1 a community where people thrive, partnerships prevail and performance excels 1

1

A community wherePeople thrive, Partnerships prevail and Performance excels

1

2

Human ResourcesCommunity of Practice

Competency Development Program

How to Leverage Business Intelligence

January 29, 20102

3

Today’s Agenda• Introductions / Review of HR Community

of Practice (CoP)• Metrics in Context• Overview of Business Intelligence• Case Study Review

– Health System– Voices / Logic model

• Critical Thinking in Groups data sets• Networking Lunch

3

4

HR Community of Practice• Connected to our HR Strategic Plan• HR Call to Action & Strategic

Response:The human resource vision and mission articulate a preferred future that encompasses a world-class HR community of practice providing the knowledge, expertise and infrastructure to develop and sustain the UM workforce.

4

5

HR Community of Practice

• Supports HR Strategic Goal 2:– Build human resources skills,

competencies and expertise to advance University goals.

• Focus group and survey work

• Chartering a “Community of Practice”

5

6

HR CoP Charter

• Purpose is to engage HR professionals and harness the collective intelligence of the HR community

• Pilot UM HR Professional Community: over 140 HR professionals

6

7

HR CoP Initiatives• Launched in September, 2009:

– Collaborative Wiki– Competency Development Program– Practice Sharing Site

• Sub-committees established and work has begun:– e-Learning– On-Boarding

7

8

HR CoP Steering Committee• Established to start the initial set of CoP activities• Will lead sub-committee work for initiatives• Monitor participation, discussion and dialogue

threads, and member feedback • Review objectives, charter, HR Strategic Plan, and

member feedback annually• Representative of different areas of the HR

community and have HR skills and experiences that allow them to have strong knowledge of the profession

8

9

HR CoP Steering Committee• Steering Committee Members:

– Kay Ball, Student Affairs – Amy Byron-Oilar, Ross School – Jeff Evans, Dearborn – Veretta Nix, Health System – Tina Pryor, Dental School – Patrick Smitowski, LSA – Laurita Thomas, AVP HR – Darrell Washington, University HR

9

10

HR CoP Steering Committee

• HR CoP Technology and Communication Experts: – Dave Reid, UHR – Ron Sober, HRD – Tony Tsai, Health System

• Sponsors: – Deborah Childs, Chief Human Resource Officer - UMHS – Diana Curran, Human Resource Director - Flint – Jeff Evans, Human Resource Director - Dearborn – Laurita Thomas, Associate Vice President and Chief Human

Resource Officer - University of Michigan

10

11

Competency Development Program

• 84% of HR CoP survey respondents asked for facilitated interactive/case study

• High interest competency areas from survey:– Strategic Planning: What it Means to Work

Strategically, November 16, 2009 – How to Leverage Business Intelligence, January

29, 2010 – How to Use Innovation and Creativity to

Advance HR, February 22, 2010 11

12

Relations among major concepts in the HR Community of Practice

Focus Areas

1. Strategic planning: what it means to work strategically:

Strategic thinking

Strategic planning

Execution

2. How to leverage business intelligence

3. How to use creativity and innovation to advance

HR

University Acumen/business

intelligence (Stakeholder needs)

Performance consulting

Critical Thinking

Data-based decision making

Session

Session

12

13

How to Leverage Business Intelligence

• Key learning's:– Participants will have an overview of Business

Intelligence as a business process including a review of best practices for this competency.

– By going through this session, participants will review case studies and sets of human resources data that are basis for analysis and practice critical thinking that allows for better decision making.

– By learning application of business intelligence through case study and practicing critical thinking centering around data sets, participants will have a framework for data driven recommendations.

13

Metrics in context Increased emphasis on strategic HR - Requires measurement, analysis, and

prediction of workforce trends developing strategic responses

HR as business partner- We are expected to be quantitative, too Leaders are “data-hungry” To provide non-financial measures of

institutional health Having good HR data will increase our

credibility and influence

Business IntelligenceBusiness Intelligence

Kim Schatzel, Ph.DUniversity of Michigan-Dearborn

College of Business

January 2010

Agenda

So What is BI? Process of BI & Why It’s So Hard to Do Well The Making of Metrics and KPIs BI Best Practices

So What Is BI?

“Concepts & methods to improve business decision making by using fact-based support systems”

- Dresner (1989) The Planet’s Best BI System Critical Attributes

Synthesis of Management, Leadership, Technology, & Collaboration

Routinizes, Reveals, Recognizes, Rivets Data Warehousing Applications Tools Data/Information Intelligence Decision

One Question

If You Were Trying to Determine the

Suitability of Someone to Be in Charge of

the HR Department’s Annual Charity

Bungee Jumping Contest …

What is the One

Question You Would Ask Them?

Process of BI & Why It is So Hard to Do Well

Informational/Data Requirements Scale/Scope, Semantics, Novelty, Quality/Cost of

Acquisition Don’t Get Fired Asking for More Data - Too Bad !

Different Forms of Information/Data Qualitative vs. Quantitative; Historical vs. Current

Converting Information to Intelligence Dashboards, Scorecards Reports & Analysis (Quality/Cost) Presentation

The Making of Metrics and KPIsIt All Starts with the Strategy

85% of Employees Do Not Know their Firm’s Strategy or Just One of its Strategic Objectives

75% of Executives Spend < 1 Hour/Month Discussing or Meeting on Strategy

90% of Firms Do Not Have an Employee Communications Plan Regarding Strategy Annual Reports, Town Hall Meetings,

Newsletters

The Making of Metrics and KPIs

Strategic Mapping to Scorecard Strategic Mapping

Identify Key Strategic Objectives Customer, Financial, Process, Learning

Identify Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 3-5 Per Strategic Objective; Set Targets

Benefits of Scorecard Increase Focus on Strategy Performance by Measuring What Matters Align Objectives with Work Done Day-to-Day & Priorities Focus Drivers of Future Performance Improve Communication on Strategic Objectives

The Making of Metrics and KPIsDashBoards vs. Scorecards

Tells You What You are Doing

Monitors Processes Real-Time Measures Metrics Exceptions, Alerts Linked to System Think Speedometer

Tells You How You are Doing

Charts Progress “Bucket” Summaries Key Indicators (KPIs) Thresholds/Targets Linked to Plan Think Average MPG

The Making of Metrics and KPIs

Dashboards # of Inbound Calls Current Hold Time for

Inbound Calls Average Resolution

Time (Trailing Hour) # of Calls in

Escalation

Think Speedometer

Real Time Gauges

Scorecards Median Resolution Time Mean Resolution Time % of Calls Resolved at

First Contact Mean Hold Time Utilization of Call Center

Staff

Think Mean MPG

Performance to Target

The Making of Metrics and KPIs

Strategic Mapping to Scorecard

Target Stores Scorecard Customer – Brand Positioning, Market Share,

Customer Satisfaction Financial - Same Store P/L, P/E Multiplier, Days

Sales Inventory Process - SKU Stock-outs, Product Shelf-Life Learning - Employee Satisfaction, Employee

Turnover, Employee Skills Set Inventory

The Making of Metrics and KPIs

Airline ScorecardWhat are the KPIs for Delta Airlines ? Customer Financial Process Learning

BI Best Practices Do Routinize Reporting (80%)

Measurement Model, Distribution, Presentation Do Develop a Scorecard (68%)

Strategic Mapping … See Reporting Do Develop Methodological Skills/Competencies

Advanced Analytics – MV Analysis, Clustering, Predictive Analysis/Modeling

Surveys – Design, Data Gathering, Results Do Max Out Proxy Measures & Current Reports Focus on Report-writer Utilization

More?

Competing on Analytics – The New Science of Winning – Tom Davenport

Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action – Kaplan and Norton

Workforce Planning:The Health System Model

Presented byKent Seckinger

UMHS-HR Director of Finance and Decision Support

January 29, 2010

Purpose• Share an overview of the Health System

Workforce Planning Model

• Share lessons learned from the UMHS journey

• Share how this model might be useful for you

Workforce Planning Definition• A process for identifying the future

workforce needs– Identifies the gap between demand and

supply for staff

• It is a plan – a guide to assist in decision-making, especially in relation to workforce strategy

Copyright 2006 The Infohrm Group Inc

Key Workforce Planning Questions:• What are the goals for your school/college or service areas in the

future?

• How many people and with what skills are needed to achieve those goals?

• What is the ratio of internal to external hires to balance institutional knowledge with fresh ideas?

• What percentage of our “critical roles” are staffed with below average performers?

• What percentage of key positions have identified successors?

• What percentage of our high performers are at high risk for departure?

Source: CLC Metrics (www.clcmetrics.com)

Why Do Workforce Planning• Reduce the probability of impact to

operations

• Attain / Sustain a competitive advantage

“Perfect Storm”

Shrinking Pool ofNew Applicants

Increased Demand forHealthcare

AgingWorkforce

FinancialPressures

IncreasedWorkload

Shortages ofHealthcare Staff

IncreasedCompetition

Lead Time for TrainingNew Faculty/Staff

State Economy

Generational Differences

NIH Funding

Workforce Planning FrameworkStrategicDirection

CurrentSituation

StrategyDevelopment

StrategyImplementation

GapAnalysis

BusinessNeed

StrategyEvaluation

Strategic Direction• Growth Rate

• Areas for Expansion / Contraction

• Technology Investment

UMHS Strategic Direction• Growth and Investment

– Strategic Capital Plan• Clinical Capacity

– Road to 1,000 Inpatient Beds– Ambulatory Care Strategic Plan

• Information Technology

– Choices of Strategic Emphasis

Workforce Planning FrameworkStrategicDirection

CurrentSituation

StrategyDevelopment

StrategyImplementation

GapAnalysis

BusinessNeed

StrategyEvaluation

Business Need• External Drivers

– Industry– Technology– Government

• Internal Drivers– Margin Targets– Productivity Expectations– Customer Expectations

UMHS Business Need• Ideal Faculty/Staff Experience

• Ideal Patient Experience

• Ideal Clinical Practice Experience

• Average 3% Operating Margin

The Ideal Faculty and Staff, Patient and Clinical Practice Experiences reinforce and strengthen each other.

When one experience improves, it enhances the experience of others.

Improving satisfaction with immediate supervisor

Leads to a more stable workforce and lower turnover costs

Improves patient satisfaction

Improves the environment that supports clinical practice

The Synergy of Satisfaction

Ideal Patient

Experience

IdealClinical Practice

Experience

Ideal Faculty and Staff

Experience

Inpatient/Outpatient Activity TrendInpatient and Outpatient "Cases"

(assumes 2.5% IP growth, 7.5% OP growth)

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

65,000

70,000

75,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Inpatient Outpatient

Workforce Planning FrameworkStrategicDirection

CurrentSituation

StrategyDevelopment

StrategyImplementation

GapAnalysis

BusinessNeed

StrategyEvaluation

Current Situation• Internal Trend Data

– Termination Rates– Retirement Eligibility– Vacancy Rates– Workforce Surveys

• External Data– Bureau of Labor Statistic Labor Force Projections– Education Graduation Projections– Best Practice / Literature Review

Diversity of Patients and WorkforceUMHS Ethnicity Breakdown - 2009

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

White 73.5% 78.8% 84.5% 89.3% 60.6% 43.2% 72.0% 73.5% 77.8%

Hispanic/Latino 2.3% 2.1% 1.8% 1.6% 4.0% 3.8% 6.0% 1.5% 3.1%

Black/African-American 2.5% 10.9% 6.4% 6.4% 4.3% 0.8% 2.0% 7.9% 14.1%

Asian/Pacific Islander 19.7% 5.7% 4.6% 2.2% 23.5% 18.0% 0.0% 4.0% 2.0%

American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 1.2%

Not Indicated/Other 1.5% 2.1% 2.2% 0.4% 7.4% 33.8% 20.0% 12.9% 1.9%

Faculty Staff (All)Nurses &

Allied Health

LeadershipHouse Officer

Medical Students

Nursing Students

Patient (2008)

State Population

(2000)

UMHS Rolling 12-Month Termination Rate Trend

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Nurses

Patient Care Services

UMHS

TERMINATION_TYPE Overall

Sum of TERMINATION_RATE

EXTRACT_YEAR EXTRACT_MONTH

RPT_CATEGORY

25th Pct Median 75th Pct

Nurses 8.4% 9.0% 9.4%

Patient Care Services 9.9% 10.4% 10.8%

UMHS 8.8% 9.2% 9.4%

UMHS 12-month Rolling Vacancy Rate Trend

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Nurses

Patient Care Services

UMHS

Drop Page Fields Here

Sum of VAC_RATE

EXTRACT_YEAR EXTRACT_MONTH

RPT_CATEGORY

25th Pct Median

75th Pct

Nurses 3.4% 4.2% 5.2%

Patient Care Services 3.0% 3.6% 4.0%

UMHS 2.9% 3.8% 4.1%

UMHS Staff Retirement EligibiltyHistorical and Projections

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

N= 1,010 1,131 1,255 1,429 1,623 1,892 2,033 2,237 2,420 2,627 2,842 3,054 3,308 3,559

% 7.7% 8.2% 8.7% 9.2% 9.9% 11.4% 12.2% 13.4% 14.5% 15.7% 17.0% 18.3% 19.8% 21.3%

7/1/2004 7/1/2005 7/1/2006 7/1/2007 7/1/2008 7/1/2009 1/1/2010Proj.

7/1/2010Proj.

1/1/2011Proj.

7/1/2011Proj.

1/1/2012Proj.

7/1/2012Proj.

1/1/2013Proj.

1/1/2013

Predictors of “Engagement--Validation”

Employees’“Validation”

Willingness to Recommend

Dept

Supervisor

Employees’Opp for Growth

Local Mgmnt

Physical Work

Environment

Peers

abc

a) Feel respected for contributionsb) Feel like valuable member of teamc) Comfortable expressing opinions

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Percent 27% 9% 8% 8% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%

Benefits PeopleAdvance

Opp.Job Sat. Pay Security Ed. Opp. Job Flex. Mission U of M

Ann Arbor

ValuedGood Sup.

Environ.

Top Reasons for StayingTotal Compensation 33%

Career Satisfaction 33%

Environment / Culture 25%

Mission + U of M 9%

Environmental Factors Influencing Staffing

• Aging Population

• Increased Competition

• Outpatient will be primary setting of care

• Michigan Economy

• Four Generations in the workforce

“Perfect Storm”

Shrinking Pool ofNew Applicants

Increased Demand forHealthcare

AgingWorkforce

FinancialPressures

IncreasedWorkload

Shortages ofHealthcare Staff

IncreasedCompetition

Lead Time for TrainingNew Faculty/Staff

State Economy

Generational Differences

NIH Funding

Workforce Planning FrameworkStrategicDirection

CurrentSituation

StrategyDevelopment

StrategyImplementation

GapAnalysis

BusinessNeed

StrategyEvaluation

Gap Analysis• Identify the impact on staffing

• Develop Scenarios– Based on the environmental factors that

impact staffing– Based on trend data

UMHS Gap Analysis• Created 4 Scenarios

– No Action Taken• Based on current trend

– Action Taken• Probable Case• Best Case• Worst Case

UMHS Gap Analysis

Termination Rates 25th Pct Median 75th Pct

Nurses 8.4% 9.0% 9.4%

Patient Care Services 9.9% 10.4% 10.8%

UMHS 8.8% 9.2% 9.4%

Retirements FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009

UMHS Total 105 134 145 122 109

% of Start of FY Eligible 10.4% 11.8% 11.6% 8.5% 6.7%

UMHS Staff Projected Recruitment NeedsFY2010 to FY2016

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Projected Incremental Needs 618 710 734 968 1,031 1,060 1,122

Projected Replacements - Retirements 200 241 278 322 375 432 490

Projected Replacements - Terminations 1,494 1,554 1,618 1,700 1,788 1,879 1,976

FY2010 Proj. FY2011 Proj. FY2012 Proj. FY2013 Proj. FY2014 Proj. FY2015 Proj. FY2016 Proj.

Hiring Projections Example:

Note: Actual assumptions and data have been disguised • Assumptions based on historical trends

• Projected Annual Growth based on Director input

ScenarioAnnual ActivityAssumptions

ProjectedAnnualGrowth

ForecastedAnnual

Retirements

ForecastedAnnual

Terminations

ForecastedAnnual

New HireNeeds

No Action Taken22% Termination Rate50% Retirement Eligible Retire 167 625 1,100 1,892

Probable Case17% Termination Rate25% Retirement Eligible Retire 167 313 850 1,330

Best Case12% Termination Rate15% Retirement Eligible Retire 167 188 600 955

Worst Case19% Termination Rate35% Retirement Eligible Retire 167 438 950 1,555

Workforce Planning FrameworkStrategicDirection

CurrentSituation

StrategyDevelopment

StrategyImplementation

GapAnalysis

BusinessNeed

StrategyEvaluation

Strategy Development• Evaluation Criteria

– Establish a set of Guiding Principles to evaluate all potential recommendations

• Recommendations / Strategies– Highlight the specific concern being addressed– Outline strategies and action items– Return on Investment Analysis

• Expected Outcomes – Establish measures that will be positively impacted by

successful implementation

Become Widely RecognizedAs a Great Place to Work

Coordinate Recruitment Efforts

Expand and Diversify thePotential Applicant Pool

Mentoring, Mentoring, MentoringRe-Recruit Current Employees

Invest in Leadership Development

WorkforceInvestment

Plan

UMHS Strategies

Program Cost Projections Example:

Note: Actual data has been disguised

• Costs are also broken down by the year they would be incurred

Item Minimum Maximum

One-time Expenses for New Programs $0.25M $0.30M

Recurring Expenses for New Programs $0.10M $0.13M

Recurring Support for Current Programs $0.08M $0.09M

Incremental Support for Expansion of Current Programs $0.10M $0.13M

Total One-time Expenses $0.25M $0.30M

Total Recurring Expenses $0.28M $0.35M

Termination Costs Projections Example:

Note: Actual data have been disguised

• Termination Costs include costs associated with replacement, selection, training, and recruiting/advertising. For this example $10,000 was used

• Termination Costs Savings equals the No Action Taken costs minus the specific scenario costs

Scenario Annual Activity Assumptions

EstimatedAnnual

Terminations

EstimatedAnnual

Termination Costs

EstimatedAnnual

TerminationCosts Savings

No Action Taken22% Termination Rate50% Retirement Eligible Retire 1,725 $17.3M  

Probable Case17% Termination Rate25% Retirement Eligible Retire 1,163 $11.6M $5.7M

Best Case12% Termination Rate15% Retirement Eligible Retire 783 $7.8M $9.5M

Worst Case19% Termination Rate35% Retirement Eligible Retire 1,388 $13.9M $3.4M

Return on Investment Example:

Note: Actual data have been disguised

• *Estimated Savings = No Action Termination Costs – (Case Termination Costs + Program Costs), where Program Costs include One-Time and Recurring costs

Scenario Annual Activity Assumptions

IncrementalOne-timeProgram

Costs

IncrementalRecurringProgram

Costs

EstimatedAnnual

TerminationCosts

EstimatedSavings*

No Action Taken22% Termination Rate50% Retirement Eligible Retire $0 $0 $17.3M $0

Probable Case17% Termination Rate25% Retirement Eligible Retire $0.25M - $0.30M $0.28M - $0.35M $11.6M $5.05M - $5.17M

Best Case12% Termination Rate15% Retirement Eligible Retire $0.25M - $0.30M $0.28M - $0.35M $7.8M $8.85M - $8.97M

Worst Case19% Termination Rate35% Retirement Eligible Retire $0.25M - $0.30M $0.28M - $0.35M $13.9M $2.75M - $2.87M

UMHS Expected Outcomes

Measure Expected Outcome

CurrentBenchmark(External)

Pre-WorkforceInvestment Plan

(UMHHC)

Voluntary SeparationLess than Saratoga Healthcare industry objective within 3 years 9.1% 7.7%

Employee Satisfaction"Willingness to Recommend" at or above 80 in 5 years 77.0 69.7

Time-to-FillLess than Saratoga Healthcare industry objective within 5 years 45 days 68 days

Average Number of Applicants Will double within 5 years 18 9

Paid Hours per Adjusted Discharge

Sustain at the 50th percentile, using UHC subgroup, over next 5 years 211 233

Cost per Adjusted Discharge

Sustain at the 30th percentile, using UHC subgroup, over next 5 years $13,504 $13,560

Note: Cost per Adjusted Discharge includes salary and commodity expense for UMHHC

Workforce Planning FrameworkStrategicDirection

CurrentSituation

StrategyDevelopment

StrategyImplementation

GapAnalysis

BusinessNeed

StrategyEvaluation

UMHS Implemented Strategies

Become Widely RecognizedAs a Great Place to Work

Premier Employer in Healthcare101 Best and Brightest in Metro

Detroit

Coordinate Recruitment EffortsRecruitment Branding

Recruitment Careers WebsiteeMploy

Recruitment ToolkitAllied Health Recruitment Coord.

Expand and Diversify thePotential Applicant Pool

Middle and High School Student OutreachRecruitment Careers Website

Centralized Coord. for internal visitsAllied Health Partners DayNursing School Outreach

School of Public Health and IOE 481 Students

Mentoring, Mentoring, Mentoring

Center for Professional Development and Mentoring

Re-Recruit Current EmployeesRetention Focus Groups

Recognition SurveySurpassing Exit Interview

Nurse Prof. Devel. Framework & Cont. Educ.Onsite BSN Program

Nurse New Hire SupportInvest in Leadership DevelopmentUMHS Leadership Development

Curriculum – Foundations & MastersHealth Care Leadership Institute

Emerging LeaderLeadership At All Levels

Sixth Sense Coaching ProgramDiversity Education

WorkforceInvestment

Plan2003 to Present

Workforce Planning FrameworkStrategicDirection

CurrentSituation

StrategyDevelopment

StrategyImplementation

GapAnalysis

BusinessNeed

StrategyEvaluation

Strategy Evaluation• Evaluation of the Implemented

Strategies

• Evaluation of the Overall Impact

UMHS Outcomes

Measure Expected OutcomeCurrentUMHHC

CurrentBenchmark(External)

Pre-WorkforceInvestment

Plan(UMHHC)

Voluntary Separation

Less than Saratoga Healthcare industry objective within 3 years 6.6% 9.1% 7.7%

Employee Satisfaction

"Willingness to Recommend" at or above 80 in 5 years 70.3 77.0 69.7

Time-to-FillLess than Saratoga Healthcare industry objective within 5 years 59 days 45 days 68 days

Average Number of Applicants Will double within 5 years 29 18 9

Paid Hours per Adjusted Discharge

Sustain at the 50th percentile, using UHC subgroup, over next 5 years 274 211 233

Cost per Adjusted Discharge

Sustain at the 30th percentile, using UHC subgroup, over next 5 years $18,955 $13,504 $13,560

Note: Cost per Adjusted Discharge includes salary and commodity expense for UMHHC

Workforce Planning FrameworkStrategicDirection

CurrentSituation

StrategyDevelopment

StrategyImplementation

GapAnalysis

BusinessNeed

StrategyEvaluation

Lessons Learned• Involve key unit leaders

• Communicate often to leadership groups

• Maximize involvement– Commitment– Clarity of purpose

Lessons Learned• Model different scenarios

– There isn’t one exact answer

• Use date to drive decisions– Quantitative and Qualitative– Internal, External, Financial, Human Resources

• Get Finance On-Board– Support the approach– Support the need– Support the costs

Questions ???

Voices of the Staff:From Strategy to Measuring Success

• Create dynamic team of different skill sets and styles• Use business case/strategic plan goals and objectives• Identify best practice measures• Use tracking mechanism

– Spreadsheet– Logic Model

• Periodic review and updates important

Logic Model

• Work from right to left (impacts to activities).

• Impacts should be S.M.A.R.T

• Example

Group Exercise – Logic Model

1. Using impact listed, discuss some activities that would contribute to success.

2. Using activities listed, define a SMART impact.

Critical Thinking in Groups• Tom Palmer, University Human

Resources, Senior Analyst, Human Resources Information Services

79

Closing

• Strategy

• Measurement for success

80