Proposed Strategic KPIs of KSU

“Developing Strategic KPIs of King Saud

University”, King Saud University Research Report – Deanship of Quality DoQ # 1/2014, January –

April 2014 G

Deanship of Quality King Saud University

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Copyright © Teay Shawyun, Consultant to KSU – QMS, King Saud University, April 2014. Any reference to usage and citations can be stated as “Teay, Shawyun, (2014), Developing Strategic KPIs of King Saud University, King Saud University Research Report – Deanship of Quality DoQ # 1/2014, April 2014”

Research Report of KSU Key Performance Indicators Page 1 of 4

Proposed Strategic KPIs of KSU

This research study is aimed at identifying a set of strategic KPIs for KSU and is

supported by key secondary research as follows:

KSU 2030 Strategic Plan analysis (Appendix 3 and 4) that identified KSU

has 9 strategic objectives with no indication of any strategic or operational KPIs

being specified. This is also looked at within the incorporation of the comparative

performance of the colleges and in their “ranking” which identified 14 KPIs which

was also used as the basis to arrive at the KSU Strategic KPIs (Appendix 2 and 8).

Benchmarked universities in the KSU 2030 (Appendix 6) which identified

10 top tier benchmarked universities like Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, Stanford,

Harvard, UC Berkeley, U of Southern California, Tokyo University, NUS and

Tsinghua University. Of these only UC Berkeley has a strategic plan with 10

strategic KPIs and 60 specific KPIs. 3 universities like Oxford, Tokyo and USC

have strategic plans but no indications of KPIs specified. The rest like Harvard,

Stanford, MIT, Cambridge, NUS and Tsinghua do not have strategic plans posted

on their institutions’ webpage, but do have some that have schools’ or

administrative units’ strategic plans.

CUC (Committee of University Chairman, 2006) research reports that

recommended strategic KPIs that comprehensively addresses the HEI’s in key

areas of 1) Academic Character, 2) Financial health, assets and resources, 3) Staff,

Management and Governance, and 4) Governance. (Appendix 1 and 4) that

resulted in 10 key areas where KPIs are developed

The KPIs areas are also supported by the IES (Institute for

Employment Studies) and NatCen (National Center for Social and

Economic Research) report in November 2013 which listed 29 most cited or

widely used in order of 1) Value-added; 2) Employability and destinations

(employment rates / starting salary); 3) Quality of Research (research outputs /

funding); 4) Finance (financial performance / sustainability / efficiency); 5)

Widening participation / access; 6) Fair access; 7) Non-continuation /

Continuation; 8) Entry qualifications; 9) Admissions; 10) Demand; 11) Student

Satisfaction / experience; 12) Achievement / attainment (average awards); 13)

Learning and development in key areas; 14) Return on student loan investment /

value for money; 15) Course / Teaching quality; 16) Class size; 17) Contact and

study hours; 18) Postgraduate activity; 19) Estates, facilities and student services;

20) Entrepreneurship support; 21) Employment creation; 22) Industry

engagement; 23) Commercial activities; 24) Contribution to economic growth

and development regionally and nationally; 25) Public engagement and social /

community impact; 26) Knowledge Transfer; 27) Sustainability (environment

impact); 28) Administrative efficiency; and 29) Staffing.


Study of 11 universities strategic plans and their frequently cited or

listed KPIs that identified about 988 types of KPIs categorized into 18 areas

(Appendix 5 that were later consolidated into Appendix 4 with a list of illustrative

KPIs that were listed by the research and the universities studied) as follows:

o # 1 Student Focus / Student Experience and Teaching and Learning (216);

o # 2 Estates and Infrastructure (6) / Infrastructure and Technology (103

each = 206 in total) and Technology (34);

o # 3 Academic Profile and Market Position (7) and Education (Teaching

and Learning) (87);

o #4 Financial Health (86) and Institutional Stability (6);

o # 5 Research (90);

o # 6 Stakeholders/ Social / Society Engagement and Responsibilities (59);

o # 7 Faculty / Staff and HRD (51);

o # 8 Community and University Environment (48); and

o # 9 Others (Innovation – 12; Access / Affordability – 6; Diversity – 18)

totaling 36;

o # 10 Partnerships / Collaborations / Knowledge Transfer (19) and lastly

Governance, Leadership, Management, Planning (12)

Based on the above key research findings and the direction of KSU in its key areas as

identified in its KSU 2030, with the exception of Strategic objectives # 8 and 9, the key

areas where strategic KPIs can be identified and is proposed as an initial list with a total

of 32 potential KPIs. The details of the step-wise determination of the strategic KPIs of

KSU are reported in Appendix 3, 4 and 7. The detailed research report of the research

aim, research methodology and research findings and how these proposed 32 KPIs are

explained in Appendix 1.

From this initial set of 32 proposed KPIs, it was reduced to a final list of 18 KSU Strategic

KPIs. This final list (Table 1) was selected based on the expertise recommendation of key

consultants and administrators in the Deanship of Quality (Appendix 7).

Table 1: Proposed Strategic KPIs for KSU that measures the strategic

performance of KSU

Key Categorical Areas where KPIs are important

Strategic Objectives of KSU

Proposed Strategic KPIs for KSU that measures strategic performance

Infrastructure / Technology / Resources

None were selected from proposed 32 KPIs

Student Focus (Student Experience) Strategic objective #3: Less

is more (Reduce KSU’s student volume, increase the share of graduate students and raise entry requirements)

Strategic objective #4:

Student satisfaction with university life experience

Retention and Graduation Time Series for undergraduate and PGs

4.12.3 Proportion of students entering undergraduate programs who complete those programs in minimum time (NCAAA 9 - Means average and Level achieved)


Stronger graduates (Enable KSU students to learn hard and soft skills throughout their academic life)

Strategic objective #6: Supportive learning environment (Create an engaging environment at KSU for faculty, students, and staff)

Community and University Environment

% of students involved with university community events

Financial / Institutional Sustainability Strategic objective #7:

Sustainable future (Build KSU’s endowment and diversity sources of funding)

Endowment Per FTE faculty / staff

Research Strategic objective #1:

Good everywhere; Great in focus areas (Strengthen our comprehensive university with academic areas of research and teaching excellence)

10.5.1 Number of refereed publications in the previous year per full time equivalent member of teaching staff. (Publications based on the formula in the Higher Council Bylaw excluding conference presentations) (NCAAA 26 - Ratio average and Level achieved)

10.5.2 Number of citations in refereed journals in the previous year per full time equivalent teaching staff. (NCAAA 27 - Ratio average and Level achieved)

10.5.5 Ratio of internal research and innovation funds in proportion to the total number of full-time faculty members

10.5.6 Ratio of external research and innovation funds in proportion to the total number of full-time faculty members (NCAAA 30 - Ratio average and Level achieved)

% of faculty who get research grant / contract funding

Education Offers (Teaching and Learning)

Faculty Student Ratio (Comparisons with Peers /

with mean of Peers / Ratios Using Different Faculty Inclusions –based on Faculty FTE)

Staff (Human Resource Management) Strategic objective #2:

Distinctive faculty (Attract and develop distinctive faculty)

3.6.2 Percentage of the full-time faculty members obtaining academic or professional awards at the national or international level. (%)

9.5.2 Percentage of full-time faculty members participating in professional development activities during the past year (NCAAA 25 – Ratio average and Level achieved)

% of support staff who participated in professional


developmental activities related to their work area

Internationalization Strategic objective #5:

Building bridges (Build bridges among KSU constituencies and externally with local and international groups)

Number of international visiting faculty scholar

Stakeholders/ Social / Society Engagement and Responsibilities

11.4.1 Evaluation of satisfaction of employers/ business operators/ users of graduates /alumni /parents/ graduates on competency of graduates (Means average and Level achieved based on survey)

11.4.3 Proportion of full time teaching and other

staff actively engaged in community service activities (NCAAA 32 - Ratio average and Level achieved)

Partnerships / Collaborations / Knowledge Transfer

# of signed and effective MOUs

Others (Innovation – 12; Access / Affordability – 6; Diversity – 18)

None were selected from proposed 32 KPIs

Governance, Leadership, Management, Planning Strategic objective #8:

Flexibility and Accountability (Create a performance contract between KSU and the government)

Strategic objective #9: Organizing for purpose (Establishing an organization and governance that supports KSU’s goals)

No KPIs were identified from the whole research as detailed in the research report appendixes that they are not typical in other HEIs

Total # of Proposed Strategic KPIs for KSU = 18 KPIs

Appendix 1 Research Report of Strategic KPIs

Introduction

Most HEIs have strategic and operational plans and these contain strategic objectives which usually relate to the performance outputs or outcomes that are measured at a relatively high level and mainly medium term in nature. A key aspect of performance management deals with performance measurement which is to “measure and monitor” progress or achievement against these pre-defined objectives which are normally SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-framed). A key way to monitor academic progress is to “measure progress or trends” (e.g. retention rate has increased by 5% over the previous year”) or compare across different units (e.g. graduation rate of the Engineering doctorate is 10% higher than the Arts doctorate over the previous year). To determine and support these performances, normally a HEI will need to develop a set of strategic KPIs to ensure that they know their performance in areas of importance to the HEI. Though strategic KPIs are important, there are specific issues of:

Purpose and intent of KPIs – Basically, the intent of strategic KPIs (what is distinctive and important to the institution) is to ensure that the strategic direction (long term policies and goals rather than short term priorities) and its strategic measures provide information of strategic performance which is the primary intent of the Governing Board or Executive Management. The tactical implementations which are normally delegated to the President of the HEI and its team would mean that the Governing Board will ultimately be responsible for its delegation of “strategic performance management” to the executing board.

Relationships to Strategic Planning – Institutional KPIs are strategic rather than operational as it should “focus on what makes it distinctive” that reflects the mission of the HEI as opposed to being operational at the college or program levels. This dictates that strategic KPIs should flow from a well-constructed Institutional Strategic Plan and should be part of the HEI’s strategic planning process in key areas of importance.

Number of KPIs and its value – CUC (2006) identified 10 areas that the HEIs should focus on as the main areas of performance management for all HEIs and suggested a range of 10 – 20 high level indicators supported with more detailed performance indicators at the lower levels of operations for more in-depth, analytical and informed decisions making. These lower levels indicators in key operational areas are the direct owners of these PIs (Performance Indicators) that informs on and support the higher level PIs which is the strategic KPIs.

While KSU has a strategic plan, the KSU 2030 “Towards Excellence” Strategic Plan, it appears that no strategic KPIs were identified. Based on this ambiguity, ABC University would need to identify a set of strategic KPIs that helps the top management measure, monitor and manage its accomplishment and achievement of its longer term goals. As such, the research aim of this paper is, “To determine a set of Strategic KPIs for KSU”.

This research report will contain 5 parts as follows:

Appendix 1 – This will report on the research aim, research methodology and

research findings of the entire appending appendix 2 to 5. It will also report on

how the KSU KPIs are determined based on the analysis in the appendix 2 to 5,

and come up with a proposed set of KSU KPIs.

Appendix 2 – This will report on the mapping of the KSU 2030 Strategic

Objectives onto the related KPIs categories as discussed in Appendix 3 to 5 which

shows the main KPIs and PIs categories and illustrative KPIs from the overall

988 KPIs from two main research reports and 11 sampled HEI Strategic Plans

with the strategic goals, strategic objectives strategic initiatives and KPIs.

Appendix 3 – This will report on the KSU 2030 Strategic Plan to determine the

existence of strategic KPIs as related to its 9 Strategic Objectives in order to map

its similarities in the determination and utilization of KPIs based on widely

accepted and good practices in the development of KPIs. Basically, no strategic

KPis were identified in this report, so only the Strategic Objectives were used as

the main mapping parameter. With those in Appendix 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Appendix 4 – This report discuss in-depth the comparative analysis of KPIs to

identify 10 key and common areas of strategic and operational focus of a typical

HEI. It also reports on the categorical KPIs that are used in each of these key

areas of focus and provide a set of illustrative KPIs for each of them.

Appendix 5 – This report on the tabulation of the main KPIs of typical HEIs

and it came up with 19 main areas where KPIs were developed as performance

measures or performance indicators totaling 988, where similarity or

commonalities exists in its fundamental principles but were expressed using

different terminologies or methods of description in its computational

formulation.

Appendix 6 – This report is focused on the strategic plans and strategic KPIs of

the 10 benchmarked universities on KSU as noted in the KSU 2030. Only 1 of

them has a strategic plan with specific strategic KPIs, with 3 having only a

strategic with no definition of its strategic KPIs, while the remaining 6 has no

institutional strategic plans but do have strategic plans at the schools’ or

administrative units’ areas.

Appendix 7 – This report is focused on the reduction of the original proposed

set of 32 KSU Strategic KPIs by an expert opinion group consisting of 3 Saudi

administrators and 3 consultants in the quality management area. This arrived at

a final set of 18 Strategic KSU as shown in Table 1 in the main report.

Appendix 8 – This reports on the identification of KPIs that can be used to

compare and potentially “rank” the performance of the colleges in KSU, or for the

performance comparison of programs within a college, or for comparison of

programs within as similar category (like all the health science programs in the

Health Science Group. The basis of the KPIs were that they were: 1) Student

Focused; 2) Faculty focused; 3) Research Focused and 4) Stakeholder

Satisfaction / Community Service

Research Methodology

As the development approaches of strategic KPIs used by most HEIs is very diverse and multifarious, this research will use a secondary research approach that reviews two main sources of: 1) literature of research conducted on the development and design of strategic KPIs of a HEI and 2) those KPIs defined in the strategic plans of a typical HEI. The use of the research reports on strategic KPIs of HEI was to identify typical common issues and widely accepted practices in the issues and challenges, development and design, scope and utilization of strategic and operational KPIs. The initial literature review identified 5 research reports as follows:

1. Pollard, E., Williams, M., Williams, Joy., Bertram, C. and Buzzeo, J., of IES (Institute for Employment Studies) and Drever, E., Griggs, J. and Coutinho, S., of NatCen (National Center for Social and Economic Research, entitled:

a. How should we measure higher education? A fundamental review of the Performance Indicators Part One: The Synthesis Report (November 2013)

b. How should we measure higher education? A fundamental review of the Performance Indicators Part Two: The Evidence Report (November 2013)

2. CUC (Committee of University Chairs) titled: a. CUC Report on the Monitoring of Institutional Performance and the Use

of Key Performance Indicators (November 2006) b. CUC Report on the Implementation of Key Performance Indicators: Case

Study Experiences (June 2008) 3. HR (Hanover Research) on Non-academic Key Performance Indicators for

Administrative Support Units (used by a variety of U.S. universities to measure the performance of non-academic, administrative support units that cover the metrics for Finance, human Resources, student Administration/Student Services and Facilities units).

In the second main source of secondary data of identifying strategic KPIs in Strategic Plans, the key terms of: 1) “strategic plans with strategic KPIs" which resulted in 6,030,000 hits in 0.47 sec”, 2) “strategic KPIs with 3,820,000 hits in 0.22 sec”, 3) “Strategic KPIs for education with 9,510,000 hits in 0.22 sec”, 4) “Strategic KPIs for academic or education with 9,940,000 hits in 0.26 sec” were randomly goggled. The top 30 documents were selected and reviewed to identify whether the two main aspects of “strategic objectives” and “KPIs” exist in the same strategic plan or just "strategic KPIs" in any document, and this resulted in the following set of documents:

1. Strategic Plans with KPIs of: a. The Penn State Strategic Plan 2009 – 2014 (USA) b. The Pennsylvania State University (May 2008), Strategic Indicators:

Measuring and Improving University Performance (USA) c. University of Toronto Performance Indicators 2012 Comprehensive

Inventory (Canada) d. Manchester State University ASPIRE 2010 – 2014 Metrics and Key

Performance Indicators and ASPIRE III (2014 – 2018) (UK) e. NEIU (Northern Illinois University) KPI Progress Report for the Strategic

Plan (USA) f. University of Greenwich Strategic Plan 2012 – 2017: Summary (UK)

g. Manchester Metropolitan University Corporate Strategy 2012 – 2017 (UK)

h. Ball State University Strategic Plan 2012 – 2017, Education Redefined 2.0: Advancing Indiana (USA)

i. Lancaster University Strategic Plan 2009 – 2015 (UK) j. University of Wollongong Strategic Plan 2008 – 2010 (Australia) k. Binghamton University 2010 – 2015 Strategic Plan Key Performance

Indicators (USA) l. Qatar University Strategic Plan 2010 – 2013 (Middle East)

2. The 75 KPIs every Manager needs to know (September 05, 2013). 3. The Pennsylvania State University (2008) Innovation Insights, “Developing

Strategic Performance Indicators”, Office of Planning and Institutional Assessment (USA).

4. Georgiadou, E. of Middlesex University London (UK), power point presentation of “Role of Key Performance Indicators in Higher education Quality Enhancement”.

5. NASPA International Assessment & Retention Conference, Baltimore, Maryland (USA) (June 2010) power point presentation of “The Assessment movement toward key performance indicators”.

6. Seybert, J. A., of National Higher Education Benchmarking Institute, Johnson County Community College (USA), power point presentation of “Identifying Key Performance Indicators: The Foundation of an Institutional Dashboard”.

Research Findings

A stringent research methodology is not applied due to the diversity in the

understanding and application leading to the development of strategic plans and KPIs,

and the diversity in the use of terminology or the grouping of the focus areas which are

dependent on the institution’s context and aspirations and unique focus. Though a

stringent methodology is not used, a systematic approach based on the basic mission and

functioning of a typical HEI with stated strategic goals and strategic objectives and

related KPIs or PIs in each of the focus areas of operation is the main criteria used for the

first level basis of analysis.

A second level of analysis is the criteria used to determine the KPIs. This is based on the CUC (2006) reports of which the top 10 KPIs recommended were chosen as a set of coherent KPIs with the following criteria:

a. Critical to the success of the institution; b. Strategic – i.e. high-level and of interest to governance c. Relevant to all types of institution; d. Able to cover all the main areas of strategic activity and risk which governors or

executive management need to monitor on a continuing basis for a HEI.

In the description of KPIs (CUC, 2006), performance measures is defined as “where the numerical indicator is a precise or robust measure of the factor of interest (e.g. student number, building condition, financial outcomes) and performance indicators as “which are not necessarily a numerical indicator” (e.g. teaching quality, student satisfaction, or sustainability index) are included in this research. Normally for performance indicators which cannot be measured directly, a proxy measure is developed (e.g. absenteeism can be used as a proxy for staff commitment).

Based on this methodology, some of the key findings:

1. Analysis of KSU 2030 Strategic Plan and its KPIs – The KSU 2030 which

was officially published in May 2009 and revised in December 2012 (in its

revised but unpublished form) showed that there were 9 Strategic Objectives and

49 recommendations. In the revised unofficial version as of January 2014, 4 main

types of modifications were identified as: 1) No changes = 22; 2) Changes in

terminologies = 19; 3) Original recommendation removed = 3; and 4) New

recommendations added = 6 resulting in a set of 47 recommendations. Basically,

the KSU 2030 is more structured as an issue/recommendation framework which

is not typical of the structuring of a typical HEI Strategic Plan. As such, no

strategic or operational KPIs were identified in its KSU 2030. Details of the

changes and modifications are reported in Table 2.2 Appendix 3.

2. Mapping of KSU 2030 onto the widely accepted focus areas of KPIs –

While KSU do not specify its KPIs in the KSU 2030, the longer meaning of the

strategic objectives of the KSU 2030 are mapped onto the 12 generic areas where

KPIs are typically specified in their focus areas in their strategic plans. The next

to best and appropriate mapping and its results and its details (Table 2.1 in

Appendix 2) are:

a. Strategic objective #3: Less is more; Strategic objective #4: Stronger graduates and Strategic objective #6: Supportive learning environment are mapped into two key areas of Student Focus (Student Experience) and Community and University Environment

b. Strategic objective #7: Sustainable future is mapped onto Financial and Institutional Sustainability

c. Strategic objective #1: Good everywhere can be mapped onto Research and Educational Offers (Teaching and Learning)

d. Strategic objective #2: Distinctive faculty can be mapped onto Staff (Human Resource Management)

e. Strategic objective #5: Building bridges can be mapped onto Internationalization, Stakeholders/ Social / Society Engagement and Responsibilities and Partnerships / Collaborations / Knowledge Transfer

Though it is not related to Governance, Leadership, Management, Planning, Strategic objective #8: Flexibility and Accountability Strategic objective #9: Organizing for purpose were put in this category as this is not typical of what a HEI will put in a strategic plan or define any KPIs in these areas. Other areas that were not clearly or explicitly covered by KSU in the 12 generic areas were Infrastructure / Technology / Resources and Innovation /Access / Affordability / Diversity). This resulted in a set of 32 KPIs that have relevance to KSU based on the KSU 2030 nine Strategic Objectives.

3. KSU – QMS main KPIs used to determine and compare performance

– in its strive to provide a comparative and “ranking” of performance of the

colleges in KSU (Appendix 8), or the programs within a college, or to compare the

programs and colleges with a similar grouping like all the health science /

medical science / dentistry / pharmacy were group into a category called the

Health Science Group. A set of 14 selected KPIs from key groups of Student focus,

Faculty focus, and Research focus and the Stakeholder Satisfaction /Community

Service focus were selected from the KSU – QMS Internal Benchmarking System.

This was used in the mapping and identification of the KPIs in addition to the

KPIs as selected from (4) above.

4. Number of KPIs used – The number of KPIs identified from this secondary

research process ranged from a low end number of KPIs of North Illinois

University (12) and Manchester Metropolitan University (16) and University of

Wollongong (23) to the high end of Qatar University (138), Ball State (113),

University of Toronto (99) and Binghamton University (92) and Manchester

State University (63) with two in the middle end of University of Greenwich (32)

and Lancaster University (30). This can allude to the fact that there is a range of

KPIs which the HEI can set up based on their institution’s context and

requirements, noting that some of the higher end numbers could be re-classified

as operational KPIs due to the specific and more detailed focus areas of

measurement of performance. Details of the categorization of KPIs and strategic

objectives of each HEI and the diversity of the KPIs used are shown in detail in

Appendix 5.

5. Focus areas of coverage – The overall research from the main research in (1)

came up with 19 focus areas (Appendix 5) whereby these typical HEIs and later

reduced into 12 main focus areas (Appendix 4) would set their KPIs in:

a. # 1 Student Focus / Student Experience and Teaching and Learning (216);

b. # 2 Estates and Infrastructure (6) / Infrastructure and Technology (103

each = 206 in total) and Technology (34);

c. # 3 Academic Profile and Market Position (7) and Education (Teaching

and Learning) (87);

d. #4 Financial Health (86) and Institutional Stability (6);

e. # 5 Research (90);

f. # 6 Stakeholders/ Social / Society Engagement and Responsibilities (59);

g. # 7 Faculty / Staff and HRD (51);

h. # 8 Community and University Environment (48); and

i. # 9 Others (Innovation – 12; Access / Affordability – 6; Diversity – 18)

totaling 36;

j. # 10 Partnerships / Collaborations / Knowledge Transfer (19) and lastly

Governance, Leadership, Management, Planning (12) (Appendix 4).

This is only an approximate determination of the key focus areas where KPIs are

developed ranked in grouping of similar terminologies from the original 19 in Appendix

5. Most of the most frequently used KPIs as used by the HEIs are shown in Table 4.3 in

Appendix 4.

The overall selection of the proposed set of 32 KSU strategic KPIs was selected based on

the following criteria that the selected KPIs (Table 2.2 of Appendix 2):

Are within the requirements of the 9 Strategic Objectives of KSU

Comprehensively address the requirements of the main areas important and

critical to the key focus areas of a typical HEI.

From the original 32 sets, it underwent a further round of expert opinion of 3 Saudi

administrators and 3 consultants in quality management. This approach came up with a

final set of proposed 18 KSU Strategic KPIs as shown in Table 1.1 (Appendix 7). The

whole research yielded a total of 18 Strategic KPIs that are deemed relevant and critical

to provide an overall picture of performance of KSU comprehensively and holistically as

shown below:

Table 1.1 Proposed Strategic KPIs of KSU





% of internal / external clients “satisfied” or “strongly satisfied” with services by all functional units (finance, IT, HR, procurement, Business operation, Housing, Student services, Library, External relations, Institutional research)

Teaching and Research Space as a proportion of

Total Space



Strategic objective #4: Stronger graduates (Enable KSU students to learn hard and soft skills throughout their academic life)




3.6.1 Percentage of students graduated in the last 3 years who are recognized in the areas of academics, or profession, or contribution to society at the national or international level (%)


4.12.5 Students overall rating on the quality of their courses (Average rating of students on a 5 point scale overall evaluation of courses) (NCAAA 6 - Means average and Level achieved based on survey)



% of faculty / staff involved with university community events




Total auxiliary and other revenue generated





10.5.3 Proportion of full time member of teaching staff with at least one refereed publications during the previous year (NCAAA 28 - Ratio average and Level achieved)



PGR research performance in publications, presentations and posters



% of public who are “strongly or very satisfied” with academic standard demonstrated by university



Graduate Enrolment as a Percentage of Total

Enrolment





% of support staff who participated in professional developmental activities related to their work area


Percentage of students participating in Education

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal3/PerformanceMeasures/PercentEAStudent/


Abroad


Percentage of Total Undergraduate Enrollment by International Status

Percentage of Total Undergraduate / Graduate Enrollment by International Status








% increase in # of new technologies / patents / intellectual property




(No KPIS were identified as explained earlier, they are not typical in other HEIs)


And the final set of 18 Strategic KSU KPIs are highlighted in yellow

Conclusion

While there are many approaches whereby the strategic KPIs of a HEI can be developed, this paper attempts to present another approach whereby the case study HEI already has a strategic plan, but no strategic KPIs are defined in this plan. In order to identity the institution's KPIs, a secondary research into key literature in the development of strategic KPIs, and strategic plans with strategic KPIs of universities was used. These approaches identified a final set of 12 key categorical areas where strategic KPIs were developed, and the case study institution's strategic objectives was mapped into these 12 areas, with 32 frequently used strategic KPIs within the context of the institution, and a final set of 18 selected through a focus group opinion.


http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal3/PerformanceMeasures/UndergradInternational/


http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal3/PerformanceMeasures/GradInternational/


Appendix 2: Strategic KPIs of KSU

Table 2.1: Mapping of KSU’s Strategic Objectives into Key KPIs categories


# of KPIs (similar occurrence) in each category



246

Student Focus (Student Experience) 216 Strategic objective #3: Less is more

(Reduce KSU’s student volume, increase the share of graduate students and raise entry requirements)




48

Financial / Institutional Sustainability 99 Strategic objective #7: Sustainable future

(Build KSU’s endowment and diversity sources of funding)

Research 96 Strategic objective #1: Good everywhere;

Great in focus areas (Strengthen our comprehensive university with academic areas of research and teaching excellence)


94

Staff (Human Resource Management) 51 Strategic objective #2: Distinctive faculty

(Attract and develop distinctive faculty)

Internationalization 34 Strategic objective #5: Building bridges

(Build bridges among KSU constituencies and externally with local and international groups)


59


19


36

Governance, Leadership, Management, Planning

12 Strategic objective #8: Flexibility and

Accountability (Create a performance contract between KSU and the government)


Table 2.2: Development of Proposed Strategic KPIs of KSU



Proposed Strategic KPIs for KSU that

measures strategic performance

Proposed KPIs from KSU QMS


% of administrative units that achieved their planned objectives

% of internal / external

clients “satisfied” or “strongly satisfied” with services by all functional units (finance, IT, HR, procurement, Business operation, Housing, Student services, Library, External relations, Institutional research)

Teaching and Research

Space as a proportion of Total Space

Student Focus (Student Experience) Strategic objective #3:

Less is more (Reduce KSU’s student volume, increase the share of graduate students and raise entry requirements)




Retention and Graduation Time Series

Graduate student completion rate

First year to Second Year Retention Rate

First year to Third Year Retention Rate

% Increase of students per year winning national scholarships / awards




4.12.9 Percentage of students entering programs who successfully complete first year (NCAAA 8 - Means average and Level achieved)




Financial / Institutional Sustainability

Strategic objective #7: Sustainable future (Build KSU’s endowment and diversity sources of funding)





Research outputs by appropriate measure (publications in indexed journals, research impact factors)

Research income, total, % and by types of sponsors

Research active staff


PGR level of satisfaction with research experience, services and facilities provided in program

% of faculty who apply for internal / external research funding








% of employers perceiving academic programs as “high quality” programs


Faculty Student Ratio

(Comparisons with Peers / with mean of Peers / Ratios Using Different Faculty Inclusions –based on Faculty FTE)

Graduate Enrolment as a

Percentage of Total Enrolment



Staff satisfaction (surveys, complaints and appeals, institutional experience)

% of students surveyed who report “excellent” or “very good” levels in teaching performance of faculty


% increase of faculty or professional staff with national / international recognition (awards, leadership positions, and editorial board memberships)


9.5.1 Proportion of teaching staff leaving the institution in the past year for reasons other than age retirement (NCAAA 24 – Ratio average and Level achieved)




Number of students participating in Education Abroad

Percentage of students participating in Education Abroad



Percentage of Total

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal3/PerformanceMeasures/NumEAStudent/










Graduate Enrollment by International Status


Stakeholder (alumni, parents, employment market) surveys

% increase of # of

companies impacted by university

% increase of # of

communities actively engaged with university

% of faculty / staff /

students involved with community service


11.4.3 Proportion of full time teaching and other staff actively engaged in community service activities (NCAAA 32 - Ratio average and Level achieved)






Strategic objective #8: Flexibility and Accountability (Create a performance contract between KSU and the government)


Total = 39 KPIs Total = 14 KPIs



Table 3.2: Proposed Strategic KPIs of KSU

(Using only the mapping from Table 3.1 of the frequently used KPIs and mapping with

that of the KSU – QMS KPIs, this is the resulting table that is similar to that of Table

1.1)






Teaching and Research Space as a proportion of

Total Space


















Good everywhere; Great in focus areas (Strengthen our comprehensive

10.5.1 Number of refereed publications in the previous year per full time equivalent member of teaching staff. (Publications based on the formula in the Higher Council Bylaw excluding conference presentations) (NCAAA 26 - Ratio

university with academic areas of research and teaching excellence)

average and Level achieved)











Graduate Enrolment as a Percentage of Total

Enrolment











Percentage of Total UdergraguateGraduate Enrollment by International Status







Appendix 3: KSU 2030 Strategic Objectives and KPIs Analysis

Part 1: Analysis of KSU 2030 Strategic Plan

KSU initiated its KSU 2030 Strategic Plan and finalized it in May 2009, with changes

made to it in January 2014 as summarized in Table 3.1 which shows the summary of

changes made to recommendations January 2014. Table 3.1 is summarized from the

review of the types of changes made of the 9 Strategic Objectives and 49

recommendations as proposed in May 2009 with a final set of 47 recommendations as

shown in Table 3.2.

Observations

1. Constitution of a Strategic Plan: The KSU 2030 shows mainly a set of

analysis of the key issues facing KSU and come up with a set of 49

recommendations (with a few options for each of the recommendation for KSU to

select to implement). This deviates from the normal Strategic Plan proposed by

most HEI which follows the norms of having: SMART Goals / Objectives, Actions

/ Initiatives and KPIs. These : SMART Goals / Objectives, Actions / Initiatives

and KPIs were not found in the KSU 2030 as the structure of KSU 2030 has the

attributes of issues and recommendations rather than identifying goals /

objectives / action initiatives / responsible parties and tie frame for completion

and KPIs driving the strategic direction of the institution and its performance

management.

2. Lack of KPIs – Due to the nature of the KSU 2030 being an issues and

recommendations plan, it lacks measurable / SMART objectives or KPIs that can

used as a set of performance measure and management metrics.

3. Implementation aspects – Due to the nature of the KSU 2030, as there was

no details of responsible party with time frame for completion, it appears to be a

very difficult plan to be implemented or measured for performance.

4. Types of changes made in the January 2014 KSU 2030 – The analysis

as shown in Table 2 identified 4 types of major changes that were summarized in

Table 3.1 as

4.1 No changes made = (22 recommendations);

4.2 Changes / Modifications in terminologies used in the recommendation =

(19 recommendations);

4.3 Original recommendation removed = (2 recommendations) and

4.4 New recommendations added = (6 recommendations)

4.5 All these totaled to 47 sets of recommendation, with no specifications of

KPI, SMART objectives, responsible parties or time frame of actions and

competition.

5. Justifications of Changes – While there were modifications as changes noted in

Table 3.1 and 3.2, there was no evidence of justification of changes as the content

analysis and context of the original KSU 2030 remains intact.

Conclusion

In conclusion, due to these inadequacies, it is proposed that only the use of the 9

Strategic Objectives will be used to identify the institutional KPIs of KSU in this report.

Part 2: Analysis of changes to KSU 2030 Strategic Objectives and

Recommendations

Table 3.1: Summary of changes as of January 2014 (revised but unpublished

KSU 2030)

Types of Changes Recommendation # changes in New January 2014 Recommendation

Summary of # of Changes

1. No Changes 1.1 to 1.7

2.1 to 2.4

3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.6

6.4 to 6.6

9.1, 9.2, 9.4, 9.5

= 7 = 4 = 4 = 3 = 4 Total # = 22

2. Changes / Modifications in Terminology

4.1 to 4.4

5.1 to 5.5

6.1 to 6.3

7.1 to 7.2

8.1 to 8.4

9.3

= 4 = 5 = 3 = 2 = 4 = 1 Total # = 19

3. Original Recommendation removed

3.1

7.2 and 7.4

= 1 = 2 Total # = 3

4. New Recommendations added

1.9

3.5

5.6 and 5.7

6.2

7.3

= 1 = 1 = 2 = 1 = 1 Total # = 6

# of recommendations in January 2014 = 47

Summary of revision:

# of old recommendations = 49, while revised version has 47 recommendations

2 recommendations were removed with the addition of 6 new recommendations

Table 3.2: Review of changes made in January 2014 of the KSU 2030

Strategic Objective

Original Recommendations (May 2009)

New Recommendations (December 2013)

Changes made to the original recommendations as of January 2014

Strategic objective #1: Good everywhere; Great in focus areas (Strengthen our comprehensive university with academic areas of research and teaching excellence)

1.1 Develop area of excellence: Healthcare

1.1 Develop area of excellence: Healthcare

No changes from 1.1 to 1.4

1.2 Develop area of excellence: Education

1.2 Develop area of excellence: Education

1.3 Develop area of excellence: Finance & insurance

1.3 Develop area of excellence: Finance & insurance

1.4 Develop area of excellence: Management

1.4 Develop area of excellence: Management

1.5 Develop area of excellence: Engineering / ICT

1.5 Develop area of excellence: ICT

Recommendations 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 are similar except that “Engineering” has been deleted

Since only “Engineering” is deleted from the title, it is assumed that they remain the same.

1.6 Develop area of excellence: Engineering / Petrochemicals

1.6 Develop area of excellence: Petrochemicals

1.7 Develop area of excellence: Engineering / Water resources development and management

1.7 Develop area of excellence: Water resources development and management

1.8 Develop area of excellence in Urban Planning

1.8 Develop area of excellence in Urban Planning

No Change

1.9 Develop area of excellence in Nanotechnology Future technologies

New area of Excellence

Bottom line is only 1 new addition of Recommendation 1.9

Strategic Objective Original Recommendations (May 2009)



Strategic objective #2: Distinctive faculty (Attract and develop distinctive faculty)

2.1 Strengthen faculty recruitment process to match international standards

2.1 Strengthen faculty recruitment process to match international standards

No Changes

2.2 Attract visiting professors in each department

2.2 Attract visiting professors in each department

2.3 Increase benefits and improve support for existing faculty members

2.3 Increase benefits and improve support for existing faculty members

2.4 Design and deploy new performance based faculty tracks

2.4 Design and deploy new performance based faculty tracks

Bottom-line: NO changes




Strategic objective #3: Less is more (Reduce KSU’s student volume, increase the share of graduate students and raise entry requirements)

3.1 Transform the existing branch campuses into stand-alone universities

3.1 Reduce the size of the student body at the Riyadh campuses

Original 3.1 was removed and old 3.2 became 3.1

3.2 Reduce the size of the student body at the Riyadh campuses

3.3 Form advisory committee to analyze higher education capacity and advise government

3.2 Form advisory committee to analyze higher education capacity and advise government

No Changes and 3.3 is missing due to wrong numbering

3.4 Build internal capacity at the Muzahmiya campus

3.4 Build internal capacity at the Muzahmiya campus

No Changes, but there is wrong numbering

3.5 Increase the number of graduate students in each academic program

Addition of 3.5

3.5 Expand current overseas graduate offering in each program

3.6 Expand current overseas graduate offering in each program

No Changes, but # should be 3.5

Bottom-line: Original 3.1 removed and replaced with new 3.5 (which should be 3.4 for correct numbering)





4.1 Differentiate and Strengthen preparatory year between 3broad academic areas to increase its impact

4.1 Strengthen preparatory year capabilities

Basically similar to original as Prep Year has been separated into 3 broad areas

4.2 Embed innovative teaching methods throughout KSU academic programs (e.g. case-studies, problem based and cooperative-collaborative learning, student presentation, classroom technology)

4.2 Embed innovative teaching methods throughout KSU academic programs

No Changes except examples were removed

4.3 Launch Teacher's Academy to support and develop Teachers skills

4.3 Establish Teacher's Academy to support and develop Teachers skills

No changes except changing “launch” to “establish”

4.4 Raise English skills requirements for graduation

4.4 Improve English skills for students

Minimal changes as it applies to all students

Bottom-line: Since some of the initial recommendation was accomplished, there is minimal changes except to “strengthen” or “improve” practices in 4.1 and 4.4 respectively




Strategic objective #5: Building bridges (Build bridges among KSU constituencies and externally with local and international groups)

5.1 Create an Institutional advisory board

5.1 Create a University advisory board

Minimal changes reflected in terminology changes of “institutional” to “University”

5.2 Create advisory board for each faculty

5.2 Create advisory board for each College

Minimal changes reflected in terminology changes of “faculty” to “College”

5.3 Create external relations office and strategy

5.3 Create an office for International relations

Similar context except strategy is downplayed.

5.4 Create community relations program and strategy

5.4 Create an office to coordinate all community relations and strategy

New changes changed the original context of well planned and executed community relations, while new one is on creating an office for coordination

5.5 Provide competitive grants for Interdisciplinary research and programs

5.5 Create an Interdisciplinary knowledge sharing program

Complete change from “interdisciplinary research” to “knowledge sharing”

5.6 Create a career services office

New addition

5.7 Create Volunteer Program

New addition

Bottom-line: Terminology changes in 5.1 and 5.2, but changes in terminology of 5.3, 5.4 and 5.4 changed the original intention and context of the recommendation. Two new additions of 5.6 and 5.7





6.1 Launch campus infrastructure review and upgrade

6.1 Launch campus Physical infrastructure review and upgrade

Added in “physical” which can change original intention and context of recommendation

6.2 Launch campus IT infrastructure review and upgrade

New addition with “IT” separated from “physical” which makes little justification

6.2 Detail student, faculty and staff codes of conduct

6.3 Establish Code of conduct & Research Ethics

New changes in terminology can change the original intention and context of recommendation which is more generic and comprehensive

6.3 Develop extracurricular activities portfolio

6.4 Develop extracurricular activities portfolio

No Change

6.4 Create a student 6.5 Create a student No Change

governing body governing body

6.5 Launch annual environment and infrastructure survey

6.6 Launch annual environment and infrastructure survey

No Change

Bottom-line: Changed terminology in 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 can change the original intention and context of recommendation. Basically only 1 new addition in 6.2, with no changes in 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6




Strategic objective #7: Sustainable future (Build KSU’s endowment and diversity sources of funding)

7.1 Diversify sources of

funding by cultivating

target donor

relationships

7.1 Strengthen the

capabilities of

fundraising activities

within KSU

New 7.1 and 7.2 can be combined together as they constitute all “fundraising” activities

New 7.1 and 7.2 is similar to original 7.1

Original 7.2 is removed

7.2 Create annual report

task force to

transparently publicize

endowment success and

usage

7.2 Strengthen the

capabilities of

Endowment Unit and its

strategy

7.3 Start donor

recognition program

7.3 Cultivate target

donor & Alumni

relationships

Changes made in terminology that can change original intention and context of recommendation

7.4 Build an organization to support all fundraising activities within KSU

7.4 Create annual report task force to transparently publicize endowment successes and usage

New 7.4 is same as original 7.2

Old 7.4 was removed

Bottom-line: Changes made in terminology in new 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 can change original intention and context of recommendation of 7.1, 7.3 and 7.4, but original 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 was removed with new 7.3




Strategic objective #8: Flexibility and Accountability (Create a performance contract between KSU and the government)

8.1 Develop a performance agreement with the Government

8.1 Develop partnership with Stakeholders in Government to increase autonomy

Changes made in terminology can change original intention and context of recommendation

8.2 Build KSU’s internal financial capabilities

8.2 Improve internal financial processes and efficiency in operations


8.3 Build internal HR processes capabilities approach

8.3 Build internal HR processes and facilitate performance management approach


8.4 Build procurement processes

8.4 Build efficient procurement processes

Change in terminology

Bottom-line: there are modifications in the new recommendation 8.1 to 8.4 and these Changes made in terminology can change the original intention and context of recommendation though they might seem similar. Other than that there appears to be no new additions





9.1 Consolidate complementary colleges into single faculties

9.1 Consolidate complementary colleges into single faculties

No change

9.2 Reduce number of Vice-rectors and Deans

9.2 Reduce number of Vice-rectors and Deans

No change

9.3 Introduce new governance model to solve male vs. female governance inefficiencies

9.3 Establish a Strategy for Female Section


9.4 Simplify KSU’s council structure, membership and governance

9.4 Simplify KSU’s council structure, membership and governance

No change

9.5 Raise the quality of administrative support staff

9.5 Raise the quality of administrative support staff

No change

Bottom-line: Basically, there are no changes in 9.1, 9.2, 9.4 and 9.5, and Changes made in terminology in 9.3 can change original intention and context of recommendation

Appendix 4: Comparative Analysis of Institutional KPIs

Table 4.1: Comparative Analysis of most frequently used Institutional KPIs

CUC (Committee of University Chairman) Report 2006

# of KPIs

Most common indicators used in Dashboard of US Universities

# of KPIs

Research (2014) of 11 randomly selected universities

# of KPIs

Institutional Sustainability

7 Institutional Sustainability

6

Academic Profile and Market Position

7 Admissions

Enrolment

Academic Information

External Rating

Education (Teaching and Learning)

87

Student Experience and Teaching and Learning

8 Student Outcomes

Student Engagement

Satisfaction

Student Focus 208

Research 8 Research Research 82

Knowledge Transfer and Relationships

7 Partnership / Collaborations

12

Financial Health 8 Financial Indicators

Financial 78

Estates and Infrastructure

6 Physical Plant Infrastructure

Technology

Resources

103 34 103

Staff and HRD 6 Faculty

Satisfaction

Faculty

Staff

20 25


48

Governance, Leadership & Management

5 Planning / Governance

7

Internationalization 34

Stakeholders Engagement

11

Social / Society 33

Environmental 15

Innovation 12

Access / Affordability 6

Diversity 18

TOTAL 61 TOTAL 927

Table 4.2: Key Categorical Areas of KPIs

Key Categorical Areas where KPIs are important # of KPIs (similar occurrence) in each category

Infrastructure / Technology / Resources 246

Student Focus (Student Experience) 216

Financial / Institutional Sustainability 99

Research 96

Education Offers (Teaching and Learning) 94

Faculty / Staff (Human Resource Management) 51

Community and University Environment 48

Internationalization 34


59


36

Partnerships / Collaborations / Knowledge Transfer 19

Governance, Leadership, Management, Planning 12

TOTAL 988

Table 4.3: Indicator Groups for each of the Key Categorical KPIs Area


Indicator Group Illustrative KPIs of Indicator Group


Physical Plant

Investment in infrastructure

Cost Efficiency / Productivity

Proportion of modernized teaching rooms

Cost of maintenance

Utilization per sq. meter

Customer impact tools are utilized to gauge effectiveness of service delivery

Review of monthly compliance reports

Annual spending on infrastructure to agreed annual requirement

Maintenance condition and functional sustainability of estate

Wastage

Cost efficiency / Productivity

Utilization – square meters per student

Return on assets : income per square meter

Proportion of modernized rooms Adequacy of library resources for research

needs

Average space (in sq. meter) per research FTE by type of research facility (laboratories, office space)

Inventory of research-related capital is developed

Review, improvement and enforcement of university-wide safety related policies and procedures

Positions for research are reviewed and established at the college level

Faculty and research support staff satisfaction with research activity support

(protected time, funding, facilities, staff, equipment, etc.)

% of administrative units that achieved their planned objectives


% of staff (by functional units) attending customer-oriented training programs annually

Number of complaints / service failure about service provisions relating to time, quality, attitude / mind sets / capabilities

Teaching and Research Space as a proportion of Total Space

Room Utilization

Deferred Maintenance Backlog

Library Resources: LibQUAL Survey Results

Information Technology Costs

Central Administrative Costs

Usage and growth of digital repositories Percentage of faculty reporting use of Open

Educational Resources (OER) materials

Cost for "commodity" information technology services

Percentage of faculty and staff computers with anti-virus software, spyware detection software, and adware detection software installed

Percentage of faculty and staff laptops with full disk-drive encryption

Percentage of University’s merchants who are Payment Card Industry (PCI) compliant

Percentage of University units meeting current security standards

Utilization rate of classroom space

Utilization rate of research space

Housing Occupancy – percentage of available beds rented.

Percentage of faculty compensated at or above the average salary by rank and discipline.

Percentage of staff compensated at the average market salary based on employment category.

Percentage of total classroom renovations completed.

Percentage of total residence hall rooms renovated.

User satisfaction with learning resources

Strategic development funds as percentage of turnover

100% of faculty and students will use campus LMS

All departments will establish and implement an appropriate assessment process that utilizes available technology to

allow for efficient aggregate data collection and analysis

Increase the proportion of technical helps calls assisted by computer driven remote support to 60 % by 2017

Increase the % of students who make use of mobile alerts

% academic space higher than 5-year average

% organized research space higher than 5-year average

% decrease in metered energy consumption trends (electricity,) compared to 5 years average

% decrease in per capita/per building space trends to total campus energy

Average total paper count over 5 years average

Evidence of implementation and successful administration of assessment and utilization of information for improvements

Response time

Average hours changed

Turnaround time % building maintenance hours proactive

% of PM work completed

Estimate Versus Actual Job Plan performance

Work order planned start date completed

Minor projects backlog

Major process backlog

Hours worked minor and major projects

Use of service (tracking) Satisfaction surveys

Turnaround time for requests

Lost time inquiries

Time lost sick

Budget Vs. Actual

% of preventative maintenance work orders for Fire, Life or Safety (FLS) equipment completed by scheduled date

% of preventative maintenance work orders for Non-Fire, Life or Safety (Non-FLS) equipment completed by scheduled date

% of customer work orders completed by original / communicated due date

Quantity of Customer Custodial Concerns (CCC) brought to management attention where published standards were not met

% of CCC work orders completed and communicated within one business day

% of custodial staff inspections completed Quantity of major electrical outages, IT

service failures

% of preventative maintenance work orders acted on during the scheduled month

Reduce monthly the number of work orders exceeding the A (30 days), B (60 Days) and C (120 days) limits for completion

Keep within the dollar budget

Keep the running 12 moth average at 5% for labor overtime hours

Attain Level 1 Custodial Care

Reduce energy density as compared to previous years

Keep energy density below System Median

Student Focus (Student Experience)

Student Satisfaction

Student Progression

Graduation Rates

Retention Rates

Measures of Success

Awards

Student employability

Student demand, achievement and satisfaction

Student recruitment against plans

Quality of student entry

Student progression

Student achievement

Student Satisfaction Student perception

Employability and student destination

Level of employers’ satisfaction regarding communication, teamwork, leadership and IT skills

Present attitude towards Institution

Present attitude towards degree program

Active and Collaborative Learning

Critical thinking ability

% increase for senior students on NSSE benchmarks (active and collaborative learning, student/faculty interaction, supportive campus environment)

% students who meet / exceed expectations on critical thinking, composition, math/reasoning rubric

% of students achieving 80% on assessment of SLO

% of activities organized by students / student clubs


Level of student involvement in campus governance

Level of enriching education experience reported by students

Level of employer satisfaction with post-graduate students

Undergraduate Student Awards

Scholarships from Federal Granting Councils

Retention and Graduation Time Series

Retention Compared to Selectivity Groupings

Graduation Compared to Selectivity Groupings

Foundational year programs

NSSE Benchmark-Level of Academic Challenge

NSSE Benchmark-Active and Collaborative Challenge

NSSE Benchmark-Student-Faculty Interaction

NSSE Benchmark-Enriching Educational Experiences

NSSE Benchmark-Supportive Campus Environment

Percentage of academic programs with specified learning objectives

Percentage of academic programs with a formal assessment plan

Percentage of undergraduates who have participated in academic research with faculty outside of class, written a thesis, or completed a capstone project

First-year and third-year undergraduate retention rates

Four-year and six-year undergraduate graduation rates

Graduate student completion rate

Average graduate student time-to-degree

Selected measures from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) such as "Level of Academic Challenge", "Active and Collaborative Learning", "Student-Faculty Interaction", "Enriching Educational Experiences", "Supportive Campus Environment" and "Percent of students reporting having completed a practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience, or clinical assignment"

Percentage of students reporting that university contributed to their "developing a personal code of values and ethics"

Number of graduate assistantships and fellowships

Total funds available for graduate assistantships and fellowships

First year to Second Year Retention Rate

First year to Third Year Retention Rate

Six Year Graduation Rate

New Freshmen Enrolment Undergraduates with declared majors

Average ACT score of incoming freshmen.

Percentage of FTFTFR fully college ready.

Amount of funding applied to institution Scholarships awarded to students to which academic criteria is attached.

Number of students who receive scholarship first year and return with scholarship second year

A comparison of the success rate of students who took a developmental course in English, Math and/or Reading in their next course in that discipline compared to students who did not take a developmental course, what percentage pass the following course taken for credit.

Percentage of students participating in the Celebration of Student Scholarship. (% change from previous year.)

# of graduate assistantships

# of internships completed for credit as part of a course

# of undergraduate research fellowships awarded

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal1/PerformanceMeasures/RetentionRates/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal1/PerformanceMeasures/RetentionRates/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal1/PerformanceMeasures/GraduationRates/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal1/PerformanceMeasures/GraduationRates/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal1/PerformanceMeasures/GradTimeToDegree/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal1/PerformanceMeasures/NSSEMeasures/










http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal1/PerformanceMeasures/PersonalValues/



Service learning (as measured by number of courses and sections offered annually)

# of students participating in athletics

# of students belonging to student organizations

# of FY Seminar sections offered each year

Avg. satisfaction rating of students enrolled in FYS courses during academic year

# of students receiving Honors Scholarship

# of students returning and retaining Honors Scholarship from first to second year

Undergraduate enrollment headcount

Graduate enrollment headcount

Total Transfers

Retention rate of FTPT Students cohort group

Retention rate of FTPT Students admitted with developmental needs

Retention Rate of FTPT students in low income group

Sophomore to junior retention rate

Junior to senior retention rate

Retention of veteran students Retention of underrepresented minority

students Average student debt incurred

Student average tariff entry score

% change in Student retention

% change in Student graduating with a good honors degree

Increase the 4 – year graduation rate to 50% by 2017

Achieve and maintain a 1st year retention rate of 80%

Redesign course with high drop/fail/withdraw rates to promote student achievement

% Increase of students per year winning national scholarships / awards

Student will have a 4 year curricular map supported by technology alerts available by 2015

Administer annual survey on graduates’ readiness to employers recruiting on campus

% increase of students’ participation in research, internships, student teaching or related professional experiential learning experiences (excluding immersive learning)

Total # of students clients served through one-on-one, walk-ins, groups, e-mail, and phone consultations

Total # of academic / career / personal consultations sessions offered to student clients

Level of confidence on pre and post sessions)

Total # of guest lectures, workshops, outreaches and job fairs offered

Cost per participant of workshops

Student employee opinion

# of program participants (new vs. return participants)

# of students with disabilities registered

# of students trained in assistive technology training center

# of medical cases

# of housing issues not addressed

Psychological Counseling Services (PCS) Outcome and satisfaction Survey

Financial / Institutional Sustainability

Endowment & Expenses Data

Advancement

Financial Aid Figures

Fee Tuition Data & Income Sources

Opportunities & Risk

Cost Efficiency / Productivity

Return on Assets – (CE / CP Ratio) Income growth, diversity and security

Balance of development opportunities and strategic risks

Aggregate surplus / deficit for past 3 years as % of income

Cash generated – last financial year

Forecast surplus for next / current FY

Liquidity (days expenditure available as cash)

Borrowing as % of income

Unfinanced capital investment requirement

Credit rating, quality of relationships with bankers and auditors

Annual Fundraising Achievement and Alumni Donors: Annual Fundraising Achievement by Sector


Value of endowment will have increased over 5-year average by 2017

Total Resources to Long-term Debt

Total Revenue per student

Revenue generated from "angel investor" initiatives

Percentage of recycled funds from vertical cuts

Number of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) teams

Surplus as a percentage of Income

Comparative Instructional Cost

Energy Usage

Institutional Support as % of Total Operating expenses

Endowment contributions Overall contributions to institution

Total endowment amount.

Private support from the MSU Foundation, Inc. transferred to support MSU operating needs.


Reach an undergraduate alumni giving rate of at least 15% by 2017

Implement all-funds strategic budgeting practice by 2017

Audit results

Review of Internal / External / Ad Hoc audits by granting agencies

Customer satisfaction surveys

% of work completed accurately and on time

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal7/PerformanceMeasures/CQITeams/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal7/PerformanceMeasures/CQITeams/

Research Research outputs

Research funding

Research Awards / Grants

Research outputs by appropriate measure (publications in indexed journals, research impact factors)

Research income, total, % and by types of sponsors

Research income per academic, trends and by academic area

Research active staff

Cost recovery on research, by sponsor type Success rates on research grants

applications # of PGR students

PGR Awards


# of departments that contributes to PGR programs

PGR level of satisfaction with research experience, services and facilities provided in program

Doctoral stipend levels comparable to average of competing universities by 2017

# of undergraduate students who get research grants or support or joint research with faculty

Research priority plan is developed, accomplished and achieved

% of faculty who apply for internal / external research funding


Quality of support and assistance provided to help faculty with grant writing and budget preparation

# of new research centers / units / chairs established each year

% of center costs covered by external sources (research / non-research activities)

# of institutional research Degree of primary stakeholders satisfaction

with research outcomes Research grants for researchers and

programs from key stakeholders group

Research Rankings Comparison of International Rankings,

University and Peer Institutions Comparison of International Rankings, Top

25 International Institutions Times Higher Education (THE) World

University Rankings by Discipline

Number of Research Chairs Summary of Publication and Citation

Rankings, Selected Disciplines and Sub-fields

Number of Citations: Science Fields - Top 40 and Peer Institutions

Number of Citations: All Science Fields, University compared to Peer Institutions

Number of Publications: All Science Fields - Top 40 and Peer Institutions

Number of Publications: Science Fields, University compared to Peer Institutions

Research Funding from Industrial Sources

total Research funding awarded by sector

Graduate Publications and Presentations

Total research expenditures

Number of extramural research awards

Average amount of research awards Number of endowed chairs, professorships,

and faculty fellowships

Percentage of tenured faculty holding endowed chairs, professorships, and faculty fellowships

Total funds available for endowed chairs, professorships, and faculty fellowships

Total external research and development funding.

Percentage of external research and grant proposals funded.

Total F & A funds earned from external research and development awards.

% academic staff who are research active

% academic staff with internationally excellent research

By 2017, 10 articles will be published or papers presented at professional conferences reporting on immersive learning projects

Recognize immersive learning in promotion and tenure and salary documents at the department and college levels by 2017

Provide every undergraduate students with an immersive learning opportunity by maintaining a minimum of 4,200 students annually in immersive learning projects

All undergraduate programs will offer at least one immersive learning opportunity each year

Establish four annual university wide immersive learning awards

Appoint eight college-based immersive learning Presidential Fellows to support faculty by 2017

% increase of students’ presentation at national / regional disciplinary conferences

% increase in research expenditures


Peer Assessment Data

Admission Scores

Quality of Student entry

General Admission Tests

Graduate Admissions

Enrolment Figures

Academic

Teaching / Research Balance

Learning and Teaching performance

Evidence of academic distinctiveness

Position in peer group and league tables

Contribution of strategic academic relationships

Medium term academic ambitions

Results of external assessment % of academic programs accredited by

accreditation agencies

% of academic degree programs and core curriculum completing peer reviews according to university academic review

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal2/PerformanceMeasures/ResearchExpenditures/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal2/PerformanceMeasures/ResearchAwards/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal2/PerformanceMeasures/AverageAward/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal2/PerformanceMeasures/EndowedChairs/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal2/PerformanceMeasures/EndowedChairs/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal2/PerformanceMeasures/EndowedChairsFaculty/



http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal2/PerformanceMeasures/EndowedChairsFunds/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal2/PerformanceMeasures/EndowedChairsFunds/

Information

Student Faculty Contact

Ranking

Academic Effectiveness process

policies

% of employers perceiving academic programs as “high quality” programs

University wide “Honors” program is established

% of graduate programs affiliated with internationally recognized universities


% of programs linking SLO with market needs

University academic programs are aligned to meet educational and market needs (reviewed every 5 years)

Level of active and collaborative learning reported by students (average of freshman and seniors)

% of program that contain “capstone experience”, “industry internships” in support of SLOs

Faculty Student Ratio (Comparisons with Peers / with mean of Peers / Ratios Using Different Faculty Inclusions –based on Faculty FTE)

Results of Service-Learning Assessment Survey

Interdisciplinary Opportunities

Graduate Enrolment as a Percentage of Total Enrolment

Number of targeted reviews of academic programs

Number of targeted reviews of administrative programs

Number of baccalaureate degree programs that have been eliminated or consolidated

Number of graduate degree programs that have been eliminated or consolidated

Number of associate degree programs that have been eliminated or consolidated

Number of administrative programs that have been eliminated or consolidated

Percentage of academic units with transparent workload policies

Student credit hours per instructional faculty full-time equivalent

Cost/student credit hour

Percentage of sections that are under-enrolled

Percentage of sections taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty

Increase in % of entering freshmen who pursued Academic Honors or its equivalent to 80%

Increase in % of entering transfer students with GPAs of 3.0 or better

Increase in % of # of master’s program enrolled students who have GPAs of 3.5 or better

% increase in experiential and service learning participants by 10%

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal7/PerformanceMeasures/WorkloadPolicies/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal7/PerformanceMeasures/WorkloadPolicies/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal7/PerformanceMeasures/SCHPerFTE/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal7/PerformanceMeasures/SCHPerFTE/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal7/PerformanceMeasures/CostPerSCH/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal7/PerformanceMeasures/UnderenrolledSections/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal7/PerformanceMeasures/UnderenrolledSections/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal7/PerformanceMeasures/TenuredTaughtSections/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal7/PerformanceMeasures/TenuredTaughtSections/

Increase science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and other high impact degree offerings

Increase graduate FTEs by 20% by 2017 % increase of employers engaged in on-

campus recruiting activities

Develop and implement an overall assessment of the core curriculum beyond the current course assessments

% of program that are ranked or recognized

% in number of publications and peer reviewed presentations in scholarship of teaching and learning

% increase in external funding of scholarship of teaching and learning

% increase of fully online FTE

Achieve national ranking and recognition of online efforts

% increase in-campus student enrolment in blinded courses

% increase in graduate enrolment

Average time completion to doctoral degree compared to national average by each discipline

% of number of students enrolled in interdisciplinary programs over the 5-year average

Faculty / Staff (Human Resource Management)

Faculty – General

Faculty Satisfaction

Staff Satisfaction

Cost of Staff as %

Staff / Faculty Turnover

Staff / Faculty Profile

Staff / Faculty Development expenditure

Staff scholarly activity

Cost of staffs as % of total cost

Staff turnover, absence, vacancies against plans

Staff age, skills and diversity profile

Expenditure on staff / faculty development and training

Pensions liability – funding coverage Staff satisfaction (surveys, complaints and

appeals, institutional experience) Staff engagement surveys

% of faculty promoted to higher ranks out of those who applied

Compensation package are at a level comparable to benchmarked institutions

% of students surveyed who report “excellent” or “very good” levels in teaching performance of faculty

% of faculty agreeing that institution image is better than other universities in the region

% of those candidates who were offered a contract have accepted it

% of new hires indicating that they are “satisfied” or “strongly satisfied” with recruitment process

Training needs assessment program aligned with training provision is developed and implemented


# of staff who hold affiliations with

professional associations

Faculty Honors by Award Teaching Fellowship Awards

Faculty & Staff Work/Life Balance

Percentage of full-time faculty with tenure or on the tenure-track

Percentage of full-time faculty on fixed-term, multi-year appointments

Tenure success rate

Percentage of staff on full-time, year-around appointments

New Teacher Excellence

Academic staff with and accredited teaching qualification

Academic staff with a doctorate

% increase of faculty or professional staff with national / international recognition (awards, leadership positions, and editorial board memberships)

% increase external funding for scholarly work

% increase of number of contract and grant proposal submission

Develop and implement tools (e.g. surveys, focus groups, forums, etc.) for measuring job satisfaction considering elements like workplace environment, salary and benefits, communications; establish a baseline and track improvements

Conduct a diversity climate survey; establish a baseline and track improvements

Achieve a 24:1 student to tenure/tenure-track faculty student ration or lower by 2017

Staff capability Staff perception

Number of policies reviewed and/or revised

Number of programs / requests

Number of program participants

Program evaluations

Focus groups Participation on relevant university

committees

Number of trained leaders Evaluation comments

Number of staff position classifications requests

Periodic review of processing issues

Monthly and quarterly reports of % delinquent staff development evaluations

Payroll authorizations processed by established payroll deadlines

Information on HR web-pages is accurate, up-to-date, and easily accessible

Improved and more efficient HR document processing via the web

HR network available to HR users

Adequate number of well-trained neutrals to serve as mediators

Training programs will be utilized and with satisfactory results.

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal2/PerformanceMeasures/FacultyTenure/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal2/PerformanceMeasures/FacultyTenure/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal2/PerformanceMeasures/FacultyFixedTerm/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal2/PerformanceMeasures/FacultyFixedTerm/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal2/PerformanceMeasures/TenureSuccessRate/

Number of mediations conducted

Survey of employees

Survey of users of program and their supervisors

99% of annual legislative salary adjustments are applied accurately by HRM by published date

95% of payments are applied correctly and in the month earned

95% of probationary-to-permanent status conversions are initiated within the correct month

99% of university of payrolls will be paid on the scheduled pay date

<10% of all manual checks issued will be due to payroll office error

99% of new employee orientation (NEO) sessions are conducted as scheduled

% of NEO attendees requiring one-on-one sessions

90 % of vacancies with at least two well qualified candidates referral within reasonable time frame

% of requests for temporary employees to placements

90% of new positions actions will be classified and established within the turnaround time of 10 days

95% of employee reported complaints will be resolved avoiding the use of a formal grievance procedure




Supportive Campus Environment Student participating in institution and

other social, sporting and support programs % of students on campus participation in co-

curricular programs

% increase of employee average participation in substantive wellness initiatives

% increase in participation in diversity programs

% increase in participation in cultural programs

% increase in participation in athletics programs

% increase in artistic and cultural events publicized in a wider community programs

Internationalization

International Student Enrolment International Students: Map

International Student Satisfaction with 4 areas of student experience

International Student Satisfaction - overall satisfaction and recommendation

Number of Participants in Study Abroad &

Exchange Programs

Global Engagement Network institutions with whom Penn State has a defined partnership

Number of students participating in Education Abroad


Number of international visiting faculty scholars

Percentage of Education Abroad participants by region of study

Percentage of undergraduate international students by region of home country

Percentage of graduate international students by region of home country

Number of courses identified with "International Cultures" designation

Number of courses with embedded international experiences

Number of students who pursue advanced foreign language


Percentage of Total Graduate Enrollment by International Status

Double the number of International students

4 new partnerships per year Triple the number of study abroad students

% increase enrolment of international students

International recognition

% increase of exchange faculty / students / staff with strategic partners

% increase in # of student enrolled in study abroad programs

% increase in # of student enrolled in dual degrees programs

% increase in international students who engage in intercultural learning


Proportion of Academic / Staff time on Social Responsibilities / Social Engagement activity

Stakeholder (alumni, parents, employment market) surveys

Community perception

Employer perception

Alumni preparation for present job

Alumni preparation for additional degree % increase in alumni participation in

universities activities

Quality of life beyond financial benefits

# of sponsorships and scholarships given to institution students

# of meetings with external constituents to gather information on societal needs and aspirations

Achieve Carnegie Community Engagement classifications

Establish a stakeholder engagement plan

Every college and professional program will

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal3/PerformanceMeasures/GlobalEngagementNetwork/







http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal3/PerformanceMeasures/PercentEARegion/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal3/PerformanceMeasures/PercentEARegion/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal3/PerformanceMeasures/PercentINTRegion/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal3/PerformanceMeasures/PercentINTRegion/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal3/PerformanceMeasures/PercentGradINTRegion/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal3/PerformanceMeasures/PercentGradINTRegion/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal3/PerformanceMeasures/InternationalCultures/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal3/PerformanceMeasures/InternationalCultures/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal3/PerformanceMeasures/EmbeddedExp/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal3/PerformanceMeasures/EmbeddedExp/





have an external advisory council

Every department will conduct alumni surveys every five years and solicit employer input where appropriate to aid in curriculum development

% increase of # of companies impacted by university

% increase of # of communities actively engaged with university

Survey to gather key stakeholders on societal and labor market needs, societal aspirations to which institution can contribute is developed, implemented and results analyzed

Series of focus group sessions with key stakeholders to better understand societal and labor market needs and aspirations to which institution can contribute is developed and implemented

% of faculty / staff / students involved with community service

Institution’s interactions with stakeholders to identify needs of non-degree course / programs

Satisfaction level with continuing education courses of institution

% increase in headcounts of students enrolled / completing continuing education courses

Outreach programs / services provided to stakeholders (library service, camps / open days, career day)

Academic seminars for public # of positive media mentions

Ratio of positive / negative media mentions

Image of institution survey

Alumni outreach programs (# of activities, # of alumni club members)

Policies / procedures to allow for leave of faculty and staff for community service

Number of online/blended learning courses

Headcount enrollment in online/blended learning courses with breakout for resident instruction

Percentage of resident instruction students taking World Campus courses

Number of community outreach functions co-located at a Penn State campus

Enrollment in academic programs shared within regions

Number of faculty and staff shared across campuses

Non-traditional student enrollments

"Return on Investment" for Outreach programs

Research focused on sustainability o Number of projects or grants o Dollar value of project or grants

Number of Academic Offerings focused on sustainability education

Number of Academic Offerings that

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal5/PerformanceMeasures/OnlineCourses/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal5/PerformanceMeasures/OnlineCoursesEnrollment/



http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal5/PerformanceMeasures/WorldCampusResidentInstruction/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal5/PerformanceMeasures/WorldCampusResidentInstruction/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal5/PerformanceMeasures/NonTraditionalStudents/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal5/PerformanceMeasures/OutreachROI/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal5/PerformanceMeasures/OutreachROI/

incorporate sustainability into the curriculum

Greenhouse gas emissions

Greenhouse gas reductions Quantity of environmentally-responsible

purchases versus standard purchases

Carbon emissions reduction Attendees at external events

Engagement of staff and students with external community activities

Contribute eight hours of community service per athlete per year with student athletes and coaches

Track and communicate annually the financial and service impact of student volunteer programs

Offer specific curricula in sustainability

Secure funding and complete environmental sustainability project

Monitor and benchmark energy efficiency and implement initiatives to continue energy-efficient improvements and sustainability efforts

% increase in students / faculty / staff in green projects

% increase in number of core instructional elements in environmental sustainability in university’s degree programs or

% increase of new programs in environmental sustainability


New Invention Disclosures


Amount of flexible money available for innovation and experimentation above 5-years average

New Licenses

New Spin-off Companies

10 start-up companies will be created by 2017

Growth in patents filed and disclosures

% increase in number of Intellectual Property

% increase of licensable technologies

Student reported responses to visible minority/ethno cultural info questions

Estimated number of Visible Minority Students

Number of Students Registered

Student population – character and diversity

Academic Bridging Program: Academic Bridging Program Enrolment

Online course survey

Parental Income of First Year Students Scholarships and Bursaries as a Percentage

of Operating Expenses: Scholarships and Bursaries as a Percentage of Operating Expenses

Graduate Financial Support: Doctoral

Student Support: Average Financial Support

Percentage of students receiving need-based institutional scholarships

General Funds available for need-based aid Total funds available for need-based aid

Total unmet need

Progress in meeting the "Ensuring Student Opportunity" goal of the "For the Future" capital campaign

Percentage of full-time faculty by demographic group

Percentage of full-time staff by demographic group

Percentage of undergraduate enrollment by demographic group

Six-year baccalaureate degree graduation rates by demographic group

First-year and third-year retention rates by demographic group

Percentage of graduate enrollment by demographic group

Completion rates for graduate students by demographic group

Average time-to-degree for graduate students by demographic group

Tenure success rate of faculty by demographic group

Undergraduate enrollment of underrepresented minority students headcount

Graduate enrollment of underrepresented minority students headcount

Bachelor’s degrees awarded to underrepresented minorities

Bachelor's degrees awarded to low income students

Master’s degrees awarded to underrepresented minorities

Doctoral degrees awarded to underrepresented minorities

Bachelor’s graduation rate gap- Low income Bachelor’s graduation rate gap-

Underprepared

Bachelor’s graduation rate gap- Underrepresented Minority

Bachelor’s graduation rate gap- veterans/dependents

Every five years, complete an audit of campus services aimed at welcoming a diverse student body, faculty and staff and adjust as necessary

% increase enrolment of at-risk students

% increase graduation of at-risk students

Create / revise unit level diversity plans with faculty, professional personnel, classified staff, and service personnel recruitment targets

% increase enrolment of underrepresented students

% increase of entering students comes from

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal4/PerformanceMeasures/EnsuringStudentOpportunity/



http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal4/PerformanceMeasures/FacultyDemo/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal4/PerformanceMeasures/FacultyDemo/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal4/PerformanceMeasures/StaffDemo/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal4/PerformanceMeasures/StaffDemo/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal4/PerformanceMeasures/UndergradDemo/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal4/PerformanceMeasures/UndergradDemo/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal4/PerformanceMeasures/UndergradDemoGraduation/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal4/PerformanceMeasures/UndergradDemoGraduation/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal4/PerformanceMeasures/UndergradDemoRetention/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal4/PerformanceMeasures/UndergradDemoRetention/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal4/PerformanceMeasures/GradDemo/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal4/PerformanceMeasures/GradDemo/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal4/PerformanceMeasures/TenureSuccessRateDemo/

http://www.psu.edu/president/pia/progress/goal4/PerformanceMeasures/TenureSuccessRateDemo/

out of state

% increase enrolment of transfer students UG headcount by gender and ethnicity

Grad headcount by gender and ethnicity


Proportion of Academic time on “Opportunities” activity

Income from commercial sponsors

# and quality of partnerships

Strategic relationships and reputation,

Potential partners’ image of research capabilities of institution

Proportion of academic time on “O” Activity

% of Research Income from commercial sponsors

Measures of exploitation of IP – Intellectual Property (spin-outs, license agreements, patents)

# and quality of Strategic partnerships

Engagement with local, regional and professional communities

Success of Alumni, fund raising and sponsorship activity


Growth in knowledge transfer partnerships

Growth in patents filed and disclosures

Increase enterprise income

# of units participating in Productive Partnerships

# of goals and objectives in Productive Partnerships

Enterprise partnerships per year

External research and enterprise income growth

% student undertaking work placement each year

% increase in funding from sponsoring agencies

Overall increase in sponsored funds granted to university above 5-year average


Leadership Assessment

External Audit of Management

Successful delivery of projects

Leadership and adaptive capacity

Integration of academic and strategic planning

Results of external audits of management

Extent of leadership skills and training in senior management

Successful deliveries of strategies, projects and plans

Remuneration committee reports

Performance is monitored and assessed according to approved targets in strategic plan

% of colleges and department strategic plans developed in alignment with institution strategic plan

Levels of awareness of strategic plan, mission and visions and goals

Create a well-researched academic master plan by 2017 and invest in strategic academic offerings

Faculty and Units Plan

Adopt 3 identified best practices every year

% increase of manager who have undergone collaborative management principles and training

Evidence of data-driven decision making by all units by 2017

Evidence of informed decision making by all management by 2017

Evidence of increased collaborations across units

Appendix 5: Comparative Analysis of Key Performance Dimensions of Institutions KPIs

Key Performance Dimensions

Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# KPIs # KPIs # KPIs # KPIs # KPIs # KPIs # KPIs # KPIs # KPIs # KPIs # KPIs # KPIs # KPIs

Research 8 8 4 6 21 6 3 6 5 31 90 Education (teaching and learning)

7 8 12 22 6 7 6 3 5 18 87

Student Focus 64 8 10 31 42 3 43 8 3 12 216 Faculty 3 4 2 2 1 9 20 Staff 6 2 2 6 2 12 31 Community and Univ. Environment

22 14 6 6 48

Infrastructure 57 6 13 6 5 22 103 Technology 13 10 9 2 34 Resources 95 1 6 1 103 Financial / Institutional Sustainability

30 15 15 4 13 5 8 2 6 1 84

Planning 5 4 3 12 Internationalization 10 10 6 4 4 34 Partnerships / Collaborations

7 3 2 7 19

Stakeholders Engagement 9 2 11 Social / Society 8 1 24 33 Environmental 3 4 7 1 15 Innovation 5 3 4 12 Access / Affordability 6 6 Diversity 9 9 18 TOTAL 246 94 113 92 99 32 16 63 30 12 23 138 988

Comparative Analysis of Components of RESEARCH Key Performance Dimension of Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

RESEARCH 8 √ 5 √ 6 √ 3 √ 6 5 5 33 Interdisciplinary √ Research opportunities for students

√ √ √ 8 8

Quality research / performance

√ 1 √ 1 √ 10 √ √ √ 5 17

Infrastructure and financial support for research (Internal)

√ 4 √ 4 √ 4 12

Research focused faculty capacity

√ 3 √ 5 8

Competitive doctoral stipend

√ 1 1

Centers of Excellence √ 5 5 Post graduate Research programs on national issues

4 4

Funding Capacity √ 2 √ 1 √ 4 √ √ 7 Commercialization √ 3 √ 3 Knowledge Transfer / Exchange

Research Environment √ TOTAL 8 4 6 21 6 3 6 5 31 98

Comparative Analysis of Components of EDUCATION (TEACHING AND LEARNING) Key Performance Dimension of

Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

EDUCATION (TEACHING AND LEARNING)

7 7 11 6 12 √ 6 √ 7 √ 6 1 3 5 5 53

Active & Collaborative Learning

√ 1 √ 4 5

Diversify educational opportunities

1 √ 6 7

Instructional methodologies

Benchmark academic programs

√ 5 √ 3 √ 5 13

Programs meets market and international needs

√ √ √ 6 6

Learning Experience Meet Students’ needs √ 2 √ 1 3 Quality of T & L √ 4 √ √ 3 7 Innovative Program √ TOTAL 7 8 12 22 6 7 6 3 5 18 94

Comparative Analysis of Components of STUDENT FOCUS Key Performance Dimension of Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

STUDENT FOCUS 8 6 10 √ 8 1 8 3 37 Student Outcomes √ 2 19 √ 2 √ 21 Engagement in research √ √ 1 1 Student experience √ 1 7 √ 40 √ 3 √ √ 7 57 Advising √ Graduate education Ethics √ √ Progression / Retention /Graduation

√ √ 28 28

Enrolment growth √ 7 7 Student engagement √ Student exposure to global research & scholarship

√ 2 √ 2

Student administration / management

√ √

Student Services 15 56 56 Participation in University Life

√

Effective Student / University Communication

√ √ 4 4

Entrepreneurship / Employability

√

Student Affairs 8 8 √ 3 11 TOTAL 64 8 10 31 42 3 43 8 3 12 224

Comparative Analysis of Components of FACULTY Key Performance Dimension of Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

FACULTY Recruitment / Retention

√ 3 √ 9 12

Expertize 1 4 √ 4 Faculty Engagement √ 2 2 Development √ 2 √ 2 Performance Based Culture

√

TOTAL 3 4 2 2 9 20

Comparative Analysis of Components of STAFF Key Performance Dimension of Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

STAFF 6 √ 6 1 1 2 √ 12 27 Professional development

√ 2 √ 2

Staff Engagement √ 2 2 Adaptable workforce with skills aligned to strategic directions

√

Supportive, rewarding and equitable work environment

√

Performance Based Culture

√

TOTAL 6 2 2 6 1 2 12 31

Comparative Analysis of Components of COMMUNITY AND UNIV. ENVIRONMENT Key Performance Dimension of

Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

COMMUNITY AND UNIV. ENVIRONMENT

4 √ 6 √ 6 12

Supportive Campus Environment

√ 7 √ 3 √ 10

Vibrant and integrated University community

√ 12 √ 9 21

“State of Art” environment for research & education

√ 1 √ 1

Campus Culture √ 1 √ 1 Community engagement

√ 3 √ 3

TOTAL 22 14 6 6 48

Comparative Analysis of Components of INFRASTRUCTURE and FACILITIES Key Performance Dimension of

Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

INFRASTRUCTURE and FACILITIES

6 √ 6 √ 10 22

Improved infrastructure

√ 5 √ 5

Physical Plant 6 18 18 Administrative Outcomes

√ √ 2 2

Facilities Management

29 29

Service oriented culture

10 √ √ 7 17

Planned and development

√ √ 3 3

Registration / Admission

√ 13 √ 13

TOTAL 57 6 13 6 5 22 109

Comparative Analysis of Components of TECHNOLOGY Key Performance Dimension of Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

TECHNOLOGY √ √ 4 √ 2 6 IT infrastructure support T & L & R

√ 4 √ 1 5

IT Efficiency & Effectiveness

√

Security and Integrity

√ 4 4

Instructional Technology

√ 2 √ 10 12

Digitization of Information

√ 1 1

Leveraging IT for excellent services

√ 3 √ 3 6

TOTAL 13 10 9 2 34

Comparative Analysis of Components of RESOURCES Key Performance Dimension of Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

RESOURCES √ 1 1 Resource enhancement

√ 6 6

Human Resources 21 95 95 Library √ 1 1 TOTAL 95 1 6 1 103

Comparative Analysis of Components of FINANCIAL / INSTITUIONAL SUSTAINABILITY Key Performance Dimension of

Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

FINANCIAL 15 30 8 √ √ 2 √ 6 √ 1 47 Endowments √ 1 √ 4 √ 1 √ √ 1 7 Productivity √ 2 √ 2 Efficient Utilization √ 3 √ 1 4 Budgeting √ 4 4 Recycling √ 1 1 Resource Utilization √ 2 2 Quality improvements support

√ 1 1

Comparative Instructional Costs

√ 8 √ 1 √ 9

Energy Usage √ 1 1 Institutional sustainability

7 √ 2 √ 1 √ 1 √ 2 √ 13

Revenue flexibility √ 1 √ 1 Sponsored programs fund

√ 7 7

Risk Management TOTAL 30 15 15 4 13 5 8 2 6 1 99

Comparative Analysis of Components of PLANNING Performance Dimension of Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

Advancing and achieving Vision

5 1 3 √ √ 3 11

Decision making based on sound planning, governance and quality processes

√ 1 √ 1

Strategic Deployment of resources and information

√

TOTAL 5 4 3 12

Comparative Analysis of Components of INTERNATIONALIZATION Key Performance Dimension of Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

INTERNATIONALIZATION

√ 4 √ 4 8

Office responsible √ Partnerships √ 1 √ 3 √ 4 Visiting scholars International experience

√ 2 √ 2 √ 2 √ 6

International students

√ 5 √ 3 √ 2 10

University of Choice

√ √

International Recognition for quality, standards and outcomes

√

Internationalized Contents

√ 2 √ 2 √ 2 6

TOTAL 10 10 6 4 4 34

Comparative Analysis of Components of PARTNERSHIPS / COLLABORATIONS Key Performance Dimension of

Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

PARTNERSHIPS / COLLABORATIONS

7 7

Productive partnerships

√ 2 √ 2 √ 4

Research collaborations / partnerships

√ 1 √ √ √ 7 8

Government / Business

√

TOTAL 7 3 2 7 19

Comparative Analysis of Components of STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGEMENT Key Performance Dimension of Institutions

KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGEMENT

√ 9 9

Promote use of research and scholarship by external community

International students & alumni network

Employers Perception

Professional development training for business

Alumni √ 2 2 TOTAL 9 2 11

Comparative Analysis of Components of SOCIAL / SOCIETY Key Performance Dimension of Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

SOCIAL / SOCIETY

4 1 1

Societal needs √ 2 √ √ 6 8 Community needs √ 2 √ √ 6 8 Non degree courses and programs for society

√ √ 5 5

University image √ 2 √ 7 9 Graduates equipped to contribute

√ 2 2

TOTAL 8 1 24 33

Comparative Analysis of Components of ENVIRONMENTAL KEY Performance Dimension of Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

ENVIRONMENTAL Sustainability √ 2 √ 4 √ 1 7 “Green” campus √ 1 √ 7 √ 8 TOTAL 3 4 7 1 15

Comparative Analysis of Components of INNOVATION Key Performance Dimension of Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

INNOVATION 1 3 √ 4 7 Innovations 1 5 5 Recognized leader Innovation Culture √ TOTAL 5 3 4 12

Comparative Analysis of Components of ACCESS / AFFORDABILITY Key Performance Dimension of Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

ACCESS / AFFORDABILITY

4

Access √ 1 1 Affordability √ 5 5 Selective investment in campus

√

TOTAL 6 6

Comparative Analysis of Components of DIVERSITY Key Performance Dimension of Institutions KPIs


Han

ov

er

Res

earc

h

CU

C

Rep

ort

Pen

n S

tate

Bal

l S

tate

Bin

gh

amto

n

U.

U o

f

To

ron

to.

Un

iv. o

f

Gre

enw

ich

Man

ches

ter

Met

rop

oli

tan

U.

Man

ches

ter

Sta

te U

niv

.

Lan

cast

er U

.

No

rth

ern

Illi

nois

Un

iv.

U o

f

Wo

llong

ong

Qat

ar U

.

TO

TA

L

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

# O

bjs

.

# K

PIs

DIVERSITY √ 9 1 9 18 TOTAL 9 9 18

Appendix 6 Comparative Analysis of KSU’s Benchmarked Universities

In the KSU 2030 “Towards Excellence” Strategic Plan, 10 universities were selected as

benchmarks for the development of the KSU 2030. This part of the qualitative research

will try to identify the “Strategic Plan and strategic KPIs” of these benchmarked

universities.

Research aim: Identify the strategic KPIs of these 10 benchmarked universities

Research Methodology: The main page website of the universities was accessed to

determine the existence of any “strategic plan” or “strategic KPIs” of the institution.

Research Findings: (Tables 6.1 and 6.2)

1. Of the benchmarked universities, only University of California has a longer term strategic plan in 3 focused areas of Responsive Research, Teaching and Public Services, Expanded Pathways for Access and Success and Engaging and Healthy Campus Climate with (10 Strategic KPIs and 60 Specific KPIs)

2. 4 universities namely Oxford, Tokyo and University of Southern California has Strategic Plan but with no KPIs

3. The 5 remaining universities of Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Cambridge and NUS has no evidence of an institutional strategic plan, but do have strategic plans for by schools or administrative units. Only Tsinghua has no evidence of any type of strategic plan at all.

4. For the universities that have strategic plans, their focus areas are typical of those as shown in Appendix 4 Table 4.2 in the 12 key categorical areas.

5. Most of them do have facts sheets or statistical data to provide an overall view of the institution profile of its key statistics like those shown in Table 6.2 for Stanford, Oxford, UC Berkeley and U of Southern California.

Due to the limitations of the availability of the strategic plans and strategic KPIs of these

benchmarked universities, the basis of the determination of the strategic KPIs would be

based on the 2 major research reports and 11 selected universities for further study

(Appendix 4)

Table 6.1 Overall findings of benchmarked universities’ strategic plan and KPIs

Universities with no Institutional Strategic Plan or KPI but has some schools / administrative units plans

Universities with Strategic Plan only with NO KPIs

Universities with Strategic Plan and KPIs

Stanford University but has strategic plan by some schools

Oxford University University of California Berkeley

Massachusetts Institute of Technology but has strategic plan by some schools

University of Tokyo

Harvard University but has strategic plan by some schools

University of Southern California (old 2004 strategic plan)

Cambridge University but has strategic plan by some schools

Tsinghua University National University of Singapore but has strategic plan for administrative units

Table 6.2 Detailed findings of benchmarked universities’ strategic plan and KPIs

Benchmarked Universities

Strategic Plan Strategic KPIs

Stanford University No result on Strategic Plan but has one on Stanford University School of Medicine (2002 – 2004)

Stanford University School of Medicine has on Prioritized initiatives (with no specifications of KPIs but scheduled projects / programs in:

Medical Education with 5 sub-priorities

Graduate Education with 7 sub-priorities

Postdoctoral Training with 7 sub-priorities

Research with 8 sub-priorities

Clinical Care with 3 sub-priorities

Professoriate with 3 sub-priorities

Finance and Administration with 2 sub-priorities

Information Resources and Technology with 3 sub-priorities

Advocacy, Public Policy and Philanthropy with 8 sub-priorities

Stanford University at a glance

Student enrollment – undergraduate and graduate

Campus

Endowment

Research – external and total

leadership

Established 1885; opened 1891

Faculty: faculty student ratio Seven schools

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

No result on MIT Strategic Plan shows but show Results of MIT DUE (Undergraduate Program) and others mainly administrative units

MIT DUE Catalyze the Undergraduate Commons to define the

next generation of MIT student – 6 Objectives and 18 KPIs

Champion Information Technology (IT) for the provision of information to the students and faculty – 2 (+ 5 in Phase 2) Objectives and 3 (8 in Phase 2) KPIs

Develop a holistic student experience to produce leaders for the future – 4 Objectives and 6 KPIs

Transforming Learning through Research, Best Practices and Innovations in Pedagogy, Curricular Materials and Assessment – 3 Objectives and 6 KPIs

Harvard University No result on Strategic Plan shows but show Results of Strategic Plan by schools and admin units e.g. Harvard Medical School, Harvard Library and Harvard IT

HMS and HMDS Strategic Plan (Joint Committee on Status of Women) 2012 – 2016

Organizational Efficiency and Institutional Memory – 8 Objectives and 13 KPIs including 5 on Partnerships / Outreach / Collaborations

Career Satisfaction and Advocacy – 4 Objectives and 4 KPIs

Oxford University Result on Strategic Plan shows “Strategic Plan 2013 – 2018”

University of Oxford (2013 – 2018) has 2 overarching priorities 4 core strategies and 12 commitments and 5 enabling strategies and no specified KPIs but with 78 actions Overarching Priorities

Priority 1 – Global reach

Priority 2 – Networking, communications and interdisciplinary

Core Strategies

Research (3 commitments) Education (3 commitments)

Widening engagement (3 commitments)

Personnel (3 commitments) Enabling strategies

Finance, capital and value for money (2 enabling strategies)

Estates (1 enabling strategy)

IT infrastructure (1 enabling strategy)

Alumni relations and development (1 enabling strategy)

Oxford University Facts and Figures

Oxford at a glance

Undergraduate admissions and access

Financial support for undergraduates

Postgraduate admissions and support

Oxford international

Oxford research

Oxford awards and rankings

Oxford finance

Oxford colleges

Museums, collections and libraries

Cambridge University

No University Strategic Plan was evident but two documents on U of C T & L Strategy 2012 – 2015 and U of C School of Technology 2012 – 2017 found

University of Cambridge Learning and Teaching Strategy 2012 – 2015 Action Plans

Educational and Student Policy (with 8 aims)

Student Support (with 2 aims)

Undergraduate Provision (with 3 aims) Postgraduate Provision – Ph.D. (with 2 aims)

Postgraduate Provision – Masters (with 2 aims)

Lifelong Learning (with 2 aims)

Communication and Engagement (with 3 aims) University of Cambridge School of Technology 2013 – 2017

1. Objective 1 – Maintain and enhance the outstanding research undertaken by departments within the School (14 Actions and 4 KPIs)

2. Objective 2 – Recruit the best researchers (research students and post-doctoral staff) both nationally and internationally, giving them an excellent training in research and preparing them for a range of employment opportunities (14 Actions and 4 KPIs)

3. Objective 3 – Increase the provision for high-quality Master’s students in strategic areas across the School, addressing the learning needs of postgraduates, innovating and adapting as

http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/index.html#aoxford_at_a_glance

http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/index.html#aundergraduate_admissions_and_access

http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/index.html#afinancial_support_for_undergraduates

http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/index.html#apostgraduate_admissions_and_support

http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/index.html#aoxford_international

http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/index.html#aoxford_research

http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/index.html#aoxford_awards_and_rankings

http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/index.html#aoxford_finance

http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/index.html#aoxford_colleges

http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/index.html#amuseums_collections_and_libraries

necessary, taking a collaborative approach where appropriate to ensure efficient use of resources (10 Actions and 2 KPIs)

4. Objective 4 – Continuing the development of undergraduate education within the School through (a) inspiring lectures, (b) innovative laboratory exercises and mini-projects, (c) close coordination between the teaching in Departments and Colleges, (d) opportunities to experience the creative side of technology design. Some departments in School also wish to explore the links between departments and shared courses (both inside and outside school) that enhance the educational experience, and (f) efficient delivery, such as large class sizes or e-learning resources which do not compromise quality (15 Actions and 4 KPIs)

5. Objective 5 – to be an international leading provider in executive and professional education through the further development of:

a. Distinctive and compelling market offerings, reflecting the breadth and depth of the School’s expertize

b. Capability and capacity to develop and deliver world-class executive and professional education

c. Rigorous underpinning of course design and quality assurance framework

6. Objective 6 – Enhance and where appropriate, enlarge the School’s estate to achieve the objectives (16 Actions and 2 KPIs)

Tsinghua University No result on Strategic Plan or strategic KPIs

University of Tokyo Result on Strategic Plan shows Strategic Plan called “FOREST 2015”

University of Tokyo (FOREST 2015) with actions and initiatives and no KPIs

Ensure Academic diversity and Pursue Excellence (with 4 objectives, 4 main initiatives and 15 sub-initiatives)

Build a truly global campus Excellence (with 4 objectives, 5 main initiatives and 21 sub-initiatives)

Further develop collaboration with Society: from “Contributing knowledge to society” to “Joint creation of knowledge with society” (with 3 objectives, 5 main initiatives and 16 sub-initiatives)

Develop Todai Students with intellectual toughness and personal resilience (with 4 objectives, 5 main initiatives and 26 sub-initiatives)

Enhance Faculty Educational skills and sustain academic vigor (with 4 objectives, 4 main initiatives and 14 sub-initiatives)

Train administrative staffs as professionals (with 5 objectives, 5 main initiatives and 19 sub-initiatives)

Build a close-knit network with our alumni (with 3 objectives, 5 main initiatives and 14 sub-initiatives)

Enhance agility of management and reinforce the university’s foundations (with 6 objectives, 7 main initiatives and 27 sub-initiatives)

Reinforce Governance, compliance and environmental safety (with 4 objectives, 6 main initiatives and 22 sub-initiatives)

National University of Singapore

No result on Strategic Plan but shows Vision, Mission and Strategy with no KPIs

Have Corporate Information

Student body Class of 2013

Faculty and Staff Has Service Commitment KPIs on: NUS Service, Admission, Academic Administration, Student Learning Support, IT Support, Student Development and Non-Academic Services

University of California Berkeley

Result on Strategic Plan shows Strategic plan with KPIs

UC Berkeley Pathway to Excellence 2020 Responsive Research, Teaching and Public Services

(3 Strategic KPIs and 11 Specific KPIs) Expanded Pathways for Access and Success (3

Strategic KPIs and 40 Specific KPIs including Community College [6KPIs] /Undergraduate [8 KPIs] / PGR [7 KPIs] / Faculty [7 KPIs] / Staff [12 KPIs])

Engaging and Healthy Campus Climate (4 Strategic KPIs and 9 Specific KPIs)

Have UC Berkeley “Facts at a Glance” on:

Student body Number of students Undergraduate gender Graduate gender Degrees granted in 2012-13 Enrollment by ethnicity (Fall 2011) Student profiles: Undergraduate Graduate

Faculty Student-to-faculty ratio: 17 to 1 Undergraduate classes with fewer than 30 students: 77%

Profile of admitted freshmen

Fields of study Most popular majors Courses offered:

Measures of excellence Rankings:

Public service by students

Tuition, fees & financial aid Average undergraduate student budget Average graduate student budget

Campus budget & finances Market value of endowment

Research

Libraries and museums

Athletics Alumni

University of Southern California

Has old Strategic Plan of 2004 and new Strategic Vision: Matching Deeds to Ambitions with no strategic KPIs

Have USC Fact and Figures sheet on: Students Student Demographics

International Students

Freshman Class Freshman Profile and Admission Information 2012-13

Degrees Awarded Faculty and Alumni Academic Units

Undergraduate Tuition and Mandatory Fees

Financial Aid Expenditures Endowment University Budget Sponsored Research

University Annual Financial Reports

http://opa.berkeley.edu/statistics/enrollmentData.html

http://metrics.vcbf.berkeley.edu/Berkeley%20Template.pdf

http://www.berkeley.edu/about/nrc-rank.shtml

http://about.usc.edu/files/2011/07/USCFreshmanProfile2012.pdf

Appendix 7: Expert opinion on the determination of final 20 KSU Strategic KPIs

Once the proposed 32 Strategic KPIs were identified through the secondary research

review in the context of leading research reports, the KSU 2030 Strategic Plan and the

university benchmarked universities, and the 11 universities that have strategic plans and

strategic KPIs, it also underwent another reduction process through expert opinions.

These expert opinions represented 3 Saudi administrators and 3 consultants in the

quality assurance areas. They were asked to select 20 main strategic KPIs that they

opinioned are to be used as the strategic KPIs for KSU and the result are shown in Table

7.1. These 20 selected strategic KSU KPIs are then mapped back into Table 3.2. The final

proposed 20 Strategic KSU KI as shown in Table 1 in the main research report. The

frequencies of occurrences and its numbers of KPIs are:

2 KPIs with 6 frequencies showed unanimous opinion of importance and

inclusion that should be included as the final 20 KSU strategic KPIs;

7 KPIs with 5 frequencies showed opinion of high level of importance and

inclusion that should be included as the final 20 KSU strategic KPIs;

9 KPIs with 4 frequencies showed opinion of moderately high level of

importance and inclusion that should be included as the final 20 KSU strategic

KPIs; and

8 KPIs with 3 frequencies showed opinion of neutrality in level of importance

and inclusion that should be included as the final 20 KSU strategic KPIs;

As the intention was to select 20 KSU Strategic KPIs, the expert opinion group

shortlisted a final set of 18 Strategic KPIs based on frequencies of occurrences that are of

a high to moderately high level of importance and inclusion, it is recommended that

these will be the final set of 18 KSU Strategic KPIs. Those 8 KPIS with 3 frequencies of

occurrences would not be included in this final set. Basically the key results were ranked

in terms of their frequencies as follows:

Table 7.1: KPIs with the 6 frequencies of occurrences

Proposed Strategic KPIs for KSU that measures strategic

performance

EO 1 EO 2 EO 3 EO 4 EO 5 EO 6 Total


√ √ √ √ √ 6


√ √ √ √ √ √ 6



performance



√ √ √ √ √ 5

Endowment Per FTE faculty / staff √ √ √ √ √ 5


√ √ √ √ √ 5


√ √ √ √ √ 5


√ √ √ √ √ 5


√ √ √ √ √ 5


√ √ √ √ √ 5



performance



√ √ √ √ 4


√ √ √ √ 4


√ √ √ √ 4


√ √ √ √ 4


√ √ √ √ 4


√ √ √ √ 4


√ √ √ √ 4


√ √ √ √ 4


√ √ √ √ 4



performance



√ √ √ 3


√ √ √ 3


√ √ √ 3


√ √ √ 3


√ √ √ 3


√ √ √ 3


√ √ √ 3


√ √ √ 3

Table 7.5: Frequencies of occurrences of KPIs selected


performance



√ √ √ 3

Teaching and Research Space as a

proportion of Total Space

√ 1


√ √ √ √ 4


√ √ √ √ 4


√ √ √ 3


√ √ √ √ √ 5


√ √ √ 3


√ √ √ √ √ 5

% of faculty / staff involved with √ √ √ 3






university community events

Endowment Per FTE faculty / staff √ √ √ √ √ 5


√ √ √ 3


√ √ √ √ √ √ 6


√ √ √ √ √ 5


√ √ √ 3


√ √ √ √ 4


√ √ √ √ √ 5


√ √ 2


√ √ √ √ 4


√ 1


√ √ √ √ √ 5

Graduate Enrolment as a Percentage of Total Enrolment

√ √ 2

3.6.2 Percentage of the full-time faculty members obtaining academic or professional awards at the national

√ √ √ √ √ √ 6

or international level. (%)


√ √ √ √ 4


√ √ √ √ 4


√ √ 2


√ √ √ √ 4


√ √ √ 3


√ √ √ 3


√ √ √ √ 4


√ √ √ √ √ 5


√ √ √ √ 4


√ √ √ 3









Appendix 8: Determination of performance of Colleges and Programs using the KSU – QMS

Introduction

The basic principle behind performance assessment is to provide a snap shot at a point of time of “what and how” the college or programs are managing their quality towards continuous improvements over a period of time. The KSU – QMS provides this basis of performance assessment, based on its performance scoring of 1000 points and 56 KPIs across the 11 Standards that are critical to providing a holistic and objective picture of quality management performance.

The KSU – QMS which started its implementation in September 2013 has the aim for full implementation by all 21 Colleges and 86 Baccalaureate Programs by December 2016 coupled with the introduction E-QMS by December 2016 to support its continuous improvements practices. The KSU – QMS is intended to provide an objective assessment of quality management of its internal processes focused on key performance results of its performance scoring and KPIs. The use of the KSU – QMS to provide an objective determination of performance of the Colleges and the Programs based on the KSU – QMS performance scoring and KPIs with its full-fledged Internal Benchmarking System will be divided into 3 phases as shown in Figure 1:

IDPerformance Determination

PhasesStart Finish Duration

Q1 14 Q2 14 Q3 14 Q4 14 Q1 15 Q2 15 Q3 15 Q4 15 Q1 16 Q2 16 Q3 16 Q4 16

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1 102.8w31/12/201513/1/2014

Phase 1: Academic Performance

Award based on KSU – QMS

KPI (6 KPIs)

2 104.4w30/12/20161/1/2015

Phase 2: College / Program

Performance Comparison and

Ranking based on KSU – QMS

KPI (15 KPIs)

3 104.2w29/12/20171/1/2016

Phase 3: Full Performance

Comparison and Ranking based

on KSU – QMS Performance

Scoring and KPIs (Internal

Benchmarking System)

Figure 1: Phases of Implementation of KSU – QMS Internal Benchmarking System

I. Phase 1 Use of KPIs from KSU – QMS as determinants of “Award” evaluation

In the initial Phase 1, 7 KPIs (which are more readily available and computable due to data availability) from the KSU – QMS will used as determinants of the “Academic Performance Award” established by the Rector of KSU to be awarded to well performing colleges in the academic area. The 7 KPIs that can provide an objective evaluation and assessment of academic performance selected on the basis of: 1) Student focused KPIs and 2) Faculty focused KPIs are:

Student Focused KPIs





Faculty Focused KPIs




While the Proposal for the “Academic Performance Award” has 8 criteria used as the basis to select the College for the Award, there are some key issues faced with these Criteria as follows:

Criteria Potential Issues

1. Readiness of College at beginning of Academic Year

This criterion tends to be rather subjective as there are many uncontrollable factors beyond the control of the College. These factors are like size of the College, number of students, external readiness of other support units, etc., etc.

2. Student Satisfaction of College Rather than determining the overall College, the determination of satisfaction of the course evaluation specific to the course would be better scoped as compared to the multifarious factors that affects the College and needs another new survey instrument. It is better to scope it to the course evaluation of the faculty.

3. Evaluation of Faculty Performance by Student

A lot of variables like workload, expertise and experience, learning resources that affect Faculty Performance might not be known to the students. It is better scoped to the course evaluation of the faculty as in Criterion 2.

4. Workshops, seminars and activities in the college

Too diverse and too complicated to measures due to the different nature, size and needs of these workshops, seminars and activities which varies across the colleges.

5. % of electronic course Having a great number of electronic courses does not mean better performance. The % only shows the use of IT to facilitate course instructions rather than evaluate college / faculty performance.

6. % of faculty who finalize Course Reports

The performance is in the use of the Course Reports to bring about continuous improvements or informed decision making, rather than evaluation of college / faculty performance.

7. % of faculty who finalize Course Specifications

Course Specifications of the course in itself as they do not show performance unless the courses are delivered and measured for performance as per the specifications in terms of teaching pedagogy, teaching assessment, feedbacks and course management.

8. % of academic programs that acquired accreditation (national and international)

About 78 of the 86programs have attained international accreditation, and the use of this would be biased towards a college with 1 program as opposed to another college with 8 programs which is inequitable.

Conclusion for Phase 1

The Deanship of Quality would recommend the use of the 7 selected KSU – QMS KPIs as the basis for the objective evaluation of performance for the selection of the College for the Rector’s “Academic Performance Award”. (Appendix 1)

II. Phase 2 Use of KPIs from KSU – QMS as determinants of College Ranking and Performance

In determining the performance of the Colleges / Programs for 1) ranking purposes, or as the basis for 2) allocation of resources, or 3) informed decision making on critical actions to be made, the KSU – QMS also present the same rational of the use of the KPIs to justify the performance determinants and informed decision making. While the KSU – QMS is implemented by 50 % of the colleges / programs by December 2015, the potential to use these KSU – QMS KPIs for comparative performance assessment leading to informed decision making is very high. These selected KPIs can be computed as they are supported by the performance metrics system in its computation of the KPIs. The key areas inclusive of the 7 KPIs in Phase 1, can include the 1) Research Focus and the 2) Community Service, all of these 4 areas underscore the key mission of the College in Teaching, Learning, research and Services to Society. The 14 KPIs in these 4 key performance areas that subscribe to the College performance and achievements of its mission are:

Student Focused KPIs





Faculty Focused KPIs




Research Focused KPIs






Stakeholders Satisfaction and Community Service KPIs




The Deanship of Quality would recommend the use of these 14 KSU – QMS KPIs for comparative and evaluative performance assessment of the Colleges or Programs for informed decision making leading to “ranking” of colleges or programs and allocation of resources. (Appendix 2)

III. Phase 3 Use of KSU – QMS for holistic Internal Benchmarking

With the full input of the data from the support systems via the E-QMS for KPI computation by December 2016, and with 100% of the Colleges and Programs having implemented the KSU – QMS, KSU is ready to apply the KSU – QMS for Internal Benchmarking for comparative and evaluative performance. These internal benchmarks is based on the internal audit and assessment of the overall evaluation and assessments of the KSU – QMS 11 Standards and 58 core processes on 1000 points and the 56 KPIs.

The full mechanisms on the different types of performance analysis are described and illustrated in the attached KSU – QMS Internal Benchmarking System (December 2013) which will be used as of December 2016 for comparative and evaluation quality and performance management.


The Deanship of Quality would recommend the use of the full KSU – QMS Internal benchmarking System for comparative and evaluative performance assessment of the Colleges or Programs for informed decision making leading to “ranking” of colleges or programs and allocation of resources, or as needs dictates. (Appendix on KSU – QMS Internal Benchmarking System)

Proposed Strategic KPIs of KSU

Documents

Transcript of Proposed Strategic KPIs of KSU