University of Minnesota Hiring Process Redesign Lean Continuous Improvement Kaizen Event

1. University of Minnesota Hiring Process RedesignLean Continuous Improvement Kaizen Event Report to HR Pros April 24, 2013

2. Kaizen Team

3. Kaizen Team • Sponsor – Lori Lamb • Team Leader – Katie Stuckert & Laura Negrini • Team members: • Sheila Reger, Consulting Team Manager • Alexandra Whittington, HR Consultant • Jackie Gilliard, Staffing Consultant • Charlene Lowe, Talent Coach, OHR Job Center • Bonnie Marten, Diversity & Inclusion Committee Rep • Dorothy Cottrell, Academic Health Center • Lori Loberg, College of Food, Agriculture and Nat Res Science • Linda Kinnear, UMN Duluth • Mary Cameron, UMN Duluth • Lynne Olson, University Services • Michele Gross, University Policy Office • Facilitator – Tom Baumann, Sara Gronewold

4. Business issue Perceived challenges with the hiring process include: Inefficient and cumbersome process results in high time-to-fill rates Varied processes among different employee groups (ie. Faculty, P&A, Civil Service, and Labor Represented) Poor candidate experience given the application review and priority hiring requirements Unclear and inconsistent standards regarding posting requirements Lack of communication throughout the process between OHR and the units as well as with the candidates

5. Scope of Kaizen Event Scope: Review of the central hiring processes --beginning when the requisition is received (post-classification) from the collegiate or administrative unit until the requisition is designated as either filled or canceled. The process will include faculty, P&A, Civil Service, Labor Represented, and No-Search hires. The project does not include student hires. Starting point: Requisition is received from the collegiate or administrative unit End point: When the requisition is designated as filled or canceled.

6. Goals For the Future Process Simplify the hiring process by eliminating steps that no longer add value or are not required by policy or collective bargaining agreements Reduce number of process steps by 50% Define roles and responsibilities between OHR and unit representatives Decrease time-to-fill rate by 30%

7. Current Process

8. Observations of Current Process • Processes are complex and not standardized • Training for hiring authorities is inadequate • Hiring process is frustrating for users and applicants • Inconsistency between units on how to close out requisitions • EOAA guidelines are inconsistently applied • Failure rate percentages are high – lots of rework on requisitions • Surprised at variety of duties for hiring authorities • Communication with the candidates is not timely and is incomplete

9. Observations of current process • Lots of “hurry up and waits” • Too much information in too many places • Information is sometimes not easily or intuitively accessible • We try to be high service but process is confusing for users • Disappointed that there isn’t more automation within the process

13. Recommendations Issue: Hiring process takes too long and is inconsistent across campuses, units, and employee groups Actions: Reduce number of steps and standardize process; clarify roles and responsibilities; establish timeline expectations, include checklists, and distribute updated flowchart

14. Recommendations Issue: Within the process of no-search hires for faculty and P&A positions, there is tension between the values of the organization and the flexibility needed to attract, promote, and retain high quality and diverse candidates. Action: Strengthen the approval criteria and recommend delegation of authority at campus level

15. Recommendations Issue: 80% of requisitions are submitted with incomplete information, which increases time-to-fill. Action: Improve usability of requisition form with additional automation and instructions; and provide education and performance metrics to HR and hiring authorities

16. Recommendations Issue: Data integrity is unreliable due to lack of timely and accurate updates of information within system Action: Clarify procedures and expectations and communicate the negative impact of delays

17. Recommendations Issue: Hiring process does not prioritize candidate experience. Action: Simplify candidate application process and increase automated communication with candidate throughout process

18. Future Process

22. Efficiency Opportunities

23. Anticipated Improvement Metrics Reduced time-to-fill 80% first-pass-yield on requisitions Improved hiring authority satisfaction Hiring authorities are aware of EOAA goals for all vacancies Reduce the number of direct-hires (except spousal) Increased accuracy of applicant statuses Reduced staff time to meet reporting requirements by 20%

24. Benefits of Future State University’s reputation is improved Able to attract, acquire, and retain diverse and high-quality candidates Reduce administrative costs Redirect staff resources to more strategic and mission-related functions Hiring authorities have resources and support they need to navigate the hiring process effectively Increases accountability Decreased frustration by everyone in process

25. Action Plan

26. Action Plan

27. Action Plan

28. Needed to Fully Capture and Sustain These Improvements • We need the approval, public support for, and broad communication by the Senior Leadership Group • Despite the high priority of ESUP, we need human and technical resources for updating employment system • We need ongoing measurement and feedback of process performance

29. Helpful Hints to improve Requisition first pass yield • Complete ALL the fields. May need to change to Requisition Approver role to have access to edit fields. • Always complete the field specifying if a background check is required. Guidelines for whether a background check is recommended are located in Managers Toolkit. • Minimum requirements must be consistent with the job classification. Always compare the job classification database info with the minimum requirements in the posting for consistency. • Minimum requirements must be specific and measurable. • For represented labor groups: preferred requirements beyond the minimum cannot exceed the minimum requirements.

30. Helpful Hints to improve Requisition first pass yield • Remove all fancy formatting. • When duplicating a previous requisition, check every field carefully for relevance and accuracy. Look for old dates embedded within posting description or application instructions. • Always add notes to provide context. Notes such as previous discussions and decisions, who participated, why a req should or should not be posted until filled, if an internal candidate has been identified, justification for not conducting a background screen, etc. • Common mistake: considering students to be “internal”, students are “external”.

31. Questions/Observations?