University of Minnesota
Hiring Process Redesign
Lean Continuous Improvement Kaizen Event
Report to HR Pros
April 24, 2013
Kaizen Team
Kaizen Team
• Sponsor – Lori Lamb
• Team Leader – Katie Stuckert & Laura Negrini
• Team members:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sheila Reger, Consulting Team Manager
Alexandra Whittington, HR Consultant
Jackie Gilliard, Staffing Consultant
Charlene Lowe, Talent Coach, OHR Job Center
Bonnie Marten, Diversity & Inclusion Committee Rep
Dorothy Cottrell, Academic Health Center
Lori Loberg, College of Food, Agriculture and Nat Res Science
Linda Kinnear, UMN Duluth
Mary Cameron, UMN Duluth
Lynne Olson, University Services
Michele Gross, University Policy Office
• Facilitator – Tom Baumann, Sara Gronewold
Business issue
Perceived challenges with the hiring process include:
• Inefficient and cumbersome process results in high time-tofill rates
•Varied processes among different employee groups (ie.
Faculty, P&A, Civil Service, and Labor Represented)
•Poor candidate experience given the application review and
priority hiring requirements
•Unclear and inconsistent standards regarding posting
requirements
•Lack of communication throughout the process between OHR
and the units as well as with the candidates
Scope of Kaizen Event
Scope:
Review of the central hiring processes --beginning when
the requisition is received (post-classification) from the
collegiate or administrative unit until the requisition is
designated as either filled or canceled.
The process will include faculty, P&A, Civil Service, Labor
Represented, and No-Search hires. The project does not
include student hires.
Starting point: Requisition is received from the collegiate
or administrative unit
End point: When the requisition is designated as filled or
canceled.
Goals For the Future Process
• Simplify the hiring process by eliminating
steps that no longer add value or are not
required by policy or collective bargaining
agreements
• Reduce number of process steps by 50%
• Define roles and responsibilities between
OHR and unit representatives
• Decrease time-to-fill rate by 30%
Current Process
Observations of Current Process
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Processes are complex and not standardized
Training for hiring authorities is inadequate
Hiring process is frustrating for users and applicants
Inconsistency between units on how to close out
requisitions
EOAA guidelines are inconsistently applied
Failure rate percentages are high – lots of rework on
requisitions
Surprised at variety of duties for hiring authorities
Communication with the candidates is not timely and is
incomplete
Observations of current process
• Lots of “hurry up and waits”
• Too much information in too many places
• Information is sometimes not easily or intuitively
accessible
• We try to be high service but process is confusing for
users
• Disappointed that there isn’t more automation within the
process
Faculty/P&A
Current state
Qty
Time
Tasks
49
56 hours, 40 minutes
Waits
44
114 days
Handoffs
18
Decisions
File/store
Elapsed
Time
6
7
121 days
Future state
Qty
Time
Civil Service/Labor Represented
(with valid priority candidates)
Current state
Qty
Time
Tasks
30
16 hrs, 45 mn
Waits
20
32 days
Handoffs
Decisions
File/store
Elapsed
Time
14
5
3
33 days
Future state
Qty
Time
Civil Service/Labor Represented
(no priority candidates)
Current state
Qty
Time
Tasks
40
35 hours, 45 minutes
Waits
32
65 days
Handoffs
24
Decisions
File/store
Elapsed
Time
9
8
70 days
Future state
Qty
Time
Recommendations
Issue: Hiring process takes too long and is
inconsistent across campuses, units, and
employee groups
Actions: Reduce number of steps and
standardize process; clarify roles and
responsibilities; establish timeline
expectations, include checklists, and
distribute updated flowchart
Recommendations
Issue: Within the process of no-search hires
for faculty and P&A positions, there is
tension between the values of the
organization and the flexibility needed to
attract, promote, and retain high quality
and diverse candidates.
Action: Strengthen the approval criteria and
recommend delegation of authority at
campus level
Recommendations
Issue: 80% of requisitions are submitted with
incomplete information, which increases
time-to-fill.
Action: Improve usability of requisition form
with additional automation and instructions;
and provide education and performance
metrics to HR and hiring authorities
Recommendations
Issue: Data integrity is unreliable due
to lack of timely and accurate
updates of information within system
Action: Clarify procedures and
expectations and communicate the
negative impact of delays
Recommendations
Issue: Hiring process does not prioritize
candidate experience.
Action: Simplify candidate application
process and increase automated
communication with candidate
throughout process
Future Process
Faculty/P&A
Current state
Future state
Qty
Time
Qty
Time
Tasks
49
56 hours, 40 minutes
28
22 hrs, 40 min
Waits
44
114 days
13
55 days
Handoffs
18
12
Decisions
File/store
Elapsed
Time
6
5
7
4
124
121 days
63
59 days
Civil Service/Labor Represented
Current state
Future state
Qty
Time
Qty
Time
Tasks
40
35 hours, 45 minutes
21
19 hrs, 45 mn
Waits
32
65 days
9
25 days
Handoffs
24
15
Decisions
File/store
Elapsed
Time
9
6
8
5
113
70 days
56
28 days
Civil Service/Labor Represented
(w/valid priority candidates)
Current state
Future state
Qty
Time
Qty
Time
Tasks
30
16 hrs, 45 mn
18
8hrs, 20 mn
Waits
20
31 days
8
18 days
Handoffs
Decisions
File/store
Elapsed
Time
15
8
5
3
3
73
33 days
37
20 days
Efficiency Opportunities
P & A and Faculty
Reduction of process steps
Reduction in elapsed time
Reduction in task time
Civil service/labor represented (no PC)
Reduction of process steps
Reduction in elapsed time
Reduction in task time
Civil service/labor represented (PC)
Reduction of process steps
Reduction in elapsed time
Reduction in task time
50%
49%
58%
50%
65%
49%
56%
40%
50%
Anticipated Improvement Metrics
•
•
•
•
Reduced time-to-fill
80% first-pass-yield on requisitions
Improved hiring authority satisfaction
Hiring authorities are aware of EOAA goals
for all vacancies
• Reduce the number of direct-hires
(except spousal)
• Increased accuracy of applicant statuses
• Reduced staff time to meet reporting
requirements by 20%
Benefits of Future State
• University’s reputation is improved
• Able to attract, acquire, and retain diverse and
high-quality candidates
• Reduce administrative costs
• Redirect staff resources to more strategic and
mission-related functions
• Hiring authorities have resources and support
they need to navigate the hiring process
effectively
• Increases accountability
• Decreased frustration by everyone in process
Action Plan
What
When
Create guidelines for hiring decisions that need
consultation (added to tool kit)
June 1, 2013
Linda
Update and improve requisition form (Add hard
stops where appropriate, add language to manage
expectations)
July 1, 2013
Laura
Educate HR pros about incoming requisition
bottleneck to better manage process
May 1, 2013
Sheila
Create training and guidelines (checklists) for hiring
authorities (added to tool kit) on new process
August 1,
2013
Laura
Define responsibility and reduce and control number
of hiring authorities that can enter requisitions
June 1, 2013
Laura/Susan
July 1,2013
Mary/Patti D.
May 15, 2013
Sept. 6, 2013
Katie
July 1, 2013
Laura/Katie
Create standards for managing layoff list
Executive leaders communicate plan to empower
Human Resources/Staffing Consultants
Create flowcharts for each employee group with
steps and timeframes i.e 6 weeks for P&A/14 days
for CS &LR include in training and tool kit
Who
Action Plan
What
When
Who
Monitor incoming reqs. for completeness and
accuracy
June 1, 2013
Jackie
Research and explore opportunities for shared
services
Sept. 1,2013
Sheila/Laura
Establish diversity screening standards to hiring
authorities (for tool kit)
July 1, 2013
Mary/Linda
Lori
Develop direct hire form language and template
June 1, 2013
Katie
Identify and implement Best Practices for interview
scheduling (for tool kit)
July 1, 2013
Katie
Review and revise “so sorry” letters – expand to
academics hiring procedure. Align system
notifications with applicant status (tool kit)
July 1, 2013
Katie
Develop and improve recruiting efforts – active
outreach (runner ups, internal talent bank, mobility)
Sept. 1, 2013
Charlene
Training around effective reference checking
(tool kit)
July 1, 2013
Sheila
Action Plan
What
When
Establish and execute an Hiring Authority satisfaction July 1, 2013
survey
Propose delegation authority of direct hire to the
chancellors
June 1, 2013
Update policies and procedures to implement new
process
August 1, 2013
Who
Laura/OMS
Katie
Michele
Needed to Fully Capture and Sustain
These Improvements
• We need the approval, public support for, and broad
communication by the Senior Leadership Group
• Despite the high priority of ESUP, we need human and
technical resources for updating employment system
• We need ongoing measurement and feedback of process
performance
Helpful Hints to improve Requisition
first pass yield
• Complete ALL the fields. May need to change to
Requisition Approver role to have access to edit fields.
• Always complete the field specifying if a background
check is required. Guidelines for whether a background
check is recommended are located in Managers Toolkit.
• Minimum requirements must be consistent with the job
classification. Always compare the job classification
database info with the minimum requirements in the
posting for consistency.
• Minimum requirements must be specific and measurable.
• For represented labor groups: preferred requirements
beyond the minimum cannot exceed the minimum
requirements.
Helpful Hints to improve Requisition
first pass yield
• Remove all fancy formatting.
• When duplicating a previous requisition, check every
field carefully for relevance and accuracy. Look for old
dates embedded within posting description or application
instructions.
• Always add notes to provide context. Notes such as
previous discussions and decisions, who participated,
why a req should or should not be posted until filled, if
an internal candidate has been identified, justification for
not conducting a background screen, etc.
• Common mistake: considering students to be “internal”,
students are “external”.
Questions/Observations?