DEVELOP SCOPE AND A PROPOSAL FOR A UNIVERSITY-WIDE TITLE AND TOTAL COMPENSATION ANALYSIS

The Titles work team raised several concerns with the current system of titles used by the university. As the team noted, UW–Madison has about 1,700 separate job titles, the result of an incremental, uncoordinated approach to title development over many years. In addition, the unclassified staff title system was developed separately from the classified title system. Therefore, the university has never had the opportunity to review titles across employee categories. As a result, the work team noted:

 Many titles do not meaningfully or clearly describe jobs they represent  Titles are not used consistently across the campus

 Titles in the classified and unclassified systems overlap  Some titles limit opportunities for employees to progress  The university has limited ability to create new titles

Having a current, meaningful and transparent title structure is critical to recruiting new employees and providing current employees with opportunities to advance in their careers. The title structure is also linked to the

compensation structure that defines how we pay for different jobs. While some segments of our current system work well, the UW–Madison job title and compensation structures need to be systematically redesigned so that titles Example: Lack of flexibility in

the current job title and pay system

Currently, a maintenance mechanic with 15 years of experience would have to start at the beginning of the pay range. That is because we are not able to pay market wages for candidates with experience outside the university. UW- Madison HR representatives also told us that they have difficulty matching outside job offers for employees who can earn more by leaving the university (e.g., in technical fields such as microbiology).

accurately reflect the responsibilities, qualifications and proficiencies our jobs require, and the related compensation structure allows the university to pay competitively and modify compensation as needed.

The linkage between titles and compensation means that, to create a compensation structure that best meets the university’s current and future needs, UW–Madison must update its staff job titles/levels, create a new pay structure for those jobs/levels and then translate existing jobs into this new structure. This type of analysis is a standard practice at universities and most large organizations. Several of our peers (e.g., the universities of Iowa and Minnesota, and Ohio State) have gone through or are planning job title/job classification and compensation studies. A title and total compensation analysis would include staff and student jobs. Faculty will be included for the total compensation portion of the analysis.

A title and total compensation analysis is generally supported by an outside organization and involves:

 Collecting information about existing university jobs through surveys and interviews with employees, supervisors and managers.

 Analyzing the information to find consistencies and develop new job titles/levels and job descriptions (in particular, to provide opportunities for advancement).

 Identifying the appropriate labor market for each title (e.g., geographic region, type of institution, size of organization).

 Defining market salary ranges using salary surveys and other external data sources.

 Grouping jobs into salary ranges (except for academic staff positions that do not have salary maximums).

 Reviewing these salary bands for equity and adjusting if necessary  Assigning current positions to new titles and allowing employees to

appeal these assignments.

A title and total compensation analysis will not set the compensation for individual employees. As stated above, the analysis will result in creating a title and compensation structure that sets the parameters for compensation. The other UW campuses will also need to conduct this type of analysis. UW– Madison and UW System will work together to plan a joint analysis that will apply a consistent approach and methodology while still allowing the results to be tailored to the needs of our campus. We will begin to work with UW System to define the scope and parameters of the study and to establish processes for engaging governance and stakeholder groups. We will then develop a request for proposal, subject to the review of the Board of Regents, to solicit proposals from outside organizations to provide technical assistance in the analysis. Although we do not have the expertise to conduct the analysis completely in- house, our staff will be involved in collecting and analyzing the data. Example: Trying to create a

“University Chef” title The UW-Madison Housing Office wanted to create a “university chef” title for positions responsible for coordinating food preparation and presentation. The available titles did not allow the university to recognize and adequately compensate the additional level of

responsibility this position would require. Since the university didn’t have the authority to create new titles, we asked OSER to create this new title—university chef. Because this request was just one of many from across state government, the OSER- required review was delayed for months. OSER ultimately denied the request because it decided that this work was not different enough from other state jobs. In making this decision, OSER compared the work of the proposed

university chef to food service positions in state correctional facilities.

We expect that this title and total compensation analysis will begin in 2013 and take up to one year. This anticipated length recognizes not only the size and complexity of the UW–Madison workforce, but also the rights and

responsibilities of governance bodies, which will be involved throughout the process.

The analysis will result in a new set of titles (although many current titles likely will be maintained because they represent the standard usage across

universities, such as lecturer) and levels, and a related compensation structure. We will then need to assess the best way to implement the new structure, likely through a phased approach. Built into the transition to the new system will be a systematic and transparent process for employees to appeal any new title assignments.

6. PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR GOVERNANCE GROUPS TO PROVIDE ADVICE