OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Management and Budget Customer Survey Executive Summary
In the spring of 2012, the Vice President for Management and Budget invited 824 customers, members of the University community served by the Management and Budget Service units, to participate in an on-line survey and share feedback about the quality and delivery of Management and Budget services. The survey included an overview section for Management and Budget as a whole followed by seven unit-specific sections. Three hundred and fifty-four people responded to the survey, resulting in a 42.96% response rate.
I.
Overview of Management and Budget
Respondents were asked to assess their collective experiences with Management and Budget units as appropriate on the following service attributes:
Collaboration – Partners, works well with others
Communication – Actively listens and effectively transmits information Technical expertise – Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of field
Timeliness – Delivers goods and/or services within an appropriate or agreed upon timeframe Quality of service – Provides goods and/or services of an appropriate or agreed upon standard Professionalism – Adheres to ethical principles, respects others, and reflects the University’s values Overall satisfaction – Pleased with process, goods and/or services met expectations and added value Results
The graph below depicts the mean score of each attribute for Management and Budget’s service units collectively on a possible 10-point likert scale , with 1 being very dissatisfied and 10 being very satisfied. Overall,
Management and Budget received favorable ratings. The highest ratings were professionalism (8.30) and
technical expertise (8.15), and the lowest were timeliness (7.88) and communication (7.83).
7.89 7.83 8.15 7.88 8.03 8.30 8.02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Collaboration Communication Technical expertise Timeliness Quality of service Professionalism Overall satisfaction
Management and Budget Customer Survey
Overall Satisfaction Ratings
Total sample size: 824 Total respondents: 354
The graph below depicts the importance of the service attributes, excluding overall satisfaction, to Management and Budget’s customers. Respondents confirmed that the survey measured attributes important to them. One hundred percent of the respondents indicated that communication, timeliness, quality of service, and
professionalism were important, very important, or extremely important relative to their interactions with
Management and Budget, with more than 48% indicating that these attributes were extremely important across the board. More than 99% of respondents also indicated that collaboration (99.7%) and technical expertise (99.1%) were important, very important, or extremely important. These responses indicate the validity of the service attributes used to construct the survey.
49.0% 56.8% 48.4% 48.2% 56.5% 54.2% 38.9% 33.6% 38.9% 42.0% 33.9% 36.2% 11.9% 9.5% 11.9% 9.8% 9.5% 9.6% 0.9% 0.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Collaboration Communication Technical expertise
Timeliness Quality of service
Professionalism
Management and Budget Customer Survey
Importance of Service Attributes
II.
Unit-specific Sections
Each Management and Budget service unit had a dedicated section of the survey. Filter questions were designed to ascertain whether a respondent had sufficient experience and/or familiarity with a unit to answer the questions. The response to the filter question determined whether the respondent continued with the unit survey or skipped to the next unit-specific section.
Each unit survey had one or more questions that related to each of the seven service attributes. The unit service attributes were scored on a possible seven-point scale, with one being the lowest possible score and seven being the highest.
The graphic below provides a snapshot of the number of average unit ratings above and below 5.50 for each attribute, which approximates the overall mean score across all service attributes and all units (overall
mean=5.55). Average rankings greater than or equal to 5.50 are depicted by green circles, and average rankings less than 5.50 are depicted by yellow circles. Across individual units, the highest-rated attribute was
professionalism and the lowest was communication.
consistently effective – mean>=5.50
moderately effective (potential opportunity for improvement) – mean<5.50
Collaboration Communication Technical expertise Timeliness Quality of service Professionalism Overall satisfaction
University Budget Office (UBO)
• The University Budget Office’s (UBO) section of the survey contained 12 questions.
• The sample included 154 individuals who execute operating budget activities (i.e., those holding the UVa Budget Developer responsibility in the Integrated System), capital budget activities, and ad hoc activities (including Associate Deans, Vice Presidents, and Executive Vice Presidents), as well as individuals who work in other University central service offices that regularly interact with the UBO (e.g., Accounting Services, Treasury, Student Financial Services, Information Technology Services).
• 198 people responded, with 163 self-identifying as a member of the target population.
Results:
• Individuals more familiar with the UBO rated each service attribute higher than those less familiar with the UBO. When comparing responses by self-reported roles, the Associate Deans rated each service attribute lower than other groups.
• When provided with a list of objectives that the UBO strives to achieve and asked to indicate the importance of each, respondents chose the objective of providing accurate, reliable, and timely support as the most important.
• While 93% of respondents indicated that UBO staff are collaborative members of teams, workgroups, and meetings (33% strongly agreed, 61% agreed), some open-ended comments revealed a need for the UBO to increase its knowledge of, and collaboration with, schools, units, and other central service offices.
• 99% of respondents agreed (48%) or strongly agreed (51%) that UBO staff have technical expertise and are knowledgeable about University budget/financial policies and procedures.
• Regarding quality of service, 94% of respondents expressed confidence in the accuracy and thoroughness of the work produced by the UBO (52% very confident, 43% confident).
Improvement Plan:
• Improve understanding of school/departmental business processes and needs.
o Develop a rotating schedule for UBO staff to visit school and departmental leaders to learn how units manage their internal core functions of operating budget, capital budget, and financial planning.
o Integrate UBO staff more widely into institutional meetings, including Fiscal Administrators, HR Users Group, and FM Studio meetings.
o Participate in the Finance Leaders Workshop in July 2012.
5.49 5.43 5.88 5.95 5.91 6.18 5.92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Collaboration Communication Technical expertise Timeliness Quality of service Professionalism Overall satisfaction
• Improve the clarity and frequency of widespread written communications from the UBO to its customers (e.g., budget development assumptions and instructions, supplemental funding allocations, agenda for budget review meetings).
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE BUDGET OFFICE CUSTOMER SURVEY RESULTS, PLEASE CONTACT ROBBYN MINNIS AT RLM5S@VIRGINIA.EDU OR 924-0990
Office of University Building Official (OUBO)
• The Office of University Building Official (OUBO) section of the survey consisted of 12 questions. • The target included 125 employees who directly use OUBO services or occupy and maintain the buildings
OUBO approved, including project and construction administration managers; representatives from the University Architect’s Office and Business Operations; maintenance personnel; and managers from Facilities Management and the Health System.
• 84 people responded.
Results:
• 24% indicated that communication of responsibilities/services is not clear when initiating a project. • 24% responded that the OUBO did not effectively partner with them to achieve the project objectives, a
measure of collaboration.
• Respondents rated OUBO technical expertise high: 90% in project planning/initiation, 82% in value management, 78% in plan review, 89% in permitting, 80% in inspections, 88% in technical consultation. • 84% noted that the OUBO produces deliverables according to established timelines (30% always, 54%
usually) and 90% indicated the office promptly responds to inquiries (38% strongly agree, 52% agree), both measures of timeliness.
• In quality of service, 92% responded favorably (47% strongly agreed, 44% agreed) that the OUBO effectively partners with its customers to create a high-quality, healthy, safe, and accessible environment for the
University community.
Improvement Plan:
• Conduct focus groups to identify areas for enhanced collaboration.
• Develop flowcharts of processes and timelines; Explore additional opportunities to engage with projects from the beginning.
• Create an orientation package for new Facilities Management employees who routinely interact with the OUBO.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE OUBO CUSTOMER SURVEY RESULTS, PLEASE CONTACT BEN HAYS AT BJH4AE@VIRGINIA.EDU OR 982-5919
5.32 5.32 5.43 5.44 5.78 5.95 5.51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Collaboration Communication Technical expertise Timeliness Quality of service Professionalism Overall satisfaction
Facilities Management (FM)
• Facilities Management’s (FM) section of the survey contained 15 questions.
• The sample included 240 Facility Coordinators, Vice Presidents, Deans, and Department Heads.
• 291 people responded to FM’s survey with 116 of those respondents self- identifying as members of the target population.
Results:
• Feedback on various types of communication were assessed in the survey:
o Responses revealed the opportunity for better communication in advance of scheduled work and proactive communication to keep customers informed about the progress/status of work.
o 36% of respondents indicated that the billing statements are not effective.
o Approximately 26% of respondents do not use the FM website and of those who do 18% find it difficult to navigate.
o The open-ended comments also disclosed that the effectiveness of communication varies greatly by individual employee.
• Timeliness was rated high with 93% of respondents noting that generally FM responds promptly to requests. Responses to service requests were rated slightly lower than responses to maintenance requests, emergencies, and other requests.
• Of the services provided (landscaping, housekeeping, building maintenance, recycling, and utilities), 92% of respondents reported satisfactory quality of service (38% strongly agreed, 54% agreed).
Improvement Plan:
• Conduct focus groups to assess opportunities to improve communication with customers.
• Improve the Facility Coordinator program, a primary link to the broader customer base and an integral part of communications.
• Enhance customer relations training for employees.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE FM CUSTOMER SURVEY RESULTS, PLEASE CONTACT CHRIS SMEDS AT CJS2M@VIRGINIA.EDU OR 982-4796
5.72 4.97 5.77 5.82 5.59 5.79 5.67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Collaboration Communication Technical expertise Timeliness Quality of service Professionalism Overall satisfaction
Process Simplification (PS)
• The Process Simplification (PS) section of the survey consisted of 12 questions.
• The sample included 45 staff and faculty, members of the PS Steering and Advisory Committees, and project leads and team members of recent PS projects.
• 47 people completed the survey. Of the respondents, 32 self-reported as a member of the target population.
Results:
• The service attribute mean ratings were higher for the target population than for all respondents. The non-targeted respondents deflated the overall ratings.
• Many of the open-ended comments reflected concerns about the New Internal Financial Model project. • Approximately 28% of respondents classified improvements as a result of PS projects as minimal or not at all,
a quality of service question.
• 22% expressed concern about a lack of clarity in PS’ communication about its responsibilities and expectations.
• 89% of respondents indicated that PS exhibits timeliness through its adaptability at understanding project issues and working with the team toward effective solutions (41% very adaptable, 48% adaptable). • 86% indicated PS provides deliverables timely (23% always, 63% usually).
• 78% noted PS technical expertise in improvement methods and tools (26% strongly agreed, 52% agreed).
Improvement Plan:
• Clarify team and PS roles and responsibilities in project charters and review with the team periodically throughout the lifetime of the project.
• Conduct focus groups to explore areas of critical performance.
• Share the data related to the New Internal Financial Model project with the planning team.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PS CUSTOMER SURVEY RESULTS, PLEASE CONTACT LEE BASZCZEWSKI AT SLB3DA@VIRGINIA.EDU OR 243-1963
5.60 5.27 5.50 5.72 5.08 6.07 5.59 5.00 4.91 4.89 5.33 4.70 5.95 5.04 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Collaboration Communication Technical expertise Timeliness Quality of service Professionalism Overall satisfaction
Process Simplification Customer Survey Results
Procurement and Supplier Diversity Services (PSDS)
• Procurement and Supplier Diversity Services’ (PSDS) section contained 12 questions. • The target population included faculty and staff with Oracle purchasing responsibilities.
• A random sample of 300 people from the target population was invited to participate, and 179 responded.
Results:
• One element of quality of service was the use of automated systems:
o Almost one-third of respondents do not use the Invoice Lookup for Departments, Travel Workbook, or website forms. Approximately 19% of respondents do not use the UVa Marketplace.
o Approximately one-third of respondents who use automated systems indicated they were not intuitive or easy to use and often required follow-up.
• Approximately 30% of respondents who have completed buyer-assisted purchases indicated a concern about
timeliness (i.e., the transaction did not meet the expected timeframe).
• Respondents viewed PSDS as collaborative: 92% rated accessibility favorably (44% very accessible, 48% accessible).
• 91% agreed (29% strongly agreed, 62% agreed) that PSDS demonstrates high technical expertise in
coordinating the overall procurement and payment efforts, and 81% indicated that PSDS is effective (57%) or very effective (24%) at resolving issues.
• 86% of respondents indicated that PSDS helps them get the best value on goods and services (18% strongly agreed, 68% agreed), a measure of quality of service.
Improvement Plan
• Identify ways to further delegate and empower departmental purchases and local control when permissible by laws and regulations (e.g., increase small dollar limit).
• Conduct a focus group to explore the issues encountered with the automated systems and how to improve them.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PSDS CUSTOMER SURVEY RESULTS, PLEASE CONTACT SHANNON WAMPLER AT SAW2W@VIRGINIA.EDU OR 924-3173
5.71 5.26 5.27 4.86 4.72 5.62 5.60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Collaboration Communication Technical expertise Timeliness Quality of service Professionalism Overall satisfaction
Procurement and Supplier Diversity Services
Customer Survey Results
Space and Real Estate Management (SREM)
• The Space and Real Estate Management (SREM) section of the survey consisted of 15 questions.
• The sample included 113 individuals with significant interaction with SREM over the past three years (e.g. administrators, accounting personnel, business managers, department heads, project managers, and space planners).
• 97 people responded.
Results:
• Communication was assessed at the beginning and during a project:
o 25% of respondents expressed that the communications regarding procedures could be more clear.
o Approximately 29% of respondents identified that SREM does not effectively keep them informed about the status of their project.
• Leading and resolving space and real estate challenges mapped to technical expertise with 75% of the respondents suggesting SREM appropriately leads and facilitates the resolution of space and real estate challenges, and 25% indicating that SREM could show improvement in this area.
• 91% acknowledge that SREM provides space solutions consistent with budget requirements (24% strongly agree, 67% agree), a measure of quality of service.
• 92% of respondents indicated that SREM staff demonstrate technical expertise in space planning and real estate matters (44% strongly agree, 48% agree).
Improvement Plan:
• Improve communication with customers through increased personal interaction and initial meetings to set expectations, explain processes, and build rapport.
• Implement a post-action assessment questionnaire to collect immediate feedback on each service request to guide future improvements.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SREM CUSTOMER SURVEY RESULTS, PLEASE CONTACT CHARLIE HURT AT CWH4CM@VIRGINIA.EDU OR 982-5914
5.54 5.02 5.33 5.45 5.23 5.73 5.48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Collaboration Communication Technical expertise Timeliness Quality of service Professionalism Overall satisfaction
State Governmental Relations (SGR)
• The State Governmental Relations (SGR) section consisted of 12 questions.
• The sample included 52 individuals including the President’s Cabinet and designated legislative advisors who work with SGR on matters primarily during the General Assembly session.
• 88 people completed the survey, exceeding the 52 identified in the target population described above. Of the respondents, 43 self-identified as members of the target population.
Results:
• The service attribute mean ratings were slightly higher for the target population than for all respondents. • 23% of all respondents expressed concern about the amount of communication received during the General
Assembly Session, however, there were differing perspectives – 10% indicated they receive more than they need; 5% receive less than they need; and 8% reported receiving no communication.
• 21% of all respondents indicated that they did not know how effectively SGR advocates for the University’s position, a quality of service component.
• 96% of all respondents felt that SGR is collaborative and effectively partners with units to advocate for issues of interest to their area (51% strongly agree, 45% agree).
• 98% indicated SGR staff demonstrate technical expertise of government structures, processes and policies (61% strongly agreed, 37% agree).
• 98% of all respondents reported that SGR effectively monitors and tracks legislative and state issues affecting the University (62% strongly agree, 36% agree), a quality of service component.
Improvement Plan:
• Conduct a pilot post-General Assembly Session with legislative advisors to discuss the 2012 Session.
• Improve information management and expand communications to target deans, associate deans, and others as appropriate.
• Continue to establish cross-functional workgroups to address specific issues (e.g. faculty productivity, research strategy).
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SGR CUSTOMER SURVEY RESULTS, PLEASE CONTACT PENNY CABANISS AT PQC2F@VIRGINIA.EDU OR 934-3377
6.46 6.48 6.56 6.50 6.04 6.75 6.60 5.94 5.90 6.18 6.27 5.74 6.48 6.15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Collaboration Communication Technical expertise Timeliness Quality of service Professionalism Overall satisfaction
