Case study · Education
Reducing administrative load for university academics
Leading research university
A sprint-based review of critical university processes to reduce administrative burden and give academic staff more time for teaching and research.
Challenge
Academic staff were carrying administrative processes alongside teaching and research, creating a burden that stakeholders wanted to reduce.
The university sought practical improvements across critical processes, informed by staff from different schools and campuses.
The administrative load competed directly with the time academics could spend teaching, supporting learning and conducting research.
The aim was to relieve workload while preserving the process control and institutional consistency needed across a large university.
Approach
Set the process architecture. Established a university-specific process architecture so individual process reviews fitted a coherent model that could support sustained analysis and improvement.
Prioritise by impact. Engaged representatives across schools and campuses to identify the critical processes creating the greatest burden and prioritise work by impact.
Work in short sprints. Used a two-week sprint for each critical process. Week one combined interviews and observation to map the current state and pain points; week two validated the map, consolidated ideas and produced a sprint report.
Plan implementation. Consolidated the sprint findings into practical recommendations, implementation activities and resource requirements so improvement could move directly into action.
Two-week process sprint
A repeatable path from observation to action
Each critical process moved through the same compact cycle, allowing the university to learn quickly without losing rigour.- 01
Observe
See how the process works across schools, campuses and roles.
- 02
Map
Document the current state, pain points, rework and duplicated effort.
- 03
Validate
Test the process map and improvement ideas with the people doing the work.
- 04
Act
Set recommendations, implementation activities, measures and resource needs.
Outcomes
Recommendations simplified and standardised processes, clarified responsibilities and policy expectations, and set training and monitoring requirements across schools.
The implementation plan also defined process measures, reduced rework and duplicated effort, improved data transfer between systems and gave the university a practical path toward stronger process maturity.
- Critical processes reviewed through two-week sprints
- Implementation plan and resource needs defined
- Recommendations for standardisation, role clarity and data integration