Project Details
Title
Integrating AQIP Processes at NC State Status
REVIEWED
Category 8-Planning Continuous Improvement
Updated
08-29-2010
Timeline
Reviewed
09-20-2010
Created
11-24-2009
Planned Project Kickoff
05-01-2009
Target Completion
Last Modified 09-20-2010
11-01-2010

1:Project Accomplishments and Status

ANSWER: The two groups most directly involved in managing/monitoring AQIP processes
at NC State are the Planning Advisory Council (PAC) and the AQIP Category Leaders. The
College’s VP of Learning and AQIP Liaison are the individuals with assigned responsibility
for AQIP and are members of the PAC and the Category Leaders. They bring AQIP-related
items to the PAC’s agenda and work with the Category Leaders to maintain the Systems
Portfolio. Most of the Category Leaders also serve on the PAC.

The PAC has successfully managed the College’s action projects – retiring
two projects in December 2009 (Improving Student Success through
Developmental Education and Implementing a Strategic Planning Process),
continuing three projects (Valuing People: Adjunct Faculty Professional
Development, Strategic Professional Development, and Integrating AQIP
Processes at NC State) and approving one new project (Developing and
Piloting a Program Review Process) in February 2010. Action Project Leaders
have provided project updates to the PAC. Evidence of this is in PAC meeting
minutes and agendas.

The Category Leaders have struggled to systematically review the Systems
Portfolio and Systems Appraisal Feedback Report and to update the Systems
Portfolio. The Category Leaders value the AQIP process but struggle to find
the time to document their work as it relates to AQIP. This is due, at least in
part, to the considerable turnover of personnel in key positions, the time and
resources that have been dedicated to major initiatives (quarter to semester
conversion, new information system, and the developmental education
initiative) and the ongoing struggle with obtaining and using data to inform
decisions (confounded by the new information system).

However, results of a plan to update the Systems Portfolio in 2009 -10 are:
Categories 2 and 9 were significantly updated or re-written; for Categories 1,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, addenda of updates or notes related to the category
were added.
The success of the update effort for 2009-10 is due in part to
the Director of Community Education’s assistance, as directed by the VP of
Learning, to the Category Leaders for Categories 4, 6, 7 and 8 to update
those categories.

REVIEW: It appears that NC State is making good progress in its initiative of integrating
the AQIP process. In the past year the college has been able to transition the AQIP action
projects to the PAC, with good success.

Issues that still appear to be unresolved are getting buy-in from all the
category leaders. While it appears that time constraints may be one issue, as
identified in the report, a secondary issue may be the lack of understanding
of AQIP and the continuous improvement process by category leaders. From
the information given in the report it appears that most category leaders see
AQIP/continuous improvement as an add-on or extra process, and not a way
of doing business for the college. As the college continues on its quality
journey, it may be beneficial to provide training to category leaders on the
benefits of making AQIP and continuous improvement the way business is
done, and not seen as something that takes additional effort to complete. An
understanding of the continuous improvement philosophy may go a long way
in assisting the college in its improvement efforts.

2:Institution Involvement

ANSWER:The PAC has representation from all areas of the College. The Category Leaders
are leaders from across the College.

REVIEW: NC State has done an excellent job in involving multiple stakeholders in this
project. As noted in Q1, it may be beneficial to provide additional training to all
stakeholders, identifying the overall benefits of using continuous improvement as the way
of doing business, as opposed to having it appear to be something that is additional work
to employees.

3:Next Steps

ANSWER:The PAC is preparing for the upcoming Quality Check-up Visit in November 2010
and the resubmission of the Systems Portfolio in November 2011 by dedicating two work
sessions in September and October to a review of the Systems Portfolio via presentations
by Category Leaders and key readers.

Annual Update Reports for Action Projects were submitted to the AQIP
Liaison August 2010 (due to AQIP September 2010) and were
forwarded to the PAC for review.

The VP of Learning has recruited the Director of Community Education
to inform the various College stakeholders about the AQIP and the
Quality Check-up Visit.

REVIEW: As noted, it may be beneficial for the college to provide additional training to
both the category leaders, as well as all faculty and staff on how to incorporate continuous
improvement as the driving business philosophy of the college.

4:Resulting Effective Practices

ANSWER:The Planning Advisory Council has effectively managed and monitored AQIP
processes for the College.

REVIEW: NC State is well on its way to transitioning the AQIP processes to the PAC. It also
appears to be in the beginning stages of making continuous improvement the way of
doing business at the college.

5:Project Challenges

ANSWER:The most significant challenge is to make annual updating of the Systems
Portfolio an automatic, simple process.
The PAC plans to engage a consultant/facilitator
in Fall 2010/Winter 2011 to guide it in developing evaluation plans* around the strategic
initiatives that align with the Board of Trustee’s new ends policies (Carver Model). This
will include development of a balanced scorecard that links down to the operational units.
This should have an impact on the PAC’s role in managing/monitoring the college’s AQIP
processes, such as updating the Systems Portfolio, as well.

*A three stage process is used to develop evaluation plans for many projects
at NC State. In this process, project team members participate in a group
process to first develop a logic model, then an evaluation plan and finally a
data template under the guidance of a consultant/facilitator.
o
The logic model identifies key inputs, activities (tasks or process), outputs
(typically activity counts and measures of reach), outcomes and finally,
assumption(s) upon which the initiative is based.
o
The evaluation plan encompasses both formative evaluation and summative
evaluation. Formative evaluation is designed to assess whether the initiative is
working as intended and is likely to produce the intended outcomes. The
summative evaluation focuses on looking at the outcomes achieved -- Were they
what was expected and did they have the intended impact? The summative
evaluation results can also be used to inform long term continuous improvement of
the initiative and to make judgments on the overall value of the initiative. The
formative and summative questions guide the team in determining data or
information needed, sources of data, comparison groups, and methods of data
collection and analysis. Based upon this input, the consultant/facilitator and
Institutional Research finalize the evaluation plan.
o
The data template is a spread sheet that is organized to contain and display the
data and information necessary to carry out the evaluation plan. It serves as a
check list to help assure timely collection, tabulation and display of the data.
The
team develops the basic structure of the data template. Institutional Research
sets up the procedures to populate the data template.

To put the evaluation plan into action, the data templates and supporting
information from surveys and focus groups are used to answer the evaluation
questions.

REVIEW: NC States plans in creating a balanced scorecard is a significant step in the
continuous improvement process. The use of the balanced scorecard can assist the college
in identifying and using data to drive decisions, as well as help all stakeholders see the
benefits of using data and continuous improvement.