Operations Management

Assignment 2
Read the following case study and answer the questions

THE CENTRAL EVALUATION UNIT CASE

The Central Evaluation Unit (CEU) of the XIII Directorate
evaluated applications from academics bidding for research
grants available under the ‘cooperation and foundations’ scheme
of the European Union. This scheme distributed relatively small
grants (less than 100,000) to fund the early stages of cooperative
research between universities in the European Union. Based in
Brussels, the CEU’s objectives were to make decisions that were
consistently in line with directory guide rules, but also to give as
speedy a response as possible to applicants. All new applications
are sent to the CEU’s applications processing unit (CEUPU) by
University Liaison Officers (ULOs) who were based at around 150
universities around the EU. Any academic who wanted to apply for a grant needed to submit an application
form (downloadable online) and other signed documentation through the local ULO. The CEUPU employs
three ‘checkers’ with three support and secretarial staff, a pool of twelve clerks who are responsible for data
entry and filing, ten auditors (staff who prepare and issue the grant approval documents), and a special advisor
(who is a senior ex-officer employed part-time to assess nonstandard applications).

Véronique Fontan was the manager in charge of the Central Evaluation Unit’s applications processing unit
(CEUPU). She had been invited by the Directory chief executive, Leda Grumman, to make a presentation to
senior colleagues about the reasons for the success of her unit. The reason for her invitation to the meeting
was, first, that the systems used for handling new grant applications were well proven and robust, and,
secondly, that her operation was well known for consistently meeting, and in many cases exceeding its targets.

Véronique set a day aside to collect some information about the activities of the CEUPU. She first reviewed
her monthly management reports. The information system provided an update of a number of applications
(by week, month and year), the number and percentage of applications approved, number and percentage of
those declined, the cumulative amount of money allocated, and the value of applications processed during
the month. These reports identified that the Unit dealt with about 200 to 300 applications per week (the Unit
operated a five-day 35-hour week) and all the Unit’s financial targets were being met. In addition, most
operational performance criteria were being exceeded. The targets for the turnaround of an application, from
receipt of an application to the applicant being informed (excluding time spent waiting for additional
information from ULOs), was 40 working days. The average time taken by the CEUPU was 36 working days.
Accuracy had never been an issue as all files were thoroughly assessed to ensure that all the relevant and
complete data were collected before the applications were processed. Staff productivity was high and there
was always plenty of work waiting for processing at each section. A cursory inspection of the sections’ in-trays
revealed about 130 files in each with just two exceptions. The ‘receipt’ clerks’ tray had about 600 files in it and
the checkers’ tray contained about 220 files.

1
Processing grant applications

The processing of applications is a lengthy procedure requiring careful examination by checkers trained to
make assessments. All applications arriving at the Unit are placed in an in-tray. The incoming application is
then opened by one of the eight ‘receipt’ clerks who will check that all the necessary forms have been included
in the application. This is then placed in an in-tray pending collection by the coding staff. The two clerks with
special responsibility for coding allocate a unique identifier to each application and code the information on
the application into the information system.

The application is then given a front sheet, a pro forma, with the identifier in the top left corner. The files are
then placed in a tray on the senior checker’s secretary’s desk. As a checker becomes available, the senior
secretary provides the next job in the line to the checker. In the case of about half of the applications, the
checker returns the file to the checkers’ secretaries to request the collection of any information that is missing
or additional information that is required. The secretaries then write to the applicant and return the file to the
‘receipt’ clerks who place the additional information into the file as it arrives. Once the file is complete it is
returned to the checkers for a decision on the grant application. The file is then taken to auditors who prepare
the acceptance or rejection documents.

These documents are then sent, with the rest of the file, to the two ‘dispatch’ clerks who complete the
documents and mail them to the ULO for delivery to the academic who made the application. Each section,
clerical, coding, checkers, secretarial, auditing or issuing, have trays for incoming work. Files are taken from
the bottom of the pile when someone becomes free to ensure that all documents are dealt with in strict order.

Véronique’s confidence in her operation was somewhat eroded when she asked for comments from some
university liaison officers and staff. One ULO told her of frequent complaints about the delays over the
processing of the applications and she felt there was a danger of alienating some of the best potential
applicants to the point where they ‘just would not bother applying’. A second ULO complained that when he
telephoned to ascertain the status of an application, the CEUPU staff did not seem to know where it was or
how long it might be before a decision would be made. Furthermore, he felt that this lack of information was
eroding his relationship with potential applicants, some of whom had already decided to apply elsewhere for
research funding. Véronique reviewed the levels of applications over the last few years which revealed a
decline of five percent last year and two percent the year before that on the number of applications made.
Véronique then spent about ten minutes with four of the clerks. They said their work was clear and routine,
but their life was made difficult by university liaison officers who rang in expecting them to be able to tell them
the status of an application they had submitted. It could take them hours, sometimes days, to find any
individual file. Indeed, two of the ‘receipt’ clerks now worked full-time on this activity. They also said that
university liaison officers frequently complained that decision-making seemed to be unusually slow, given the
relatively small amounts of money being applied for. Véronique wondered whether, after all, she should agree
to make the presentation.

2
Name: __________________________________________________________________ nr. __________________

Operations Management
Assignment 2

THE CENTRAL EVALUATION UNIT CASE

1. Analyse and evaluate the processing of new applications at the CEUPU:

a. Create a process map for new applications

3
b. Calculate the time needed to process an individual application cycle time for the process

c. Calculate the time each people is involved in the processing of one application

d. Explain why it is difficult to locate an individual file