UH System Strategic Plan Update

Community Feedback Forum

Comments on the Strategic Outcomes and Performance Measures

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    UH System Strategic Plan Update Forum Index -> Strategic Outcomes and Performance Measures, 2008-2015
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
uhplan
Site Admin


Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Posts: 85

PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:10 pm    Post subject: Comments on the Strategic Outcomes and Performance Measures Reply with quote

This forum is for your comments on the Strategic Outcomes and Performance Measures, 2008-2015.
A pdf can be found here http://www.hawaii.edu/ovppp/uhplan/strategicoutcomes.pdf
Back to top
dbangert
Public


Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A general comment:

I find that there is a mixture of means objectives and fundamental objectives. Both are needed and should be identified as such. Fundamental objectives should be slowly changed, whereas means objectives are not as important and should change if needed to meet a fundamental objective.. An example would be degree attainment of native Hawaiian at UH is fundamental whereas UH Institutional Aid Awarded to Native Hawaiians is a means objective.

I also find the measures are somewhat output oriented versus outcome oriented.

I used to consult with organizations on building appropriate measurement systems to reflect their strategic plans and would be happy to sit down and help build a measure system to reinforce the strategic plan.

David Bangert
293 2981
Back to top
jbeutel
Public


Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:28 am    Post subject: be careful what you wish for Reply with quote

Measured outcomes may be achieved at the expense of outcomes which are not measured. For example, graduation rates might be increased by not requiring students to learn as much.

So, if you're going to measure performance, then you need to measure everything that's important, not just the things that you want to improve. The new strategy is quantifiable, but it does not seem comprehensive. (Unfortunately, I don't know how to make it so.)

-- J. David Beutel
Back to top
NStahl
Public


Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:10 pm    Post subject: Concerns About "Strategic Outcomes & Performance Me Reply with quote

I have several concerns about this document and the Outcome Measures that it proposes. My concerns can be categorized in six general areas: Process, One-Size-(Does Not) - Fit All, Absence of Enrollment Growth, Absence of Quality Measures, Emphasis on Hawaiian Students at the exclusion of other Hawaii's Students, and Specification of Unreasonable Percentages goals. I shall attempt to *briefly* outline each of the concerns.

1) PROCESS: This document purports to be a "draft", but President McClain has already briefed it to the BOR & the Legislature - it appears that these Outcome Goals and Measures have already been decided and comments are being solicited for show. When the Strategic Plan was created and adopted, we followed a deliberative process and representative from each campus were included in the decision making process. Why did we not follow a similar process for the adoption of these performance measures?

2) ONE-SIZE (DOES *NOT*) - FIT ALL: The UH System is a very diverse organization comprising a research university, a comprehensive 4-year university, a "Senior" college, community colleges, an employment training center, and education centers. In such an organization, System-level strategic outcomes & associated measures should be few in number and limited to measures that apply to all; e.g: Increase Enrollment, Improve the Quality of Programs, etc. Then each institution should develop its own supporting goals, outcomes & measures to be included as part of the system plan.

3) ENROLLMENT GROWTH: Enrollment growth is an essential prerequisite to four of the five proposed outcomes, yet it is not discussed or included in the plan. Increasing Institutional Enrollment should be "Strategic Outcome # 1". If we increase overall enrollment, we will increase the potential educational attainment, not only of Native Hawaiians, but of all Hawaii's Students. We also are likely to increase the educational capitol of the State, contribute to the State's economy, and contribute to the creation of a globally competitive workforce.

4) ABSENCE OF QUALITY MEASURES: Creating and maintaining high quality programs is another component necessary to achieving most of the proposed strategic outcomes, yet this important component is not included in the proposal. Perhaps it was not included because "Quality" can be difficult to measure. However, there are measurement vehicles by which we can estimate the quality of our programs. The National Survey of Student Engagement and Community College Survey of Student Engagement probably include measures that we could use. as do the CIRP Follow-up Studies. I submit that if we improve the quality of our offerings and programs, we will attract more students, including Native Hawaiians, and we will increase our contribution to the State's educational capital and workforce.

5) EMPHASIS ON HAWAIIAN STUDENTS: I doubt that anyone in the UH System would argue that increasing Native Hawaiian educational attainment is not an important goal and clearly part of our kuleana. However, this goal should be a subset of the broader Outcomes of Increasing Enrollment and Increasing Quality of Programs.

6) PERCENTAGES: Most of the Performance Measures described in the proposed strategic outcomes document specify an annual growth rate of 3 percent or more. Three percent is used so often that it seems to be quite arbitrary. Let's not establish goals that we are incapable of achieving. About the only things that will grow at 3% a year are waistlines and taxes. We should research the growth rates of comparable systems before we establish specific percentages in our measures.
Back to top
Em
Public


Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:12 pm    Post subject: Need to measure quality--or just hand out all A's Reply with quote

As it currently stands, we can meet the objectives (greater intake, shorter time to graduation, greater numbers of degrees awarded) by giving everyone A's. This would exacerbate the downward pressure on classroom standards that faculty already have to deal with.

If we don't want to do that, then we need to add a measure of educational quality; in the long run we're not doing the people of our state any favors by handing out watered-down degrees. The idea (I hope) is to become more capable and competitive as a state, not just to pump up the percentage of degree-holding residents.
Back to top
jsavage
Public


Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am very concerned about the placement of Strategic Outcome #1 as number one.

1.) SO #1 is clearly a subset of SO#2.
2.) Placing SO #1 in the lead explicitly suggests that perhaps not all students within the
UH system are to be treated equally.
3.) The placement of SO#1 as the first outcome will likely contribute to more division
than unity.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    UH System Strategic Plan Update Forum Index -> Strategic Outcomes and Performance Measures, 2008-2015 All times are GMT - 10 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum