Report on Performance Indicators for the Strategic Plan
From: Academic Policy Committee
To: UH-Hilo Congress
Date: January 21, 2005
Earlier this academic year, the APC was directed to develop performance indicators for the Strategic Plan.
It was our understanding that our charge was to satisfy WASC requirements by devising a better way of
measuring whether or not UHH is reaching the Goals stated in the Plan. The starting point for our work
were the previously approved Plan Objectives as well as draft performance indicators that were developed
previously. The Committee worked for about a month on this project, and estimated that three months
would be needed to complete the job. The following problems soon became evident:
* There are far more Objectives than could ever be realistically measured.
* Many of the so-called Objectives are really broad goals that cannot be measured in a meaningful
fashion.
* Some of the Objectives do not have an obvious relationship to the Goals.
The APC is also concerned that there is little point in developing performance indicators unless more
fundamental issues are addressed, such as the lack of a process for using the Performance Indicators in
institutional planning.
The APC would like to point out that the WASC Visiting Team Educational Effectiveness Review
(March 17-19, 2004) commended UHH on many aspects of its Strategic Plan. WASC also described a
number of areas in which our Strategic Plan activities could be improved. For example, WASC noted that
it is not "clear how the campus is engaged in the process of determining the successful completion of
strategic planning objectives, and how that progress is communicated to the campus community". They
also noted that " There are a number of performance indicators stated in vague terms with measures of
success that are not definitive. There is also an open-ended timeframe for completing the objectives with
few corresponding target completion dates."
The APC therefore recommends that the following resolution be put forward for a congress vote.
"Be it resolved that the Vice Chancellor for academic affairs shall convene a broad-based task force
(composed of faculty, staff, and administrators) formed for the purpose of reviewing the processes
surrounding the Strategic Plan. The task force should include the Director of Institutional Research as
well as someone (perhaps from Social Sciences) trained in methodology. The charge of this committee
would be to...
1. Clarify the purpose of the plan. Is the emphasis to be on public relations, or will it be a working
document that guides institutional governance based on measurable objectives?
2. Develop procedures for review, enforcement, performance monitoring, establishment of time frames,
and communication of monitoring results with the campus community. In addition, there should be a
process for linking the Plan with budget planning.
3. Develop a small number of measurable objectives and meaningful indicators which can be used to
monitor how closely we are meeting the Goals of the strategic plan. This process should include the
development of operational definitions such as what constitutes a well-rounded mix of programs.
The time-frame for this process shall be as follows:
Feb. 1, 2005
Feb 15
May 1
Sept. 1
Oct. 1
Nov. 1
Dec. 1
Feb. 1, 2006
VCAA solicits recommendations for appointments to the Task Force from the
senates, Deans, HGEA, Library, and Student Affairs
committee members are appointed to the Task Force
recommendations from Task Force to VCAA
consideration by college senates
senate recommendation to Congress, to APC
APC recommendation to Congress, to VCAA
VCAA policy approval by Chancellor
BOR approval, send to WASC"