Collaboration across International Centre, Marketing and Communications and Faculties / Schools
UWA Brand refresh
Implementation of ‘one-stop-shop’ for students
Successful transition of selected processes on-line with plans to progress others
Consistency and quality of student care
Research Services


There is a focus on delivering projects to improve service quality
The restructure of Research Enterprise to include Research Development and Innovation
Academic Admin

Implementation of Learning Management system and the Curriculum Management system
Recruitment and on-boarding of senior IS roles
The emerging development of an IT and IM strategy, together with an acknowledgement of key issues and a willingness to change
 The implementation of a common Service Desk tool across all faculties and functions (ServiceNow)

Information Technology


Finance


Faculty Accountant Hub-and-Spoke model
Well developed and documented future state operating model
The recent roll out of IFPM Hyperion tool
Creation of a HR Business Partner role in the Faculty of Med/Den/HS
The implementation of eRecruitment
 The 2013 HR Restructuring Proposal recommended initiatives and changes

Human Resources


Strategic Procurement


Facilities Management

Governance

General Administration

Library

Page 8
Draft




Continued move to automation and the use of preferred suppliers
Establishment of centre-led Hub-and-Spoke model for selected categories
eEnablement of procurement functions and activities
Maintenance staff have good local knowledge
The architecture and grounds of UWA are widely acknowledged to be beautiful and are a source of pride
Academic Policy Services has a focus on delivering projects to improve service quality
Automation of other university course and fee data to inform pricing decisions
People go beyond the call of duty to assist others
The 1-1800 number for Trobexis
Cross-portfolio Library staff work well to support each other and share resources
Implementation of a cloud based Resource Management System
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
Our findings summary (1 of 4)
Draft
Interviews and workshops revealed a range of findings across the functional areas

Community
Engagement
(including Marketing)



Student Services




Academic
Administration
Page 9


Marketing is highly fragmented; UWA lacks integrated marketing, digital & internal communications
strategies:
- Roles and responsibilities for marketing and student recruitment are devolved with multiple areas
performing these services, resulting in potential student leakage
- Market data is not always available or leveraged, resulting in lack of knowledge of key target markets
and ‘products’ and inconsistent marketing strategies
- Fragmented ‘customer’ data across the university, with limited visibility or tracking of key interactions
across the customer lifecycle
Many processes are highly manual, involving multiple hand over points and approvals
Web communications are inconsistent, with over 400 UWA websites that are difficult to navigate
Student Services are devolved and delivered inconsistently by 47 business units across UWA:
- UWA policies for student acceptance are applied inconsistently across different Faculties / Schools
- Poor student awareness of offerings and contact points
- Process ownership and responsibilities are unclear, for example the postgraduate student application
process is paper-based and moves between faculties, schools and central student administration
- Poor visibility of end-to-end processes; often paper-based, for example status of application process is
not clearly available or communicated to students
The lack of a defined approach to different student cohorts is negatively impacting the student experience.
Improvements are frequently planned without fully understanding student requirements:
- Student information is not easily accessible or available, and prerequisite requirements are not clear to
prospective students. Scholarship information on the website can be overwhelming
- Lack of Career Guidance services
Online Class Registration System (OLCR) is frustrating to use and is configured for internal administrative
requirements rather than being student / user-focused
AskUWA strategy is not clear, with anecdotal evidence of slow response times, lack of availability,
inadequate responses for students
Processes for enrolment and timetabling are disconnected and lack student focus. Students and staff alike
find it challenging to register students in classes
Multiple systems are used for entry of information on Units, Timetabling and Handbook, leading to
confusion as to single source of truth
The course approval process has multiple layers of approval that appear to be highly risk averse and
prescriptive, and designed to handle all exceptions. Faculties and Schools infer that there is a lack of trust
in their ability to manage exceptional circumstances
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
Our findings summary (2 of 4)
Draft
Interviews and workshops revealed a range of findings across the functional areas

Research Support



Information
Technology (IT)



Page 10
Processes are not well documented, understood or adhered to:
- HDR Administration processes are paper-based with significant touch points and lack of clarity on
accountabilities leading to duplication of effort
- Opportunity to further automate Grants and Ethics processes
- Inefficient management of project finances
- Research Administration has duplication of effort across UWA where multiple researchers are proposing
similar research projects (greater collaboration opportunities)
Roles are not clear
- Post Award management lacks clearly defined roles and responsibilities, resulting in researchers
missing project milestones, not having access to electronic copies of their project contract documents
and inefficient invoicing and payment processes
Research Support technology requirements are lacking:
- Multiple systems lacking integration resulting in excessive manual intervention and duplicate data
entry, for example InfoEd, PURE,Socrates, PeopleSoft, TRIM
- No workflow automation
UWA lacks a clear IT vision and strategy:
- Poor internal capability to translate the vision into IT needs and specific strategies such as Information
Management (IM), Digital, Cloud / Hosting, Integration and IT Sourcing
- Lack of IM strategy has caused gaps in data governance and ownership, resulting in poor data quality
- Lack of confidence in a single source of truth constrains ability to create valuable customer insights
- Lack of comprehensive web content management strategy. Staff are dissatisfied with the current web
content management system
The IT service delivery Operating Model is highly devolved:
- Offices and Faculties have varying degrees of accountability and responsibility with multiple help desks
- While reported satisfaction with IT services is high, there is a risk of rapid decline
- Process maturity is lacking across all key processes
IT governance is immature
- The IT environment has grown organically without defined standards, leading to a wide range of
platforms and standards that are challenging to integration
There is a lack of IT architecture capability to address critical architectural issues:
- Prevents the implementation and effective operation of IT solutions e.g. Workflow, ESB, IAM
- In-class WIFI support / mobile device operability lacking
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
Our findings summary (3 of 4)
Draft
Interviews and workshops revealed a range of findings across the functional areas

Human Resources



Finance




Facilities
Management


Page 11
The emerging HR hub-and-spoke Operating Model has potential but still has gaps:
- Faculties and Schools value Strategic HR Support and would like more support for line managers
- Staff seek consistent employee relations service support
- HR administration still requires paper-based processing
UWA has no single HR Information System to manage the full employee life cycle management
Capability gaps exist across UWA
- Critical gaps include workforce planning, strategic learning and development, change management,
recruitment and visas
The current Finance Operating Model is highly devolved, despite the rollout of a hub-and-spoke model:
- Significant duplication of Finance activities within Faculties and Offices, despite Faculty Accountant roles
- Faculty Finance resources are often in blended roles working on transactional tasks for example AP, AR,
Reconciliations, GL
- Finance governance polices remain devolved, with Faculties arbitrarily implementing additional paperbased approval processes, leading to bureaucracy
Process are still highly manual:
- Lack of Identity Access Management strategy
- Lack of streamlined or fully automated processes such as invoicing is potentially causing UWA
reputational damage with research grant sponsors
Perceived poor change management practices during rollout of new initiatives, e.g.travel procurement,
IFPM
Centralised Operating Model for maintenance and construction, and devolved Operating Model for venues:
- Confusion across UWA on who is accountable for booking and maintaining any given facility or venue
- Lack of space optimisation has led to overcrowding in certain areas and empty lecture halls
UWA lacks a long-term asset management strategy:
- Ageing and heritage buildings require significant investment to meet safety compliance requirements
and to modernise facilities to meet student and staff expectations
- There is a $75 million maintenance backlog, compared to a $15 million annual budget
- There is a perceived lack of planning for the impact of student growth on building strategy
Facilities Management performance management is perceived to be poor
- Enquiries for simple repairs or facilities management requests (e.g. cleaning, security, room set-up) take
significant time to action, resulting in poor staff morale, student reputation damage, and reallocation of
some Faculty teaching funds towards building repair
There is concern for the value-for-money of commercial contracts
- The quoted costs of Facilities Maintenance is significantly higher than industry comparisons resulting in
staff undertaking painting etc. in their own time
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
Our findings summary (4 of 4)
Draft
Interviews and workshops revealed a range of findings across the functional areas


Strategic
Procurement




General
Administration




Governance



Library



Page 12
Insufficient visibility of procurement spend, and contracts and suppliers are not consistently nor robustly
managed to drive performance against service levels
Strategic Procurement staff are capacity constrained due to the high volume of transactional and processrelated queries and providing reactive sourcing services for unplanned procurement by Business Units
Existing procurement policy and procedures are suitable for general goods and services but do not meet
the commercial requirements for specialised or complex goods and services (for example major capital
works, research, technical lab equipment)
Several procurement policies and procedures require review and standardisation to rationalise and
eliminate conflicting directives
Processes not well understood, creating silos of information
TRIM usage for records has not been mandated across the University, creating variable levels of document
storage quality. Faculties do not typically have access to TRIM, creating duplication of effort
Trobexis Travel system is generally accepted by regular users, but is unpopular with infrequent users who
want a simpler interface and additional automated functionality. Students and visitors have no formal
access to the Trobexis Travel system
UWA assumes financial responsibility for all corporate credit cards and bears the administrative burden of
managing disputed expenses
Strategy is perceived as macro-level with insufficient linkage to operational implementation and/or
individual performance measurement criteria
Policies are interpreted differently across UWA, leading to duplicate effort operationalising inconsistent
processes for example Expenses, Student Exceptions
Decision making at UWA is often slow and involves duplication of effort across multiple layers involving
committees, boards and councils
There is no enterprise-wide portfolio management program to integrate strategic planning efforts, allocate
resources, track benefits and prioritise alignment to strategy
Delegation of authority and segregation of duties is complex and needs review to ensure authority is
delegated to the appropriate level to minimise inefficiencies
Policy and processes are well documented but stored in multiple repositories
WiFi and power points insufficient for students
No central repository for administrative data
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
Based on Stage1 findings, initiatives were
developed under four key benefit categories
Draft
Initiative benefit assessment
►
Improvement initiatives were subsequently assessed against four benefit criteria
►
Ease of implementation was also evaluated for each initiative (including level of complexity, cultural readiness,
investment cost magnitude, and timeline to realisation)
Service
Excellence
Student
Experience
►
Customer impact; will
the change deliver
customer satisfaction?
►
Will the initiative
deliver student
satisfaction?
►
Will the initiative
improve service
efficiency?
►
Will it help UWA to
deliver the world-class
student experience of
tomorrow?
►
Will there be a lift in
quality and outcomes?
Page 13
►
Will it improve UWA’s
‘net promoter score’
(loyalty measure)?
Releasing
Potential
►
Will it release time to
focus on and enable
research, education and
community
engagement?
►
Will the initiative enable
realignment of effort to
UWA’s core purposes?
►
Will it enhance academic
staff satisfaction?
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
Financial
Sustainability
►
Will the initiative
improve University
productivity and
efficiency?
►
Will it deliver tangible
and sustainable financial
benefits, e.g. cost
reductions, revenue
enhancements
Information Technology Findings
Page 14
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
Draft
Draft
Current Technology Landscape
High-level scan of the system landscape reveals a complex application portfolio with some functionalities
duplicated, significant integration and other key architectural issues
Student Services
Development & Alumni Relationship
Education Innovation
Research Enterprise
Ask UWA
Callista SMS
Future Student
Website
Raiser’s Edge
Fundraising (CRM)
PeopleSoft
Alesco
LCS Echo
LMS (Moodle)
Personal Learning
Environment
My Research Space
Organisatonal Unit
Code
Qualtrics
Passthrough
Campus Card
Course Information
Database
Current Student
Website
Callista
TRIM
AskUWA
Course Material
Online (CMO)
On Line Class
Registration (OLCR)
Student Perception
of Teaching (eSPOT)
Callista
InfoEd
Pheme
Lost Campus Card
Graduate Register
Staff Connect
Pheme
Timetable Main
Application
Turn-it-in
Pandora
Alesco
Socrates
Scholarship
Student Housing
Student Connect
Course Materials
online (CMO)
Alesco
Callista SMS
KOIOS
Minerva
Pure
UniStart
Online Application
System (OASys)
Student Unit
Response Form
iSentia
Coursework Studies
Animal Care Unit
AMT (Tick@Lab)
TRIM
Syllabus Plus
On Line Class
Registration (OLCR)
PeopleSoft
iAthena
Research service
Website
IRDS (Research Data
Set Storage)
MyUWA
iAthena
Alesco
Harnet
Research Data Mgt
Tool Kit
PeopleSoft
Centre for English Language Teaching (CELT)
eBCAS
PeopleSoft
LMS (Moodle)
TRIM
vLibraries
Schoology LMS
CAIDi
Google Analytics
International Centre
Studio Abroad
JETEND
Alesco
Studio Abroad
Reporting (SARIS)
Oasis (Australian
Govt Scholarships)
Callista
AskUWA
PeopleSoft
Community
Engagement
Financial Services
CAIDi
Publications
TRIM
Callista
Handbook
Academic
Administration
Campus Management
Planning Services
Archibus
Maximo
Networking Locking
(SALTO)
Executive
Information System
SAS
.net (C-Sharp)
CCTV (Indigo/Vision)
On Line Class
Registration (OLCR)
Syllabus Plus
Fees
Organisational
Priorities Planning
System
Wayne
Crystal Report
Hyperion
Kofax Scanning
Cardax Application
Parking Web
Payment System
Parking Web
Infringement
Payment System
OSCAR
Graduate Destination
Survey
Planning Services
Small Apps
OneStopSecure
(Payment Gateway)
PeopleSoft
(incl. EMS)
Trobexis (incl. FTP)
SharperLight
SureSite
EventsPerfect
Strategic
Procurement Survey
PSO School Visit
Torus
Library
Advisor (replaced by
Hyperion)
Alesco
eTForm
Tefmarues
Theatre And Room
Scheduling
Information System
WebSIS
Callista
Tableau
Matlab
One Search
UPK
FBT Simplifier
Micropower
NoticeIT
Time Target
Alesco
Student Residencies
Student
Services
StarREZ
Millennium
Marketing & Communication
Information Systems
Human Resources
Information Governance Service
Pheme
Course Materials
online (CMO)
Citrix
Operations Support
System
Oracle Enterprise
Manager
Oracle Recovery
Manager
Alesco
Employee Self
Service (Talent 2)
Web-time sheets
Google Mail Apps
Labstats
Library Catalogue
Comm Vault Backup
RSA Secur ID
Share point 2007
Pheme
Dashboards
Web-reports
MyUWA
One Search SSO
Service Now
Icalendar Service
Forefront Identity
Manager
Faculty Password
Changer
eRecruitment (PageUp People)
Reporting tool
(Oracle Discoverer)
EZProxy
Digital Entry
Workflow System
Exchange (staff
email)
Exchange Admin
Tools Web Services
PatchManager
Solidus eCare
Main System
Page 15
Feeding System
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
TRIM
UReKA
WebDrawer
Risk Management
Risk Management
System
Note: There
systems
may exist
Other other
systems
may exist
Governance
Draft
IT Current State Assessment
IT is largely devolved with significant integration and architectural challenges. Process inefficiencies
underpinned by capability gaps adversely impact student and staff experience
ARCHITECTURE
STRATEGY & PLANNING
Currently UWA has no IT
Strategy, and no clear vision of
what IT should provide and how
it could be aligned with the
Business
 IT strategic and planning
capabilities are lacking. Key
roles including CIO, Chief
Architect / CTO, and Portfolio
Manager are vacant


IS planning is conducted in silos,
consultation with functions and
faculties is lacking as there is no
effective Business Relationship
Management
► There
is no Enterprise
Architecture capability,
resulting in a lack of any
architecture views of the
system landscape
► Architecture standards are
lacking or are not defined.
Projects are left to define their
own standards
Governance across UWA is
ineffective. Solutions are being
developed in silos,
Communication between
functions and faculties is lacking
► Data governance, particularly
ownership and stewardship, is
not defined
PORTFOLIO & PROJECT MANAGEMENT
► There
is no single source of truth
with data being duplicated across
many different systems
MATURITY ASSESSMENT: LOW
► UWA
have no Portfolio
Management and lacks visibility
as well as understanding of
how projects are prioritised
► Projects receive funding
without total cost of ownership
considerations
► Benefits realisation is not
tracked
ORGANISATIONAL ALIGNMENT
► The
Operating Model is devolved, two
thirds of IT wFTE exist outside of IS
► Further, many integration issues
exist, with functions and faculties
having over long periods of time build
best of breed solutions without
considering integration
Page 16
bespoke solutions are built
without consideration of market
solutions and are supported by
operational teams in the various
functions
► A number of business systems
fulfil duplicate functions
MATURITY ASSESSMENT: LOW
MATURITY ASSESSMENT: LOW
GOVERNANCE
► IT
► Many
► Sourcing
is suboptimal with
significant out of contract spend.
Vendor management is a key
weakness
MATURITY ASSESSMENT: LOW
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
► Overall
Project Management
capability is lacking with variable skill
levels, particularly across different
functions and faculties
► There is no central project
methodology and repository, with
project guidance not available
MATURITY ASSESSMENT: LOW
IT Strategy Issues
Draft
UWA lacks a clear strategic direction for IT, compounded by a lack of capability to develop the direction.
Information Management (IM), Information Technology (IT) and Digital Strategies require development
Lack of IM Strategy
►
UWA has no IM strategy. The current state IM environment is not documented and lacks definition within an
industry standard IM framework, such as MIKE 2.0, or The Consultant’s IM framework. Information flows are
largely undocumented, information suppliers and providers not identified with information being unclear resulting
in critical issues around systems and data (refer to key architectural issues)
►
The Strategic Information Technology and Information Management Committee (SITIMC) is currently in the
process of developing an IM and IT strategy. However, IM as a strategy is not identifiable from the current IM and IT
strategy
►
There is, however, a capability within UWA in form of the IGS to develop the IM strategy, provided that the IM
strategy is separated from the IM and IT strategy and IGS is granted ownership of developing the IM strategy
Lack of IT Strategy
►
The IM and IT strategy currently under development is lacking a comprehensive framework. The approach to
develop the IM and IT strategy requires review and should be aligned with a best practice strategy framework.
Given the lack of a framework, the identification of business needs is lacking, an approach to prioritise needs and
critical success measures are not defined
►
With key roles, including the CIO, Chief Architect and Portfolio Manager being vacant, the ability for IS to provide
input and own the execution of the IT strategy is severely limited
Lack of Digital Strategy
►
UWA has limited Digital Strategy given that there are siloed initiatives (400 website across Faculties). UWA should
define a clear and comprehensive digital strategy to create a unified approach and identify cross-channel solutions
for web and e-commerce, digital content, social media and mobility
►
UWA should define the Digital Strategy not only because digital helps to reduce friction, but also to unlock
additional business value by combining individual digital technologies (i.e. web, mobile, social, & cloud) and
integrating dynamic, driver-based feedback into decision making using advanced analytics
Page 17
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
Draft
Critical Enablers for UWA’s Digital Future
A key enabler for UWA’s digital future is the establishment of a common core
A common core comprises of a range of technologies and solutions, including the following:
►
Identity & Access Management: Identity Management is the processes and technologies collectively used to manage the lifecycle of digital
identities (profiles) for people, systems, and services. Access Management is the processes and technologies collectively used to manage who
has access to what specific resources
►
Integration: Delivers services, technology and data to connect applications
►
Workflow Enablement: Describes solutions that facilitates interactions between users and related information flows and approvals
►
Content Management: Is a broad term referring to applications and processes to manage Web content, document content and e-commercefocused content (Gartner, 2013)
►
Portals: Provide access to, and interaction with, relevant information, applications, business processes and human resources for select
targeted audiences. Especially where they are provided by portals, these can be delivered in a highly personalized manner (Gartner, 2013)
Solutions
Common Core
Student
Services
Research
Administration
HR
FI
LEARNING
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
STUDENT
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
GRANTS &
PROPOSAL
MANAGEMENT
STAFF
RECRUITMENT
A/P – A/R
GENERAL
LEDGER
COURSE
& UNIT PLANNING
CONTRACT
MANAGEMENT
PAY & BENEFIT
ASSET
MANAGEMENT
CLASS
TIMETABLING
ONLINE CLASS
REGISTRATION
ETHICS &
INTEGRITY
CAREER
PROGRESSION
REVIEW
PURCHASE &
PROCUREMENT
ASSESS STUDENT
LEARNING
E-PORTFOLIO
PUBLICATION
MANAGEMENT
STAFF
DEVELOPMENT
TRAVEL &
EXPENSES
REVIEW
COURSES &
TEACHING
GRADUATION
MANAGEMENT
DATA
COLLECITON &
ANALYTICS
REPORTING
CONTRACT
MANAGEMENT
WORKLOAD
MANAGEMENT
…
…
…
…
…
Identity Access
Management
Integration
Content Management
IT Capabilities
Process
People
Data
Page 18
Academic
Administration
Workflow Enablement
Portals
Performance
Measurement.
Policy
Technology
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
Organisation
Draft
Recommended IT Initiatives (1/2)
The identified business needs will be addressed through the implementation of technology enablers
grouped into a number of initiatives
#
Initiatives
TBC
Replace legacy / bespoke
applications
TBC
Acquire an enterprise
workflow engine
IS1
Build out the WiFi
infrastructure
IS2
Establish Identity and
Access Management
(IDAM)
Page 19
Description
Benefits / Impact

Test the market for replacement of a number of
enterprise applications that are not fit for
purpose
Total benefits are based on a number of
initiatives proposed under the different
functions (HR, FI, etc.)

Reduce administrative overhead
Total benefits are based on productivity
improvements proposed in different
functions (HR, FI, etc.) and Faculties

Equip buildings and class rooms with network
access points to take advantage of the recent
upgrade of the backbone network
Significantly increased student and
staff experience

Establish an IDAM solution to manage identities
across UWA

Improve productivity of professional staff

Enable workflow and automation of processes

Enable users to bring their own device (BYOD)
Reduce the effort required to setup
users and grant/ revoke system access,
improve staff productivity by increasing
single-sing-on coverage, better security
/ compliance monitoring. In addition,
IDAM will be a key enabler for mobility,
which in turn allow users to bring their
own device (BYOD)
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report
Draft
Recommended IT Initiatives (2/2)
The identified business needs will be addressed through the implementation of technology enablers
grouped into a number of initiatives
#
Initiatives
Description
Benefits / Impact

Enhance application functionality through the
design and implementation of services, data and
infrastructure

Consolidate domains by reviewing current IT
architecture

IS4
Content Management and
Portal
Develop a content management strategy.
Consider the implementation of a UWA wide
portal
Improve information management and
usability
Reduce effort spent in organizing,
retrieving and securing information
Develop the Strategic
direction for UWA

IS5
Formulate required strategies, including but not
limited to, Information Management, Digital, and
Information Technology
Refer to IS Functional Review
Strengthen and streamline
the IT Operating Model

IS6
Through the development of the IS operating
model ensure consistent, responsive and
available support
Refer to IS Functional Review
IS3
Integrate key applications
Page 20
Better quality of data through single
source of truth and minimisation of
data redundancy. Avoid system
duplication.
(e.g. domain consolidation)
UWA Functional Review Program – Stage 1 Final Report

Download Report