new mexico state university peer benchmarking...
TRANSCRIPT
New Mexico State UniversityPeer Benchmarking Report - FINAL
Deloitte Global Benchmarking CenterDeloitte Consulting LLP
September 14, 2015
1 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Purpose of Document
The points outlined below provide important context for reading this document. This document “New Mexico State University Peer Benchmarking Report” is a deliverable output of Phase I of NMSU’s
Staffing Study project developed by Deloitte in close consultation with University leadership and the NMSU Support Team.
This document is one of three outputs from this 10-week study. The other deliverables include: 1. Opportunities for Cost Reduction Report, 2. Business Cases and Recommendations Report.
The goal of the Staffing Study was to analyze staffing for administrative support functions on NMSU’s Las Cruces campus to identify opportunities for operational expenditure reductions and resource reallocations. As part of this effort, the University requested a peer benchmarking analysis.
The scope of this initial high-level assessment included 14 Administrative Functions – General Administration, Operational Management, Advancement, Finance, HR, IT, Procurement, Facility Services, Auxiliary Services, Communications, Student Administrative Services, Research Administration, Research, Public Service and Scholarly and Creative Activities, and Educational Programs. These areas were selected in collaboration with University leadership and the NMSU Support Team.
Contents include an Introduction to Benchmarking, Approach and Methodology, Executive Overview, and Detailed Functional Analyses for each of the 14 Administrative Functions within scope.
The benchmarking results contained in this document are intended to be combined with the results of the detailed activity analysis (contained within the deliverable entitled “Opportunities for Cost Reduction Report”) to provide directional input to understand and identify potential opportunities to further explore in more detail in phase II.
Please note that the gaps and opportunities identified in this benchmarking report document should not be taken alone when considering next steps forward for NMSU. Decisions about opportunities to implement should be made after careful consideration of the collective information and analysis contained across all the deliverables provided. NMSU needs to weigh the associated complexities, risks, associated costs and implementation timeframes for selected opportunities.
2 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Overview of Project – Goals and Objectives
The NMSU Staffing Study is a 10-week project with the following objectives, scope and outputs.
Analyze staffing for administrative support functions on the Las Cruces campus to identify opportunities for operational expenditure reductions and resource reallocations. Support the best alignment of non-faculty staffing with the core mission of the University and Vision
2020 Strategic Plan within the available financial structure. Survey 3 peer institutions (MSU, USU, UNM) to understand Staffing levels (at FTE level) and budget
data for in-scope process and to document key demographic, operational, and technology information to normalize data for comparison. Use other, comparable national benchmark data sources for additional comparison where needed.
A final report containing analysis and findings related to non-faculty staffing levels at NMSU, to review document the Current State Operating Model Analysis and Improvement Opportunities), including a list of actionable recommendations to address immediate, short, and long-term goals. A summary Benchmarking report of findings for each of the peer institutions. Business Cases for Select Improvement Opportunities.
Project Goals & Objectives
Project Outputs
Step 1 – Assess Current Organization Gather and review as-is organizational data (e.g. employee HR/Fin data by function, key transactional
data by function). Conduct detailed analysis of employee-level engagement for core activities within a function. Compare current state assessment to peer institutions and national Higher Education Benchmarks. Document service delivery model and identify opportunity areas for consideration.Step 2 – Identify Organizational Improvement Opportunities Identify opportunities for cost reduction through improvements to service delivery model, business
processes, policies, and the implementation of enabling technologies. Create a business case and develop recommendations.
Project Scope
Approach and Methodology
4 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Benchmarking is one component of NMSU’s Staffing Study approach and methodology.
Phase 1: Diagnostics and Benchmarking
Step 1: Assess Current
Organization
Step 2: Identify Organizational Improvement Opportunities
• Conduct project kick-off• Obtain required organization,
HR, and Finance Data• Develop and deploy activity
surveys and peer benchmarking survey
• Conduct detailed analysis of employee-level engagement within core activities within a function
• Cleanse data to create Span of Control model
• Conduct analysis of current state spans, layers, and labor costs
• Document current service delivery model and identify opportunity areas
• Compare current state assessment to peer institutions and national Higher Education Benchmarks
• Identify opportunities for cost reduction through improvements to service delivery model, business processes, policies, and the implementation of enabling technologies
• Create a business case and develop recommendations
• Develop high-level organizational design
• Align business processes and workflow
• Build governance and decision rights framework
• Design leadership job profile• Develop detailed organization
design• Build job profiles for detailed
organization• Assess organization
transformational business impacts
• Develop comprehensive organization transformation plan• Workforce transition• Processes and policies• Metrics and KPIs• Governance• Change Management and
Communications• Training• Rewards
• Implement organization transition
• Monitor and evaluate success of organizational transition
Phase 2: Design and Solution Development
Step 3: Design Future State Organization
Step 4: Transform Workforce and Organization
Phase 3: Implementation
Support and Consultation
NMSU Staffing Study Scope
Organizational changes should follow a four-step process from Assessment through Implementation. The NMSU Staffing Study represents the first two steps in the process. Additional analysis and design work is a
key component to consider prior to implementing organizational changes.
See Appendix for more detailed view of tasks executed in support of the benchmarking
Benchmarking
5 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Benchmarking provides a method by which to conduct comparisons to obtain greater insight.
Benchmarking is the process of comparing one's business processes and performance metrics to those in other organizations. Benchmarking information should not be used as the sole source to identify opportunities to reduce costs, increase productivity, and raise quality. Instead, benchmarking information is best used to complement with other more direct assessments (e.g., activity analyses) to help identify opportunities.
Benchmark benefits:
• Identifies potential opportunities for improving efficiency and effectiveness using fact-based, industry-specific data
• Qualifies opportunities for improvement; helps to guide, confirm, or correct initiatives
• Provides point of view on current organizational functioning before mapping a strategy for the future
• Creates baseline for future measurements across entire organization to track progress during complex transition
6 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
A taxonomy breaks work performed within an organization into Functions and Processes to facilitate analysis and comparison. 14 Functions and 155 Processes were defined for NMSU.
NMSU developed an administrative taxonomy to normalize data collection and facilitate analysis.
FunctionA series of logically-related
processes performed together to produce a defined set of
results
Each function typically has 5-15 processes
e.g., Conduct Travel Expense Processing
Organizations typically have 5-10 functions
e.g., Finance
See Appendix for depiction of the complete NMSU Administrative Taxonomy.
NMSU Administrative Taxonomy - Functions• Research, Public
Service & Scholarly/ Creative Activities
• Communications• Educational
Programs
• Student Administrative Services
• Award Development, Compliance & Admin
• Information Technology
• Auxiliaries• Finance• Human Resources• Procurement
• General Admin Support• Operational Management
Activities• Advancement • Facilities
ProcessA collection of related actions
that accomplishes a significant portion or stage of a function’s
end goals
7 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
University of New Mexico
Founded: 1889
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Enrollment: 28,644
University Type: Public Research University
Montana State University
Founded: 1893
Location: Bozeman, MT
Enrollment: 15,421
University Type: Land Grant
Utah State University
Founded: 1888
Location: Logan, UT
Enrollment: 27,662
University Type: Land Grant, Public Research University
NMSU selected three peer institutions to participate in their benchmarking effort.
8 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Collect personnel, labor cost, and select transaction data related to administrative
functions and costs
Analyze data and compare administrative functions to internal and external benchmarks
Utilize benchmark analysis in combination with activity analysis to identify improvement
opportunities
Collect NMSU personnel and labor cost data from Level 1 data request
Collect additional NMSU transaction data from interviews and from level 2 data requests
Collect NMSU FTE allocation data from Activity Analysis
Administer Benchmark Survey; Collect peer FTE, labor cost and transactional data using the established taxonomy to normalize data
Collect additional benchmark data public sources, Deloitte benchmarks (higher ed and industry)
Consolidate data into a comprehensive views
High-Level (Function)
Identify and document high-level benchmarks
Understand high-level personnel allocation and labor cost. Examples include:
‒ NMSU FTE count and labor cost by position location and by taxonomy component
‒ Total staff by function (FTE) per student ‒ Labor cost by function as percent of total
institution budget
Deeper Analysis
Analyze high-level benchmarks to identify areas for further exploration
Develop more detailed benchmarks for relevant functional areas to provide greater insight of overhead cost allocations. Examples include:
‒ Ratio of professional staff to support staff‒ Advancement staff per 1,000 living
alumni
Analyze benchmark outputs
Identify/quantify gaps between current performance and leading practice/benchmark
Compare benchmarking results with activity analysis
Document observations (leverage understanding of NMSU through interviews and validation)
Identify alternatives to close performance gap, leveraging peer benchmarking and leading practices
Benchmarking tasks leveraged the taxonomy to collect, validate, normalize and analyze data.
1. Gather Data 2. Perform Analysis 3. Identify Improvement Opportunities
9 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
An online benchmarking survey was administered to allow each institution to provide data for analysis.
10 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Deloitte’s Higher
Education Bench-marking
Study
Publically available
Benchmarks(i.e., IPEDS
EDUCAUSE)
Pros: • All comparison are made to
Higher Education institutions• Measures costs across key
operational and administrative functions (e.g., Finance, HR,)
Cons: • Data is robust but participants
do not include immediate NMSU peers
• Function definitions slightly
Pros: • Readily available data • Allows comparison to direct
peers at high-level• Accepted by Higher
Education community
Cons: • Data variables are limited• Information only available at
Function level
In addition, Deloitte was able to conduct comparison using other data sources for select taxonomy functions.
As indicated below, the use of this data has drawbacks, but also facilitates further comparison and validation of the peer benchmarking data and activity analysis outputs. The uniqueness of the NMSU taxonomy in comparison those of others sources presents a constraint in conducting a proper comparison for some functions and thus comparisons with these benchmarks should be assessed appropriately.
Unless noted directly on the slide, the default source for all data and participant averages are from the NMSU peer benchmarking effort.
11 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) is a system of interrelated surveys conducted annually by the U.S. Department’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
• More than 7,500 institutions complete IPEDS surveys each year. These include research universities, state colleges and universities, private religious and liberal arts colleges, for-profit institutions, community and technical colleges, non-degree-granting institutions such as beauty colleges, and others.
Compare
• Provides basic data needed to describe — and analyze trends in —postsecondary education in the United States, in terms of the numbers of students enrolled, staff employed, dollars expended, and degrees earned.Gain insight
For the Benchmarking component of the NMSU Staffing Study, IPEDS data was used to provide additional comparisons on NMSU’s overall staffing levels and labor costs per student FTE.
12 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
In the summer of 2014, 134 public doctoral research institutions responded to the CDS’s request for information on Information Technology.
EDUCAUSE’s Core Data Service (CDS) summarizes data for comparison across subsets of responding institutions.
• Understand core IT metrics (e.g. Central IT spend/Institutional FTE, Central IT FTEs/Institutional FTEs) across a broad range of similar institutions
• Understand metrics on standard IT services (IT strategy, Support Services, Educational Technology, Research Technology, Data Centers) across a broad range of similar institutions
Compare
• Obtain a deeper understanding of institution costs, staffing levels, productivity, and technology utilization in support of the IT function when compared across a large number of higher education institutions
• Review trend data for core and specific IT metricsGain insight
For the Benchmarking component of the NMSU Staffing Study, EDUCAUSE CDS data was used to provide additional comparisons on core IT metrics such as NMSU’s IT staffing levels and IT spend
13 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Deloitte’s Higher Education Benchmarking Study includes over 100 performance metrics collected from 15 public/private institutions.
• Understanding what peer institutions are doing to realize efficiency gains in transaction-laden processes
• Relative strengths and weaknesses compared to other universities and institutions in more than 100 performance metrics
• Monetized areas of opportunity
Compare
• Identifies performance gaps, quantifies and prioritizes opportunities for process improvement;
• Data to help build the business case to support investment in function improvement initiatives such as more effectively targeted technology investments
• Identified and prioritized areas to help improve efficiencies & reduce costs
Identify and prioritize
• Fact-based, industry-specific insights and understanding to institution costs, staffing levels, productivity, and technology utilization
• Examination of functions of the utmost importance to the business, student services, and advancement leaders including facility services, admissions, finance, and procurement
• Understanding of not only where cost-cutting improvements can be realized but also where investments and efficiency opportunities exist in revenue generating areas
Gain insight
Deloitte has created a benchmark which compares performance of seven key institutional, general, and administrative functions for the higher education industry sector
14 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
To allow for the proper comparisons, each peer’s functional data was normalized and compared to the participant average.
Peer organizations are rarely of the same size, so for comparison purposes their data needs to be normalized and compared to a participant average.
Normalization is simply taking a data component like finance cost and dividing it by a size data component like budget.
Normalization allows for the determination of gaps (cost/percent differences) within functions between institutions which in turn can validate strong performance or identify opportunities for improvement.
What is normalization?
How does normalization help comparability?
Metrics Organization A Organization B Organization C Participant Average
Budget $1,000,000,000 $2,000,000,000 $2,000,000,000
Number of transactions 50,000,000 100,000,000 100,000,000
Finance cost $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000
Finance FTEs 75 150 95
Finance cost as a percent of budget 1.00% 1.00% 0.75% 0.92%
Finance FTEs per billion in budget 75 75 48 66
Transactions per finance FTE 666,667 666,667 1,052,632 795,322
15 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Assumptions
• Functions and processes defined in the NMSU Taxonomy and incorporated into the online benchmarking tool were adhered to by all benchmarking participants in the submission of data.
• Data provided via the online benchmarking survey by all peers, to include NMSU, is valid and accurate.
• Validation of data provided by peers and NMSU successfully reconciled any discrepancies in peer data.
Constraints
• Due to the 10 week timeline for the entire NMSU Staffing Study, peers were provided only two weeks to respond.
• NMSU administrative taxonomy differed in comparison to the taxonomies used by other data sources. To accommodate for the differences in taxonomies between data sources, certain processes were excluded from comparisons to facilitate the best possible comparisons.
Understanding assumptions and constraints provide further clarity on NMSU’s benchmarking effort.
Executive Overview
17 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Amongst the four benchmarking participants there is a high degree of demographic diversity.
15,829
967
NMSU
Staff
2nd Quartile MaxMin
Faculty
Total students
15,421 35,36221,74615,727 29,587
909 2,897976953 1,463
3,057 11,0426,8574,339 9,471
3rd Quartile1st Quartile
4,767
Note: All data is rounded for presentation purposes and the calculated results may differ slightly
11,489
2,612
Operatingbudget
New undergraduate
students
Livinggraduates
Financial aid recipients
2,612 7,7174,3942,860 6,312
11,028 24,84811,48911,259 18,169
93,773 145,201127,750110,762 136,476
$ 430.5M $ 1.3B$ 548.8M$ 486.4M $ 778.0M
3,741 16,1868,2556,219 11,1457,045
127,750
Employees
$505M
NMSU, FY15
Source: Peer Benchmarking
18 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
17.8
21.1
5.0
12.4 1.2
8.6 3.7
2.1 10.0
3.4
13.6
3.1
25.3
7.7
Labor cost ($US M)
General AdministrationOperational Management ActivitiesAdvancementFacility ServicesAuxilariesFinanceHuman ResourcesProcurementStudent Adminstrative ServicesResearch Development, Compliance and AdministrationITCommunications/University RelationsResearch, Public Service and Scholarly and Creative ActivitiesEducational Programs
Based on the activity analysis, NMSU spends $135.2 million on labor and has 2,323 FTEs across the benchmark functions.
426
183
61
328
26 150 55 47 184
45
185
55
430
149
Total FTEs
General AdministrationOperational Management ActivitiesAdvancementFacility ServicesAuxilariesFinanceHuman ResourcesProcurementStudent Adminstrative ServicesResearch Development, Compliance and AdministrationITCommunications/University RelationsResearch, Public Service and Scholarly and Creative ActivitiesEducational Programs
Source: Peer Benchmarking
19 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
A combination of waterfall and bar charts present NMSU in comparison to the overall participant average.
Waterfall ChartsWaterfall charts are a form of data visualization that helps in explaining the differences between two related data elements. The “floating bricks” represent negative or positive values contributing to the difference for each function in the taxonomy.
Comparative Bar ChartsUsing the normalization process described on slide 13, NMSU’s data is compared to the participant average. Multiple views are presented for each function in the taxonomy. The title and accompanying text on the slide provide additional context on how NMSU compares to the average. The bullets in the right corner correspond with each chart, beginning with the top left chart and moving clockwise.
20 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
While there are differences by student type, NMSU's total FTEs per student is comparable to the participant average.
6.17.5
NMSU Average
Total staff per new enrolled graduate student
0.30 0.28
NMSU Average
Total staff per student
1.81.5
NMSU Average
Total staff per new enrolled undergraduate student
• NMSU’s total staff per student is similar to the participant average
• NMSU's total FTEs per new enrolled undergraduate student is 20% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's total FTEs per new enrolled graduate student is 19% lower than the participant average
Source: Peer Benchmarking
21 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• NMSU is slightly higher than the participant average regarding total employee FTE to student FTE
• NMSU is higher than the participant average regarding total staff FTE to student FTE
Utilizing IPEDS data, NMSU's total FTEs per student remains comparable to the participant average.
Source: IPEDs HR and Finance Survey FY ‘13
22 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU’s labor costs are generally higher than the participant average.
1.4 1.3
NMSU Average
Total professional FTEs to support FTEs
• NMSU's total FTEs labor cost per student (all students) is 24% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's total FTEs labor cost as a percentage of the institution's total operating budget (all, restricted, unrestricted) is 16% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's total professional FTEs to support FTEs is 8% higher than the participant average
$8,526$6,887
NMSU Average
Total FTEs labor cost per student
Source: Peer Benchmarking
26.7%23.0%
NMSU Average
Total FTEs labor cost as a percentage of the institution's total operating budget
23 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• NMSU is lower than the participant average regarding total labor cost per student FTE; however, faculty salaries are included.
• Utilizing IPEDs categories for spend, NMSU is slightly lower compared to the participant average; however, faculty salaries are likely included in some categories (instruction, research, public service)
• In FY13 – FY 15, NMSU conducted market adjustment activities for faculty salaries
Source: IPEDs HR and Finance Survey FY ‘13
Utilizing IPEDs data, NMSU's total labor cost per student FTE is lower than the participant average.
24 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
135.0
104.6
7.23.1 2.9 3.7 1.7 1.4 2.1 1.3 3.9 1.0 6.6
0.2 2.7
1.8
Labor cost variance to the Average by function ($US M)
• For each function we identify the variance between an institution and the Average comparator
• Variance calculations are based on each function’s primary driver / normalizer
NMSU has a total labor cost variance of $30.4 million compared to the average with all but three functions contributing to the difference.
*Responses for Advancement were received by only three institutions; therefore, an average will not be included in the results of this functional analysis.
25 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Peers indicate higher degrees of shared service centers on average than NMSU which may contribute to their relative cost differential.
50%
50%
33%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
50%
67%
50%
50%
25%
50%
50%
50%
75%
50%
75%
50%
50%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
General Admin
Operational Management
Advancement
Facilities Services
Auxiliary Services
Finance
Human Resources
Procurement
Student Administrative Services
Research Development, Compliance,…
Information Technology
Communications
Research, Scholarship, Creative
Educational Programs
Degree of processing supported by a Shared services center
None Low Medium HighNMSU, FY15
Source: Peer Benchmarking
Detailed Functional Analysis
Advancement
28 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
$37.09 $36.65$51.48
$81.79
NMSU Higher EdQ1
Higher EdQ2
Higher EdQ3
Advancement labor cost per living graduate*
0.460.60 0.70
0.97
NMSU Higher Ed Q1 Higher Ed Q2 Higher Ed Q3
Advancement staff per 1000 living graduates**
• Advancement labor cost per living graduate is in the first quartile when compared to the results from the Deloitte Consulting Higher Ed Benchmarking Study.
• Advancement FTEs per 1,000 living graduates is in the first quartile when compared to the results from the Deloitte Consulting Higher Ed Benchmarking Study.
*Sources: NMSU – NMSU Activity Analysis Higher Ed Q1-Q3: Deloitte Consulting Higher Ed Benchmarking Study
Note: To normalize data for comparison purposes the following processes were removed from the NMSU benchmarking data to allow for an “apples to applies” comparison - Manage Volunteerism, Manage University and Foundation Endowments.
While lack of data prevented comparisons to peers, NMSU’s Advancement function compares favorably to other data sources.
29 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
As compared to participant responses, NMSU may have an opportunity to utilize automated workflow across Advancement.
50%
50%
100%
50%
50%
Level of reporting capability
Self-service Portal capability in function
Degree to which supporting processesare accomplished via automated
workflow
Advancement capabilities
None Low Medium High
NMSU, FY15
Source: Peer Benchmarking
Facility Services
31 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU’s Facility Services labor cost per irrigated acre and per building maintained is lower than the participant average.
$3.9 $3.9
NMSU Average
Facility services labor cost per square foot (education and general)
$63,506
$93,571
NMSU Average
Facility services labor cost per building maintained (education and general)
• NMSU's Facility Services labor cost per irrigated acre (Education and General) is 74% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Facility Services labor cost per building maintained (Education and General) is 32% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Facility Services labor cost per square foot (Education and General) is the same as the participant average
$29,287
$112,537
NMSU Average
Facility services labor cost per irrigated acre (education and general)
Source: Peer Benchmarking
32 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU’s Facility services FTEs per irrigated acre and per building maintained is lower than the participant average.
0.00010 0.00008
NMSU Average
Facility services FTEs per square foot (education and general)
• NMSU's Facility Services FTEs per irrigated acre (Education and General) is 65% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Facility Services FTEs per building maintained (Education and General) is 11% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Facility Services FTEs per square foot (Education and General) is comparable to the participant average
0.8
2.3
NMSU Average
Facility services FTEs per irrigated acre (education and general)
1.7 1.9
NMSU Average
Facility services FTEs per building maintained (education and general)
Source: Peer Benchmarking
33 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU’s Facility Services FTEs per square foot is lower while labor costs as a percentage of operating budget is higher than the participant average.
0.00015
0.00048
NMSU Average
Facility services FTEs per square foot (non education and general)
0.11
0.16
NMSU Average
Facility services professional FTEs to support FTEs
• NMSU's Facility Services FTEs per square foot (Non-Education and General) is 69% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Facility Services ratio professional FTEs to support FTEs is 31% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Facility Services labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget is 25% higher than the participant average
Source: Peer Benchmarking
2.5%2.0%
NMSU Average
Facility services labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget
34 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU's Facility Services total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 53% higher than the participant average.
0.70% 0.50%
6.20%
4.00%
6.90%
4.50%
NMSU Average
Facility Services total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs
Professional Support
Source: Peer Benchmarking
35 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU’s Facility Services uses a variety of different Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) tools for work management and utilities management.
50%
25%
25%
50%
25%
25%
Work Management System
Utilities Management System
Primary ERP tool in Facility Services
Standard ERP Customized ERP In-house system
NMSU, FY15
Source: Peer Benchmarking
36 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
All participants appear to leverage technology to support facility services, but self-service portal capabilities present an opportunity.
50% 25%
25%
25%
50%
50%
75%
50%
25%
25%
Level of reporting capability used in theWork Management System
Level of reporting capability used in theUtilities Management System
Self-service Portal capability in function
Degree to which supporting processesare accomplished via automated
workflow
Facility Services capabilities
None Low Medium High
NMSU, FY15
Source: Peer Benchmarking
Auxiliaries
38 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU's Auxiliaries labor cost and FTEs per 100 individual beds is lower than the participant average.
1.8
4.4
NMSU Average
Auxilaries FTEs per 100 individual beds
$82,278
$236,374
NMSU Average
Auxilaries labor cost per 100 individual beds for student housing
$110,823
$2,368,265
NMSU Average
Auxilaries labor cost per 100 individual units for non-traditional housing
• NMSU's Auxiliaries labor cost per 100 individual beds for student housing is 65% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Auxiliaries labor cost per individual units for non-traditional housing is 95% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Auxiliaries FTEs per 100 individual beds is 59% lower than the participant average
Source: Peer Benchmarking
39 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU’s Auxiliaries labor costs are lower while professional to support staff mix is comparable to the participant average.
0.7 0.5
NMSU Average
Auxilaries professional FTEs to support FTEs
• NMSU's Auxiliaries labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 78% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Auxiliaries professional FTEs to support FTEs is 40% higher than the participant average
Source: Peer Benchmarking
0.2%
0.9%
NMSU Average
Auxilaries labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget
40 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU's Auxiliaries total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 78% lower than the participant average.
0.20%
0.50%0.30%
1.80%
0.50%
2.30%
NMSU Average
Auxiliaries total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs
Professional Support
Source: Peer Benchmarking
41 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• NMSU's auxiliaries labor costs as a percent of budget is in the first quartile when compared to the results from the Deloitte Consulting Higher Ed Benchmarking Study.
• NMSU’s auxiliaries FTEs per $100M in budget is in the first quartile when compared to the results from the Deloitte Consulting Higher Ed Benchmarking Study.
NMSU's Auxiliaries compared favorably regardless of data source.
Note: To normalize data for comparison purposes the following processes were removed from the NMSU benchmarking data to allow for an “apples to applies” comparison - Oversee Bookstore Management and related Contract Management and Oversee Golf Course Management.
*Sources: NMSU and Average – NMSU Peer Benchmarking Survey Higher Ed Q1-Q3: Deloitte Consulting Higher Ed Benchmarking Study .
0.14%
0.79%
0.29%
0.71%
0.86%
NMSU Average Higher EdQ1
Higher EdQ2
Higher EdQ3
Auxilaries labor cost as a percent of budget
2.97
16.93
4.63
8.5410.24
NMSU Average Higher EdQ1
Higher EdQ2
Higher EdQ3
Auxilaries FTEs per $100M in budget
42 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU Auxiliaries uses a Standard ERP similar to most participants.
75%
50%
100%
25%
50%
ID Card Services System
Parking Management System
Housing Management System
Primary ERP tool in Auxiliaries
Standard ERP Customized ERP In-house system
NMSU, FY15
Source: Peer Benchmarking
43 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU Auxiliaries may have an opportunity to utilize self-service portal capabilities and automated workflow more frequently.
50%
25%
50%
25%
25%
50%
75%
50%
75%
75%
Level of reporting capability within IDCard Services system
Level of reporting capability withinParking Management System
Level of reporting capability withinHousing Management System
Self-service Portal capability in function
Degree to which supporting processesare accomplished via automated
workflow
Auxiliaries capabilities
None Low Medium High
NMSU, FY15
Source: Peer Benchmarking
Finance
45 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU’s Finance labor cost and FTEs per AP invoice are generally higher than the participant average.
0.004 0.003
NMSU Average
Finance FTEs per AP invoice
$222,594$182,171
NMSU Average
Finance labor cost per 1,000 AP invoices
• NMSU's Finance labor cost per AP Invoice is 23% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Finance labor cost per 1,000 AP invoices is 22% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Finance FTEs per AP invoice is similar to the participant average
$223$182
NMSU Average
Finance labor cost per AP invoice
Source: Peer Benchmarking
46 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU’s Finance labor cost per travel invoice/(s) is generally lower than the participant average.
• NMSU's Finance labor cost per travel invoice is 30% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Finance FTEs per 1,000 AP invoices is 22% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Finance labor cost per 1,000 travel invoices is 30% lower than the participant average
3.9 3.2
NMSU Average
Finance staff FTEs per 1,000 AP invoices
$267
$379
NMSU Average
Finance labor cost per travel Invoice
$266,938
$378,525
NMSU Average
Finance labor cost per 1,000 travel invoices
Source: Peer Benchmarking
47 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
1.5 1.7
NMSU Average
Finance professional FTEs to support FTEs
• NMSU's Finance FTEs per travel invoice is 29% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Finance FTEs per 1,000 travel invoices is 29% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Finance professional FTEs to support FTEs is 12% lower than the participant average
0.005
0.007
NMSU Average
Finance FTEs per travel invoice
4.7
6.6
NMSU Average
Finance FTEs per 1,000 travel invoices
NMSU’s Finance FTEs per travel invoice(s) is generally lower than the participant average.
Source: Peer Benchmarking
48 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
1.90%1.20%
1.20%
0.80%
3.10%
2.00%
Client Average
Finance total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs
Professional Support
• NMSU's Finance labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 66% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Finance total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 55% higher than the participant average
• When we compare the NMSU labor cost as a percentage of budget and total finance FTE per $100M in budget to the results from Deloitte’s Higher Ed benchmarking study, results are consistent with the comparison to NMSU peers. (LCP – Low Cost Performer; HCP – High Cost Performer)
NMSU’s Finance labor cost and FTEs as percent of the institution’s operating budget is comparable across all data sources.
*Sources: NMSU and Average – NMSU Peer Benchmarking Survey Higher Education LCP, Median and HCP: Deloitte Consulting Higher Ed Benchmarking Study
1.69%
1.02%0.66%
0.94% 0.99%
NMSU Average HigherEducation
LCP
HigherEducation
Median
HigherEducation
HCP
Finance labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget
29.64
17.759.28 12.95 14.09
NMSU Average HigherEducation
LCP
HigherEducation
Median
HigherEducation
HCP
Total Finance FTE per $100M in Budget
49 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU Finance may have an opportunity to improve reporting, self service capabilities and automated workflow.
67% 33%Finance
Primary ERP tool in Finance
Standard ERP Customized ERP In-house system
67%
67%
67%
33%
33%
33%
Level of reporting capability within thefinancial system
Self-service Portal capability in function
Degree to which supporting processes areaccomplished via automated workflow
Finance capabilities
None Low Medium High
NMSU, FY15
Source: Peer Benchmarking
Human Resources
51 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
$532$378
$556
$993 $1,086
NMSU Average HigherEducation
LCP
HigherEducation
Median
HigherEducation
HCP
Human Resource cost per Employee*
Human Resource Cost per employee is higher than the participant average, but lower when compared to other data sources.
Note: NMSU Human Resources data includes 9 FTE that are part of the medical staff
• NMSU's Human Resources labor cost per employee is 41% higher than participant average, but another data source indicates 47% lower
• NMSU's Human Resources professional FTEs to support FTEs is two times higher than the participant average
3.8
1.9
NMSU Average
Human resources professional FTEs to support FTEs
*Sources: NMSU and Average – NMSU Peer Benchmarking Survey Higher Education LCP, Median and HCP: Deloitte Consulting Higher Ed Benchmarking Study
7.85.7
11.1 13.215.5
NMSU Average HigherEducation
LCP
HigherEducation
Median
HigherEducation
HCP
Human Resource FTEs per 1000 Employees
52 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• NMSU's Human Resources labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 72% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Human Resources total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 38% higher than the participant average
0.90%0.50%
0.20%
0.30%
1.10%0.80%
NMSU Average
Human Resources total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs
Professional Support
Note: NMSU Human Resources data includes 9 FTE that are part of the medical staff
NMSU’s Human resources labor cost as a percent of the total operating budget is higher than the participant average.
Source: Peer Benchmarking
0.74%
0.43%
NMSU Average
Human resources labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget
53 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU may have an opportunity for improvement in Human Resources reporting capability.
75% 25%Human Resources
Primary ERP tool in Human Resources
Standard ERP Customized ERP In-house system
25%
50%
75%
75%
50%
25%
Level of reporting capability
Self-service Portal capability in function
Degree to which supporting processes areaccomplished via automated workflow
Human Resources technology capabilities
None Low Medium HighNMSU, FY15
Source: Peer Benchmarking
Procurement
55 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU’s Procurement labor cost and FTEs per suppliers/vendors is higher than the participant average.
0.7
1.2
NMSU Average
Procurement professional FTEs to support FTEs
$21,948
$8,868
NMSU Average
Procurement labor cost per 100 Active Suppliers/Vendors
0.5
0.2
NMSU Average
Procurement FTEs per 100 active suppliers/vendors
• NMSU's Procurement labor cost per 100 active suppliers/vendors is 2.5 times higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Procurement FTEs per 100 active suppliers/vendors is 2.5 times higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Procurement professional FTEs to support FTEs is 42% lower than the participant average
Source: Peer Benchmarking
56 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
0.42%
0.15%
NMSU Average
Procurement labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget
0.40%0.20%
0.60%
0.20%
1.00%
0.40%
NMSU Average
Procurement total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs
Professional Support
• NMSU's Procurement labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 2.8 times higher than the participant average*
• NMSU's Procurement total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 2.5 times higher than the participant average
NMSU's Procurement labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is higher than the participant average.
Source: Peer Benchmarking*One institution did not enter Procurement labor cost.
57 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Self-service or automated workflow appear to be opportunities that NMSU should investigate as they consider changes to procurement.
67% 33%Procurement
Primary ERP tool in Procurement
Standard ERP Customized ERP In-house system
33%
33%
67%
33%
33%
33%
33%
33%
Level of reporting capability within theprocurement system
Self-service Portal capability in function
Degree to which supporting processes areaccomplished via automated workflow
Procurement technology capabilities
None Low Medium HighNMSU, FY15
Source: Peer Benchmarking
Student Administrative Services- Admissions- Financial Aid
59 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU's Admissions labor cost per new undergraduate student is slightly higher than the participant average.
$29 $31
NMSU Average
Admissions labor cost per application processed
$131 $129
NMSU Average
Admissions labor cost per new undergraduate student
$131,196 $129,328
NMSU Average
Admissions labor cost per 1,000 new undergraduate students
• NMSU's Admissions labor cost per new undergraduate student is 2% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Admissions labor cost per 1,000 new undergraduate students is 1% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Admissions labor cost per application processed (all application types) is 7% lower than the participant average
Source: Peer Benchmarking
60 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Differences exist between NMSU Admission labor costs per graduate and undergraduate for applications processed.
• NMSU's Admissions labor cost per undergraduate application processed is 3% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Admissions labor cost per graduate application processed is 45% lower than the participant average
$38 $37
NMSU Average
Admissions labor cost per undergraduate application processed
$126
$229
NMSU Average
Admissions labor cost per graduate application processed
Source: Peer Benchmarking
61 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU’s Admissions FTEs per new undergraduate students is lower than the participant average.
0.61 0.66
NMSU Average
Admissions FTEs per 1,000 application processed (all application types)
0.0027 0.0028
NMSU Average
Admissions FTEs per new undergraduate student
2.7 2.8
NMSU Average
Admissions FTEs per 1,000 new undergraduate students
• NMSU's Admissions FTEs per new undergraduate student is 4% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Admissions FTEs per 1,000 new undergraduate students is 4% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Admissions FTEs per application processed (all application types) is 7% lower than the participant average
62 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• NMSU's Admissions FTEs per 1,000 undergraduate applications processed is 1% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Admissions FTEs per 1,000 graduate applications processed is 48% lower than the participant average
0.797 0.802
NMSU Average
Admissions FTEs per 1,000 undergraduate application processed
2.6
5.0
NMSU Average
Admissions FTEs per 1,000 graduate application processed
NMSU's Admissions FTEs per 1,000 undergraduate and graduate applications processed is lower than the participant average.
Source: Peer Benchmarking
63 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU’s Financial aid labor cost and FTEs per financial aid recipient is higher than the participant average.
0.0023
0.0015
NMSU Average
Financial aid FTEs per financial aid recipient
$98
$66
NMSU Average
Financial aid labor cost per financial aid recipient
$98,460
$65,513
NMSU Average
Financial aid labor cost per 1,000 financial aid recipients
• NMSU's Financial Aid labor cost per financial aid recipient is 49% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Financial Aid labor cost per 1,000 financial aid recipients is 50% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Financial FTEs per financial aid recipient is 53% higher than the participant average
Source: Peer Benchmarking
64 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
• NMSU's Financial Aid FTEs per 1,000 financial aid students is 53% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Student Administrative Services professional FTEs to support FTEs is 85% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Student Administrative Services labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 11% higher than the participant average
NMSU’s Financial aid FTEs per financial aid students is higher than the participant average.
*One institution reports fractional support staff usage distorting the average results.
Average of the other two institutions is 0.9.
*
2.3
1.5
NMSU Average
Financial aid FTEs per 1,000 financial aid students
3.3
22.3
NMSU Average
Student administrative services professional FTEs to support FTEs
Source: Peer Benchmarking
2.0% 1.8%
NMSU Average
Student administrative services labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget
65 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU's Student Administrative Services total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 15% higher than the participant average.
3.00%
2.10%
0.90%
1.30%
3.90%
3.40%
NMSU Average
Student Administrative Services total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs
Professional Support
Source: Peer Benchmarking
66 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
25%
25%
75%
25%
25%
25%
25%
50%
25%
25%
50%
50%
50%
25%
Level of faculty involvement in theadvising process
Level of faculty involvement in therecruiting process
Level of reporting capability withinStudent Information System
Self-service Portal capability in function
Degree to which supporting processesare accomplished via automated…
Student Administrative Services process capabilities
None Low Medium High
Self-service and automated workflow appear to be opportunities to improve the student administrative service processes.
75% 25%Student Administrative Services
Primary ERP tool in Student Administrative Services
Standard ERP Customized ERP In-house system
NMSU, FY15
Source: Peer Benchmarking
Research Development, Compliance and Administration
68 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU’s Research labor cost per proposal submitted and administered are higher than the participant average.
6.1
3.5
NMSU Average
Research FTEs per 100 proposals submitted
$454,608
$260,450
NMSU Average
Research labor cost per 100 proposals submitted
$36,124
$24,164
NMSU Average
Research labor cost per 10 proposals administered
• NMSU's Research labor cost per 100 proposals submitted is 75% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Research labor cost per 10 proposals administered is 50% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Research FTEs per 100 proposals submitted is 74% higher than the participant average
Source: Peer Benchmarking
69 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU’s Research labor cost as a percent of institution’s total operating budget is higher than the participant average.
13.5
9.5
NMSU Average
Research professional FTEs to support FTEs
• NMSU's Research Development, Compliance and Administration labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 52% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Research professional FTEs to support FTEs is 42% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Research FTEs per 10 proposals administered is 67% higher than the participant average
Source: Peer Benchmarking
0.5
0.3
NMSU Average
Research FTEs per 10 proposals administered
0.67%
0.44%
NMSU Average
Research development, compliance and administration labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget
70 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU's Research Development, Compliance and Administration total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs is 73% higher than the participant average.
0.90%
0.50%
0.07%
0.06%
0.97%
0.56%
NMSU Average
Research Development, Compliance and Administration total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs
Professional SupportSource: Peer Benchmarking
71 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Research Development, Compliance and Administrative process capabilities are moderate to strong across all participants.
50% 50%Research Development, Compliance and
Administration
Primary ERP tool in Research Development, Compliance and Administration
Standard ERP Customized ERP In-house system
50%
50%
75%
50%
50%
25%
Level of reporting capability within theSponsored Projects System
Self-service Portal capability in function
Degree to which supporting processesare accomplished via automated
workflow
Research Development, Compliance and Administration capabilities
None Low Medium HighNMSU, FY15
Source: Peer Benchmarking
Information Technology
73 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU’s IT labor cost and staff FTEs per help ticket is higher than the participant average.
-
4.5
2.8
NMSU Average
IT professional FTEs to support FTEs
$39,790$34,681
NMSU Average
IT labor cost per 100 IT help tickets
0.54 0.46
NMSU Average
IT staff FTEs per 100 IT help tickets
• NMSU's IT labor cost per 100 IT help tickets is 15% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's IT staff FTEs per 100 help tickets is 17% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's IT professional FTEs to support FTEs is 61% higher than the participant average
Source: Peer Benchmarking
74 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU's IT labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is higher than the participant average.
• NMSU's IT labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 29% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's IT total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 26% higher than the participant average
3.20%1.90%
0.70%
1.20%
3.90%3.10%
NMSU Average
IT total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs
Professional Support
Source: Peer Benchmarking
2.7%2.1%
NMSU Average
IT labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget
75 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU’s Central IT FTEs is lower than the National Average of the EDUCAUSE data, but Central IT spending is generally higher.
-
*National Average is from EDUCAUSE Data of 134 Public Research InstitutionsNOTE: Central IT refers to the NMSU’s central IT organization not only function.
• NMSU has 24% less than the EDUCAUSE National Average for central IT FTEs per 1,000 institutional FTEs
• Total central IT spending as percentage of institutional expenses at NMSU is ~1% more than the EDUCAUSE National Average
• Total central IT spending per institutional FTEs (students, faculty and staff) is $36 less than the EDUCAUSE National Average.
5.47.1
NMSU National Average*
Central IT FTEs per 1,000 Institutional FTEs (students, faculty, and staff)
$905 $941
NMSU National Average*
Total Central IT spending per institutional FTEs (students, faculty, and staff)
4%3%
NMSU National Average*
Total Central IT spending as percentage of institutional expenses
Communications
77 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU's Communications/University Relations labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is higher than the participant average.
0.9%0.6%
0.2%
0.3%
1.2%0.9%
NMSU Average
Communications/University Relations total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs
Professional Support
• NMSU's Communications/University Relations labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 39% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Communications/University Relations professional staff to support staff is 3% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Communications/University Relations total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 33% higher than the participant average
3.7 3.8
NMSU Average
Communications/University relations ratio professional staff to support staff
Source: Peer Benchmarking
0.61%0.44%
NMSU Average
Communications/University relations labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget
Research, Public Service and Scholarly and Creative Activities
79 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU's Research, Public Service, Scholarly and Creative Activities labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is higher than the participant average.
7.00% 5.70%
2.00%1.30%
9.00%7.00%
NMSU Average
Research, public service and scholarly, and creative activities total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs
Professional Support
• NMSU's Research, Public Service, Scholarly and Creative Activities labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 32% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Research, Public Service, Scholarly and Creative Activities professional FTEs to support FTEs is 3% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's Research, Public Service, Scholarly and Creative Activities total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 29% higher than the participant average
3.5 3.4
NMSU Average
Research, public service, scholarly and creative activities professional FTEs to support FTEs
Source: Peer Benchmarking
5.0%3.8%
NMSU Average
Research, public service and scholarly and creative activities labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget
Education Programs
81 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU's Educational Programs labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is lower than the participant average.
1.9%3.6%
1.2%
1.2%3.1%
4.8%
NMSU Average
Educational Programs total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs
Professional Support
• NMSU's Educational Programs labor cost as a percent of the institution's total operating budget is 32% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Educational Programs professional FTEs to support FTEs is 47% lower than the participant average
• NMSU's Educational Programs total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs is 35% lower than the participant average
1.6
3.0
NMSU Average
Educational programs professional FTEs to support FTEs
Source: Peer Benchmarking
1.5%
2.2%
NMSU Average
Educational programs labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget
General Administration
83 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU's General Administration labor cost as a percent of the institution’s total operating budget is higher than the participant average.
2.50% 1.60%
6.50%5.90%
9.00%7.50%
Client Average
General Administration total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs
Professional Support
• NMSU's General Administration labor cost as a percent of the institution’s total operating budget is 30% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's General Administration professional FTEs to support FTEs is 33% higher than the participant average
• NMSU's General Administration total FTEs as a percent of the institution's total number of FTEs is 20% higher than the participant average
0.4
0.3
NMSU Average
General administration professional FTEs to support FTEs
Source: Peer Benchmarking
3.5%2.7%
NMSU Average
General administration labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget
Operational Management Activities
85 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
NMSU's Operational Management activities labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget is lower than the participant average.
3.70%4.40%
0.20%0.20%3.90%
4.60%
NMSU Average
Operational Management activities total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs
Professional Support
• NMSU's Operational Management activities labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget is 13% lower than the participant average
• While NMSU has lower professional to support FTEs, cost as a percentage of budget is almost identical to the participant average
• NMSU's Operational Management activities total FTEs as a percent of institution's total number of FTEs is 15% lower than the participant average
21.3
91.4
NMSU Average
Operational management activities professional FTEs to support FTEs
Source: Peer Benchmarking
4.2%4.8%
NMSU Average
Operational management activities labor cost as a percent of institution's total operating budget
About DeloitteDeloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte LLP and its subsidiaries.
Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited
Appendices
Appendix A –NMSU Function Taxonomy
89 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
New Mexico State University Administrative Taxonomy (1 of 3)1.0 General
Admin Support2.0 Operational
Management Activities3.0 Advancement 4.0 Facilities
Services5.0 Auxiliaries
• Provide Office and Operational Support
• Process HR Transactions
• Process Finance Transactions
• Provide Student Support
• Maintain Files and Provide General Reports
• Provide Communication Support
• Direct Departments or Division
• Manage Functions or Operations
• Perform Strategic Planning
• Oversee Government Relations
• Support Accreditation and/ or Assessment Activities
• Manage Gift Accounting and Receiving
• Conduct Prospect Research and Management Activities
• Execute Donations and Stewardship Reporting
• Execute Comprehensive & Capital Campaign Fundraising
• Manage Corporate & Foundation Fundraising
• Oversee Annual Giving
• Manage Planned Giving
• Manage Faculty, Staff, Student,Alumni Relations, Donors and Friends
• Manage Donor Relationships/Stewardship
• Manage Relations with ExternalOrganizations or Individuals
• Coordinate Event Planning
• Facilitate Marketing
• Coordinate Communications
• Manage Donor and Alumni Records
• Manage University Scholarships Inventory
• Manage University/Foundation Endowment
• Manage Volunteerism
• Perform Facility Development and Renovation Administration
• Perform Maintenance
• Manage Grounds
• Manage Environmental Services
• Oversee Utilities
• Confirm Regulatory Compliance
• Oversee Management and Development of Real Estate
• Oversee University Parking, Transportation and Mail Services
• Oversee University Housing and Related Contract Management
• Oversee University Food Services, ID Card Services, and related Contract Management
• Oversee University Conference Services
• Oversee University Student Union
• Oversee University Special Events
• Oversee Bookstore Management and related Contract Management
• Oversee Golf Course Management
90 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
New Mexico State University Administrative Taxonomy(2 of 3)6.0 Finance 7.0 HR 8.0 Procurement 9.0 Student Admin Services
• Execute Accounts Payable
• Conduct Accounts Receivable
• Manage/ Execute University-level budgeting
• Perform department-levelbudgeting
• Perform debt management Accounting
• Perform Central Accounting
• Perform General Accounting
• Perform External Financial Reporting
• Perform Rate Development and Review
• Conduct Travel Expense Processing
• Support External Audit
• Conduct Internal Audit
• Plan/Execute Tax Considerations
• Perform Treasury Activities
• Perform Bursar/ Collection Activities
• Perform Risk Management
• Administer Research Accounting
• Manage/Execute Payroll, Time, and Attendance Administration
• Manage Applicant Recruiting
• Manage Compensation Planning
• Manage HR Benefits & Payroll Data Admin
• Perform I-9 Processing
• Perform Visa Processing
• Conduct On Boarding/OutProcessing
• Manage/ Execute LeaveAdministration
• Perform Benefits Administration
• Conduct Employee Relations
• Conduct Labor Relations
• Conduct Performance Management
• Manage Learning andDevelopment
• Oversee Workers’ Compensation
• Administer Health & Wellness Programs
• EEO
• Conduct Position Management, Success Management and Workforce Planning
• Perform Purchasing Requirements and Supplier Evaluation and Selection Activities
• Conduct Requisition Processing
• Process and Maintain Purchase Orders
• Manage Procurement Contracts and Requests for Quotes
• Monitor and Manage Supplier Contracts
• Oversee property casualty claimsProcess
• Oversee Warehouse, Inventory, and Property Management
• Conduct Student Recruitment
• Manage/Execute Applications Processing and Admissions
• Onboard Students
• Advise Students
• Enroll Students
• Manage Student Employment
• Plan/Maintain Academic Calendar
• Plan/Execute Convocation and Commencement
• Manage/ Maintain Student Records
• Manage, Report, and Counsel Students on Financial Aid
• Support Financial Aid, Grants, Scholarships Application
• Process Financial Aid, Grants, Scholarships
• Provide Career Services
• Manage Student Health and Wellness Programs
• Oversee Student Conduct
• Manage Student Life Activities
• Provide Academic Support
• Develop/ Maintain Course Catalogs
• Manage Classroom Scheduling
• Develop and Maintain Class Schedule
• Support International Studies
91 Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
New Mexico State University Administrative Taxonomy (3 of 3)10.0 Award
Development, Compliance & Admin
11.0 Information Technology 12.0 Communications
13.0 Research, Public Service & Scholarly/ Creative Activities
14.0 Educational Programs
• Identify Grant Funding and Manage Limited Submissions
• Provide Proposal Development Support
• Support Grant Proposal Preparation, Review and Submission
• Manage AwardNegotiation and Acceptance
• Support FinancialRegulatory Management
• Process Awards
• Perform Award Project Management
• Manage Licensing,Commercialization, and Technology Transfer
• Manage Conflicts of Interest (COI) related to Sponsored Activities
• Manage Research Compliance
• Conduct Subcontractor Procurement
• Administer & Manage University-wide IT
• Program, Project and/or Service Mgmt.
• Conduct Application Support & Main.• Manage App. Dev. & Implementation• Conduct Business Requirements
Analysis• Support Data Centers• Provide End-user Support• Manage Hardware & Software
Acquisition• Support Research Computing• Manage Telecommunications• Manage IT Vendors• Design, Implement, Maintain
Networks• Support IT Life Safety Systems• Maintain Information Security• Oversee Document Management• Perform Computer & Op System
Admin• Oversee Disaster Recovery/Business
Continuity• Oversee Identity & Authentication
Mgmt. • Perform Database Admin• Administer/Maintain Data Warehouse• Oversee Decision Support & Data
Model• Facilitate Business Process
Automation and Operational support• Execute Operational and Longitudinal
Report Development
• Plan/Execute Communications
• Plan/Execute Marketing
• Plan/Execute Cooperative Extension Services and Agricultural Extension Services Publications
• Product Broadcast Television Programs
• Manage Public TV and Radio Stations
• Develop News Stories and Conduct Media Relations
• Handle Sports Information Duties
• Provide Strategic Direction for University Website
• Manage Research, Discovery, and/or Development Unit
• Manage Research and Development Program
• Coordinate Program Activities
• Conduct Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities
• Provide Research Support
• Provide Technical Support
• Support Machining Operations
• Develop Software
• Support Artistic Activities
• Manage R&D Site Operations
• Provide Training
• Provide Agricultural Support
• Develop Educational Programs
• Implement Educational Programs
• Develop Outreach Programs
• Evaluate Educational Programs
• Provide Library Services