Post-Tenure Review
Institute Oversight Committee
Report Overview & Recommendations
to
Georgia Tech Faculty
September 17, 2002
Robert McMath
Farrokh Mistree
IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations
September 17, 2002
1
IOC – Committee 2002
Faculty
Administrators
• Philip Auslander. LCC
• Meiyin Chou. Physics
• MGT. Terry Blum / Eugene
Comisky.
• EGR. Narl Davidson / Don Giddens
• CoC. Jim Foley
• Arch. Tom Galloway
• IAC. Sue Rosser
• Sci. Gary Schuster
• Cheol Eun. Management
• Steve French. Architecture
• Richard Fujimoto. CoC
• Gary May. ECE
Co-Chairs
Bob McMath & Farrokh Mistree
IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations
September 17, 2002
2
IOC – Process Key Features
Organization
– Agreed on Objective
– Agreed on Tasks
– Agreed on Modus Operandi
Analysis of Packets
– IOC Member read 20+
– Co-Chairs read all 60+
Solicitation of input
– From Chairs / Unit Heads (~ 15)
– From faculty who had been reviewed
(~100)
Briefed Institute Executive Board
IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations
September 17, 2002
3
IOC – Objectives of Reviews
• Post-Tenure Reviews are aimed at facilitating faculty
development, and ensuring intellectual vitality and
competent levels of performance by all faculty
throughout their professional careers. In both regards,
the goal is to maximize the talents of tenured faculty
within the broad array needed for effective performance
of the units and the Institute.
• Post-Tenure Reviews are both retrospective and
prospective, inasmuch as they recognize past
contributions and provide the means for continuous
intellectual and professional growth.
IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations
September 17, 2002
4
IOC – Key Recommendations
• Retain faculty-driven, peer evaluation process
• Retain provision that the decision of the faculty peer
reviewers is final
• Focus on faculty development with 5/3 year recommendation
to be part of the process
• Change name from Post-Tenure Review (PTR) to Periodic Peer
Review (PPR)
• Replace Special Recognition feature with Program for Faculty
Development for all
• Major review of PPR process every five years with monitoring
between major reviews
• Responsibility instituting and maintaining Program for Faculty
Development and monitoring process:
– Dean of the Colleges of Architecture, Engineering, Ivan Allen,
Sciences
– VP Academic for Unitary Colleges of Computing and
Management
IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations
September 17, 2002
5
IOC - Recommendations
• A candidate has the right to select one faculty member (with full
voting rights) for the PPR Committee; serve as advocate.
• All candidates to provide a summary of his/her past activities
and goals for the next five years. Up to 5 pages.
• Chair / Unit Head to provide an assessment of the goals of the
candidate to the PPR. No comment on 3/5.
• PPR Committee to address letter to candidate, record vote in
letter and all members of the PPR Committee to sign the letter.
• PPR Committee letter to include assessment of positives,
constructive feedback after careful evaluation of performance
and goals, and recommendations to Chair / Unit Head relevant
to faculty development.
• PPR Committee to provide justification in case of a 3 year
recommendation.
IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations
September 17, 2002
6
IOC - Suggested Time-Line
• Chair / Unit Head and Candidate agree on evaluation criteria in
writing.
– Target date: End of summer session.
• Candidate advocate to be identified.
– Target date: End October.
• Candidate packet to Chair / Unit Head.
– Target date: End October.
• PPR Unit Level Committee Activity Completed.
– Target date: End January of following year.
– Distribution: Chair / Unit Head and Candidate.
• Chair / Unit Head comments on PPR recommendations
relevant to faculty development for transmission to next level.
– Target date: Mid-February of following year.
• Letter from President to candidate / Other letters
– Target date: Mid-March of following year.
IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations
September 17, 2002
7
IOC - Report Table of Contents
Content
• Recommendations
• Peer Review Process Policy
• Peer Review Process Implementation Guidelines
Appendices
• Process Adopted
• Perceived Effectiveness of Post-Tenure Review Process - Survey
of Tenured Faculty
• Perceived Effectiveness of Post-Tenure Review Process - Survey
of School Chairs and Program Directors
• Summary of Review of PTR Packets by Members of IOC
• Best Practices
• Guidelines and Forms for Conducting IOC Review
• Current PTR Policy and Proposed PPR Policy
IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations
September 17, 2002
8
IOC – Recommendations
• Change in focus from PTR to PPR
• Replace Special Recognition feature with Program
for Faculty Development
• The Institute PPR Committee (old IOC)
Function
– Once every five years: Perform a major review.
– In between years: Ensure continuous improvement of the Periodic
Review Process and its emphasis on faculty development.
Composition (No change from current)
–
–
–
–
VP Academic. Co-Chair.
Deans of Colleges.
Seven faculty nominated by Institute Executive Board (EB)
Chair to be a faculty member.
Report to EB, Senate and faculty. (No change from current)
• Institute PPR starting 2003 Fall
IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations
September 17, 2002
9
Motion
The Georgia Tech Faculty on September 17, 2002
endorses the Recommendations of the 2002 Institute
Oversight Committee (Post-Tenure Review)
documented on Page 9 of this presentation.
IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations
September 17, 2002
10