Complete EAB’s research survey on shared services here. Preview the survey below to help with internal coordination and prepare answers.
Thank you for your time and contributions to this research on administrative shared services. To help educational and governmental leaders understand the existing landscape of and opportunities for shared services, EAB is working with partners to provide new research, including this survey.
Please note, this survey is confidential: no identifying information will be shared beyond the research team, and the public results will limit segmentation to ensure no single institution or respondent can be identified. In the final section of this survey there is an opportunity to provide your contact information should you wish to participate in a follow-up conversation or explore how your institution’s work might be profiled in the report.
Section 1: Institutional Context and Role
Q1. Please write your institution’s name in the text box provided.
Q2. Please select the job title/role that best describes you at the institution (or system) above.
If none apply, select Other.
Section 2: Understanding and Strategic Orientation
What do we mean by “shared services”?
Shared services are arrangements in which operational/administrative or transactional support functions that were previously handled separately within individual units are delivered through a centralized or pooled delivery structure.
Examples of shared service structures include:
- Shared service centers or hubs within an institution (voluntary or mandatory participation)
- Shared services consortia or inter-institutional partnerships
- System-led shared service provision (e.g., system office or multi-campus function)
- State-led shared service provision (e.g., state agency or statewide entity)
What counts as a shared service for this survey?
This survey focuses on operational/administrative and support functions (not shared academic programming or instruction). Please count only arrangements that meet the following criteria:
- The shared service performs a substantial (typically majority) portion of the function’s ongoing operational work, rather than one-time support, advisory services, or routine vendor contracting.
- If a third-party provider is involved, please count it only when the provider performs day-to-day delivery of the service (not simply software/tools, consulting, or a standard purchase contract).
- Collective purchasing agreements (including contracts negotiated by consortia) should be counted only if they include ongoing, shared delivery of the function’s work (e.g., transaction processing, ticket resolution, operational support), not solely discounted pricing, licensing, or a procurement vehicle.
Q3. Which outcomes does your institution or system aim to achieve through shared services (existing or future arrangements)?
Format: Checkbox (select multiple)
- Cost reduction
- Service quality improvement
- Risk/compliance management
- Capacity or talent access
- Efficiency/productivity increases
- Not currently part of strategic discussions
Q4. Over the next 3–5 years, how important do you expect shared services to be to your institution’s financial and operational sustainability?
Format: 5-point Likert (Not important → Very Important)
Two scaled response answers: Financial Sustainability, Operational Sustainability
Section 3: Current Shared Services Portfolio
Q5. Does your institution or system currently participate in any shared services (as defined above)?
Format: Yes / No
Logic: If “No” skip to Section 6.
Q6. Considering the shared services currently in place, in which functional areas do they exist?
Recall the definition provided earlier; even if an incomplete or limited arrangement is in place, please mark as existing.
Format: Checkbox (select all that apply)
- Finance/accounting
- Procurement/sourcing
- Travel
- Payroll
- Benefits management
- Other HR activities unrelated to compensation (e.g., recruitment, training)
- IT
- Cybersecurity
- Institutional research (IR)/data analytics
- Legal/compliance
- Facilities management
- Capital planning/project management
- Enrollment management (e.g., admissions, application processing/CRM)
- Research administration
- Academic support services (non-instructional)
- Student support services (non-instructional)
- Advancement/fundraising
- Marketing
- Other (open text)
Q6a. For each functional area you selected above, is the shared service arrangement limited to units within a single institution, or does it span multiple institutions?
Answer for each function marked in Q6.
- Within a single institution
- Across multiple institutions (including system-, state-, or consortium-based shared services)
- Hybrid (some services limited to one institution; others span multiple institutions)
Q6b. For each of the functional areas where shared services exist, please identify the delivery method of the service.
Answer for each function marked in Q6.
- Institutional or system employees only
- Third-party managed service (including outsourcing)
- Hybrid (both institutional/system and third-party employees work together)
Q7. Approximately what share of your institution’s (or system’s) non-instructional staff (FTE) are assigned to or work within shared service structures?
(If staff split time between shared services and other work, please estimate proportionally.)
Format: Multiple choice ranges (<5%, 5–15%, 15–25%, >25%, Don’t know)
Q8. How would you characterize the maturity of the shared services you identified in each functional area above?
By maturity, consider the extent to which the shared service reliably delivers the function’s work, including consistent quality and minimal escalation or manual workarounds.
Format: 5-point Likert (Very immature -> Highly mature) for each marked in Q6
Q9. Overall, how well is your institution’s shared services portfolio delivering on the outcomes you selected earlier (e.g., cost reduction, service quality improvement, risk/compliance management, capacity/talent access, or efficiency/productivity)?
Format: 5-point Likert (Very low performance → Very high performance)
Section 4: Outcomes and Measurement
Q10. Are outcomes from shared services measured on a regular basis?
Format: Multiple choice
- Yes, consistently
- Yes, occasionally
- No
- Don’t know
Logic: If “Yes,” trigger Q10a.
Q10a. Which types of performance metrics are most commonly used?
(Select all that apply.)
Format: Checkbox + optional open text
Logic: Conditional.
- Cost savings
- Service costs
- Customer satisfaction rate
- Staff satisfaction rate
- Service volume (e.g., tickets/transactions processed)
- Time to complete tickets/tasks
- Error rate
- Compliance metrics
- Other: please describe
Q11. Across all shared services and partnerships currently in place, what outcomes have you observed or documented?
Format: Checkbox
- Cost savings/avoidance
- Improved service quality or consistency
- Faster turnaround times
- Improved compliance or risk management
- Improved access to specialized expertise
- Staff time reallocated to other priorities
- Improved customer satisfaction
- Other (please specify)
- No meaningful change observed
Section 5: Readiness and Constraints
Q12. How ready is your institution or system today to implement or expand shared services or partnerships (regardless of your plans to do so)?
Format: 5-point Likert (Not ready → Very ready)
Rationale: Anchors readiness in present conditions.
Logic: High-value segmentation variable.
Q13. What are the most significant current barriers to implementing or expanding shared services?
Select the top 3 that apply.
Format: Checkbox (limit three)
- Shared governance structural restrictions
- Institutional culture or norms
- Faculty or stakeholder concerns
- Legal/regulatory constraints (e.g., statutory requirements, compliance rules, procurement rules)
- External governance constraints (e.g., board/state priorities, policy)
- Collective bargaining/union constraints
- Technology limitations
- Lack of trusted partners
- Insufficient staff capacity
- Perceived complexity
- Upfront implementation costs
- Unclear business case
Section 6: Future Interest and Potential State
Q14. Looking ahead, in which functional areas do you see the greatest potential for shared services or partnerships at your institution/system, even if none exist today?
Please consider both the function as a whole and specific sub-functions or task bundles within a functional area.
Format: Check 3 from functional list (Q6)
Q14a: For each functional area you selected above, would your institution or system be open to a shared service arrangement that spans multiple institutions, or only within a single institution?
Format: Populate only from Q14 answers.
- Open to arrangements spanning multiple institutions
- Only within a single institution
- Not sure
Q14b. For the functional areas specified in Q14, what types of partnership models would your institution or system be open to in the future?
Format: Checkbox (no limit); populate only from Q14 answers
- Shared service center within institution
- Shared service consortium or inter-institutional partnership
- System-led shared service center (e.g., system office or multi-campus function)
- State-led shared service center (e.g., state agency or statewide entity)
- Other: please describe
- Not open to any of these options in the foreseeable future
Section 7: Policy and System-Level Enablers
Q15. Which actions would most enable broader adoption of shared services across institutions? (Select up to three.)
Format: Checkbox
- Financial incentives or seed funding
- Regulatory or compliance flexibility
- Shared technology infrastructure (to allow for easier data and process integration)
- Facilitation of consortia or networks by state leaders, third parties, or intermediaries
- Standardized procurement or contracting vehicles
- Leadership and talent development
- Detailed case studies of successful shared services implementations at similar institutions
Q16. Where should decision-making authority and accountability for shared services primarily reside in the future (even if delivery involves multiple entities)?
Format: Multiple choice
- Individual institutions
- Multi-campus systems or governing boards
- State agencies
- Independent consortia
- Shared governance across multiple levels
Survey Check
Would you be willing to answer a short set of questions about one representative shared service at your institution or system to help us understand what makes it successful?
- Yes (go to Section 8)
- No (go to Section 9)
Section 8: Deep Dive on a Representative Shared Service
Q17. Based on your earlier responses, please select the functional area of the shared service that is most mature at your institution/system.
(If more than one has high maturity, please select the one you know best.)
Q18. How is this shared service structured?
Format: Multiple choice
- Shared service center within institution
- Shared service consortium or inter-institutional partnership
- System-led shared service center (e.g., system office or multi-campus function)
- State-led shared service center (e.g., state agency or statewide entity)
- Other: please describe
Q19. Is this shared service mandatory or voluntary for units at your institution or system to participate in?
Format: Multiple choice
- Mandatory participation
- Voluntary participation
- Mixed participation (i.e., some units must participate while others opt-in)
- Not sure
Q20. Which factor(s) most contributed to this shared service reaching a higher level of maturity?
Select the top 3 that apply.
Format: Checkbox (select top 3 that apply)
- Leadership mandate or buy-in
- Function/unit leadership buy-in
- Stakeholder (faculty, staff, or student) buy-in
- Pilot phase and roll-out
- Documented service standards and expectations (e.g., service level agreement, service catalog)
- Robust communication strategy
- Incentives for participation (e.g., shared savings, financial benefits)
- Use of external consultants for design or implementation
- Ability to redesign processes
- Ability to adopt new technology
- Ability to restructure staff
Q21. Approximately what share of the total non-instructional staff (FTE) in this functional area is assigned to the shared service?
Format: Multiple choice ranges (<25%, 25–49%, 50–75%, >75%, Don’t know)
Q22. Approximately what share of this functional area’s total expenditures is accounted for by the shared service?
Format: Multiple choice ranges (<25%, 25–49%, 50–75%, >75%, Don’t know)
Q23. Overall, how effective has this shared service been in achieving its intended objectives?
Consider factors such as cost savings, improved service quality, reallocation of staff time, improved compliance, etc.
Format: 5-point Likert (Very ineffective → Very effective)
Logic: If ineffective (1-2), trigger Q23a. If effective (3-5), trigger Q23b.
Q23a. What have been the primary challenges or factors limiting the effectiveness of this shared service?
Examples may include governance, staffing capacity, change management, etc.
Format: Open text
Logic: Conditional.
Q23b. What have been the primary observed benefits or successes of this shared service to date?
Examples may include cost savings, improved service quality, reallocation of staff time, improved compliance, etc.
Format: Open text
Logic: Conditional.
Section 9: Follow-Up Identification
Q24. Would you be willing to be contacted for a brief follow-up conversation related to this research?
Contact information will not be shared or distributed beyond this research team.
Format: Yes / No
Logic: If “Yes,” confirm contact details.