Changing a department's organization practically overnight. (Case Study).

Introduction

The competition for resources at a state-supported university campus is often severe and the scarcity of extra funds required for the reorganization of a department can prevent meaningful change. Weick (1999) argues that there are two basic kinds of change--episodic and continuous. Most organizations respond to pressures from outside in an episodic manner. They respond to each pressure or to an accumulation of events by tinkering with the basic organizational structure. Organizational structure for the purposes of this paper includes the kind of structure that might be reflected in an organizational chart, how decision-making authority is used, the type of tasks assigned to staff members, and the level of accountability.

Wholesale change in a work environment is daunting to most people. Concerns about job loss, loss of prestige, new responsibilities, less control, less freedom of action, and so on, are prevalent. Because many administrators have these same concerns, it takes a certain amount of courage for them to recognize and acknowledge the need for an overall change, let alone to initiate and manage one with its inherent confusion and stress noted Feldman (1999).

Tinkering, or making minor changes in policy and procedure, is often used because it is less threatening and does not require a particularly high level of tolerance for ambiguity by the staff. However, while such tinkering may result in short-term improvement, the department or organization may revert to prior practices and it may take repeated efforts to formalize the changes. How well an organization responds to the rapidly shifting environment of funding requirements, government regulations, and university requirements determines how successful it will be in the long run. The ability to respond to change is a crucial element in the effectiveness of an organization.

Many academic research departments developed as closed systems. In the past, departments may have had minimal need to respond and interact with outside entities because regulations and policies were clear and did not change often. Occasionally, the university might require some paperwork, but the university, too, was primarily a closed system, responding to regular interactive demands of the sponsoring agency (state).

Today, the world of academia is different. Departments now experience increased interactions with the university and the research and political communities at large, especially in federal compliance issues. It has become, by the impetus of forces on the outside, an open organization. However, to its detriment, it may still try to function as a closed one, tinkering with change. The results are increased staff stress and turnover, potential loss of funds, decreased student enrollments and other negative effects on the unit's overall health. It is not prepared to respond effectively and efficiently to change and changing demands. When tinkering does not provide sustained improvement in morale, task handling and reduction of stress, it is time to consider making a wholesale change in the organizational structure.

The Case

The Department of Geography at the University of Maryland received approximately $4.5M in research funding in 1996, the average level of income for several years. In 1997, the research income grew to $12M and by 1998 it was $22M! This increased activity resulted in stress on the administrative staff that was manifested in low morale and an overall sense of crisis. In the space of a few years, a somewhat slumbering department discovered that it was now moving ahead rapidly--not only ahead of other departments in the field but ahead of what the college and university expected and were ready to support.

At this time, all decisions at the academic, administrative, and research level were made by the department chair. This approach is typical in departments and is a symptom of a closed system. The minutia of the day-to-day administration, with its crisis-like approach, prevented the chair from planning for the future needs of the department.

The chair recognized the need for a highly qualified person to manage the administration of the department. The person he chose had skills in system design as well as research and computer skills. He made it clear to the faculty and staff that this individual had his highest confidence. The first thing this administrator did was to facilitate a staff review of the resources of the department and prepare a needs assessment. As expected, there was too little space, too much work, and an inefficient administrative system. They reviewed the various actions and procedures used by the staff to meet the day-to-day demands and decided which ones could be handled more efficiently or eliminated. Position descriptions were modified as much as possible to counterbalance the realities of working in a state employment system with its history of low salary and perhaps limited skill levels. As a result, though greatly enhanced, the position descriptions still relied heavily on performing a specialized group of tasks represe ntative of a closed system rather than the multi-skilled and more fluid style of an open system.

Next, the skills and abilities of the staff were reviewed to determine if each individual would be able to function in a proposed or modified position most similar to the one they held or if their skills could be better used to support other activities. Those who were unqualified to take on the redesigned job descriptions were offered skills training. Based on this assessment, the team now had clearly defined ideas as to the qualifications needed when they sought to augment the existing staff.

The department was experiencing increased computer support demands because of the number of new research staff and the exceptionally large data sets used in research projects. The available support systems on campus were not equal to the task and were unresponsive to the changing needs due, in part, to the reality of the state-based employment system. For example, frequent computer crashes severely hampered productivity and increased the stress of research staff, administrators, and faculty.

Thus, the next hurdle was financial. How were they to fund the necessary space and facilities, hire new staff; and support on-site computer expertise? How were they to find or create space that had become even more necessary as one of the new research projects required extensive institutional commitment to provide space for a 24/7 satellite-monitoring center?

The dean and other administrators within the university were solicited for their monetary support for the necessary renovations and, in some cases, the necessary salary support for new staff. They were generally successful in convincing the various units to support the necessary changes. One of the more difficult tasks was to gain approval from the university hierarchy to create a cost pool for departmental computer support expenses. All salary, hardware, supply, and maintenance costs for computer support are charged to a cost account. The cost pool provides a more accurate picture of the cost of providing the computer support service to the projects and the department.

This expense is a fixed cost required in every research proposal budget and set aside in the department's administration budget. As the departmental computer network was established, support levels for equipment and software in the department were established and this reduced the problems associated with incompatible or specialized equipment and software. The director of administration oversaw the implementations and/or upgrades. As a former researcher, this individual was familiar with the needs of the researchers and was able to prioritize the expenditures and changes for more immediate improvement.

Change

While the overall reorganization was being implemented and positions were being reassigned, the strain of the increasing number of tasks and changes and new opportunities outside the unit led some administrators to look for positions they felt would use their skills more effectively. The new openings then provided an opportunity to hire personnel with the skills necessary for handling the workload and the complexity of managing a large research department.

The reorganization means that eight Department of Geography FTEs--Director of Administration, Research Administrator, Personnel/Payroll Administrator, 3/4 time Accounting Assistant, an Assistant to the Chair, Receptionist, full-time Advisor Consultant, part-time Student Assistant, and computer support personnel, can handle the payroll activity for 150-plus personnel, including foreign visa applications, 60-75 active accounts, and the academic, research, and administrative purchases totaling approximately $5M/year, as well as providing all the maintenance of a computer network for over 100 users.

The New or Reorganized Staff Positions

The changes made in the staff positions in the Department of Geography follow:

1. A Personnel/Payroll Manager handles the appointments, payroll, and visa issues for the 150 plus persons working in the department.

2. The scope of work for the part-time Accounting Assistant was narrowed by removing payroll-related activities. The main tasks now include reconciling the 65 or more shadow accounts with the university accounts each month, verifying invoices, working with the contractors to modify the physical space, monitoring and reallocating the computer support costs, and maintaining the inventory.

3. A part-time Student Assistant encumbers proposed purchases in the shadow system, prepares the necessary purchasing paperwork, reviews travel expense statements, and helps with proposal package preparation

4. The Receptionist, in addition to the normal tasks of such a position, is assigned the responsibility for ordering supplies, maintaining a department inventory of basic office supplies, maintaining the copier and fax machines and receiving, verifying, and distributing ordered items. With the advent of a procurement card system at the university, the Receptionist is also responsible for making and accounting for such purchases.

5. The traditional role of the chair's secretary was modified. In addition to the administrative support the Administrative Assistant provides the Chair, this individual also oversees the search processes for new faculty and staff. In addition, the position provides orientation to new employees, prepares employment contracts, and obtains all necessary departmental approvals and signatures.

6. Partial financial support from the dean and other campus units allowed the hiring of an experienced Research Administrator. The Research Administrator oversees the activities for 50-75 active accounts in addition to overseeing the preparation and review of research proposals. This individual is also the compliance and audit monitor, and reviews and approves all expenditures for the department. Additionally, the position supports the Director of Administrative Services and the Chair.

7. Another innovation was the creation of the position of Advisor Consultant to handle all of the day-to-day bureaucratic requirements of academic administration. The Advisor Consultant deals with such tasks as class schedules, review of academic records, and working with students to help them through the web of administrative requirements. Having a person dedicated to meeting institutionally imposed deadlines and assisting students in need has increased the unit's efficiency.

8. Each large research project/unit designated a researcher, some of which have procurement and budgetary authority for the projects in that unit, who acts as the point of contact for all the personnel within that unit. This reduces the number of contacts by administrative staff to obtain necessary reports and forms and to inform staff of changes in the administrative procedures.

Procedural Changes

The reorganizing of the staff responsibilities alone would not have resulted in the benefits observable in the departmental operations today. It relies heavily on the use of technology because the quasi-closed system would not have had the flexibility to meet the needs the open system can address.

The department has a web page and, in a secured area, available only to department personnel, are forms found in the appendix.

All new faculty members are required to attend an instructional seminar, facilitated by the Research Administrator, that deals with preparing proposals and managing research projects. The seminar must be attended before the Chair will approve a new PI's proposal. Each new researcher with budgetary or procurement authority is also required to attend the seminar. These two things have reduced the number of errors in proposals and the number of interactions required to explain procedures and policies.

Conclusions

There was indeed some resistance by both administrative staff and researchers to participating in the changes. Some expressed anger. A few people accepted positions outside the unit. Some of those who remained were cautious about the new procedures and were initially unhappy. However, as a team spirit was created and they continued to work together the unease abated. Willingness to take on new tasks and to handle them well are rewarded verbally and, in some cases, monetarily. In the early days of the process it was necessary to have frequent meetings with the various constituencies in the department to be sure that all views and needs were addressed. Sometimes, a change required intensive interactions but, as time went on, less and less hands-on instruction was required. Some researchers have refused to fully participate in the procurement and travel request procedures and continue to present difficulties to the administrative staff. However, because there are far fewer actions such as this, they have less o f an impact on the task effectiveness of the staff.

The Director of Administration, the Research Administrator, and the Chair continue to build on their working relationship with regular weekly meetings that address areas of concern. The sessions provide an opportunity to look at the potential impact of new projects and personnel and to make adjustments in resource allocation and staff responsibilities to meet future needs.

This new decision-making process has resulted in a generalized acceptance of the changes. As the effectiveness of the early changes became evident, all later changes were accepted with little or no agitation or stress. Change continues day-to-day in the unit and even those staff members who were uncomfortable with the original set of changes have become active partners in suggesting possible alterations in procedure and policy. A biweekly meeting of all the administrative team serves for disseminating new information and obtaining suggestions for improvement. The reputation of the department administrative team is high both on and off the campus. Frequently, the staff members who stayed through the changes are amazed how much more they are able to get done and how little stress they now experience. They have a shared understanding of each person's contribution to the overall effectiveness of the department.

Appendix

Travel Request Form. The form asks for all the information necessary to obtain authorization to expend funds on travel. Each traveler can access a form that is automatically programmed to be sent to the Director of Administration and the Research Administrator. Travel approvals within the department usually take less than a day, and most often only a few hours.

Expense Report Form. The traveler prepares this online form, prints and signs it and gives it, along with the necessary receipts, to the department administrative office for review and approval. The system is designed so that, if the form is submitted to the travel office on time, the reimbursement will appear in the next biweekly paycheck

Supply Request Form. The department Receptionist maintains a limited supply of office products. The supply request form, prepared by the requestor, is sent electronically to the receptionist who fills the request for the staff member. The expenses are charged either to the F&A returned to the department or to the teaching support funds set-aside for faculty members. Each P1 is also allocated a given amount of F&A return each fiscal year by the Research Administrator based on PI's amount of research activity. The supply requests are usually filled within a day.

Procurement Request Form. This is used to request outside service or the purchase of items not maintained in the department supply closet. Once the requestor has completed the electronic form it is automatically sent to the Research Administrator, who reviews it for appropriateness and reasonableness. Upon approval, it is sent to the part-time Student Assistant who completes processing. The result is a huge increase in efficiency because none of the forms can be transmitted unless all the necessary information has been entered. There is little need to contact the requestor for follow-up information.

The Research Administrator, soon after assuming the position, recognized that the shadow system used by the department and the researchers (Excel spreadsheets, hand entered and reconciled by the Accounting Assistant) was inadequate. The new commercial shadow accounting system allowed the creation of expense codes that either matched the university's chart of accounts or additional ones when the university codes were too limited, (i.e., software maintenance, data set procurement, research materials that are useful to track).

This electronic procurement form also contains the most frequently used expense codes in a drop down box so the requestor can designate where in the project budget the specific expense will appear. The student assistant uses the special code for the shadow system and when necessary, uses a code from a prepared crosswalk that compares the departmentally created codes with the existing university codes so the procurement paperwork is acceptable to the university system. This has almost eliminated questions from PIs about expenses that appear on their monthly reports in categories they do not recognize.

Budget Template Forms. To further enhance the correspondence between the proposal budget and the allocation of expenses, a Budget Template was created on an Excel spreadsheet. It is based on the same expense codes in categories expected by the sponsor and contains formulas that automatically increase the costs from year to year. It also calculates fringe benefits based on university-established percentages and is programmed to adjust the direct costs by items that are F&A exempt, calculate the F&A, and prepare a budget summary. Thus, when the funds arrive, the proposal budget is entered into the shadow system using the same codes.

The Budget Template is maintained on the Web page, along with all of the standard forms required to prepare and route a proposal with concise explanations of how to complete them. A BUDGET JUSTIFICATION TEMPLATE is also available. Since the introduction of the two templates, increased consistency across proposals speeds review at all levels and helps to sustain an audit.

Personnel Forms. Forms for appointing and terminating employees, as well as one for requesting modifications to the source of the support and percentages of effort are completed by the P1 and then forwarded to the administrative office, reviewed by the Research Administrator and, in the case of new hires, by the Director of Administration. The responsibility of the latter is to review for departmental equity in the requested salary level. The Separation/Termination Form directs whether to terminate these rights and at what time. The Personnel Manager undertakes no personnel action without one of these forms appropriately completed and signed, and the salary encumbrances in the shadow system are modified based on the change forms.

Electronic Requests. Requests for assistance from the administrative staff for computer problems or for information are sent via an electronic request system. The request is prepared and sent automatically to the Receptionist who forwards it to the person most qualified to help. The help system is monitored and when a number of requests fall into the same category, the standard policy or procedure may be modified to reduce the number of requests.

References

Caroli, E., & Van Reenen, J. (2001). Skill based organizational change? Evidence from a panel of British and French establishments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116 (4), 1449-1492.

Feldman, K. (1999). Explaining the role of strategy development in planning for change. Retrieved 11 December 2001 from www.changeperform.com.au

Malhotra, Y. (1993). The role of information technology in managing organizational change and organizational interdependence. Working paper of the Brint Institute. Retrieved 7 July 2001 from www.brint.com/papers/change.

Perlman, D., & Takacs, G.J. (1990). The 10 stages of change. Nursing Management, 21 (4) 33-38.

Weick, K.E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology. 50, 361-386.

General Background References

Dougherty, A.M. (1990). Consultation: practices and perspectives. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks\Cole Publishing Co.

Gallessich, J. (1988). The profession and practice of consultation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kathleen F. Wiersema, MA has been involved in managing and coordinating research projects, both big and small, for over 25 years at the University of Michigan and most recently at the University of Maryland. Her master's degree in mental health counseling assists her efforts in training and facilitating organizational change. She is currently Research Administrator for the Department of Geography, the University of Maryland, College Park, MD and also maintains a private counseling practice.

This paper was first presented at the October 2001 Annual Meeting of the Society of Research Administrators International, Vancouver, CN. Address correspondence to Kathleen F. Wiersema, Research Administrator, Department of Geography, University of Maryland, 2181 LeFrak Hall, College Park, MD 20742, E-mail: [e-mail]