Business and Finance Division

Business Process Redesign

12/15/04 Notes

 

Attendees:  Bill Gauthier, Bob Watkins, Tricia Durrough, Dan Lewis, Robin Mullinix, Mark Reeves, Mike Renfrow, Tom Mackel

 

1. The meeting began at 11:30 a.m. with a presentation from Lynn Agan on the Campus Planning and Development (CP&D) BPR of Project Management. The presentation included:

 

Ø      An overview of the relationship between Campus Planning and Development, and Facilities and Grounds.

Ø      Defining the current process for Project Management.

Ø      Identifying department responsibilities for warranty issues, document management, project superintendent, and utility locates.

 

Lynn also added that in the last three years, CP&D has administered 116 projects at an average cost of $5,985,383.00, and archived all construction and building documents.

 

Though first initiated in 2000, the current BPR effort involved the cross-functional team of Mr. Agan, Danny Duke, Tim McWhorter, Lee Jones, Lillie Nixon, Ricky Watts and Jamie Shirey, mapping out seven core processes and defining forty-five sub-processes.  The value and effect of this effort has benefited CP&D with a:

 

Ø      Documented procedure of Project Management

Ø      Accountability

Ø      Better understanding and assurance of value

Ø      Improved teamwork

Ø      Improved efficiency

Ø      Assurance that a construction project is registered and properly documented

 

Bill Gauthier acknowledged that he has seen improvements in this area but suggested that we strive towards electronic storage for all construction and building documents.  Lynn replied that new equipment like the KIP 2000 has been very helpful in this area but that additional funding would be required to complete the conversion.

Bill also asked if the team discovered any steps within the defined process that needed improvement.  Lynn stated that defining the process has improved project consistency and efficiency, but “since no two projects are alike, adjustments have to be made.”

 

Mike Renfrow expressed a concern regarding the number of projects that CP&D administers with such a few staff members.  He stated that we are working on performance measures within this area, but there is not any extra funding available for additional personnel.  Mike stated that “Our ability to improve over time has been very effective – particularly in the preplanning stages.”  He cited the planning attempts of the Photography Lab as an example of the strides that have been made. 

 

Bill asked if the process was worthy of a Best Practice Award?  Mike responded that it could be as long as we continue to improve our metric definitions and efficiencies.  The Best Practice Award is determined by the University System and is worth $15,000.

 

2. Customer Satisfaction Assessments have been initiated since our last meeting. We have contracted with MarketTools Inc, makers of Zoomerang, for assessment tools.  Survey measurements have been designed, and the following schedule was developed for each of the Business and Finance areas:

 

 

Dan Lewis reported on the survey results that were received for Budget, Accounting, and Purchasing Services.  The response was very active for the first week but dropped off considerably in the second and no responses were received in the third and forth weeks.  Bill suggested that we limit the next survey (Public Safety) to a two-week time frame with a follow-up notice sent at the beginning of the second week. 

 

Mike wanted to know what our plans were for posting the results.  Bill said that he would like each Director to review the results, develop an action plan and put it into a report format.   All reports should be available for posting on the B&F Website by March 2005.  

 

3. Review progress from Division BPR efforts:

 

 

4. The next meeting is scheduled for January 26, 2005.

 

5. The meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.

dl