Policy Matters
Blog Home All Blogs
Search all posts for:   

 

View all (105) posts »

Let's Talk About Procedures!

Posted By Joshua Adams, Cornell University, Wednesday, August 14, 2019
Updated: Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Where do Your Procedures Live?

Throughout my years working in policy, I have found that there is one area of little agreement and great discussion—whether or not policies should contain procedures. While there may be something to be said for making a clear distinction between these two instruments of administration, they are inextricably linked to each other: most agree that a policy is not worth much if readers are not told how to “follow it,” i.e., not given procedures or constraints for compliance.

At Cornell, we decided right from the beginning that four criteria would be common to every university policy: (1) possessing broad application across the university; (2) requiring senior-level approval; (3) increasing efficiency, ensuring compliance with law or regulation, or protecting from audit; and (4) containing constraints or procedures for compliance. With that in mind, we began our policy journey, before the existence of the Internet, believing that a university policy must contain even the most granular procedures, to protect the university from any potential claims of ignorance, upon an individual’s non-compliance with policy. This, of course, yielded outlandishly long policy documents, such as our 300-plus-page “Accounting System” policy (which was, thankfully, retired many years ago).

With the advent of the Internet and in the years since, hypertext links have become ubiquitous and expected, and no employee can function without the ability to bounce around from website to website, virtually from office to office, gathering whatever information is needed to complete the task at hand. But where does that leave the policy developers, when considering what procedures to include with a policy, on behalf of the institution? And who takes the responsibility to issue, maintain, and update these various items as needed? I imagine the answers would be wildly varied, and I doubt there is a single institution that would any longer champion the “tomes of yore.”

Cornell’s solution has been a gradual reduction in the number and complexity of procedures contained in official university policies, opting for a more distributed approach, to the point now where most “how to” instructions are housed on sites within their respective administrative areas. But our policies still are required to contain at least a short overview of procedures, with information on how to obtain the minutest of procedural details, on an office website or through other means. We accomplish this balance of completeness with brevity during the policy’s development, or during an existing policy’s periodic review. The balance here, and likely at your institution, depends upon the relative resources available, the complexity and length of the procedures, and an assessment, through judgment, discovery, and analytics, as to the most logical place for the user to look.

Perhaps your institution has a different solution, maybe even to the point that your policy function is not responsible for the maintenance of any procedures at all. However, it is a worthy exercise for institutions to consider these aspects of policy management. I’ll close my post with a battery of questions, designed to elicit opinions and spur discussion. There are no wrong answers.

  • Do your policies contain procedures for compliance? If not, do they point clearly to the location of the procedures?
  • Who owns procedures, and who is responsible for updating them?
  • Does your policy process include the development of procedures?
  • What resources are available to your policy initiative, and is it realistic to expect procedures to be developed through the same system? …and for the central policy library to be the place to house procedures?
  • If procedures are housed outside of your institution’s policy initiative, how does your institution ensure that procedures are kept up-to-date and linked to policies?
  • Do you have separate templates for your policies and your procedures? If not, would this be an effective way to develop policies at your institution? If so, would it be effective to combine them into one template?
  • If your institution’s policies contain any procedures, are minor changes to procedural elements of your policies required to pass through your entire policy process?

Tags:  policy process  procedures  template 

Permalink | Comments (2)
 

Comments on this post...

Jill Taylor, University of Colorado says...
Posted Wednesday, August 14, 2019
Thanks for this article Josh. At CU Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus, we: 1) do not have process/procedures in our policies; 2) do look for language in the policy to point the reader to where they reside; 3) do not include review/edit of procedures as part of our policy review, but allow the policy owners to up date procedures as necessary, without formal review; 4) do not have a standard template for procedures (we do for policies); 5) rely on the policy owners to keep processes and links up to date. The last two items I list are areas for improvement for us--your article has given me something to consider here. Thanks!
Permalink to this Comment }

Anthony Graham, University of Pittsburgh says...
Posted Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Josh,
Very timely article because we are working through this topic. To addres some of your topics:
- Departments own the procedures and should ask for updates when needed.
- We allow users to document procedures in a policy provided they are short. They basically describe a short process and establish responibilities.
- We are also working towards completing the first of our new procedures in a revamped template, but the basics of them are who, does what, and whendo they do it.
- We post our policies along with our procedures on our website so they can be eaisly found together.
- Minor changes have a more streamlined approval/update process.
Thanks,
Tony
Permalink to this Comment }