PACRAO 2010

1. PACRAO 2010

2. Job ShadowA cool place to collaborateCourtney WhetstineAssociate Registrar, National University

3. “We all need to go into the corn storage business. By that I mean developing ‘silo expertise’”. -Jeff Taylor; Founder of Monstor.com

4. About National University • National University is private non-profit institution • Non traditional course-per-month format designed primarily for working adults • Approximately 28,000 FT and PT students

5. Our Mission Statement The mission of the National University Office of the Registrar is to provide outstanding academic and support services to students, faculty, staff and alumni in compliance with institutional, professional and legal standards; and to provide timely and accurate information while maintaining the security and integrity of student data.

6. National University Office of the Registrar • Approximately 40 FT and PT staff members • Manages records/documents, grades/attendance, public information, outgoing transcripts, transcript evaluation, graduation, CAS (policy exceptions committee), articulation, military evaluations, • Office has two ‘areas’, technical records and evaluations services. • An Associate Registrar manages each area.

7. National University history.1 • In 1990’s our University had smaller population. • Student Population Year

8. National University history.2 • Less technology • Smaller workloads • Required closer working relationships with adjacent departments.

9. National University history.3 • Evaluators (specifically) were more ‘specialized’ in their training. (credentials, military, financial aid, etc.) • We were able to have dually trained ‘experts’ in our area. They went to other dept meetings, wrote manuals, trained others, etc. • Required collaborative relationships

10. Evolution of workflow.1 • As enrollment grew and demands changed, our business processes and workflow evolved.

11. Evolution of workflow.2 I'm new wave but I'm old school, and my inner child is outward bound.I'm a hot wired heat seeking warm hearted cool customer, voice activated and biodegradable. -George Carlin

12. Evolution of workflow.3 • Technical advancements (PeopleSoft). • Information stored in the SIS, less collaboration was needed. • Staff share information on the web, there was less human interaction, conversation, and relationship building. • Two decades later, staff develop a very efficient ‘silo mentality’.

13. Evolution of workflow.4 • Our staff training becomes focused on becoming well trained in their technical area (in SIS) and policy. • Evolve from ‘experts’ (in specializations) to ‘generalists’. Less focus on big picture perspective • Increase likelihood of disjointed workflow in ‘generalist’ roles, different interpretations of policy, duplication of work, students getting lost in the shuffle between depts.

14. TURF WARS

15. How does this happen?.1 • Advantage of human touch is not easily quantifiable in terms of necessity or benefit. Assessing the effectiveness of communication and human skills remains problematic (Reynes, 1999). .

16. How does this happen?.2 • Technology has been very beneficial. Our lives have become easier and more productive. However, these "benefits" often come at a cost. We have to constantly be aware of the changes that are occurring so that we maintain the balance of efficiency and collaboration.

17. Research on ‘silo’ mentality, and how it affects the workplace.

18. Although the ‘team-oriented’ organizations seemed to have made the silo-mentality less likely, research has found that this may not be so. • The American Management Association conducted a survey that indicated that 60% of those surveyed indicated that a lack of collaboration is one of their organizations major challenges. Another study by Industry Week indicated that business functions that operate as silos are the biggest hindrance to corporate growth (Stone, 2004).

19. Three significant barriers to collaboration: • Organizational silos inhibit collaboration • Individuals are too busy to assist others across the organization • Performance measures do not reward individuals for collaboration. (Hastings & Saperstein, 2010)

20. An article titled: Training to Manage Across Silos (1999) quoted the executive director of research at the Human Resource Institute at Eckerd College, “The competitive advantage will go to those who can do high tech and ‘high touch’ at the same time. Today’s environment requires many more personal skills- much more listening, much more asking questions. The more high tech we get, the more high touch people want, especially in a technical environment. They [the employees] want more one-to-one, such as mentoring and coaching.” (Reynes, 1999)

21. Each dept has distinctive competencies within their own ‘silos’ and if coordinated with other departments, can create ‘boundary-less’ organizations and deploy technologies and ideas that manage process more effectively and efficiently (Hastings & Saperstein, 2010). • The nature of communication is important, but the frequency is equally important (Stone, 2004).

22. Our peers are often suffering from the same problems we are, but people tend not to put time into these relationships. However, these colleagues are often a tremendous supportive resource (Reyes, 1999)

23. FY09 Office of the Registrar Goals.1 A. Theme of ‘Building Relationships’. NU is a multi-campus institution, but all OR functions are centralized at one San Diego location. B. The specific goal was to: Enhance and build on the existing relationship with each individual campus of National University.

24. FY09 Office of the Registrar Goals.2 C. The Action was that each staff member in the OR will choose another staff member to ‘shadow’ for a day (or several hours). This will allow our staff to “walk a mile in their shoes” for a period as we anticipate there will be lessons learned that can then be shared… We hope that this will eventually be a pathway for those staff and departments to shadow some of our staff to increase understanding and knowledge amongst departments.

25. What we did.1 • Everyone from our staff was given a pre-job shadow worksheet to complete and submit, prior to the actual shadowing experience. (See example). The worksheet required the shadower to describe what their perceptions were of the understanding, expectations, and challenges of that position.

27. What we did.2 • The post-job shadow worksheet (see example), as you can see had a few ‘opener’ questions to get to know the other staff member better and break the ice. Shadowers may take notes as they shadow, and answer questions as to what the position actually entails, and how their expectations aligned with the reality of the job function.

29. Review.1 • 18 staff members completed the assignment. • Departments such as admissions, credentials, financial aid, student accounts, and training departments were shadowed. • Most of our staff chose to shadow admissions advisors. This department relationship is where many miscommunications, policy interpretation differences, and questions occur.

30. TURF WARS

31. Review.2 • Most stated that their assumptions were correct about what the position entailed. • Was this exercise a success?? We were hoping to bridge departments, bring understanding of the bigger picture, and develop a respect for the challenges that each position has!

32. Review.3 • Indirect benefits began to manifest over time. • Conversations began to happen, information began to get shared person to person, person to campus, and department to department. A few people began to work collaboratively.

33. Example of Success.1 • Leo chose to shadow the Nursing Dept. • The Nursing program had a separate application that didn’t ‘jive’ with how we processed University applications. • The work got done, but not efficiently. It’s safe to say that both sides were often frustrated.

34. Example of Success.2 • Understanding the process of the Nursing Dept, he was able to form discussions about how to improve workflow, volunteered to be the ‘Nursing Specialist’ evaluator, and attend their student information meetings. • Leo also brought information back to the Registrar staff, regarding important changes in practice and process that would assist the OR with being proactive around certain application deadlines.

35. Example of Success.3 • Leo and Nursing staff began to discuss various solutions. Conversations were generated between Admissions, Registrar, Nursing, and IT to explore technical solutions and software functions in attempt to streamline this process that fell outside’ our normal way of functioning. • Eventually, a solution was adopted in Peoplesoft (our SIS) and a CRM software, that allowed for improved tracking and workflow.

36. Example of Success.4 • Job Shadow exercise did not create the results we expected, but it opened the door to develop relationships. • The collaboration assisted in smoothing the transition for students who moved between our departments in their lifecycle.

37. Example of Success.5 • Insight generation • Innovation • Strategy • Planning • Delivery- enhanced experience of the student.

38. Additional ways we try to build relationships 1. Assign’ evaluators to different dept (credentials, FA, schools) that have specialized practices or programs that need additional workflow management, or have intricacies about their departments or processes that affect how they are, or should be serviced. 2. Since we are a multi-campus institution- to assign evaluators for different campuses.

39. Additional ways we try to build relationships 3. Regularly communicate our process to different depts. • Registrar on Campus was launched this year. This is an Adobe Connect presentation that occurs every two months to communicate different OR functions or sub-departments to the staff and faculty at the campuses. • Ask staff to offer suggestions for future topics

40. Additional ways we try to build relationships 4. Conduct internal customer satisfaction survey to determine how well we are serving the University community. Will roll out in Q3 of FY11 5. Having Job Shadow be an annual exercise 6. Have potlucks once per quarter and invite another dept. Get to know their people.

41. Closing the Loop: Assessing what we did and what we learned.1 We certainly experienced some success with this project, but learned some things and identified what we would do differently for the next time. • This project isn’t for everybody. A certain amount of buy-in is required from the staff, and from the other depts. • Not all experience was positive- be prepared for that. There is some risk.

42. Closing the Loop: Assessing what we did and what we learned.2 3. Communication to other depts of what it isn’t. 4. Communication to other depts of what it is 5. Working closely with dept leaders to determine when and where would be the best time to schedule 6. Elicit support from Professional Development, other departments, or higher level administration.

43. Foundations for Supporting Collaboration.1 • Reward cooperative behavior. Make it a part of annual goals. b) Encourage innovation. Seek expertise in areas other than your own. You may find a different perspective will provide a fresh and innovative approach to a particular problem.

44. Foundations for Supporting Collaboration.2 c) Create a culture of collaboration. Share information in person, on paper, or online. Be proactive in telling others what you do. d) Clarify responsibilities. Our biggest responsibility is student satisfaction, and you want your people to understand their roles and the roles of others in this pursuit.

45. Foundations for Supporting Collaboration.3 e) Find opportunities for cross-functional initiatives. Create or serve on a committee and encourage teams from different areas of your organization to work together. f) Maximize IT infrastructure for effective collaboration. Sharedrives, sharepoint, chat functions, etc. can make communication easy and convenient.

46. References Hastings, H. & Saperstein, J. (2010, May 1). A new network to create demand. Industrial Management. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/operations-supply/14669627-1.html Reynes, R. (1999). Training to Manage Across Silos. Research Technology Management, 42 (5), 20-24. Stone, F. (2004). Deconstructing Silos and Supporting Collaboration. Employment Relations Today, 21 (1), 11-18.

48. Contact Information Courtney Whetstine Associate Registrar National University 11355 N. Torrey Pines Rd. La Jolla, CA 92037 858-642-8281 cwhetstine@nu.edu