Hub and Spoke Town Hall

1. What problem are we trying to solve with this model, or how will this actually work in any given area/department? The FAQ isn't very specific on these points.: The hub and spoke model is designed to achieve a uniformly high level of service across campus by enhancing two-way communication between the hub and schools or (in some iterations) divisions of the College (“spokes” or “units”) and among the units. Extreme decentralization can deprive units of knowledge of best practices elsewhere on campus, can make it difficult to ensure uniform adherence to rapidly changing policies, and hinder coordination among units where that is important (e.g., regarding donors, research policy compliance, IT security).

Although the model can take multiple forms, its most essential feature is a reporting relationship of some kind between the head administrator for a particular function in a school or college and a senior administrator at the center (“hub”), which supplements and does not replace the preexisting reporting relationship of that head administrator to the leader of the unit.

2. I think that I (and others based on the questions) don’t quite have a very good idea of how “hub and spoke” actually works in a concrete sense. What changes organizationally or structurally, or in staffing and/or reporting lines are being considered to implement “hub and spoke”? How will departmental administrative autonomy be preserved in the model?: The hub and spoke model does not require any change in staffing, and the hub does not take over functions previously carried out at divisional or school levels. Although the particulars can vary depending on organizational need, the most typical reporting change involves establishment of a dual reporting line for the head administrator of a particular function in the unit, both to the school/division head and to a senior administrator at the center. Some proposals may also entail delegating increased authority to the head administrator once the hub and spoke arrangement is functioning successfully. Separate initiatives (e.g., IT) may move some staff who are solely performing “core functions” to the center, but that is not an inherent feature of the hub and spoke model.

3. What does the hub do? Is it training or quality assurance? Or are they taking over functions now done at divisional or school levels?: Under a hub and spoke model, the hub does not take over functions previously carried out at divisional or school levels. The hub will be gathering ideas and best practices from the spokes to share campus-wide, will be providing training where appropriate (e.g., where important policy changes occur), and will be participating in performance evaluations for the head administrator. In some cases, the hub may also participate in hiring or dismissal of the head administrator.

4. Was the Hub and Spoke Model entirely developed in-house at UCLA? If so, who within UCLA wrote the plan? If not, with whom did UCLA consult?: The hub and spoke model of organization has long existed at UCLA through External Affairs, but it was not developed at UCLA. It has been utilized in many government and economic sectors for decades; however it is important to note that our version does not involve increased layers of approvals, unlike some instances in other sectors. If anything, we envision through better training of spokes by the hub, we may push down decision-making authority even further to the spokes in some instances (see Research example below), thereby increasing speed of approvals. EVC/P Carter solicited proposals from all Vice Chancellors, and selected three for initial consideration and consultation because they were most fully developed and/or promised greatest benefits from hub and spoke organization: Academic Personnel, Research Administration, and Information Technology. Senior leadership of the campus, Senate leadership and relevant committees, and potentially affected staff have been consulted as part of the development process. In addition, this Town Hall and other listening sessions have been held with department chairs and individual faculty.

5. What was the faculty involvement in conceiving this idea? Was the Academic Senate consulted?: See answer to preceding question regarding origins of the proposals. The leadership and appropriate committees of the Academic Senate (e.g., Council of Faculty Executive Committee Chairs; subject matter committees such as the Council on Research and the Committee on Data, Information Technology and Privacy) have been consulted regarding each of the hub and spoke proposals under consideration. In addition, this Town Hall and other listening sessions have been held with department chairs and individual faculty, including a listening session for each of the hub and spoke proposals.

6. Are administrators in academic departments actively involved in building this new model to make sure it works on the "ground level" instead of being created in more of a top-down model?: Administrators in each school or division who potentially would be affected by introduction of a hub and spoke model were engaged to provide ideas and feedback at early stages in the development of each proposal.

7. Is this a daily management system?: No.

8. What is the timeline for implementing the hub and spoke model? Could you share the schedule of rolling out the hub and spoke model for other areas of staffing (like for departmental financial analysts and fund managers)?: Timelines will vary for each of the three proposals currently under consideration (Academic Personnel, Research Administration, and IT).

The model is in very early stages of consideration for staff personnel. A robust process of consultation is underway to determine whether it is a good match.

9. Academic Personnel, Research Administration, and Information Technology are precisely the areas that can benefit tremendously from a Hub & Spoke model. Kudos for the person(s) who identified these as ripe for resolution. However, it would be nice to hear our leadership's thoughts about other areas being pushed into this model. My concern is that other areas may be forced into the model even though they are not an ideal fit. What safeguards will be put in place to carefully consider future expansion of the model? Will areas be consulted?: It will be important to evaluate applications of the existing models when considering other operational areas. There will be thorough consultation with the Senate and other stakeholders in the campus community in connection with any future expansion of the model.

10. Please describe the expectations and organizational redesign. Is it possible to provide a visual example of a hub and spoke to help understand how it works?: This diagram is from the Office of Research Administration, depicting how a hub and spoke organization would look. Note that the Departmental Research Associates would not only serve as “spokes” for purposes of communication and reporting, but would also enjoy delegated authority from central ORA.

11. Was there an assessment done in terms of campus/school/departmental readiness? Was there a task force? There needs to be a feedback loop to ask those who will be most affected by this.: Administrators in each school or division who potentially would be affected by introduction of a hub and spoke model were engaged to provide ideas and feedback at early stages in the development of each proposal.

Because the hub and spoke model does not normally entail changes in staffing, only in reporting relationships, schools will not have to undergo significant changes to prepare for it. Individual departments will not be direct participants in the model.

12. Will this model be transparent and all important information be documented so as to see if there are trends that could spur further action items or follow-ups? How will you measure success with this model? How will customer service metrics be added and measured?: Each Vice Chancellor will be required to establish metrics in connection with the hub and spoke proposal, and the metrics will be shared with Deans and relevant Academic Senate and other partners.

13. Who will let us know when this change will go into effect for our department?: The hub and spoke model operates directly at the school-wide level, not at the departmental level. At such time as any of the hub and spoke proposals is given an implementation date, the relevant central office (e.g., Office of the VC, Academic Personnel, or Office of Research Administration) will provide notification to all affected faculty and staff.

14. What percentage does the departmental "spoke" person report to the central "hub"? 10%? 25%? More?: There may be variations among different hub and spoke proposals, but the most typical arrangement is a shared, dual report.

15. How will the "hubs" and "spokes" be identified? How will the scopes of the "hubs" and "spokes" be kept unique enough so that there isn't too much overlap in tasks?: Each of the three proposals identifies individuals and positions that will serve as hubs and spokes. For example, the Research Administration proposal may entail increased delegation of authority to unit-level administrators who develop appropriate expertise. And the IT proposal envisions unit-level staff moving to the hubs only if they are entirely responsible for core services.

16. How will the hubs improve their procedures and services to be able to serve the spokes, to make this effort effective and efficient?: The hub and spoke model will provide a vehicle for two-way communication, enabling central organizations to benefit from unit level ideas and proposals. Central organizations may need to enhance training programs to better serve the head administrators. At least one of the proposals is projecting the possibility of increased delegation of authority to “spokes” who develop sufficient expertise. And most important, central organizations are working with the separate Busting Bureaucracy Work Group to streamline procedures so they can deliver excellent service to the campus more efficiently.

17. Are all hubs central-UCLA and spokes at division/school level? What about multiscale hubs (i.e., depending on service; might be more appropriate to have hubs at division/school level: e.g. IT, where different divisions likely have vastly different ecosystems of IT needs...): Individual schools or divisions may well find the hub and spoke model useful for their own purposes. The College already operates something like such a model for functional areas such as academic personnel.

18. Besides these three areas, is the Hub & Spoke model being explored in other areas of campus?: The model is being explored in very early stages for staff personnel and finance, to determine whether it is a good match.

19. Is the hub and spoke model being used to re-organize campus services (like IT) or is this being used for administration purposes (like payroll or accounting)?: The model could be used for either one, depending on the assessment of its value, after appropriate campus consultation.

20. How will the new model provide personalized attention for specific needs?: Staff who are providing personalized attention for specific needs will not be shifted away from individual units in those operational areas where a hub and spoke model of organization is implemented. Sharing of best practices across campuses, which will be facilitated through the model, may result in increased attention to personalized needs of faculty, students, and other campus constituents.

21. Are frontline engaged and empowered to make decisions, and how do you know what items to escalate?: The hub and spoke model does not alter the locus of decision-making authority, except where increased expertise of staff at the unit level (spoke) results in increased decision-making authority.

22. Is there a roadmap beyond the initial models (academic personnel, research administration, and IT)? As a wide-ranging and far-reaching change is implemented, our people will want to understand when and if they will be affected by such change and when? I look forward to this new model and hope it results in more efficient and improved customer service.: Although each of the Vice Chancellors developed a proposal for hub and spoke organization, there is a limit to the amount of administrative change that the campus can digest at any given time. Also, consideration of additional proposals for hub and spoke organization should await experience with the initial models. Thus, apart from Staff Human Resources, which is at an early stage of consultation regarding its proposal, there are no current plans to advance the hub and spoke model in other operational areas of the campus apart from those you listed.

23. In what ways are departments being engaged in the design of the hub and spoke? I am a department chair and I have been informed but not consulted in the design of the hub and spoke in our school.: Where the hub and spoke model is under consideration, design features are not yet set in stone. Listening session events for Senate faculty, such as this one, as well as town hall meetings open to the entire campus community are intended to elicit ideas and recommendations that can be used to improve features of the model.

24. Will the Hub and Spoke model help support campus-wide initiatives? Who will manage the Hub and Spoke committee?: There is no Hub and Spoke committee envisioned at this time, although there will be evaluation undertaken for each of the initiatives. The model is intended to support all initiatives, whether campus-wide or grounded in an individual school/division.

25. In this time of economic constraint, which units will be most constrained economically by this model? It's difficult to imagine the departments not being on the losing end of this.: The hub and spoke model may very well benefit departments through shared best practices across campus, increased expertise among staff at the school/division level, and, in some proposals, potential delegation of authority. The hub and spoke model does not require reductions in staff at the departmental level.

26. Given that Hub & Spoke is a bespoke organizational model for a unique institution, different stakeholders will interpret it differently. How will we agree on a common understanding and collectively manage change toward that goal?: Before hub and spoke organization is implemented, its terms of operation at the center and at the school/division level will have to be spelled out in some detail, including all changed reporting relationships and evaluation metrics. This information will be shared with all relevant administrators and faculty and staff partners in order to surface ambiguities and/or concerns.

27. What are mechanisms for checks on the system? Shared governance? How will you interact with the faculty as this proceeds? What aspects of the plans will be subject to Senate review?: Shared governance means that certain academic matters are solely within the purview of Senate faculty (e.g., curricula), and others are within the purview of the administration, but after consultation with the Senate (e.g., administrative organization). Just as Senate leadership and committees have been consulted throughout design of the hub and spoke proposals, so they will be consulted as any hub and spoke organizational systems are implemented and evaluated.

28. How will organizational structures be merged, and will staff have any involvement or say in how positions are structured?: The hub and spoke model does not merge organizational structures, but rather links them through dual reporting relationships and (in some instances) shared participation in hiring and dismissal of those at the school or division. For each of the proposals currently under consideration, staff have been provided an opportunity to weigh in on design features overall, through targeted meetings and general town hall events such as this one.

29. Why has the decentralized process been permitted to operate as such for so long? There are multiple inefficiencies, blocked communications, and inconsistent practices which often contradict the APM and the UCLA CALL.: Every form of organization has to contend with inertia. Complaints about the kinds of problems listed in this question are what led to the hub and spoke initiative.

30. Can you provide an example of another business (not external affairs or even UCLA) where this model successfully works? This seems like it's just going to make our existing problems worse. Have any of you experienced a failed hub and spoke implementation, and what was learned from the failure or were there key takeaways? Are there instances where UCOP can be the hub and we are the spoke? Would Center of Excellence be an example of a UCOP hub and spoke model?: The hub and spoke model operates systemwide for UC in several areas where coordination and economies of scale among the campuses can be realized, such as legal affairs and health systems. Thus, for example, UCLA’s Vice Chancellor, Legal Affairs reports dually to Chancellor Block/EVCP Carter and to UC General Counsel Robinson, as do her counterparts on the other UC campuses. It would be detrimental to the campuses and the system as a whole if different campuses took different legal positions on the same issue. Hub and spoke systems for IT also exist at other UC campuses, and function successfully there. Comparing how the hub and spoke model has operated in private industry may not tell us much about how it would fare in an academic setting

31. Why can’t we increase training and communication currently? Why is the Hub and Spoke model necessary to solve these issues?: Without the relationships established by hub and spoke organization, staff may or may not choose to participate in trainings or events designed to promote communication throughout the organization, in all directions.

32. How will you assure the department will receive the training from the Dean’s office? What is the "training" about?: Staff members who are connected through the hub and spoke model, typically the head administrators for particular functions within the schools or divisions, will be evaluated based in part on their effectiveness in transmitting important matters of policy and practice to relevant other staff. The trainings will be designed to achieve effective coordination, to ensure that lead staff know about prevailing and newly established policies, and to circulate best or promising practices within their operational area.

33. How will the hubs improve their procedures and services to be able to serve the spokes, to make this effort effective and efficient? It is interesting that a spoke supports a wheel under tension, and not in compression. Using this analogy, how will channels of communication specifically be engineered to address concerns (tensions) from the spoke? The relationship highlights the bilateral nature of the working wheel.: Enhanced two-way communication between the hub and spokes is a key objective of the initiative. Evaluation criteria for the initiative will include assessment of success in achieving this goal, and the “spokes” will participate in the evaluation. Also, leaders of the hub and spoke initiative are meeting regularly with the Busting Bureaucracy Work Group to determine whether streamlined procedures are called for in tandem with hub and spoke organization.

34. Is it the case that implementation of the model in a zero-sum or 'bureaucracy-busting' environment will require more staff at the center and fewer at the departmental level? How will the implementation of the Hub and Spoke model for academic personnel, research administration, and IT affect the staffing levels at the "spokes" or unit level?: There may be a temporary need at the center for additional resources to develop more comprehensive training programs reaching a larger staff group more frequently. But none of the hub and spoke proposals under consideration envisions reducing staff at the departmental level.

35. This model is at any rate consistent with greater centralized control over academic personnel and research. What safeguards will be in place to prevent this shift of power away from individual departments and to eliminate pressure, including tacit or personal pressure, to meet standards or goals different from those agreed on departments?: The fact that staff will remain situated within their units should help maintain their ties to local cultures and practice. None of the initiatives is designed to supplant or interfere with those cultures and practices, except insofar as they violate university/government policies or may otherwise jeopardize substantial campus-wide interests. Evaluation of the initiatives will include questions about departmental experiences and will solicit feedback from departments.

36. What happens if one of the spokes breaks, for example, if someone leaves a critical position on one end of a spoke? Is there redundancy in place?: Hub and spoke does not establish any lesser or greater redundancy than existed previously, because it does not require staff in different units on campus to serve as back-ups for one another. Nonetheless, the hub and spoke model creates an organizational ecosystem in which the center/hub is likely to be more aware of opportunities to request temporary back-up from units that have capacity to assist units that don’t, to identify the talent pool that may match best with the unit experiencing the loss, and to assist in repairing the loss through more timely hiring.

37. Is this new model for DGSOM and Health System? Are we merging DGSOM and Health System resources to centralize services? Currently we have separate processes for Health System vs. DGSOM when in reality, a lot of the departments have a combination of both employees which cause a lot of confusion (ex: IT services, ticket requests and department building contacts). Are there differences between how UCLA's campus and UCLA Health will experience this shift?: Neither the Academic Personnel nor the Research Administration hub and spoke initiative applies to the Health System, but they both apply to DGSOM. Thus, there will be no merger of DGSOM with Health System by virtue of the hub and spoke model.

38. Does this new implementation have any relationship to hiring new staff that are remote workers in California, as well as out-of-state? If yes, does this implementation apply to "current" UCLA University & Health System?: The hub and spoke initiative is completely separate from any initiative relating to remote staff.

39. How would you streamline and encourage satellite clinics and Hospitals in the Hub system?: The current hub and spoke initiatives do not address this issue.

40. Will the department which has very specific needs for IT and personnel decisions included in the "Hub and Spoke System”?: The hub will not take responsibility for all technology services; instead, it will focus on common enterprise-wide capabilities. Unit level IT teams will continue to support their respective departments’ unique technology needs.

41. Will the adoption of hub and spoke for IT mean a move toward standardization across campus in terms of platforms used? (e.g. Outlook vs. Gmail, Salesforce vs. Mail Chimp, etc.): Some platforms may need to be standardized; those decisions will be thoroughly assessed and socialized before making the change. For those platforms that will not be standardized, unit leaders will be encouraged to use campuswide agreements before exploring similar solutions.

42. The occasions I have needed help from Central IT, it has taken days for a response. The occasions I have needed help from my school’s IT department, I usually get it within an hour…usually within minutes. Will the response time in the Hub and Spoke Model for IT be re-tooled/evaluated /have rigorous oversight?: We are in the process of rethinking the IT services delivery model to provide more timely and curated services to our end-users. The distributed IT teams will continue to support unit-level IT services that are unique to their environment.

43. IT leadership in my area/school is negative about certain IT services that are provided centrally. How are you managing the local leaders who are spreading negativity about this new approach and clearly don't support this change? It's disheartening to hear this locally.: We will continue to communicate the objectives behind IT Transformation and highlight the benefits it will offer to the UCLA community. There seems to be a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the hub and spoke model and ITS’ role as a hub service provider. The hub and spoke relationship, where the hub supports the governance and facilitation of a campuswide IT strategy, reduces fragmentation of core IT services and provides a shared infrastructure for unit and department-specific IT needs. Additionally, this model enables economies of scale and standardization across campus, while still supporting creativity. It drives information security and compliance with policies, procedures and standards. The hub will not take responsibility for all IT services; instead, it will focus on common enterprise-wide capabilities. The IT services that are unique to a unit can continue to be managed and supported by the local IT team. The Campus CIO wants to develop strong and trusted partnerships with local unit leaders to better understand unit needs and priorities and to ensure that local needs are being considered and that local and campuswide activities are in alignment.

44. Currently, it takes months to purchase equipment because of the new layers of IT risk management added for both the health system and campus. If this is a hub & spoke model, it doesn't seem to be working.: The IT hub and spoke model has not been implemented at UCLA. The IT Transformation plan does not call for the mandatory purchasing of equipment to be part of the hub services, except for the academic units supported by DGIT. We will consider creating certain standard equipment configurations and encourage departments to use it.

45. How come the hub and spoke IT model was unable to prevent a significant ransomware attack in External Affairs in 2016?: We cannot share the details related to this incident, but with appropriate awareness and visibility, we are better prepared to manage security risks and ransomware attacks. There was no hub and spoke IT model at UCLA in 2016 and cybersecurity is a prime motivator for the planned IT transformation.

46. HUB of IT=IT Services…not very timely most of the time. Can the services you wish to focus on be focused on more effectively first before branching out?: The IT Transformation roadmap will focus on enhancing the core services before scaling to other campus units. We are rethinking our operating model and service delivery approach in order to ensure better service and accountability.

47. How will this affect the IT staff for my department and school? Currently I get turnaround in hours from my department, a day or two from my school, and most of my (few) requests to central IT are ignored or brushed off. If my department and school IT staff now report to central IT as well as to our department's faculty and have to do a bunch of reporting they don't have to do now, how will this improve their speed and efficiency?: The focus is going to be on unifying core IT services with defined service level expectations. If unit IT resources are not focused on core services, or the department wants to provide enhanced services, then they will continue to provide support at the unit level.

48. ITS released a document in late 2007 that it had 278 positions in late 2007. According to a recent org chart it has grown to 382 positions without including the new LMS hiring, and is probably more than 400 positions by now. How is this an example of "economies of scale"? Has the Provost been shown data comparing the growth of administrative unit expenditure over the last three years compared to academic expenditure? Just a small percent of the administrative expense growth would be a huge amount for academic units. You are not spending enough on Grad Student Positions.: 382 positions include contractors who are part of the campuswide ERP implementations. These are time-bound initiatives and usually employ several contract employees throughout its duration. The budgeted FTE has been virtually flat from 2007 to now, excluding the security team. The growth has been related to information security services. We also benchmarked UCLA with other R1 institutions of similar size and scope. The model shows that overall IT spend is higher at UCLA, but the current model creates inefficiencies and indicates we are not obtaining the full value of our investment. It also indicates that the number of central IT resources at UCLA is significantly lower than other R1 higher education institutions similar to us. The number of IT staff will change as we broaden IT Services’ scope and provide core services to the campus.

The EVC/Provost indeed pointed to the disproportionate growth in Administrative units to approve budget cuts that are disproportionately larger for those units over the next three years. The EVC/Provost indeed has increased support for graduate students over the past two years via multiple new initiatives.

49. Beyond efficiencies, there are and have long been some real issues with the quality of the work done by IT at every level. What concrete improvements to the quality of clearly under-skilled and under-delivered IT can this model offer?: The IT transformation roadmap has specific initiatives related to our talent management. The plan is to upskill and reskill our IT professionals. In addition to investing in our workforce, we will be rethinking our operating model and our service delivery approach.

50. Will the spokes be charged for hub's IT services? I'm concerned that it may take money away from spoke's specialized functions. When will departments know what this will cost departments for the IT hub and spoke model?: The financial aspects of the IT hub and spoke model are still being assessed. The intent is that Hub funding will be covered by current TIF and/or included within the proposed tax as part of the new budget model. APB is also looking at whether TIF can go away and be folded into the common good tax. The current proposal is that core services will have a base fee (i.e., tax for core services), while premium services would incur additional fees or be provided directly by the spoke. We do not have all the details yet, but there is an IT Transformation Finance workstream that will focus on this effort.

51. Is it correct that of the three areas under Hub and Spoke, the only area to specifically define cost efficiencies as a formal goal is IT?: IT Hub and Spoke model identified cost efficiencies as one of the goals based on EVC/P’s charge related to the model. The other models are pursuing operational improvements that may also achieve cost efficiencies.

52. Is the rollout of the new PATH system an example of Hub and Spoke? If so, why do we want to do that again? Most problems are local and have to be addressed and solved there. Subjecting employees to non-responsive computer algorithms without responsive human backup does not do much for efficiency nor morale. Making decision makers more and more remote to the problems that arise is not very exciting to your workforce.: UCPath was a systemwide initiative, whereas the IT Transformation will be designed and implemented by UCLA for UCLA and in partnership with our campus stakeholders. In fact, via more spoke staff training provided by the hub, decisions and solutions may be pushed even closer to where the problems are.

53. Will the Hub offer more protective services due to the Accelion “breach” to protect UCLA employees and students past the first year that UC has offered?: The Office of the President is taking the lead for the entire system on what protective services will be provided and for how long.

54. Support for faculty digital research, particularly in the humanities, has been un-/under-funded for decades. The technical skills needed to develop faculty projects don't exist at the current department/IT level. Efforts by faculty to do digital humanities research with divisional support (HumTech) have frequently been met with some enthusiasm, less skill, and zero funding. "Research computing," when it is mentioned in the Future State Summary Report, shows no sign of being specifically re-imagined and funded (as either an incubator/accelerator or as a research consortium). Most of this plan brings UCLA in line with straightforward industry-standard enterprise-scale infrastructure and deployment. Yet, it fails to specify how it will meet the ongoing and evident need to foster digital research projects consonant with faculty interests and ambitions. What steps do you expect to take to address these historically under-supported aspects of faculty computing needs?: We recognize that support for the North campus faculty digital research and scholarship has been underserved. The capability, capacity and funding challenges span well over a decade while the interests and ambitions of digitally enabled research and scholarship across the entire campus have steadily increased and data-centered studies have grown and expanded. There have been multiple plans and recommendations developed that call for increased research support campuswide with only narrow pockets of success due to the challenges of coordinating highly distributed funding and resources to accommodate diverse research infrastructure and application needs. While the specifics of funding and resources have yet to be addressed, the Hub-and-Spoke Model does offer a potential opportunity for a new campus discussion in which the funding dependencies currently placed on distributed units can be balanced differently and considered in light of campus priorities. For example, there is significantly increased need for data security which, if done carefully, can align investment in infrastructure, facilities, and services that are also designed to protect the data and its inherent intellectual property, facilitate the research use and impact of the research data, and acknowledge the value of research data as key intellectual and institutional assets. We also suggest that humanities faculty work with IDRE on their research projects. The recently announced DataX initiative will offer opportunities to support digital research projects as well.

55. As you say that External Affairs has been using the Hub and Spoke model for years successfully, can you give one example from A to Z how that works, what positions are part of Hub and what positions are the Spoke model? What tools do they use to track all this?: The chief External Affairs officer in the School of Law, an Associate Dean, reports dually to the Dean and to an Associate Vice Chancellor in External Affairs. Hiring and performance evaluations are carried out jointly. External Affairs uses performance measures specific to that field (e.g., donor contacts). External Affairs assists in providing resources for the School of Law’s External Affairs department

56. How would reporting lines work for individuals in the “hubs” who oversee multiple areas, i.e., academic personnel, staff HR, etc.? Will their reporting lines be split into three or more depending on their roles? Please provide an example of specific positions that would report to specific units (in academic personnel and research admin and IT) to clarify the hub & spoke concept.: Only the chief administrator at the school/division level in each of these areas would be connected to the center, to avoid this kind of splitting.

57. How would this model affect Academic Advisors on campus? We have a decentralized model to advising and, when it comes to department advising, no two departments are the same.: There is no current plan to consider or implement a hub and spoke model for academic advising.

58. Would this have application across the highly bespoke areas of practice through the Public Arts Units, and or staff/employees in areas of shared cultural use such as Royce Hall/Theater Management Services?: There is no current plan to consider or implement a hub and spoke model for these areas of practice.

59. Is Marketing/Communications impacted?: Our plan is to implement a campus wide hub and spoke model for Marketing/Communications in the future and when doing so, the organization will learn from and follow best practices from other organizations that will have already implemented the model.

60. Are we going to have a Budget & Finance hub & spoke? If yes, by when? Will our troubled accounts payable system be a part of this new model? We live with invoices unpaid more than one year late. So much effort and time spent chasing down payments. Can you comment?: There is no current timetable for a “hub and spoke” for Budget & Finance, though it is possible such a model may be proposed in the future. Accounts Payable issues are currently being addressed by the Busting Bureaucracy Working Group. Any specific concerns should be sent to UCLA’s Chief Procurement Officer, O.T. Wells for resolution. Concerns can also be sent to BustingBureaucracy@finance.ucla.edu.

61. Is there an opportunity for business relationship management for large academic units composed of many departments, such as schools? One challenge I experience is that programs are administered at the department level, but departments are organized into schools; how can suboptimization be prevented?: Multi-department schools may sometimes benefit from organizing departmental administration along a hub and spoke model, and should consider the model where appropriate.

62. How will hub and spoke affect students? I notice the absence of student affairs representatives or students in this process.: There is no current plan to consider or implement a hub and spoke model for Student Affairs, although this could change in the coming years.

63. Will you promise publicly that Assistant Deans will not have dual reporting relationships with central admin?: Whether Assistant Deans have dual reporting relationships will depend on the titles/positions that exist in each unit and how they fit into the model.

64. Please explain how hiring costs will be shared among different departments. Will this be purely restructuring of existing staff, or will there be new hires to appropriately staff? Can you explain why the hub and spoke model will not increase the need for more staffing at the "hub," reducing staffing at the "spokes"? A central tenet of this model is that a well-functioning “Hub and Spoke” system promotes a higher and more uniformly excellent level of service by bringing each unit’s representative “spoke” into regular, well-crafted trainings. Can you explain how this does not lead to an increase in the need for staffing at the "hub"? Can you explain how this will not lead to a related reduction in the "spoke'' staffing around campus and less accessibility and flexibility at the local level?: The hub and spoke proposal for Academic Personnel does not entail any new hires, either at the hub or at the school/division level. The proposal for Research Administration may require some temporary resources at the center to develop training modules, but otherwise does not envision new hires. Whether recent increases in research activity require additional resources, either at the hub, the service center, or the school/division level, is a separate matter. Staffing of the IT “hub” (core services) is described above, and indicates no increases have occurred except with respect to cybersecurity.

65. I am concerned that this model represents 'streamlining,' especially the cutting of our (finally) robust teaching resources on campus. I'm asking for reassurance that the teaching resources will continue to proliferate and enjoy enthusiastic administrative support.: Support for teaching will not be reduced through implementation of the hub and spoke model.

66. How is this model expected to impact staffing at the local department level? This sounds like a reorganization. Will there be any layoffs? How will UCLA address concerns of staff? It will be a time of turnover, change, (layoffs?), and all of this coming on the heels of a difficult year.: Yes, it has been a very difficult year. The hub and spoke initiative does not entail layoffs, and it is not a reorganization apart from the establishment of dual reporting lines for lead administrators. The only staff directly affected by the initiative are the lead administrators in the three operational areas. Concerns of staff are being addressed up-front, through meetings with potentially affected staff, and will also be addressed through evaluation of each initiative.

67. What kinds of exciting opportunities will this bring for UCLA staff? How would this affect internal employees who are applying to positions on campus to advance their careers?: Hub and spoke organization should lead to greater awareness by senior central administrators of the talent pool in the schools and divisions in their operational area. That awareness can produce opportunities for staff who want to advance. For those staff who are linked directly to the center through hub and spoke organization, the additional feedback from the center regarding their performance can assist in their professional development as well. Finally, insofar as the initiative may cause individual staff to increase their expertise and receive additional delegated authority (e.g., over research administration), they may be in a position to advance in their careers.

68. Will the Hub and Spoke model be consistently reviewed to ensure there is equity, diversity, inclusion in units?: Yes.

69. Will or can the hub and spoke model help with creating equity? In the town hall on remote work, there seemed to be emphasis on individual managers and units making decisions, which could be very nuanced and political. Will UCLA end up having different conflicting models of operation and governance?: The hub and spoke model can help promote equity by expanding the set of inputs into performance evaluation and by opening opportunities for staff across campus. The initial hub and spoke initiatives will be evaluated to determine their impact on equity.

70. Does the system change affect the speed of processing of the job?: Hub and spoke organization should not increase processing time because it does not create additional layers of approval. To the extent the system prevents errors in processing through better training and sharing of best practices, and allows for delegation of authority as staff in individual schools/divisions develop greater expertise (e.g., in research administration), it may reduce processing time.

71. I am a SR HR/Payroll Analyst at the Fielding School of Public Health. I work on Academic and Academic Apprentice HR and Payroll for the School (central processing for all departments), but not on Dossiers for the AP Process. Our Director hired an Assistant Director with much less experience than me to do that and approve my transactions, and I have had to help train both the Assistant Director and the Director over the past few years. We have one staff HR Analyst. Staff and Academic Payroll are very different and it can take years to learn the nuances of the Academic side. Given we now have Career Tracks and UCPath, how can you ensure seasoned staff are not going to have their positions downgraded by less experienced staff/managers to uplift their salaries, which basically reduces our level of excellence?: The hub and spoke model will increase the accountability of the most senior managers, by introducing a dual reporting relationship to the center/hub.

72. In question 9 of the FAQ it says “It is also possible that in the near term, developing trainings may require some additional up-front investment.” Will campus provide resources or guidance for “spokes” to develop the upfront training materials?: Additional training materials will be developed at the center or “hub,” and the necessary resources will be considered as part of standard budget processes.

73. How do we prevent organizational siloing that can be a problem in this more 'horizontal' structure?: Organizational siloing could occur only if staff in the individual units become less connected to other staff in those same units assigned to other operational areas. Because staff will remain situated in their school or divisional units, that risk should be small. Hub and spoke organization does connect lead administrative staff to their counterparts in other parts of campus, which should reduce a different kind of siloing – by school or division – and help create a community of experts in each hub and spoke area that can share ideas and experiences.

74. How can the Hub and Spoke model ensure that strategic partnering with the departments is maintained if consolidation and (effectively) generalization of duties is the goal?: Consolidation of duties is not a goal of the hub and spoke initiative. Greater communication, enhancement of expertise, sharing of best practices, and improved coordination are the goals.

75. Will this program disrupt overhead and state funds flow to departments?: The program will have no impact on the flow of overhead and state funds to departments, except where errors would otherwise be made and, under the program, are corrected. Without the program, it would probably be more costly in time and effort to correct the errors.

76. When trouble occurs, big trouble, everyone looks to who’s in charge; in this case, the chancellor or perhaps the president of the University. Therefore, what is there about this design that will in a timely way produce information for the Chancellor that she/he will need to understand and deal with problems? (I fear this hub and spoke model will reduce the input needed by the Chancellor.): By increasing communication between decentralized units and the Vice Chancellors, a hub and spoke organization should be increasing information flow to the Chancellor.

77. Can we have another town hall in six months with updates?: Updates will be provided regularly, both on the EVC/P website and through additional town halls during the 2021-2022 academic year.