The University of California, Irvine (UCI) is engaged in a multi-year, multifaceted program of process improvement. The objectives of this program are to simplify administrative processes, decrease organizational complexity and layering, improve productivity, reduce reliance on paper, and tap employee ideas to "de-bureaucratize" essential administrative functions while eliminating tasks that contribute limited value.
Over two hundred process improvements have been completed by multiple teams through deployment of a comprehensive management change model. Procurement, hiring, facility renovation, travel accounting, and student parking processes now function, on average, seventy percent simpler and faster. Two-thirds of the institution's delegations of authority have been pushed downward in the organization to where faster, better-informed, more accountable decisions are enabled. Over seven million pieces of paper that recurred yearly have been eliminated. NACUBO (National Association of College and University Business Officers) recognized this program with first prize (tie) in the 1996 Higher Education Awards Program, and the program received a 1998 RIT/USA Today Quality Cup Award and the 1997 Best Practices Award from CAUSE, the association for managing and using information resources in higher education.
The UCI "Model for Sustaining Administrative Improvement" utilizes a set of process improvement tools -- plans, performance targets, customer feedback, and "effectiveness principles." These quality improvement tools are built on foundations and principles which are, in turn, grounded in a set of goals -- broad, institutional goals as well as specific administrative productivity and service goals. These components constitute a model depicted as a pyramid . Program elements nearer the top of the model are increasingly specific, supported by the more fundamental components nearer the base. The component parts of the model are interrelated, with elements toward the top of the pyramid dependent on the clarity and success of the underlying elements. This construct is more than illustrative. The organization and integration of program elements lend structure and sustainability. And, as a behavioral model, this program recognizes that changing the patterns of a bureaucracy requires altering the dynamic of values, expectations, rewards, disincentives, and belief systems that define the "administrative culture" of the University.
Why a "Model"?
If sustainable improvement is desired, a good management change model is essential, as most significant forms of management change require:
If broad, systemic change (a change in the "administrative culture") is desired, a management change model additionally calls for:
This table illustrates how all elements in this Program support one or more of these six dimensions.
Analytical and Normative Models
A complete management change model contains both analytical and "normative" elements. Its analytical features dissect and clarify problems; the normative part synthesizes solutions, utilizing design principles applied to findings from the earlier analytical phase. These normative and analytical components are thus linked, and together constitute an integrated management change model.
This model contains strong normative elements in three areas:
These principles play key roles in the Irvine model. Bureaucracies are resistant to change because internal dynamics create strong drives to preserve or return to status-quo conditions in the face of change. These dynamics are rooted in rule-making and enforcement behavior, and are typically entrenched because status-quo practices embedded in policy are "safe," and thus they comfortably obscure the fact that accountability and responsibility are dysfunctionally fragmented. Such a system is stable and predictable in its behavior, yet inefficient when conditions shift and unresponsive when change is needed.
Yet the oft-portrayed picture of the rule-bound bureaucrat is not entirely accurate. No set of rules is without its ambiguities and contradictions, and the most respected managers in a bureaucracy are the ones who know how to change direction in ways that exploit -- in a positive way -- inconsistencies in what may appear to be a seamless policy infrastructure. When such change happens, it is usually in the direction that is (A) rewarded (or at least not penalized), (B) mission-linked (if the institution's goals are stated), and (C) consistent with performance values (to the extent that a shared understanding exists about what constitutes good organizational performance).
Therefore, changing "administrative culture" does not require a wholesale dismantling of all existing patterns based on a detailed analysis of their flaws. Rather, a strong framework of teamwork, simplification, quality and effectiveness principles (referred to above and developed in detail later in this booklet) provides a reverse-bias to old values, behavioral norms, and performance patterns. "Strong" means that these principles are not only asserted clearly, but consistently and coherently. When people sense inconsistency or incoherence in "the new rules of the game" they return to status quo behaviors.
This model endeavors to support all the change-factors highlighted above. The sections which follow describe each element of the model, starting from goals and objectives at the base, explaining each layer of the built-up pyramid, and culminating with results to-date. This table indicates how the components of this Model support the key ingredients for management change.