Faculty and staff from four University of Utah academic units expressed concerns about sharing services during 12 recent listening sessions and in online feedback, but they also described several areas where a shared services model could improve operations.

Approximately 264 faculty and staff from the College of Humanities, College of Science, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences and the School for Cultural and Social Transformation participated in the guided listening sessions during the fall 2024 semester. About 45 more provided comments through an online feedback form or via email. They were asked to share their feelings about proposals to share some administrative functions among their four units.

The project emerged from an analysis conducted in summer 2024, when the U’s Office of Academic Affairs looked at peer institutions and found that nearly 70 percent of them have implemented shared services across their liberal arts and sciences disciplines. These institutions found that sharing some services addressed practical challenges, such as reducing redundancies, improving efficiency and ensuring equitable access to resources across departments, regardless of their size and budget.

Analysis of the 12, 90-minute listening sessions—most of which were held in person—and the online feedback revealed several themes regarding systemic challenges shared services could address. The analysis also identified areas of concern among faculty and staff if a shared services model is instituted for their units.

Potential Benefits

The systemic challenges that could be alleviated through shared services include:

• Lack of training and onboarding support
• Support gaps due to staff absences or turnover
• Operational silos
• Uneven distribution of resources
• Limited career progression opportunities

Participants in the listening sessions talked about the challenges faculty and staff face in getting up to speed in new roles due to the lack of effective training and onboarding resources. They also talked about disruptions caused by staff absences without appropriate backup, and several noted that operational silos lead to feelings of disconnectedness and isolation.

“There’s my job in my department, and outside of that, there isn’t a lot of interaction with others and how things are run,” one Humanities staff member said. “It’s harder to have larger institutional knowledge when everyone is so closed off.”

Those who work in smaller units talked about lacking infrastructure or specialized staff needed to handle complex administrative tasks, and some staff said pathways for advancement are limited or unclear in their current situations.

In spite of concerns, some respondents noted that shared services could enhance efficiency and support when carefully tailored to meet departmental needs. For instance, two online participants highlighted the success of collaborative advising models, which allowed advisors to share caseloads and institutional knowledge.

Areas of Concern

Faculty and staff concerns about shared services are shaped by their views of:

• Shared services that are provided by central offices
• Local support and support communities
• Morale
• Central administration
• Local shared services

Many discussed negative experiences they have had with services that are already shared across campus, commenting on the difficulties of navigating complex systems, staying up to date with ever-changing policies and dealing with slow response times from service providers. Hunting for answers to questions can sometimes be a painful process, they said. “Information is so compartmentalized, you have to crawl over broken glass to get [answers],” one Science staff member said.

Those experiences led many faculty and staff to emphasize the importance of maintaining local contacts who can assist with their needs, especially as they relate to HR, IT and facilities management. One Transform faculty member emphasized that “efficiency is based on knowledge, and knowledge is local.”

Several faculty and staff members reported feelings of burnout and exhaustion because of their heavy workloads, limited resources and the rapid pace of institutional change. Some said they feel undervalued and reported a general dip in morale that they fear may be exacerbated by implementing more shared services.

Many also talked about having a strained relationship with central administration at the U, specifically mentioning a lack of transparency and clarity regarding the administration’s goals.

“We keep hearing that this is about efficiency, but no one has defined what efficiency means or how it will improve things for us,” one Transform staff member said. “It feels like decisions are being made behind closed doors.”

Several people shared fears that efficiency would come at the expense of quality and responsiveness. “There comes a moment when efficiency is the enemy of effectiveness,” an online respondent said.

The analysis, which was discussed during a town hall meeting on Dec. 11, made six recommendations as the shared services project moves forward:

• Shared services should prioritize preserving college autonomy, including local expertise.
• Faculty, staff and students should be deeply involved in the design process.
• Leadership should take steps to prioritize faculty and staff well-being before implementing shared services changes.
• The design of shared services should be informed by an in-depth exploration of existing models at the U and beyond that faculty and staff view as either successful or problematic.
• The rollout of shared services should be deliberate and phased, allowing for testing, piloting and feedback loops.
• Transparency and clear, effective, frequent communication should be emphasized throughout the process.

Next Steps

These recommendations will be considered as the shared services project continues. (For a full timeline, see the project’s webpage.)

Project leaders have previously shared details about two potential shared services models with faculty and staff of the four units involved in the process. By early January, the president and provost, in collaboration with the university’s Board of Trustees and feedback from the school and colleges, will choose which of the two structures will be implemented. Throughout the month of December, leadership teams of the four units will continue to provide feedback on the structural options, as well as roles and position descriptions of deans and a senior leader.

Following this input, an internal university-wide search for a leader will be launched in January. This new leader will be responsible for managing the development of shared services in such a way that staff and faculty are deeply involved in the process.

For more information about the project and responses to some common questions, visit the FAQ webpage. Additional feedback can be shared through the online form.