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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

There may be variations among different hub and spoke proposals, but the most typical arrangement is a shared, dual report.

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.

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.

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.

The model is being explored in very early stages for staff personnel and finance, to determine whether it is a good match.

The model could be used for either one, depending on the assessment of its value, after appropriate campus consultation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The hub and spoke initiative is completely separate from any initiative relating to remote staff.

The current hub and spoke initiatives do not address this issue.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Office of the President is taking the lead for the entire system on what protective services will be provided and for how long.

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.

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

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.

There is no current plan to consider or implement a hub and spoke model for academic advising.

There is no current plan to consider or implement a hub and spoke model for these areas of practice.

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.

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

Multi-department schools may sometimes benefit from organizing departmental administration along a hub and spoke model, and should consider the model where appropriate.

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.

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.

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.

Support for teaching will not be reduced through implementation of the hub and spoke model.

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.

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.


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.

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.

The hub and spoke model will increase the accountability of the most senior managers, by introducing a dual reporting relationship to the center/hub.

Additional training materials will be developed at the center or “hub,” and the necessary resources will be considered as part of standard budget processes.

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.

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.

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.

By increasing communication between decentralized units and the Vice Chancellors, a hub and spoke organization should be increasing information flow to the Chancellor.

Updates will be provided regularly, both on the EVC/P website and through additional town halls during the 2021-2022 academic year.