December Business and Finance Division Service Assessment Survey. Summary Report To Finance Division December 1, 2006

Transcription

1 December 2006 Business and Finance Division Service Assessment Survey Summary Report To Finance Division December 1, 2006

2 Agenda I. Introduction II. III. IV. Results Summary Quantitative Data Results Summary Qualitative Data Recommendations 2 2

3 I. Introduction 3 3

4 Survey Objectives Summarize and understand customer perceptions and expectations of the Business and Finance Division Identify areas of strength and opportunities for improvement Develop a benchmark measure for future comparisons 4 4

5 Survey Design & Methodology The survey was composed of: 30 items rated on two scales Importance and Performance One comment question Items were developed collaboratively between LMU s Business and Finance Division and Watson Wyatt Members of University Leadership (Cabinet Members, Deans, and select Vice Presidents, trustees, faculty, and members of LMU community) were invited to participate Overall response rate was 50% with 23 of 46 participating University-wide, faculty and staff will be asked to participate in upcoming online survey made up of different items 5 5

6 Survey design & Methodology Each item was rated on five-point scales: Unfavorable Fair Favorable 6 6

7 Survey Design & Methodology Survey items were grouped into five categories based on averaging item scores within each dimension Financial Controls Budget Process Internal Reports External Reports Contracts 7 7

8 II. Results Summary Quantitative Data 8 8

9 Dimension Scores by Importance Dimension* Importance Scores Performance Scores Financial Controls External Reports Internal Reports Budget Process Contracts * Dimensions in table above are ranked by importance ratings average. Cells highlighted in yellow represent lowest performance scores average, and in green highest performance scores average. 9 9

10 Two Highest Scores Within Dimensions Services/Functions by Dimension Dimension by Importance Rank* Importance Scores Performance Scores 1. Creates and maintains internal financial and accounting system controls to ensure proper data integrity, data security, and data access. Financial Controls Ensures that all mission critical internal controls are operating as designed, and regular communications are made to the Trustees. Financial Controls Submits required reports and surveys in a timely manner to relevant regulatory bodies at federal, state, and local levels. External Reports Keeps LMU in compliance with all external financial reporting requirements. External Reports Prepares effective financial reports for review to the President and Board of Trustees. Internal Reports Prepares effective ad-hoc reports in a timely, efficient manner in response to special requests and surveys. Internal Reports Creates the right balance between centralized and decentralized budget authority and accountability. Budget Process Provides stakeholders with a regularly updated annual budget calendar with key dates and reminders. Budget Process Coordinates with LMU legal counsel to monitor contract liability and compliance issues. Contracts Establishes proper balance between centralized oversight of University-wide contracts and local unit autonomy for contracts as appropriate. Contracts * Ranking based on Dimension importance scores

11 Highest Performance by Dimension Financial Controls received the highest average performance score with the following services carrying the most weight: Creating and maintaining internal financial and accounting system control to ensure data integrity, security, and access. Ensuring that all mission critical internal controls are operating as designed, and regular communications are made to the Trustees. External Reports received the second highest average performance score with the following carrying the most weight: Submits required reports and surveys in a timely manner to relevant regulatory bodies at federal, state, and local levels. Keeps LMU in compliance with all external financial reporting requirements

12 Two Lowest Scores Within Dimensions Services/Functions by Dimension Dimension by Importance Rank* Importance Scores Performance Scores 5. Maintains accurate and current documentation of Finance Division procedures and work processes, readily accessible by all relevant stakeholders. Financial Controls Creates and maintains systems to specify spending authority levels, decision guidelines and signature requirements. Financial Controls Makes copies of external reports available to appropriate requesting stakeholders in a timely fashion. External Reports Keeps LMU in compliance with all external financial reporting requirements. External Reports Provides stakeholders with focused, timely reports that show key metrics in a simple, dashboard format for easy understanding and use. Internal Reports Prepares effective specialized management reports that assist the unit, college or school in making key financial decisions. Internal Reports Ensures the annual budget and projected three-year plan is in alignment with the LMU Strategic Plan. Budget Process Provides stakeholders with a satisfactory strategic overview of how the annual budget process works and their role in it. Budget Process Establishes clear time requirements to process contract reviews. Contracts Creates explicit criteria and competitive bidding standards for University-wide vendor selection and evaluation. Contracts * Ranking based on Dimension importance scores

13 Lowest Performance by Dimension Internal Controls received the lowest average performance score with the following services carrying the most weight: Maintaining accurate, current, and readily accessible documentation on Finance Division s work procedures and processes Creating and maintaining systems to specify spending authority levels, decision guidelines, and signature requirements Contracts received the second lowest average performance score with the following carrying the most weight: Establishing clear time requirements to process contract reviews Creating explicit criteria and competitive bidding standards for University-wide vendor selection and evaluation 13 13

14 III. Results Summary Qualitative Data 14 14

15 Comments Analysis Strengths Strong technical expertise and honesty Contract review process and audit help is valuable Implementation of new software (e.g., PAWS) will lead to improved performance Responsiveness 15 15

16 Comments Analysis Improvement Areas Budgeting Need to take a strategic perspective that reflects LMU s commitments as a Catholic University Increase decision making transparency and collaboration with internal stakeholders Ensure that information provided is accurate and timely Set more realistic expectations in terms of deadlines; give sufficient notice prior to changing commitments and processes Contracts Decrease contract turnaround time and increase process structure Increase the clarity of guidelines, such as signature authority for negotiating and entering into contracts Increase collaboration and stakeholder review when bidding and negotiating contracts, e.g., food service contracts 16 16

17 Comments Analysis Improvement Areas Financial Controls Formalize guidelines for spending authority levels and signature requirements and ensure they support timely processing of contracts Improve the organization and documentation of process protocols and policies for budgeting, reporting, purchasing, spending, etc. Increase involvement of stakeholders when new software is implemented or processes are changed Internal Reports Improve training on internal reporting software Increase clarity and accessibility of reports Anticipation that implementation of PAWS will improve performance in this area 17 17

18 IV. Recommendations 18 18

19 Next Steps Focus on performance improvement in areas ranked as most important (Financial Controls and External Reporting) and areas currently in Fair score zone Raise Business and Finance Division s awareness and understanding of unique higher education culture and its challenges Become more collaborative in overall planning and decision making Increase frequency and quality of formal and informal internal communications, documentation, and policies Be realistic about expectations of those outside of Business and Finance Division in terms of workload and delivery Increase internal training and education in finance-related tools, processes, and policies Continually improve customer orientation and communication finesse with internal stakeholders Survey again to evaluate progress 19 19