|
Program KPI and Assessment Table
|
|
|
|
Standard 3 Management of Quality Assurance and Improvement
|
|
|
Kpi#
|
List of Program KPIs Approved by the
Institution
|
KPI
Target
Bench mark
|
KPI
Actual
Bench mark
|
KPI
Internal Bench marks
|
KPI
External Bench marks
|
KPI
Analysis
|
KPI New Target Bench mark
|
1
|
Students overall evaluation on the quality of their learning experiences at the institution.(Average rating of the overall quality of their program on a five point scale in an annual survey final year students.)
|
4
|
3.36
|
|
|
We need to work more on weak components to improve student satisfaction. Weak course and academic advising ratings tended to pull results down.
|
4
|
2
|
Proportion of courses in which student evaluations were conducted during the year.
|
100%
|
100% offered
|
|
|
Electronic surveys make administering questions and managing responses easy. Direct assessment however remains challenging.
|
100%
|
|
Standard 4 Learning and Teaching
|
|
|
Kpi#
|
List of Program KPIs Approved by the
Institution
|
KPI
Target
Bench mark
|
KPI
Actual
Bench mark
|
KPI
Internal Bench marks
|
KPI
External Bench marks
|
KPI
Analysis
|
KPI New
Target
Bench mark
|
1
|
Ratio of students to teaching staff(Based on full time equivalents)
|
25:1
|
4.9
|
|
|
Master’s holders
(lecturers) and doctoral
degree holders are
included in these figures
|
25:1
|
2
|
Students overall rating on the quality of their courses. (Average rating of students on a five point scale on overall evaluation of courses.)
|
4
|
5.2
|
|
|
We need to work more on weak components to improve student satisfaction.
|
4
|
3
|
Proportion of teaching staff with verified doctoral qualifications.
|
75%
|
2.36
|
|
|
Numbers per campus.
More doctoral holders should be hired. Perhaps Girls sections should utilize doctoral holders from other campus over closed circuit.
|
75%
|
4
|
Proportion of students entering undergraduate programs who complete those programs in minimum time.
|
85%
|
67.7%
|
|
|
Obtaining accurate enrollment data from KAU systems continue to be a challenge.
|
85%
|
|
Standard 5 Student Administration and Support Services
|
|
|
|
Kpi#
|
List of Program KPIs Approved by the
Institution
|
KPI
Target
Bench mark
|
KPI
Actual
Bench mark
|
KPI
Internal Bench marks
|
KPI
External Bench marks
|
KPI
Analysis
|
KPI New
Target
Bench mark
|
1
|
Ratio of students to administrative staff
|
15:1
|
8.1:1
14.1:1
|
|
|
Numbers tell half the story. Perhaps focus should shift now to training in order to improve performance.
|
15:1
|
3
|
Student evaluation of academic and career counselling. (Average rating on the adequacy of academic and career counselling on a five point scale in an annual survey of final year students.
|
4
|
2.96
|
|
|
Academic advising improvement is ongoing.
Perhaps current situation needs a comprehensive review.
|
4
|
|
Standard 7 Facilities and Equipment
|
|
|
|
Kpi#
|
List of Program KPIs Approved by the
Institution
|
KPI
Target
Bench mark
|
KPI
Actual
Bench mark
|
KPI
Internal Bench marks
|
KPI
External Bench marks
|
KPI
Analysis
|
KPI New
Target
Bench mark
|
2
|
Number of accessible computer terminals per student
|
1:5
|
1:1.07
|
|
|
We have reached very good levels of equipment. Perhaps we should shift focus from to quality of operating and service as reflected in KPI S7.3
|
1:5
|
3
|
Average overall rating of adequacy of facilities and equipment in a survey of teaching staff
|
4
|
1:1.37
|
|
|
We are aware of problems in operating labs. Perhaps a comprehensive review of situation is needed.
|
4
|
4
|
Internet bandwidth per user
|
64 kbps
|
2.42
|
|
|
Numbers are very general based on 1 Gbps shared KAU-wide bandwidth, 25% university-wide peak usage and 100000 users in total (according to KAU website there are more than 82000 students).
|
64 kbps
|
|
Standard 9 Employment Processes
|
|
|
|
Kpi#
|
List of Program KPIs Approved by the
Institution
|
KPI
Target
Bench mark
|
KPI
Actual
Bench mark
|
KPI
Internal Bench marks
|
KPI
External Bench marks
|
KPI
Analysis
|
KPI New
Target
Bench mark
|
1
|
Proportion of teaching staff leaving the institution in the past year for reasons other than age retirement
|
1%
|
1
|
|
|
We are experiencing continued growth since the college establishment in 2006 with new faculty joining almost every semester.
|
1%
|
2
|
Proportion of teaching staff participating in professional development activities during the past year
|
25%
|
29.4%
|
|
|
We are actually happy with current levels of involvement. Perhaps revising our target up is justified.
|
30%
|
3
|
Average overall faculty rating of professional activities during the past year
|
4
|
4.35
|
|
|
Initial efforts to capture essential stakeholder (faculty) feedback in our needs analysis leading to the development plan seem to be paying off. We expect better results then we capture more needs from other stakeholders (students and employer representatives).
|
4
|
|
Standard 10 Research
|
|
|
|
Kpi#
|
List of Program KPIs Approved by the
Institution
|
KPI
Target
Bench mark
|
KPI
Actual
Bench mark
|
KPI
Internal Bench marks
|
KPI
External Bench marks
|
KPI
Analysis
|
KPI New
Target
Bench mark
|
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)
|
2
|
0.66
|
|
|
This is an ongoing effort for the past 2 years. Reporting publications by faculty members always seems to be lagging. The situation may require further investigation.
|
2
|
3
|
Proportion of full time member of teaching staff with at least one refereed publication
during the previous year
|
50%
|
13.2%
|
|
|
The college may have to assume a more proactive role in encouraging individual faculty members to target publication.
|
50%
|
4
|
Number of papers or reports presented at academic conferences during the past year per full time equivalent members of teaching staff
|
10
|
7
|
|
|
Looking at KPI S10.3 suggests that more faculty members could be encouraged and supported to attend conferences to meet our target.
|
10
|
Program Action Plan
Directions: Based on your "Analysis of KPIs and Benchmarks" provided in the above Program KPI and Assessment Table, list the recommendations identified below.
|
Srno
|
Recommendations
|
Action Points
|
Assessment Criteria
|
Responsible Person
|
Start Date
|
Completion Date
|
1
|
New assessment policy (CLO revision)
|
* Revision of Course
Learning Outcomes (CLOs)
for all the core courses
* Revision of course outcome
mapping (if
necessary)
|
* Experts'
evaluation
|
All course
coordinators in
consultation
with the course
instructors
|
1st
week,
Spring
2013-14
|
13th week,
Spring 2013-14
|
2
|
Curriculum Revision
|
* Meetings on curriculum gap
analysis against the
latest ACM/IEEE 2013
curriculum guidelines
|
* Up-to-date
curricula and
faculty
feedback
|
Course
Coordinators
under the
umbrella of
Curriculum
Revision
Committee
|
6th
week,
Spring
2013-14
|
12th week,
Spring 2013-14
|
3
|
Updating lab manuals
|
* Synchronize practical
work with the theory
|
* Impact on
students'
performance,
particularly
programming
projects
|
All course
coordinators in
consultation
with the course
instructors
|
1st
week,
Spring
2013-14
|
10th week,
Spring 2013-14
|
4
|
Employer, alumni and Student
course surveys
|
* Preparation of more
focused employer and
alumni surveys
* Introducing more menu
based survey
|
* Participation
rate
|
Department
ABET
Committee and
Faculty
Assessment
Unit
|
Already
started
|
By the end of
the current
semester
|
5
|
Establishment of Artificial
Intelligence (AI) and High
Performance Computing (HPC)
labs
|
* Installation of new AI and
HPC lab equipment
|
* Research and Development work utilizing the lab equipment.
|
The
Department AI
and HPC
Groups
|
Already
started
|
By the end of
the current
semester
|
6
|
Research activities in the
department
|
* Activation of research
groups
* Group registration with
DSR
|
* Publications
in well reputed
journals,
preferably ISI
indexed
* Number of
funded
research
projects (e.g.
KACST)
|
All self-motivated
faculty
members
|
Already
started
|
By the end of
the current
academic year
|
7
|
Strategic plan
|
* Post-ABET accreditation
strategic plan (undergrad
program)
|
|
Department
Council
|
|
|
8
|
Academic Advising
|
* Analysis and feedback of
Student Outcomes achieved
by individual students
* Preferably distribution of
students to academic
advisors based on matching
interests
|
* Students
Feedback
Through surveys
|
Academic
advisors
|
1st week of
Spring 2014
|
By the end of
current
academic year
|
9
|
Course Binders
|
* Preparing Course binders
for all required courses likewise
key Courses, to
enhance course planning
|
* Availability
of Contents in
binder
|
Course Coordinator in consultation
with Course
instructors
|
1st week of
Spring 2014
|
By the end of current academic year
|
Action Plan Analysis (List the strengths and recommendations for improvement of the Program Action Plan).
To promote research culture in the Department, the researchers could be rewarded with better incentives. These incentives could range from minimizing teaching workload, by setting up a ‘load model’, which should quantify one’s workload. For example, if someone publishes a paper in a high impact-factor journal or wins a research grant outside the KAU, (s)he would get a bit of teaching relief.
|
