Aligning Assessment, Planning, and Resource Allocation ......Aligning Assessment, Planning, and...

Aligning Assessment, Planning, and Resource Allocation –

Nasrin Fatima, PhD Assistant Provost for

Institutional Research and Effectiveness and

Michael F. McGoff, PhD Senior Vice Provost and Chief Financial Officer

Binghamton University

Can it be Done?

2

Learning Outcomes

Implement/improve systematic, ongoing outcomes assessment process

Advance integrated planning processes that connect data gathering with resource allocation

Identify and allocate resources effectively to execute strategic, priority-based initiatives

3

Overview of the Session

Brief overview of the University

An overview of the assessment processes

Planning processes and data gathering

Effective allocation of resources to execute strategic, priority-based initiatives

Binghamton University Brief Overview of

5

M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N

Where is Binghamton?

6


Binghamton University

1946: Established as a branch of Syracuse University

1950: Joined SUNY system in as Harpur College

1965: Formally designated the State University of New York at Binghamton

Today: a public, comprehensive doctoral university 17,292 students in Fall 2016 13,632 undergraduate, 3,660 graduate Highly selective

7


Enrollment growth 2,

551

2,92

1 4,02

8 4,

588 5,

946 7,

228

7,60

4 7,

930 8,75

6 9,

107

9,69

5 9,

523

9,91

6 10

,231

10

,636

11

,280

11

,592

11

,725

11

,846

11

,964

12

,191

12

,306

12

,538

12

,588

12

,218

12

,202

11

,883

11

,966

11

,997

12

,089

11

,978

11

,976

12

,156

12

,259

12

,564

12

,473

12

,820

13

,099

13

,385

13

,860

14

,018

14

,373

14

,435

14

,887

14

,713

14

,895

14

,746

15

,308

16

,077

16

,694

16

,913

17

,292

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

8


Who we are

Original mission was liberal arts with one college

Now: seven schools and colleges Arts and sciences, management, engineering,

education, nursing, public affairs, pharmacy

Growing research and scholarship programs (~$40M/year)

Region’s largest economic driver ($1.4 billion annual impact)

9


Accreditation History

10-year self study — 2011

Periodic review report (PRR) — 2016

10


PRR reviewer’s report 2016

“A culture of assessment clearly permeates Binghamton University at the unit and institutional level in both undergraduate and graduate education.”

“Driven by the Road Map adapted in April 2013 and its five strategic priorities, Binghamton thoroughly integrates the planning and budgeting process.”

“All members of the campus community are to be commended for this relentless pursuit of excellence.”

11


Our mission

Binghamton University is a premier public university dedicated to enriching the lives of people in the region, state, nation and world through discovery and education and to being enriched by partnerships with those communities.

Assessment Processes

Learning outcomes assessment

Operational/functional unit level assessment

Institutional LEVEL assessment

General education assessment

Overview of

13


MSCHE standards

Assessment of student learning and achievement demonstrates that the institution's students have accomplished educational goals consistent with their program of study, degree level, the institution's mission, and appropriate expectations for institutions of higher education. (Standard V)

The institution’s planning processes, resources, and structures are aligned with each other and are sufficient to fulfill its mission and goals, to continuously assess and improve its programs and services, and to respond effectively to opportunities and challenges. (Standard VI)

14


Overview of strategic planning process

No consultant

Grassroots planning fostering campus buy-in Nine teams formed around categories of excellence 400 volunteers — students, faculty, staff, alumni and community

Team assignments based on desires, experience Campus leaders serve as co-chairs and serve on steering committee

Teams met weekly throughout fall 2012; establish five- and 20-year goals

15


Strategic priorities (SP)

SP1 Engage in path-breaking graduate education, research, scholarship and creative activities that shape the world.

SP2 Provide a transformative learning community that prepares students for advanced education, careers and purposeful living.

SP3 Unite to foster a diverse and inclusive campus culture.

SP4 Enhance the University's economic, social and cultural impact through engagement from the local to the global level.

SP5 Optimize the acquisition and allocation of human, technological, financial and physical resources.

16


Planning

Assessment Resource Allocations

Our goal:

university performance”

“Quality Engines: The Strategic Principles for competitive universities in the twenty-first century” by John V. Lombardi

“Faculty performance drives

18

Faculty are our most important resource.


19

Because it is so difficult!

Few universities formally collect and analyze indicators

of faculty output to inform and advance their mission…


20

“Much of the policy debate about the nature of faculty work is shrouded in myth, opinion, and conjecture.”

“The Mythologies of Faculty Productivity,” James S. Fairweather, Journal of Higher Education, Vol 73, No. 1 pp 26-27


21

“…There is a demand for accountability in higher

education and in order to gain accountability, particularly at a

time when faculty roles are changing, better performance

measures are needed.”

Michael Middaugh


22

Finding ways to describe and quantify faculty

performance is important.

But a focus on using data to assess progress

and to advance the strategic plan is critical.


23

For the last 15 years…

Binghamton University has made it a priority to collect and to understand our

faculty’s accomplishments. They are critical to our mission:

Road Map to Premier


24

This approach to integrating faculty activities

into University planning evolved from a required

annual faculty report.

25

To simplify and standardize data

collection, we created a web-

based instrument — with faculty participation.

Faculty members use it annually to report their

activities.


26

The “Contributions to Mission” report created

from the database is used with two other reports to

describe activity at the unit (department) level.


27

In periodic discussions with each unit we explore how the department as a whole — and

the individual faculty in particular — are contributing

to the advancement of the university’s mission and

strategic aspirations.


28

“Viewing faculty productivity as an aggregate across faculty members permits department

chairs and departmental committees to combine the

efforts of their individual members to achieve acceptable

levels of productivity.” “The Mythologies of Faculty Productivity,” James S. Fairweather

29


Two important outcomes:

1. Data on faculty productivity can be used to measure progress toward the University’s strategic objectives

2. Productivity tools can be used to inform discussions about resource allocation (and redeployment)

start at the unit level

Using productivity tools to affect change should


31

Binghamton uses three faculty performance tools to advance its mission, to chart progress, and to deploy resources at the unit level, at the school level,

and at the university level.

32


Visits to Academic Departments

The First Tool: Delaware Study – Department Dashboard

The Second Tool: Faculty “Contributions to Mission”

The Third Tool: Academic Analytics National Comparisons

1 2 3

33

The First Tool

Unit Performance

A dashboard enhanced by inclusion of benchmarks provided by Middaugh’s

“Delaware Study”


34

The National Study of Instructional Costs & Productivity (The Delaware

Study) is the “tool of choice” for comparative analysis of faculty

teaching loads, direct instructional cost, and separately budgeted

scholarly activity, all at the level of the academic discipline.

35


36


37


38


39

The Second Tool

Faculty “Contributions

to Mission” Individual achievements

in context

40


The Web-based report is…

Pre-populated with information from student records, sponsored funds and human resources databases

We do not require faculty to input things we already know

41


The design is important

It has to meet the specific needs of each discipline

It has to be easy to use

The faculty have to think of it as theirs

42


At Binghamton

Over 90% of faculty complete their Annual Report each year

These reports are used regularly to inform decisions at the department level, the dean’s level, and the provost’s level

43


Year

Nam

e

Title

Rep

ort

Com

men

t

FTE

Sem

este

rs

Ava

ilabl

e

Sect

ions

Tau

ght

Sect

ion

SCH

MS

& P

hD T

hesi

s SC

H

Ind

Stud

y, In

tern

ship

an

d Pr

actic

um S

CH

Lab/

Act

ivity

SC

H

Boo

k, e

Boo

k

Boo

k C

hapt

er

Boo

k R

evie

w

Jour

nal A

rtic

le

Con

fere

nce

Pub,

En

cycl

oped

ia E

ntry

, C

reat

ive

Com

posi

tion,

Tr

ansl

atio

n

Edito

r of a

Boo

k or

B

ook

Cha

pter

Con

fere

nce/

Post

er

Pres

enta

tion

or

Tech

nica

l Rep

ort

Indi

vidu

al L

ectu

re,

Rea

ding

Key

note

, Exh

ibiti

on,

Perf

orm

ance

, Cur

ator

Rel

ease

Tim

e[s

alar

y +

frin

ge]

Res

earc

h Ex

pend

iture

s

Tota

l Cre

dit H

ours

2015-2016 Faculty Member 1 P Yes 2.00 2.00 980 7 68 4 13 3 $133,088 1,0552015-2016 Faculty Member 2 aP Yes 2.00 2.00 96 8 33 102 8 1 $40,929 2392015-2016 Faculty Member 3 P Yes 2.00 2.00 34 5 27 18 3 $31,304 662015-2016 Faculty Member 4 P Yes 2.00 2.50 138 4 18 170 2 3302015-2016 Faculty Member 5 P Yes 2.00 2.00 992 14 18 7 10 $756,706 1,0242015-2016 Faculty Member 6 aP Yes 2.00 2.00 172 4 1 3 1762015-2016 Faculty Member 7 P Yes 2.00 2.50 597 7 45 2 5 $603,175 6492015-2016 Faculty Member 8 P Yes 2.00 3.00 356 24 2 3802015-2016 Faculty Member 9 AP No 2.00 5.00 1,404 1,4042015-2016 Faculty Member 10 P Yes Chair 1.00 1.00 24 11 44 2 1 4 $14,691 792015-2016 Faculty Member 11 P Yes 2.00 1.00 48 14 46 1 9 21 2 $12,004 $1,079,088 1082015-2016 Faculty Member 12 AP Yes 2.00 3.00 118 1 14 166 2 2 $4,683 2992015-2016 Faculty Member 13 P Yes 2.00 1.00 100 12 27 199 1 2 3382015-2016 Faculty Member 14 P Yes 2.00 2.00 912 26 53 1 2 1 2 $32,214 9912015-2016 Faculty Member 15 AP Yes 2.00 1.00 56 10 15 1 2 812015-2016 Faculty Member 16 AP Yes 2.00 2.00 594 11 67 4 1 1 $12,003 $230,164 6722015-2016 Faculty Member 17 aP Yes 2.00 2.00 880 9 60 202 1 10 11 1 $102,574 1,1512015-2016 Faculty Member 18 DP Yes 2.00 3.00 1,072 11 14 1 5 2 2 1,0972015-2016 Faculty Member 19 P No 2.00 0.00 3 106 1092015-2016 Faculty Member 20 DP Yes 2.00 4.00 641 55 56 8 9 7 2 3 1 7522015-2016 Faculty Member 21 AP Yes 2.00 2.00 66 1 47 1 2 2 1142015-2016 Faculty Member 22 DP Yes 2.00 3.00 590 2 18 4 8 1 6102015-2016 Faculty Member 23 aP Yes 2.00 2.00 500 1 44 5 4 5452015-2016 Faculty Member 24 I Yes 2.00 3.00 3,876 101 3,9772015-2016 Faculty Member 25 DSP Yes 2.00 4.00 202 3 8 166 1 4 2 1 $4,683 $3,008,375 3792015-2016 Faculty Member 26 P Yes 2.00 3.50 43 2 50 1 1 2 $11,995 $783,321 952015-2016 Faculty Member 27 DP Yes 2.00 0.00 19 39 14 8 3 $23,972 $801,601 582015-2016 Faculty Member 28 aP Yes 2.00 1.00 548 19 56 20 1 1 $92,088 $172,924 6232015-2016 Faculty Member 29 P Yes 2.00 3.00 548 4 1 5482015-2016 Faculty Member 30 aP Yes 2.00 3.00 776 26 14 2 4 8162015-2016 Faculty Member 31 AP Yes 2.00 2.00 912 2 36 2 1 950

61.00 69.50 17,275 283 1,152 1,005 0 13 0 105 19 2 142 23 3 $161,429 $7,790,152 19,715

44

The Third Tool Within the context of the discipline

45


Academic Analytics™ Measures of Faculty Productivity

Journal publications per capita

Book publications per capita

A combined book and journal publication index

Journal citations

46


Academic Analytics™ Measures of Faculty Productivity

• Grant dollars per faculty member

• Percentage of faculty members in a department receiving grants

• A “faculty funding Index” based on various grant measures

• Awards and honors per faculty member

47


48


49


50


Success! These tools have:

Enabled chairs, deans and the provost to allocate and to redeploy funds to more effective advantage

Encouraged more scholarship

Caused changes in teaching assignments

Enabled the University to measure progress toward strategic objectives and report that progress to constituents – both internal and external

progress is measured Progress is made where

52


QUESTION?

[email protected]

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Aligning Assessment, Planning, and Resource Allocation ......Aligning Assessment, Planning, and...

Documents

Transcript of Aligning Assessment, Planning, and Resource Allocation ......Aligning Assessment, Planning, and...