Key Performance Indicators and Benchmarking Review Report ...

Majmaah University Deanship of Quality and Skills

Development

Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia الوولكة العربية السعودية Ministry Of Higher Education وزارة التعلين العالى Majmaah University جاهعة الوجوعة Al Zulfi college Of Science كلية العلوم بالسلفى Mathematics Department قسن الرياضيات

Key Performance Indicators and Benchmarking

Review Report

Mathematics Department

1436 H- 2015


Development

1. List of the Selected KPIs

1. Stakeholder evaluation ratings of the Mission Statement and Objectives

2. Stakeholder evaluation of the Policy Handbook, including administrative flow chart and

job responsibilities

3. Students overall evaluation on the quality of their learning experiences at the institution.

4. Proportion of courses in which student evaluations were conducted during the year.

5. Proportion of programs in which there was independent verification within the

institution of standards of student achievement during the year.

6. Proportion of programs in which there was independent verification of standards of

student achievement by people external to the institution during the year.

7. Ratio of students to teaching staff (Based on full time equivalents)

8. Students overall rating on the quality of their courses.

9. Proportion of teaching staff with verified doctoral qualifications.

10. Percentage of students entering programs who successfully complete first year.

11. Proportion of students entering undergraduate programs who complete those programs

in minimum time.

12. Proportion of students entering post graduate programs who complete those programs in

specified time.

13. Proportion of graduates from undergraduate programs who within six months of

graduation are:

(a) employed

(b) enrolled in further study

(c) not seeking employment or further study

14. Ratio of students to administrative staff

15. Proportion of total operating funds (other than accommodation and student allowances)

allocated to provision of student services.

16. Student evaluation of academic and career counselling. (Average rating on the adequacy

of academic and career counselling on a five point scale).


Development

17. Stakeholder evaluation of library and media center. (Average overall rating of the

adequacy of the library & media center, including:

a) Staff assistance

b) Current and up-to-date

c) Copy & print facilities

d) Functionality of equipment

e) Atmosphere or climate for studying

f) Availability of study sites

18. Number of web site publication and journal subscriptions as a proportion of the number

of programs offered.

19. Stakeholder evaluation of the digital library. (Average overall rating of the adequacy of

the digital library, including:

a) User friendly website

b) Availability of the digital databases

c) Accessibility for users

d) Library skill training

20. Annual expenditure on IT budget, including:

a) Percentage of the total Institution, or College, or Program budget allocated for IT

b) Percentage of IT budget allocated per program for institutional or per student for

programmatic.

c) Percentage of IT budget allocated for software licenses.

d) Percentage of IT budget allocated for IT security;

e) Percentage of IT budge allocated for IT maintenance.

21. Stakeholder evaluation of the IT services. (Average overall rating of the adequacy of:

a) IT availability

b) Security

c) Maintenance

d) Accessibility

e) Support systems

f) Software and up-dates

g) Age of hardware


Development

22. Stakeholder evaluation of

a) Websites

b) e-learning services

c) Hardware and software

d) Accessibility

e) Learning and Teaching

f) Assessment and service

g) Web-based electronic data management system or electronic resources

23. Total operating expenditure (other than accommodation and student allowances) per

student.

24. Proportion of teaching staff leaving the institution in the past year for reasons other than

age retirement.

25. Proportion of teaching staff participating in professional development activities during

the past year.

26. Number of refereed publications in the previous year per full time equivalent member of

teaching staff

27. Number of citations in refereed journals in the previous year per full time equivalent

teaching staff

28. Proportion of full time member of teaching staff with at least one refereed publication

during the previous year

29. Number of papers or reports presented at academic conferences during the past year per

full time equivalent members of teaching staff

30. Research income from external sources in the past year as a proportion of the number of

full time teaching staff members.

31. Proportion of the total, annual operational budget dedicated to research.

32. Proportion of full time teaching and other staff actively engaged in community service

activities

33. Number of community education programs provided as a proportion of the number of

departments


Development

2 The KPI Achievements for the Mathematics Program

Compared With the External Benchmarks

NCAAA

Standards KPI

Code

NCAAA KPI Ta

rg

et

Ben

ch

ma

rk

Actu

al

Ben

ch

ma

rk

Inte

rn

al

Ben

ch

ma

rk

14

34

Inte

rn

al

Ben

ch

ma

rk

Ph

ysic

s

Dep

t.14

34

Ex

tern

al

Ben

ch

ma

rk

Qa

ssim

Un

iversity

New

Ta

rg

et

Ben

ch

ma

rk

Standard 1

Mission &

Objectives

S1.1 1. Stakeholder evaluation ratings of

the Mission Statement and Objectives

90% 80% N/A 60% N/A 85%

Standard 2

Governance

Administration

S2.1 2. Stakeholder evaluation of the

Policy Handbook, including

administrative flow chart and job

responsibilities.

80% 70% N/A N/A N/A 75%

Standard 3

Management

of Quality

Assurance and

Improvement

S3.1 3. Students overall evaluation on

the quality of their learning

experiences at the institution. 90% 78% 58% 70% 100% 85%

S3.2 4. Proportion of courses in which student evaluations were conducted

during the year. 100% 77.37% 48% 50% 100% 85%

S3.3 5. Proportion of programs in which

there was independent verification

within the institution of standards

of student achievement during the

year.

100% 100% 100% N/A N/A 100%

S3.4 6. Proportion of programs in which

there was independent verification

of standards of student achievement

by people external to the institution

during the year.

100% 100% 50% N/A N/A 100%

Standard 4

Learning and

Teaching

S4.1 7. Ratio of students to teaching

staff. 1:10 1 :11 1:12 1:20 1:16 1:10

S4.2 8. Students overall rating on the

quality of their courses. 75% 60% 60% 60% yes 80%

S4.3 9. Proportion of teaching staff with

verified doctoral qualifications. 80% 80%

75% 92% N/A 85%

S4.4 10. Percentage of students entering

programs who successfully

complete first year. 55% 3.65% 3.65% 2% 75% 50%

S4.5 11. Proportion of students entering

undergraduate programs who

complete those programs in

minimum time.

25% 17.3%

16%

10% 27.7%

20%

S4.6 12. Proportion of students entering post graduate programs who

complete those programs in

specified time.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

S4.7 13. Proportion of graduates from

undergraduate programs who

within six months of graduation

are:

(a) employed

(b) enrolled in further study

a)65%

b)10%

(c)10%

a) 58%

b-)0%

(c)50%

a-42%

b-5%

c)55%

a)50%

b)5%

c)45%

65%

N/A

N/A

a-60%

b-10%

c)10%


Development

(c) not seeking employment or

further study

Standard 5

Student

Administration

and Support

Services

S5.1 14. Ratio of students to

administrative staff

1:7 1:11 1:9 1:10 1:16 1:9

S5.2 15. Proportion of total operating funds (other than accommodation

and student allowances) allocated

to provision of student services.


S5.3 16. Student evaluation of academic

and career counselling. (Average

rating on the adequacy of academic

and career counselling on a five

point scale).

80% 65% 65% 70% N/A 75%

Standard 6

Learning

Resources

S6.1 17. Stakeholder evaluation of

library and media center. (Average

overall rating of the adequacy of

the library & media center,

including:

a) Staff assistance, b) Current and up-to-date

c) Copy & print facilities,

d) Functionality of equipment,

e) Atmosphere or climate for

studying

f) Availability of study sites.


S6.2 18. Number of web site publication

and journal subscriptions as a

proportion of the number of

programs offered

15:1 10:1 10:1 N/A N/A 20:1


digital library.

(Average overall rating of the adequacy of the digital library,

including:

a) User friendly website

b) Availability of the digital

databases,

c) Accessibility for users,

d) Library skill training.

N/A N/A N/A N/A 65% 20:1

Standard 7

Facilities and

Equipment

S7.1 20. Annual expenditure on IT

budget, including:

a) Percentage of the total

Institution, or College, or Program

budget allocated for IT; b) Percentage of IT budget

allocated per program for

institutional or per student for

programmatic;

c) Percentage of IT budget

allocated for software licenses;

d) Percentage of IT budget

allocated for IT security;

e) Percentage of IT budge allocated

for IT maintenance.

8000:1 6000:1 6000:1 N/A N/A 10000:1


IT services. (Average overall rating

of the adequacy of: a) IT availability,

b) Security,

c) Maintenance,

d) Accessibility

2:1 3:1 N/A N/A N/A 1:1


Development

e) Support systems,

f) Software and up-dates,

g) Age of hardware

S7.3 22. Stakeholder evaluation of a) Websites,

b) e-learning services

c) Hardware and software

d) Accessibility

e) Learning and Teaching

f) Assessment and service

g) Web-based electronic data

management system or electronic

resources.

80% 70% N/A N/A N/A 75%

Standard 8

Financial

Planning and

Management

S8.1 23. Total operating expenditure

(other than accommodation and

student allowances) per student. N/A N/A N/A N/A 65% N/A

Standard 9

Faculty and

Staff

Employment

Processes

S9.1 24. Proportion of teaching staff

leaving the institution in the past year for reasons other than age

retirement.

0% 5% 10% 4% N/A 5%

S9.2 25. Proportion of teaching staff

participating in professional

development activities during the

past year.

100% 100% 80% N/A N/A 100%

Standard 10

Research

S10.1

26. Number of refereed

publications in the previous year

per full time equivalent member of

teaching staff.

90 77 19 N/A 140 80

S10.2

27. Number of citations in refereed

journals in the previous year per

full time equivalent teaching staff.

20 10 19 N/A 67% 20

S10.3

28. Proportion of full time member

of teaching staff with at least one

refereed publication during the previous year.

100% 50% 45% N/A 12 80%

S10.4

29. Number of papers or reports

presented at academic conferences

during the past year per full time

equivalent members of teaching

staff.

5 0 N/A N/A 26 3

S10.5

30. Research income from external

sources in the past year as a

proportion of the number of full

time teaching staff members.

10 1 0 0 11 6

S10.6 31. Proportion of the total, annual

operational budget dedicated to

research.

25% 20% N/A N/A N/A 23%

Standard 11

Community

Service

S11.1

32. Proportion of full time

teaching and other staff actively engaged in community service

activities.

90% 80% 20% 20 yes 85%

S11.2

33. Number of community

education programs provided as a

proportion of the number of

departments.

3:1 2:3 1:3 1:1 19 3:1

11 Standards and 33 KPIs Programs and Institutions are to complete 70% of the NCAAA KPIs.


Development

3. The KPI Achievements for the Mathematics Program Compared With the

External Benchmarks

The following text illustrates the analysis of the KPIS of Mathematics program and the

comparison with the external benchmarks.

NCAAA KPI Reference Number S1.1

Institution/Program Reference Number S1.1

KPI: 1. Stakeholder evaluation ratings of the Mission Statement and Objectives (Average

rating on how well the mission is known or the proportion of policy decisions that refer to the

mission among criteria for the decision made the on a five point scale).

Actual Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark

Math. Dept.

1434

Internal

Benchmark

Physics.

Dept. 1434

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

80% 90% 60% 85%

Stakeholder evaluation ratings of the Mission Statement and Objectives have been measured via the

average ratings of staff members and students to the questionnaire

1- "The mission statement should be clear enough to provide criteria for evaluation of

progress towards the achievement of the program goals and objectives."

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Stakeholder evaluation ratings of the

Mission Statement and Objectives


Development

2- "Statements of major objectives should be accompanied by specification of clearly defined

and measurable indicators that are used to judge the extent to which objectives are being

achieved."

3- "The mission should establish directions for the development of the program that are

appropriate for a program of its type and the needs of students in Saudi Arabia."

4- "Goals for the development of the program should be consistent with and support the

mission."

This indicator shows that awareness ratings of the mission statement and objectives are 80%,

while the target benchmark is 90%. The external and internal benchmarks did not consider this

KPI so it is (N/A).

Recommendations

Giving workshops of teaching staff and students present the mission, objectives and

vision of program.

University, college and department missions and objectives should be posted in the

front of campus entrance as well as in restaurant, sport club and community services

unit room.



KPI: 2. Stakeholder evaluation of the Policy Handbook, including administrative flow chart

and job responsibilities.

Actual Benchmark

Target Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark

Math. Dept.

1434

Internal

Benchmark

Physics. Dept.

1434

External Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target Benchmark

70%

80% N/A N/A N/A 75%

Analysis:


Development

The result of this indicator denotes that the actual benchmark is 70%, whereas the target

benchmark is 90%. The external and internal benchmarks did not consider this KPI so it is

(N/A).



KPI 3. Students overall evaluation on the quality of their learning experiences at the

institution.

Actual Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark Math.

Dept.

1434 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.

1434 H

External

Benchmark

Qassim

University1434H

New Target

Benchmark

78% 85%

58% 70% 100% 80%

Analysis:

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

TargetBenchmark

ActualBenchmarkMath.Dept

InternalBenchmarkMath.

Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

PhysicsDept.1434

ExternalBenchmark

Qassim UniversityMath Dept1434

New TargetBenchmark

Stakeholder evaluation of the Policy Handbook, including administrative flow chart and job responsibilities


Development

This indicator is the average rating of the answer on question 22 of NCAAA Program Evaluation

Survey “Overall I was satisfied with the quality of my learning experiences at this institution.”

The average response to this item was 60% only in the male section while the target benchmark

was 75%. This percentage is lower than expected which indicate that there is some drawbacks in

students' learning experience and it is lower than the external and internal (Physics. Dep.)

benchmarks, but it is better than last year (the other benchmark).

Recommendations

Improve the level of teaching both topics: English language and computer science.

Provides the collage with Mathematics labs (open and specialized labs) Establishment of different clubs to provide scientific and social services for the students.



KPI: 4. Proportion of courses in which student evaluations were conducted during the year.

Actual

Benchmark

Target Benchmark

Internal

Benchm

ark

Math.

Dept.

1434 H

Internal Benchmark

Physics Dept.1434 H

External Benchmark

Qassim University 1434

New Target

Benchmark

77.37% 100%

48% 50% 100% 85%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

TargetBenchmark



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

PhysicsDept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Students overall evaluation on the quality of their learning experiences at the institution


Development

Analysis :

This indicator was estimated based on the survey used to evaluate the courses by students

during the last year 2014 using the NCAAA form. Clearly it is shown that the actual

benchmark was 77.37%; it is better than the last year but it is lower than the external and

internal benchmarks, because of the preparatory year. It means that not all courses were sure

evaluated during the last year.

Recommendations

The courses in preparatory year should be evaluated through the preparatory college.



KPI:5. Proportion of programs in which there was independent verification within the

institution of standards of student achievement during the year.

Actual Benchmark Target Benchmark Internal Benchmark

Math. Dept. 1434 H

Internal Benchmark

Physics Dept.1434 H

External

Benchmark

Qassim

University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

100% 100% 100% N/A N/A 100%

Analysis:

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

TargetBenchmark



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

PhysicsDept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Proportion of courses in which student evaluations were conducted during the year


Development

This indicator was estimated based on the survey used to evaluate the courses by students during the last

year 2014 using the NCAAA form. Clearly it is shown that the actual benchmark was 100%; so it meets

the target benchmark. It means that all courses were evaluated during the last year. While the external

and internal benchmarks did not consider this KPI so it is (N/A).

Recommendations

• An internal committee should be formed from all departments in order to verify the student's

achievement.



KPI: 6. Proportion of programs in which there was independent verification of standards of

student achievement by people external to the institution during the year.

Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchm

ark

Internal Benchmark Math. Dept. 1434 H Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1434 H

External

Benchmark

Qassim

University

1434H


100% 100% 50% N/A N/A 100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

TargetBenchmark



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

PhysicsDept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Proportion of programs in which there was independent verification within the institution of standards of student achievement during the year


Development

It is shown that the actual benchmark was 100%; so it meets the target benchmark. This means that there

was independent verification of standards of student achievement by people (evaluators) external of all

programs in the college.

Recommendations

Keeping on bringing external evaluators for verification of standards of student

achievement.



KPI:7. Ratio of students to teaching staff (Based on full time equivalents)

Actual

Benchmark

Target Benchmark Internal

Benchmark Math.

Dept. 1434 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1434

H

External Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H


1:10 1:11 1:12 1:5 1:16 1:10

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

TargetBenchmark



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

PhysicsDept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Proportion of programs in which there was independent verification of standards of student achievement by people external to the institution during the year


Development

The number of teaching staff includes lecturers, assistant, associate, and full professors. The chart

was done using the ratio of teaching staff to student. In average, the ratio was 10/1. It is clear

shown that the actual benchmark meets the target benchmarks, and it is better than the last year, as

well as it is better than external benchmark Qassim University.

Strengths:

1- The teaching staff will have more time for student.

2- The students will have more hands-on time with his teacher

3- Different teaching strategies and learning styles can be accommodated.

4- Increasing the social and mental Student-teacher values.

Recommendations

Keeping on this ratio because it met with the target benchmarks.



KPI:8. Students overall rating on the quality of their courses.

Actual

Benchmark


Benchmark

Math. Dept.

1434 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1434 H

External Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H


60% 75% 60% 60% yes 80%

01:03

01:06

01:09

01:12

01:14

01:17

01:20

01:23

1 2 3 4 5 6

Ratio of students to teaching staff


Development

The data and statistics of this KPI were estimated using the survey item number 24 from the NCAAA

Course Evaluation Survey (CES). By answering the question: “Overall I was satisfied with the

quality of this course”. The actual benchmark for this KPI was 6 0 %, it is less than target

benchmark while the external benchmark Qassim University was N/A.

Recommendations

Improve the level of teaching both topics: English language and mathematics.

Provides the collage with open computer labs.



KPI:9. Proportion of teaching staff with verified doctoral qualifications

Actual

Benchm

ark

Target

Benchmark

Internal Benchmark Math. Dept.

1434 H

Internal Benchmark

Physics Dept.1434 H

External Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New

Target

Benchmar

k

85% 80% 75% 92% N/A 85%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Target Benchmark ActualBenchmarkMath.Dept


Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

Physics Dept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Students overall rating on the quality of their courses


Development

This indicator shows that the actual benchmark (78%) close to target benchmark, as well as that it is

better than the last year while the external benchmark Qassim University was N/A.

Recommendations

Increasing a high quality teaching staff with verified doctoral qualifications. Furthermore,

seek to increase a full professor as well as associate and assistant professors according to the

strategic plan for the faculty, in addition to, various highly skilled teaching staff within the

education process earns it effectiveness.



KPI:10. Percentage of students entering programs who successfully complete first year.

Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal Benchmark

Math. Dept. 1434 H

Internal Benchmark

Physics Dept.1434 H

External Benchmark

Qassim University 1434H

New Target

Benchmark

3.65%

55% 3.65% 2% 75% 50%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

TargetBenchmark



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

Physics Dept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Proportion of teaching staff with verified doctoral qualifications


Development

This indicator shows that the actual benchmark (3.65%), which is far away from the target

benchmark and big difference with external benchmark Qassim University which is 75% but it is better

than internal (Physics. Dep.) benchmark. This low percentage may come from the main reason: The

low scientific level of the students as the program accepts the students with very low grades.

Recommendations

The program must provide an attracting program from the points of services as well as

practical skill development in order to attract the students with high grades.

Studying the weakness performance of students, and find solutions for the students problems.



KPI:11. Proportion of students entering undergraduate programs who complete those programs

in minimum time.

Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal Benchmark

Math. Dept. 1434 H

Internal Benchmark

Physics Dept.1434 H

External Benchmark


New Target

Benchmark

25% 17.3% 16% 10% 27.7% 20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

Physics Dept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Percentage of students entering programs who successfully complete first year


Development

The result for this KPI, the actual benchmark was (17.3) is less than external benchmark Qassim

University (27.7) and target benchmark, but it is better than last year.

Recommendations

To activate the Academic Advising committee to identify the problems faced students and

find solutions for the students’ problems.




KPI:13. Proportion of graduates from undergraduate programs who within six months of

graduation are: (a) employed (b) enrolled in further study (c) not seeking employment or

further study

Actual

Benchmark

Target Benchmark Internal Benchmark

Math. Dept. 1434 H

Internal Benchmark

Physics Dept.1434 H

External Benchmark


New Target

Benchmark

a) 58%

b-)0%

(c)50%

a)65%

b)10%

(c)10%

a-42%

b-5%

c)55%

a)50%

b)5%

c)45%

65%

N/A

N/A

a-60%

b-10%

c)10%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

Physics Dept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Proportion of students entering undergraduate programs who complete those programs in minimum time.


Development

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

Physics Dept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Proportion of graduates from undergraduate programs who within six months of graduation are:(a) employed

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Proportion of graduates from undergraduate programs who within six months of graduation are:enrolled in further study


Development

The result of employed part of this KPI, the actual benchmark is less than external (Qassim University)

and target benchmarks, but it is better than the last year.

The result of enrolled in further study part of this KPI, the actual benchmark is less than target

benchmarks, while the external benchmark Qassim University was N/A.

The result of not seeking employment or further study part of this KPI, the actual benchmark (50%) still

high, so it is hoped improving to meet with target benchmarks, while the external benchmark Qassim

University was N/A.

Recommendations

Support the graduated student with some specialized high-level training courses that helps to raise

the employment opportunities for our graduated students.

Work to set up partnerships with the business sector.



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

TargetBenchmark



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

PhysicsDept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Proportion of graduates from undergraduate programs who within six months of graduation are:not seeking employment or further study


Development

KPI:14. Ratio of students to administrative staff

Actual

Benchmark


Benchmark

Math. Dept.

1434 H

Internal Benchmark

Physics Dept.1434 H

External Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

1:9

1:7 1:11 1:10 1:16 1:9

This indicator shows that the actual benchmark it is better than external benchmark Qassim University and

last year.

Recommendations

Increasing number of science technicians.

The university can Increase accepting number of students through Increasing administrative

staff.



KPI: 16. Student evaluation of academic and career counselling. (Average rating on the adequacy

of academic and career counselling on a five point scale).

Actual

Benchmark


Benchmark

Internal Benchmark

Physics Dept.1434 H

External Benchmark

Qassim University

New Target

Benchmark

01:01

01:03

01:04

01:06

01:07

01:09

01:10

01:12

01:13

01:14

01:16

01:17

1 2 3 4 5 6

Ratio of students to administrative staff


Development

Math. Dept.

1434 H

1434H

65% 80% 65% 70% 75%

The result for this KPI, the actual benchmark shows that there is no improvement in this KPI regarding to

the last tear and it is less than internal (Physics. Dep.) benchmark and target benchmark, while the

external benchmark Qassim University were N/A.

Recommendations

Improve Academic Advising activities work.



KPI: 18. Number of web site publication and journal subscriptions as a proportion of the number

of programs offered


Math. Dept. 1434 H

Internal Benchmark

Physics Dept.1434 H

External Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

10:1 15:1 10:1 N/A N/A 20:1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

TargetBenchmark



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

Physics Dept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Student evaluation of academic and career counselling


Development

Analysis:

The Number of web site publication and journal subscriptions as a proportion of the number of programs

offered has been calculated with the information given by the dean of information technology. Where it

has been found that 300 websites are established at mu.edu.sa domain. The actual number of websites as

a proportion of number of program offered is 100.

Strength:

Teaching staff, student, and administrates have access to existing web sites.

Information technologies have beneficial role at physics program and its applications.

Recommendation

Improvements of the established websites by updating information weekly or as soon as possible

Increase the number of student-related web sites in order to enhance the education process.



KPI: 22. Stakeholder evaluation of

a) Websites b) e-learning services

c) Hardware and software d) Accessibility

e) Learning and Teaching f) Assessment and service

00:00

02:24

04:48

07:12

09:36

12:00

14:24

16:48

19:12

21:36

1 2 3 4 5 6

Number of web site publication and journal subscriptions as a proportion of the number of programs offered


Development


Math. Dept. 1434 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.1434

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

70%

80% N/A N/A N/A 75%

The result for this KPI, the actual benchmark is less than target benchmark while the external

benchmark Qassim University was N/A.

Recommendations

Increasing software, IT security, and IT maintenance.

Increasing Accessibility through existence open labs.



KPI:24. Proportion of teaching staff leaving the institution in the past year for reasons other

than age retirement


Math. Dept. 1434 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.1434

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

New Target

Benchmark

64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%

TargetBenchmark

ActualBenchmark

InternalBenchmark

1435H

InternalBenchmarkPhysis. Dep.

ExternalBenchmarkQassim uniPhys. Dep.

New TargetBenchmark

KPI: 22. Stakeholder evaluation of a) Websites b) e-learning services c) Hardware and software d) Accessibility e) Learning and Teaching f) Assessment and


Development

H 1434H

5% 0% 10% 4% N/A 5%

The result for this KPI, the actual benchmark is better than last year until now while the external

benchmark Qassim University was N/A.

Recommendations

Keeping on teaching staff, if there are no reasons to leave because this satisfies the

homogeneity and adaptation in the work.

Improve the support for new and existing faculty members through establishment of better

tenure, and rewarding system.



KPI: 25. Proportion of teaching staff participating in professional development activities

during the past year.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

TargetBenchmark



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

PhysicsDept.1434

ExternalBenchmark

QassimUniversity Math

Dept1434

New TargetBenchmark

Proportion of teaching staff leaving the institution in the past year for reasons other than age retirement.


Development

Actual Benchmark Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark Math.

Dept. 1434 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1434 H

External Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

100% 100% 80% N/A N/A 100%

Through this KPI, It is clear shown that the actual benchmark meets the target benchmarks, as well

as it is better than the last year, while the external benchmark Qassim University was N/A.

Recommendations

Keeping on this ratio because it met with the target benchmarks and it is 100%.



KPI: 26. 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)

Actual Benchmark Target Benchmark Internal

Benchmark Math.

Dept. 1434 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1434 H

External

Benchmar

k

Qassim

University

New Target

Benchmark

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

TargetBenchmark



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

Physics Dept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Proportion of teaching staff participating in professional development activities during the past yea


Development

1434H

77 90 19 N/A 140 80

Through this KPI, it is clear shown that the actual benchmark is less than the target benchmarks, but

it is much better than the last year. However, the actual benchmark is less than external benchmark

Qassim University.

Recommendations

Increasing efficiency research groups.

Increasing support of the scientific research.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

Physics Dept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Number of refereed publications in the previous year per full time equivalent member of teaching staff.


Development



KPI: 27. Number of citations in refereed journals in the previous year per full time equivalent

teaching staff


Math. Dept. 1434 H

Internal Benchmark

Physics Dept.1434

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

19 20 10 N/A 12 20

Through this KPI, it is shown that the actual benchmark is less than the target benchmarks, but it is

better than the last year. However, the actual benchmark is less than external benchmark Qassim

University.

Recommendations


Establish postgraduate programs

0

5

10

15

20

25



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

Physics Dept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Number of citations in refereed journals in the previous year per full time equivalent teaching staff.


Development



KPI: 28. Proportion of full time member of teaching staff with at least one refereed publication

during the previous year.


Math. Dept. 1434 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.1434

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

50% 100% 45% N/A 12 N/A 80%


better than the last year. However, the actual benchmark is less than external benchmark Qassim

University.

Recommendations


Establish postgraduate programs

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

Physics Dept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Proportion of full time member of teaching staff with at least one refereed publication during the previous year.


Development



KPI: 29. Number of papers or reports presented at academic conferences during the past year

per full time equivalent members of teaching staff


Math. Dept. 1434 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.1434

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

0 5 N/A N/A 26 3

Through this KPI, it is shown that the actual benchmark is zero, it is much than less the external

benchmark Qassim University; this shows that there is weakness in this side.

Recommendations

Encourage the teaching staff for participating in academic conferences and support

them.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

TargetBenchmark



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

PhysicsDept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Number of papers or reports presented at academic conferences during the past year per full time equivalent members of teaching staff.


Development



KPI: 30. Research income from external sources in the past year as a proportion of the number

of full time teaching staff members


Math. Dept. 1434 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.1434

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

1M S.R

10 MS.R 0 M S.R 0 M S.R 11 M S.R 6 M S.R

Through this KPI, it is shown that the actual benchmark is weak and less than the target

benchmarks. However, the actual benchmark is less than external benchmark Qassim University.

Recommendations

Increasing efficiency research groups and encourage them to apply through external sources.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

Physics Dept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Research income from external sources in the past year as a proportion of the number of full time teaching staff members


Development



KPI: 32. Proportion of full time teaching and other staff actively engaged in community

service activities


Math. Dept. 1434 H

Internal Benchmark

Physics Dept.1434

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

80% 90% 20% 20% N/A 85%


much better than the last year. While the external benchmark Qassim University was N/A.

Recommendations

Develop the established unit for community service, and activating this unit to introduce

community service.



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

TargetBenchmark



Dept 1434

InternalBenchmark

Physics Dept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Proportion of full time teaching and other staff actively engaged in community service activities


Development

KPI: 33. Number of community education programs provided as a proportion of the number of

departments.


Math. Dept. 1434 H

Internal Benchmark

Physics Dept.1434

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

2:3 3:3 1:3 1:3 19 N/A 3:3

Through this KPI, it is shown that the actual benchmark is less than the target benchmarks.

However, the actual benchmark is less than external benchmark Qassim University.

Recommendations

Increasing number of community education programs to encourage the employers in order to

complete their study.

00:00

00:28

00:57

01:26

01:55

02:24

02:52

03:21

1 2 3 4 5 6

Number of community education programs provided as a proportion of the number of departments


Development

4. List Of Action Recommendations Based On The

Analysis And Assessment Of The KPI For Mathematics

Program

Recommendations for improvement are made for action to be taken to overcome problems or weaknesses

identified. The actions recommended should be expressed in specific, measurable for terms for

assessment, rather than as general statements. Each action recommendation should indicate who should

be responsible for the action, timelines, and any necessary resources.

Action Recommendation 1

Giving workshops of teaching staff and students present the mission, objectives and

vision of program.

Person (s) responsible

The quality and accreditation committee and the program coordinator with the organization

with the vice dean of the Quality and Development.

Timelines (For total initiative and for major stages of development)

One month at the beginning of each academic year

Resources Required

Available

Action Recommendation 2.


Person(s) responsible

The quality and accreditation committee

Timelines

Ongoing

Resources Required

Available

Action Recommendation 3.

Provides the collage with Mathematics labs (open and specialized labs)


Development


Dean of the faculty with the coordination with Management of University

Timelines

The beginning of the academic year 1435-1436 H

Resources Required

Available


Establishment of different clubs to provide scientific and social services for the students.


Department of Mathematics

Dean of the faculty with the coordinator of the computer science program

Timelines

Each semester

Resources Required

Available


Establishment for awareness programs (workshops or lectures) to spread the culture of

quality among the students.


The quality and accreditation committee and the program coordinator

Dean of the faculty with the coordination with Management of University

Timelines

The beginning of the academic year 1435-1436 H


Establishment for awareness programs (workshops or lectures) to spread the culture of

quality among the students.


Dean of the faculty with the coordinator of the computer science program

Timelines

Each semester

Resources Required

Available


Increasing a high quality teaching staff with verified doctoral qualifications.

Furthermore, seek to increase a full professor as well as associate and assistant professors

according to the strategic plan for the faculty.


Development


Dean of the faculty with the department

Timelines

Ongoing

Resources Required

Available


To activate the Academic Advising committee to identify the problems faced students

and find solutions for the students’ problems.



Counseling committee and The quality and accreditation committee

Timelines

Each semester

Resources Required

Available


Support the graduated student with some specialized high-level training courses that helps to

raise the employment opportunities for our graduated students.


Dean of the faculty with the head of department

Timelines

Annually

Resources Required

Available


Development

Action Recommendation 10:

The university can Increase accepting number of students through Increasing administrative staff.


Dean of the faculty with the vice dean of the faculty for the quality and development

Timelines

Annually

Resources Required

Available

Action Recommendation 11:

Increasing number of community education programs to encourage the employers in order to

complete their study.

Timelines

Ongoing

Resources Required

Available

Mathematics Program

KPIs and Benchmarking Review Report

Program Action Plan Table Directions: Based on your “Analysis of KPIs and Benchmarks” provided in the above Program KPI and Assessment Table, list the recommendations identified

below.

No.

Recommendations Action points

Assessment Criteria Respon

sible

Person

Start

Date Date

Completion

Date Date

1 Enhance the

level of students

learning

outcomes

Enhancement of the

English

background of the

students

The achievement level of

the intended

learning outcomes by direct

using indirect assessment

methods

The students level of

satisfaction

The independent committee

feedback

The verification of standard

achievements

The comparison with the

external and internal

benchmarks.

The satisfaction level of

employer on the graduates

Students assessments of

field experience training

Students overall satisfaction

on the program

- Program

coordinator

- Quality and

accreditation

committee

Following up the field

experience activities

according to the aimed

outcomes.

Improve the students

guidance services

Establishment of the

extra curriculum

activities as scientific

club, sports clubs, and

others

Provide the necessary

books to the library

Mathematics Program


Establishment of lab

manual and tutorial

syllabus as well.

Increase the number of

training courses in the

campus

Enhance the

programming skills of

the students

2 Enhance the

researches work

and activities per

faculty member

Improve the research

work and activities Amount of fund

was obtained by faculties

for researches and projects

Number of graduates’

projects participated in

scientific conference with

papers.

The citations for researches

were done by the faculties a

year.

Establishment

postgraduate studies

Provide research lab for

researches

Motivate the faculties for

the research work

3 Follow of the

alumni and

graduates

Establishment for alumni

unit in the faculty with

specific tasks to enhance

both of alumni and

graduates level as well.

Deanship of the

faculty

Mathematics Program


Motivates the students

with the importance of

continues learning and

communication with the

program as well

Level of employers

satisfaction

Level of alumni

and graduates

satisfaction on the

eservice provided by

alumni unit

Ratio of graduates were

employed to the total

graduates per year

5 The verification

from the

standard

achievement

Establishment of an

external independent

committee

The feedback from

the independent committee

The percentage of

students

Program

coordinator

Quality and

accreditation

committee

6 Improve

personal,

teaching, and

research skills

level of faculties

Establish plan for

workshops and training

courses for the different

skills needed to enhance

the level of the faculties

The level of

students satisfaction on the

teaching and the program

as well.

The number of

researches per year for

each faculty and for the

program as whole

Comparison with

external benchmarks

Program

coordinator

Quality and

accreditation

committee

Deanship of

the faculty

Date post:	28-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	7 times
Download:	0 times

Key Performance Indicators and Benchmarking Review Report ...

Documents