Designing services end-to-end: Considering the faculty operating model

Universities invest significant time, energy, and funds into setting up renewed central services units. These endeavours can include creating shared services units, implementing new technology, or designing simplified processes and policies. While such efforts are essential and often provide benefits, they can also fall short of achieving true university-wide efficiencies and service satisfaction.

In fact, UniForum data reveals little correlation between the level of centralisation of services and operational efficiency or user satisfaction. Interestingly, even more localised service delivery reveals mixed results when it comes to user satisfaction despite the perception of more “hands-on” service.

 

This lack of correlation is driven by choices made in the implementation of service models. Simply put, some investments pay off due to thoughtful end to end design, whereas others only address part of the service delivery lifecycle.

How, then, can those investing in more sophisticated central service provision achieve lower cost and higher satisfaction as some universities have proved possible? What does an effective overhaul look like and what, in contrast, is likely to be a waste of time and effort?

Taking a bird’s eye view of the university as a whole

To achieve true institution-wide benefits, universities need to design their services with care and consideration. This process involves developing not only strong central service cultures, but also models within faculties that allow them to be effective consumers and partners with those central services. A university-wide process is necessary to determine which components of which services should be delivered from central units, from the Dean’s office, or from within academic departments.

While, on the whole, there is little correlation between cost and centralisation, UniForum data indicates that there are good reasons to consolidate specific services, generally those that benefit most from aggregated volumes, which enable standardisation and automation. These include back-office functions such as payroll processing, procurement, and in some cases student admissions processing, where economies of scale can be realised. For example, some leading practice universities have 70 to 80 per cent or more of their accounts payable delivered through central functions, leading to significant efficiencies over universities with only 30 to 40 per cent consolidation.

Conversely, services that require proximity to the end-user, such as academic advising, lab support, and certain student services, often benefit from a distributed or embedded model. By placing these services closer to the point of need, universities can ensure that they are more responsive and tailored to specific requirements. Even in these cases, creating alignment is important so that services are delivered at a common standard across the entire institution.

Impact of faculty operating models

Faculty operating models play a critical role in the success of effective and efficient university-wide services. These models need to consider standard roles that complement central roles, ensuring that these roles belong to a primary function and a university-wide community of practice where common processes, policies, and tools can be rolled out effectively. The roles and structure should cascade from the Dean’s office down through to departments, schools, and institutes to ensure consistent professional staff reporting lines and career progression.

For example, faculty-specific roles in areas such as research administration, student advising, and technical support can be effectively standardised across the university. This allows for consistency in how these roles are executed, ensuring that all faculties have access to the same level of service. Additionally, creating cross-functional teams that include members from central services and faculty departments can enhance collaboration and create services that are well-integrated and efficient.

Central teams and university-wide efficiency

The decisions made by central teams significantly impact university-wide efficiency and effectiveness. Central teams need to undergo a mindset shift and become service-oriented organisations rather than compliance-focused ones (sometimes referred to as a different kind of “campus policy”). While process decisions often aim to make central team members' lives easier, this objective should not come at the expense of Faculty staff and academics' experiences.

To achieve this, central teams should be clear about service catalogues, clearly delineating what is and isn't delivered. This transparency helps manage expectations and ensures that all stakeholders understand the scope and limitations of central services. Additionally, central teams should hold themselves accountable to service quality by inviting regular feedback and committing themselves to continuous improvement. By actively seeking input from faculty and staff, they can identify areas for enhancement and make necessary adjustments to improve service delivery.

Another key aspect is fostering a service-oriented culture within central teams. This involves training and development programs that emphasise the importance of customer service, effective communication, and problem-solving. By instilling these values, central teams can build stronger relationships with faculties and enhance overall service satisfaction.

University-specific attributes

University-specific attributes will influence how these strategies play out. The number and size of faculties can vary greatly between institutions. Some universities may have relatively balanced faculty scale, enabling a more uniform approach to service delivery, while others may not be able to create the same set of standard roles for smaller faculties, necessitating some faculty grouping. Grouping smaller faculties together can help achieve economies of scale and ensure they receive the same level of support as their larger counterparts. The goal here is to group faculties for the purposes of administrative delivery, not necessarily at the academic level, though some universities have gone through this exercise as well with varying levels of success.

The discipline mix across faculties will also vary, requiring different levels of support for certain functions, such as research or teaching administration. A faculty with a strong emphasis on research may need more specialised support in grant writing, compliance, and lab management. On the other hand, a faculty focused on teaching may require more robust student advising and classroom support. Decisions about which parts of a service are delivered centrally and which are delivered locally will necessarily differ between universities. Despite these variations, the underlying principles still apply.

Striking the right balance

Achieving true efficiency and effectiveness requires conscious choices. You have to deeply consider your particular circumstances and deliver the right services, from and in the right place, with the right people in the right roles. Central teams must adopt a service-oriented approach, and faculties need operating models that facilitate seamless integration with central services. This balanced approach ensures that universities can deliver high-quality services, meet the diverse needs of their faculties, and drive overall institutional success.

UniForum data can be a useful tool for striking this balance, providing universities with critical insights into how services are currently delivered, as well as information about which units offer which services, the roles involved, the associated costs, and user satisfaction levels. Putting robust data at the heart of the discussion helps leaders and change teams cut through anecdotal narratives that often permeate campuses, driving a more objective and evidence-based narrative that promotes university-wide benefits.

By analysing UniForum data, universities can identify areas where centralisation makes the most sense and where localised services would be more appropriate. This data-driven approach ensures that decisions are based on factual evidence rather than assumptions, leading to better outcomes. Incorporating benchmarking data from peer institutions, as UniForum does, can provide similarly valuable insights into best practices and innovative solutions.

Universities that have achieved a clear alignment between central and faculty roles and services have achieved long term sustainability. Time and again, UniForum data shows that these universities are able to grow their revenues without adding additional administrative capacity, leaving more money to invest in the core academic mission. In some cases, this has resulted in 3 to 6 per cent of revenues being freed up for redirection to strategic investments. A data-informed, multi-year approach to implementation, followed by disciplined maintenance and continuous improvement, can help put your university in the position where it will one day be able to reap such rewards.

Contact us to learn more about the UniForum global benchmarking and practice sharing forum.