ASP is charged “with improving the University’s human resourc ial management business practices by simplifying work, increasing information access, minimizing future administrative costs, and implementing enabling technologies.” ASP is expected to be “the first step in a continuous improvement progby rproavidmin g tools and education that will enable the University to continually change how it does business.”

ASP proposes to consolidate the purchasing, accounts payable, payroll, and human resources functions for all of the University’s four campuses into two central areas: (1) benefits/payroll and (2) procurement.

The expected costs of ASP over its three-year implementation follow:

University personnel to manage and implement ASP $11.74 million PricewaterhouseCoopers, consultants 9.02 million PeopleSoft software (human resources and finance) 4.32 million Hardware and networks 3.79 million Training costs for ASP staff, system staff, and users 2.03 million Operating expenses 1.75 million Contingencies 2.28 million Total implementation cost $34.93 million The ASP plan predicts the following annual savings after implementation:

aA HQ? Gi 4 W y) / Elimination of redundant positions (60 FTE) $2.63 million Ve ve Elimination of “shadow” personnel and budgeting systems 3.34 million

/) Reduction of data-entry requirements 1.13 million Elimination of system reconciliation 0.26 million Total annual savings $7.36 million Members of the University’s staff council stood up for their colleagues who face being displaced from their current jobs as a result of ASP. The staff council reminded University officials that staff within the state personnel system have retention rights and can “bump” others from similar positions in the University based on seniority. University officials, including the president, have stressed that layoffs will be a last resort to deal with job reductions and that positions will be eliminated through attrition or reassignment to new jobs. The staff council noted that the ASP budget does not contain any money for retraining staff whom ASP would displace. The ASP director admitted as much but noted that the University had been informed that it needs to set aside money for retraining.ASP has not identified which jobs to eliminate. Its director recognized the need to “adopt an appropriate strategy for consolidating the campus functions. We could bring up the system, get the offices running, and then consolidate them, or we could consolidate and then bring up the system.” One staff council member heatedly announced the doubt that ASP could make the right decisions on which jobs to eliminate: “The ASP committee is all administrators, but ASP affects staff on every side. You need to get opinions from the people actually doing the work. Administrators often don’t know what staff do.”

Required Form small groups to prepare a presentation that responds to the following items:

a. Does the ASP objective seem consistent with the University’s goals?

b. Why might ASP’s objective (not considering its methods) be controversial within the University?

c. What ethical and management responsibilities does the administration have for the University’s constituents? ”

d. Discuss your confidence in the reliability of the cost and savings estimates. How critical are these estimates to the project’s implementation and success in meeting its objective?

e. Critique the apparent method being used to implement ASP. Is this implementation approach likely to be successful? Explain.

f. Make recommendations to the University president and the ASP director for improving the implementation process.