Ten Tips for Reengineering Copyright 1991 CAUSE From _CAUSE/EFFECT_ Volume 14, Number 2, Summer 1991. Permission to copy or disseminate all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, the CAUSE copyright and its dateappear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of CAUSE, the association for managing and using information resources in higher education. To disseminate otherwise, or to republish, requires written permission. For further information, contact CAUSE, 4840 Pearl East Circle, Suite 302E, Boulder, CO 80301, 303-449-4430, e-mail info@CAUSE.colorado.edu TEN TIPS FOR REENGINEERING by Margaret J. Hartman and Robert G. Zahary ************************************************************************ Margaret J. Hartman is Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs- Faculty and Administration at The California State University/Los Angeles. Robert G. Zahary is Associate Professor of Accounting at The California State University/Los Angeles. At the time he served on the reengineering task force, he was Associate Vice President for Operations. ************************************************************************ By 1990, California State University/Los Angeles (CSLA) had completed the installation of an integrated student information system and upgrades were being planned and implemented. A number of operational methods based on past practices and procedures were still in place, even though they were no longer appropriate. In many instances, the new systems available were not being fully utilized, and relationships with students, staff, and faculty were negatively impacted. In response to this situation, and within the context of a University-wide strategic focus on improving student service within tight fiscal constraints, the President created a blue-ribbon task force whose purpose was to help the University take full advantage of the new information system's ability to support efficient and effective management of University operations. Thus, members of the task force represented the five executive areas of the University (academic affairs, operations/finance, student affairs, information resources management, and the office of the president). The charge of this "reengineering" task force was to examine the work processes of the eight areas impacted by the new student system-- admissions, records, registration, graduation, financial aid, housing, cashiers, and accounts payable--with the goal of making recommendations for fundamental redesign of these processes. That charge was strongly stated in the appointment document: " ... be visionary ... make recommendations regarding fundamental redesign of CSLA work flow ... look for ways to make major (rather than incremental) improvements in both efficiency and effectiveness, with greater productivity and better service the targeted result ... basic assumptions on which processes have been based should be identified and, if necessary, recast ... the organization of work should be built around and focus on outcomes, not tasks." The task force report was to be delivered directly to the President. After completing the admissions review, the first of the eight areas to be evaluated, we realized that we had gained some valuable insights that might benefit others embarking on a similar endeavor. What follows are ten steps that we used in reengineering the admissions function at CSLA. They are not necessarily sequential, as several of them were done simultaneously, but they are ordered to fit three "stages." The first six relate to the discovery stage, the next two to constructing alternatives, and the last two to hypothesis testing. 1. Identify the mission, goals, and outcome targets that the unit has set for itself. Fundamental to the reengineering process is focusing on outcomes, not tasks, so identifying the overall mission, goals, and outcome targets is a critical first step. The mission of admissions at CSLA was to process applications by determining residency of each applicant, determining admissability of each applicant, and evaluating the transfer credit of all transfer applicants prior to their admissions decision. 2. Walk through the process as it exists. This step should include an overview discussion with the unit director, followed by "desk audits," i.e., detailed reviews of the tasks and related paper/information flow for each individual in the unit, the detailed procedures and techniques he or she follows, and the relationships, both positive and negative, of this individual's activities to the tasks and paper/information flow of users of the service. Questions asked should focus on why each task is done and the way it is done, with an eye toward identifying redundancy, and with special attention paid to what the unit sees as problems in the current procedures. 3. Rediscover and redefine the rules and regulations. All policies need to be examined, particularly if the process has not been reviewed recently, to determine whether the "regulation" is a local procedure (which can be modified internally), a local policy (which may need the approval of the faculty governing body), or an external policy (which requires compliance). 4. Consider alternative ways of doing the work. Visits to other campuses to find out what they are doing can be helpful. Every campus has strengths and weaknesses in its processes. Not only can the visiting team find good ideas, but the visited campus benefits from the exchange of information as well. Campus visits should only be made after the task force has a thorough understanding of the process in general. Otherwise, it will be time-consuming for the host to explain the basic function, and many nuances will be lost. Ideas for alternative ways of doing the job can also be found by talking to individuals who work in the unit or who are clients of the unit. 5. Look at the process through the eyes of the clients. The attitudes of the unit personnel do not necessarily reflect the views of the clients they serve. For example, admissions personnel in our study believed that their only problem was insufficient personnel to staff the phone system. We heard a different story when interviewing clients. 6. Discuss what has just been seen and heard while it is still fresh. Immediate discussion among task force members after each interaction with the unit, clients, or others can lead to fruitful avenues for further exploration and can pinpoint for the entire group problems that were perceived by only one or two members. Ideas begin to germinate for recommendations for a new process even before all of the above steps are completed. 7. Recast the mission and goals of the unit within the bigger picture. Questions that might be asked in making this determination include: Is this goal appropriate? Is it necessary or desirable that the unit do all of these tasks, or can some be done as well or better in other units? A corollary to this step is to question whether things are done in other units that might be done better in the unit being evaluated. In our admissions study, we determined that in the new computerized environment the outcomes of the unit should be extended to include responsibility for the integrity of a substantial amount of data in the student information system (much more important now that the system is integrated). We also recommended a focus on evaluation of transfer credit only for those individuals who are accepted and have indicated an intent to register, rather than for all applicants. 8. Redesign the process within the context of the new mission and information technology. In this step, it is important to consider the process in general, and then identify the steps that each type of applicant would go through in the new process. Task force members need to continually remind each other to think "out of the box," to not be bound by past constraints, and to be innovative. Our task force focused on using the computer system's capabilities to the maximum extent and minimizing the amount of low-level work done by highly paid personnel. 9. Look for flaws by testing the redesigned process in more than one way. The new process may look good on paper but needs careful testing. For example, when reviewing the first draft of the redesigned admissions process, we found a major oversight error that would have severely disrupted graduate and international student admission. This error would not have been detected without "walking through" the redesigned process a second time using each category of student applicant. 10. Review the reengineered process with the unit director for flaws. Even though the unit director should not be a formal member of the task force (membership in which should be limited to those outside the unit), the director should be involved in and consulted throughout the evaluation process. Areas of concern will be smoothed out, flaws will become apparent, and the director's advice will prove invaluable. From an academic perspective, the process has been a success. Increased efficiency and productivity has allowed for more services from an already "overstretched" budget. Additionally, improving services to students helps the campus to hold its own in the increasing competition for enrollment. In closing, we would give three pieces of advice: (1) make sure the task force understands its charge; (2) keep records and document in the task force report the need and rationale for changes--your recommendations will not be met with open arms by all members of the campus community; and (3) clear your calendar--serving on such a task force is an exciting experience but takes more time that you can imagine! ************************************************************************