Cleveland State University (CSU) – Submission 8.1.16
2016 Efficiency Reporting Guidance
In the early part of 2015, Gov. John R. Kasich created the Ohio Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency to make recommendations to Ohio’s institutions of higher education based on three simultaneous principles 1) to be more efficient both in expense management and revenue generation 2) while offering an education of equal or higher quality and 3) decreasing costs to students and their families. The Task Force met several times during the course of 2015. In October the Task Force issued a report with ten recommendations to advise institutions on efficiency and academic practices which will improve both the quality of education and lower costs for students.
Furthermore, House Bill 64 (Section 369.550) requires each institution’s board of trustees to complete an efficiency review, based on the Task Force’s recommendations, by July 1, 2016, and submit their findings and implementation plans to the chancellor within 30 days, or by August 1, 2016. For additional information on each category and recommendation, please review the Action Steps to Reduce College Costs report, issued by the Ohio Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency.
This document is intended to provide guidance for institutions’ reports to the chancellor, based on the legislation – please modify and add additional detail as necessary. The institutional efficiency review and the implementation plans captured by this template will serve as the data for 2016 Efficiency Advisory Committee Report. These reports are due August 1, 2016. In 2017 and moving forward, ODHE will issue a survey to the institutions, based on the Task Force Report, as a status update to the implementation plans and will serve as the Efficiency Advisory Committee report.
Campuses will want to review the template to familiarize themselves with the format and content before beginning. The template is structured into four sections:
· Section 1: Efficiencies – The first section captures practices likely to yield significant savings for institutions that can then be passed on to students. This includes Procurement, Administrative and Operational, and Energy.
· Section 2: Academic Practices – This section covers areas such as textbooks, time to degree incentives, and academic course and program reviews. While improvements to academic processes and policies may not convey immediate cost savings, there will likely be tangible benefits that improve the quality of education for students.
· Section 3: Policy Reforms – This section captures additional policy reforms recommended by the Task Force.
· Section 4: Cost Savings, Redeployment of Savings & Tangible Benefits to Students – The last section will ask institutions to provide, if applicable, cost savings to the institution in actual dollars saved for each of the recommendations. Furthermore, the institution must advise if the institutional savings has been redeployed as a cost savings to students or offered a benefit to the quality of education for students.
Any questions can be directed to Sara Molski, Assistant Policy Director at the Ohio Department of Higher Education, at 614-728-8335 or by email at .
Cleveland State University
Section I: Efficiency Practices
A. Strategic Procurement
Recommendation 3: Contracts
Recommendation 3A: Campus Contracts – E ach institution must require that its employees use existing contracts for purchasing goods and services, starting with the areas with the largest opportunities for savings. Has the institution implemented this recommendation? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes.
Response:Cleveland State University (CSU) has for many years been burdened with an inefficient paper-based procurement system. To address this deficiency, an e-procurement system was purchased from SciQuest and implemented in December 2015. This system – operationalized as “Magnus Mart”- directs and requires users to use State of Ohio, Inter-University Council and Educational & Institutional Services (E&I) contracts. CSU’s Purchasing Department will be analyzing the data to determine similar spend across campus and departments to establish additional contracts and further negotiate established contracts to realize cost savings. The University’s purchasing policy is being updated to give the Purchasing Department authority to redirect spend to existing contracts.
The e-procurement system will provide the following benefits, as noted briefly in Chapter I.
· Cost Reduction – Costs will be reduced by leveraging volume, having structured supplier relationships and by using system improvements to reduce external spend while improving quality and supplier performance. E-procurement will eliminate paperwork, rework and errors.
· Visibility of Spend – Centralized tracking of transactions will enable full reporting of requisitions, items purchased, order processes and payments made. E-Procurement advantages will extend to ensuring compliance with existing and established contracts.
· Productivity – Campus buyers can obtain the items they want from a catalogue of approved items through an on-line requisition and ordering system. Purchasing staff can be released from processing orders and handling low value transactions to concentrate on strategic sourcing and improving supplier relationships.
· Controls – Standardized approval processes and formal workflows ensure that the correct level of authorization is applied to each transaction and that spend is directed to draw off existing contracts. Compliance to policy is improved as users can quickly locate products and services from preferred suppliers and are unable to create maverick purchases.
If the institution has not implemented this recommendation, is there a plan to implement? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not implemented this recommendation and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.
Recommendation 3B: Collaborative Contracts – Ohio’s colleges and universities must pursue new and/or strengthened joint purchasing agreements in the following categories: copier/printer services, computer hardware, travel services, outbound shipping, scientific supplies and equipment, office supplies and equipment.
Response:CSU has been an active and full participant in the work of the Inter-University Council’s Purchasing Group (IUC-PG) which addressed each of the listed six areas in Recommendation 3B. CSU’s response is summarized in the following chart:
B. Assets and Operations
Recommendation 4: Assets and Operations
Recommendation 4A: Asset Review – Each institution must conduct an assessment of its noncore assets to determine their market value if sold, leased or otherwise repurposed. Where opportunities exist, colleges and universities must consider coordinating these efforts with other Ohio institutions to reap larger benefits of scale.
Please provide an overview of the process used for the institution’s asset review and the key outcomes below or on additional pages.
Response:As detailed in Chapter II of CSU’s Report to the Chancellor, a review of asset monetization and the use of public-private partnerships (P3) is one of the University’s Path to 2020 projects. The project’s objectives are to:
(1) Determine funding strategies for projects included in CSU’s 2014 Master Plan, and
(2) Develop a road map showing how the University can initiate multi-purpose P3 relationships with developers, matching assets with opportunities.
Since January 2016, CSU has been in the process of reviewing its asset base with the firm of Jones, Lang, LaSalle (JLL) who was retained after a competitive bidding process. JLL is assisting on issues related to asset monetization, leveraging of assets with P3 partnerships, identifying non-essential assets and analyzing alternative financing methods to reduce operating costs. The project is focusing on student housing and parking monetization. An RFQ has been issued for both the housing project and the parking monetization project in June 2016. Responses to the RFQ are due in July 2016, with a formal RFP process to follow.
Recommendation 4B: Operations Review – Each institution must conduct an assessment of non-academic operations that might be run more efficiently by a regional cooperative, private operator or other entity. These opportunities must then be evaluated to determine whether collaboration across institutions would increase efficiencies, improve service or otherwise add value.
Please provide an overview of the process used for the institution’s operations review and the key outcomes below or on additional pages.
Response:Operations and Outsourcing
Cleveland State University has long made a practice of assessing the merits of outsourcing non-academic operations and moving aggressively when the efficiencies and quality of service point to that solution. As a result, today the following operations are currently in partnership with outside companies:
· University Bookstore (Viking Outfitters) – Follett Incorporated.
· University Dining – Chartwells Higher Education Dining Services
· Housing and Residence Hall Management – American Campus Communities through Euclid Avenue Housing Corporation
· Recreation Center – Centers LLC
· Wolstein Center –Selected booking and ticketing provided by the Cavaliers Operating Company
As mentioned in Recommendation 3B above, the University also has actions underway to monetize Parking Services (at the RFQ stage) and to construct and operate (at the RFQ phase) our next wave of housing expansion, estimated to be in the range of 500-700 beds.
In addition, the University currently outsources in the following areas:
· Custodial Staff (17 % of total staffing) – Quick Employment Service
· Exterior Window Washing – Window Cleaning Specialists Inc.
· Pest Control – Rentokill
· Overhead Garage Door Maintenance – J & L Door Service
· Elevator Maintenance – Schindler Elevator (IUC contract)
· Irrigation System – Davey Tree
· Window Repairs – Sandglo
· Biohazard Lab Cleaning – Bio Clean
· Building Automation System – Johnson Controls & Building Integrators
· Carpet Replacement – Interfinish (IUC Contract)
· Painting – Allan Painting Inc.
· Outdoor Pole Lighting – Ruff Neon
· Concrete Replacement – Competitive Bids
· Signage – Competitive Bids
· Roof repairs – Arkra Roofing
· Trash service – Republic
· Chilled and Hot Water Chemical Treatment – GE Water Service
· Automatic Door Repair and Maintenance – Allied Door
· Bi-Annual Inflation Indoor Soccer Dome (air supported structure ) – Competitive Bids
· All A/E Contracts for Design – Request for Qualification (RFQ)
In addition, to ensure that our internal services are run efficiently CSU maintains a formal Facilities Management Evaluation Program (FMEP) to ensure that our internal services are run efficiently. In 2015, we contracted with The Association of Physical Plant Administrators (APPA) to review Facilities Management at CSU over a four-day period. The FMEP provides a customized evaluation conducted by a team of institutional peers and based on a comprehensive set of criteria. The institution receives a written report with feedback on current performance and recommended actions designed to help transform participating educational facilities programs into those worthy of international recognition.
The review team found that the CSU team performs services very well with the resources they currently have. The review team stated “Although Facilities Management has managed to achieve a high level of campus appearance, the organization’s
ability to sustain existing levels will be a challenge. Workloads expressed by gross square feet for building maintenance and custodial services, and by acres for grounds maintenance are substantially above the current averages of other institutions” In the report, the APPA review team made recommendations within each of the seven criteria categories above, which CSU Facilities Management is either correcting or implementing.
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems
With individual university IT systems replacement efforts being assessed across the state, the university community finds itself with a unique opportunity to make a collaborative decision that will standardize our systems and allow the implementation of common processes across the state. In the spirit of the Task Force recommendations on efficiency and in
an effort to prioritize the use of revenue sources and cost savings from existing operations, CSU and several public 4-year universities and the Inter-University Council (IUC) are proposing the move to a standardized, cloud-based (internet) Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) platform. This initiative is in the exploratory phase (June 2016) but represents an opportunity for regional if not statewide collaboration.
Our goal is to develop an environment where multiple universities can (1) leverage their purchasing power to negotiate lower system costs, and (2) transfer existing systems to common platforms, thereby leading to standardized processes and reduced operating and system maintenance costs.
Current State of University ERP Systems
a. Majority of Ohio universities are operating on 15-20 year old legacy ERP systems (PeopleSoft, Banner, etc.) that we will be forced to abandon in 3-5 years.
b. Current systems are all on premise in University managed data centers.
c. Systems cannot keep pace with current business demands.
d. As additional student and business system demands have arisen over time, various applications have been integrated (“bolt-ons”) to ERP systems, creating an overly complex and expensive environment.
This is a multi-year undertaking that will require a significant level of funding whose benefits will arise from lower IT system operations costs and re-engineered business processes. The major contributor to operations efficiency will be the re-engineered business practices that will lead to standardization.
Recommendation 4C: Affinity Partnerships and Sponsorships – Institutions must, on determining assets and operations that are to be retained, evaluate opportunities or affinity relationships and sponsorships that can support students, faculty and staff. Colleges and universities can use these types of partnerships to generate new resources by identifying “win-win” opportunities with private entities that are interested in connecting with students, faculty, staff, alumni or other members of their communities.
Has the institution implemented this recommendation? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes.
has agreed to designate HNB as the “official bank” of CSU. In exchange, HNB has paid CSU a licensing fee totaling $1.15 million and the University receives rental income for the space it leases HNB for the campus branch banking location. In addition, CSU receives rental income for HNB ATM’s located on campus and participates in an incentive revenue-sharing program based on the number of new checking accounts opened at the CSU branch and by CSU students and employees at other HNB branches. Huntington also participates in the sponsorship of the Allen Theater – Playhouse Square project which provides instructional theater space CSU’s performing arts and theater students as well as student internships.To generate a variety of athletics-related income opportunities, CSU retains Learfield Sports Marketing, working with CSU under the Viking Sports Properties umbrella. Estimated revenue to the University in Fiscal Year 2016 is approximately $300,000.
CSU is considering support from an outside consulting firm to assist in developing a broader sponsorship marketing and advertising program.
Please identify partnerships and sponsorships in effect for FY2016: