Mathematics Program Key Performance Indicators and ... · c) Copy & print facilities, d)...

Mathematics Program

Key Performance Indicators

and Benchmarking

Review Report

2015/2016

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Ministry of Higher Education

Majmaah University

Zulfi, College of Sciences

Mathematics Department

الـسـعـوديـة الـعـربـيـة الـمـمـلكـة

الـعـالـي الـتـعـلـيـم وزارة

الـمـجـمـعـة جـامـعـة

بالزلفي ومــــــــالعل ةـــكلي

قسم الرياضيات

1. List of the Selected KPIs

1. Stakeholders evaluation ratings of the Mission Statement and Objectives

2. Stakeholders evaluation of the Policy Handbook, including administrative flow chart

and job responsibilities

3. Students overall evaluation on the quality of their learning experiences at the

institution.

4. Proportion of courses in which student evaluations were conducted during the year.

5. Proportion of programs in which there was an independent verification within the

institution of standards of student achievement during the year.

6. Proportion of programs in which there was an independent verification of standards of

student achievement by external reviewer to the institution during the year.

7. Ratio of students to teaching staff (Based on full time equivalents)

8. Students overall rating on the quality of their courses.

9. Proportion of teaching staff with verified doctoral qualifications.

10. Percentage of students entering programs who successfully complete their first year.

11. Proportion of students entering undergraduate programs who complete those

programs in minimum time.

12. Proportion of students entering post graduate programs who complete those programs

in the specified time.

13. Proportion of graduates from undergraduate programs who , within six months of

graduation, are:

(a) employed

(b) enrolled in further study

(c) not seeking employment or further study

14. Ratio of students to administrative staff

15. Proportion of total operating funds (other than accommodation and student

allowances) allocated to provision of student services.

16. Student evaluation of academic and career counselling. (Average rating on the

adequacy of academic and career counselling on a five point scale).

17. Stakeholders evaluation of library and media center. (Average overall rating of the

adequacy of the library & media center), including:

a) Staff assistance

b) Current and up-to-date

c) Copy & print facilities

d) Functionality of equipment

e) Atmosphere or climate for studying

f) Availability of study sites

18. Number of web site publication and journal subscriptions as a proportion of the

number of programs offered.

19. Stakeholders evaluation of the digital library. (Average overall rating of the adequacy

of the digital library), including:

a) User friendly website

b) Availability of the digital databases

c) Accessibility for users

d) Library skill training

20. Annual expenditure on IT budget, including:

a) Percentage of the total Institution, or College, or Program budget allocated for IT

b) Percentage of IT budget allocated per program for institutional or per student for

programmatic.

c) Percentage of IT budget allocated for software licenses.

d) Percentage of IT budget allocated for IT security;

e) Percentage of IT budge allocated for IT maintenance.

21. Stakeholders evaluation of the IT services. (Average overall rating of the adequacy) of:

a) IT availability

b) Security

c) Maintenance

d) Accessibility

e) Supporting systems

f) Software and up-dates

g) Age of hardware

22. Stakeholders evaluation of

a) Websites

b) e-learning services

c) Hardware and software

d) Accessibility

e) Learning and Teaching

f) Assessment and service

g) Web-based electronic data management system or electronic resources

23. Total operating expenditure (other than accommodation and student allowances) per

student.

24. Proportion of teaching staff leaving the institution in the past year for reasons other

than age retirement.

25. Proportion of teaching staff participating in professional development activities during

the past year.

26. Number of refereed publications in the previous year per full time equivalent member

of teaching staff

27. Number of citations in refereed journals in the previous year per full time equivalent

teaching staff

28. Proportion of full time member of teaching staff with at least one refereed publication

during the previous year

29. Number of papers or reports presented at academic conferences during the past year

per full time equivalent members of teaching staff

30. Research income from external sources in the past year as a proportion of the number

of full time teaching staff members.

31. Proportion of the total, annual operational budget dedicated to research.

32. Proportion of full time teaching and other staff actively engaged in community service

activities

33. Number of community education programs provided as a proportion of the number of

departments

The KPI Achievements for the Mathematics Program Compared With the External Benchmarks (1434/1433)

NCAAA Standards

KPI Code

NCAAA KPI

Targ

et B

enchm

ark

Actu

al

Ben

chm

ark

Inte

rnal B

ench

mark

1434

Inte

rnal B

ench

mark

Ph

ysic

s Dep

t.1434

Ex

tern

al

Ben

chm

ark

Qassim

U

niv

ersity

New

Targ

et

Ben

chm

ark

Standard 3

Management of Quality Assurance and Improvement

S3.1 3. Students overall evaluation on the quality of their learning experiences at the institution.

Questionnaire

S3.2 4. Proportion of courses in

which student evaluations were conducted during the year.

100%

S3.3

5. Proportion of programs in which there was independent

verification within the institution of standards of student

achievement during the year.

100%

Standard 4

Learning and Teaching

S4.1 7. Ratio of students to teaching

staff. 1:11

S4.2 8. Students overall rating on the

quality of their courses. Questionnaire

S4.4 10. Number of students entering

programs who successfully complete first year.

19


NCAAA Standards

KPI Code

NCAAA KPI

Targ

et

Ben

ch

mark

Actu

al

Ben

ch

mark

Inte

rnal

Ben

ch

mark

14

34

Inte

rnal

Ben

ch

mark

P

hysic

s

Dep

t.14

33

Ex

tern

al

Ben

ch

mark

Qassim

Un

iversity

New

Targ

et

Ben

ch

mark

Standard 1 Mission & Objectives

S1.1 1. Stakeholder evaluation ratings of the Mission Statement and Objectives

Ques

Standard 2 Governance Administration

S2.1 2. Stakeholder evaluation of the Policy Handbook, including administrative flow chart and job responsibilities.

Ques

Standard 3 Management of Quality Assurance and Improvement


3.62 Ques.

S3.2 4. Proportion of courses in which student evaluations were conducted during the year.

100% 100%

S3.3 5. Proportion of programs in which there was independent verification within the institution of standards of student achievement during the year.

100%

100%

S3.4 6. Proportion of programs in which there was independent verification of standards of student achievement by people external to the institution during the year.

100%

Standard 4

Learning and Teaching

S4.1 7. Ratio of students to teaching staff. 1:11

1:11

S4.2 8. Students overall rating on the quality of their courses.

Ques

S4.3 9. Proportion of teaching staff with verified doctoral qualifications.

61%

S4.4 10. Number of students entering programs who successfully complete first year.

24 19

S4.5 11. Proportion of students entering undergraduate programs who complete those programs in minimum time.

72%

S4.6 12. Proportion of students entering post graduate programs who complete those programs in specified time.

.05%

S4.7 13. Proportion of graduates from undergraduate programs who within six months of graduation are: (a) employed (b) enrolled in further study (c) not seeking employment or

further study

62%

Standard 5 Student Administration and Support Services

S5.1 14. Ratio of students to administrative staff

3.90

S5.2 15. Proportion of total operating funds (other than accommodation and student allowances) allocated to provision of student services.

S5.3 16. Student evaluation of academic and career counselling. (Average rating on the adequacy of academic and career counselling on a five point

scale).

Standard 6 Learning Resources

S6.1 17. Stakeholder evaluation of library and media center. (Average overall rating of the adequacy of the library & media center, including: a) Staff assistance, b) Current and up-to-date c) Copy & print facilities, d) Functionality of equipment, e) Atmosphere or climate for studying f) Availability of study sites.

S6.2 18. Number of web site publication and journal subscriptions as a proportion of the number of programs offered

211

S6.3 19. Stakeholder evaluation of the digital library. (Average overall rating of the adequacy of the digital library, including: a) User friendly website b) Availability of the digital databases, c) Accessibility for users, d) Library skill training.

Standard 7 Facilities and Equipment

S7.1 20. Annual expenditure on IT budget, including: a) Percentage of the total Institution, or College, or Program budget allocated for IT; b) Percentage of IT budget allocated per program for institutional or per student for programmatic; c) Percentage of IT budget allocated for software licenses; d) Percentage of IT budget allocated for IT security; e) Percentage of IT budge allocated for IT maintenance.

S7.2 21. Stakeholder evaluation of the IT services. (Average overall rating of the adequacy of: a) IT availability, b) Security, c) Maintenance, d) Accessibility e) Support systems, f) Software and up-dates, g) Age of hardware

S7.3 22. Stakeholder evaluation of a) Websites, b) e-learning services c) Hardware and software d) Accessibility e) Learning and Teaching f) Assessment and service g) Web-based electronic data management system or electronic resources.

NA

Standard 8 Financial Planning and Management

S8.1 23. Total operating expenditure (other than accommodation and student allowances) per student.

Standard 9 Faculty and Staff Employment Processes

S9.1 24. Proportion of teaching staff leaving the institution in the past year for reasons other than age retirement.

.06%

S9.2 25. Proportion of teaching staff participating in professional development activities during the past year.

26. Number of refereed publications in

Standard 10 Research

S10.1 the previous year per full time equivalent member of teaching staff.

S10.2

27. Number of citations in refereed journals in the previous year per full time equivalent teaching staff.

11

S10.3

28. Proportion of full time member of teaching staff with at least one refereed publication during the previous year.

S10.4

29. Number of papers or reports presented at academic conferences during the past year per full time equivalent members of teaching staff.

S10.5

30. Research income from external sources in the past year as a proportion of the number of full time teaching staff members.

S10.6 31. Proportion of the total, annual operational budget dedicated to research.

Standard 11 Community Service

S11.1

32. Proportion of full time teaching and other staff actively engaged in community service activities.

S11.2

33. Number of community education programs provided as a proportion of the number of departments.

11 Standards and 33 KPIs Programs and Institutions are to complete 70% of the NCAAA KPIs.


NCAAA Standards

KPI Code

NCAAA KPI

Targ

et

Ben

ch

mark

Actu

al

Ben

ch

mark

Inte

rnal

Ben

ch

mark

14

34

Inte

rnal

Ben

ch

mark

Ph

ysic

s

Dep

t.14

34

Ex

tern

al

Ben

ch

mark

Qassim

U

niv

ersity

New

Targ

et

Ben

ch

mark



85% 80% N/A 60% N/A 90%



75% 70% N/A N/A N/A 80%



85% 78% 58% 70% 100% 90%


85% 77.37% 48% 50% 100% 100%


100% 100% 100% N/A N/A 100%


100% 100% 50% N/A N/A 100%

Standard 4 Learning and Teaching

S4.1 7. Ratio of students to teaching staff. 1:10 1 :11 1:12 1:20 1:16 1:10


75% 60% 60% 60% yes 80%


80% 80% 75%

92% N/A 85%

S4.4 10. Percentage of students entering programs who successfully complete first year.

55% 73% 73% 40% 75% 60%


20% 17.3% 16% 10% 27.7% 25%


N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

S4.7 13. Proportion of graduates from undergraduate programs who within six months of graduation are: (d) employed (e) enrolled in further study (f) not seeking employment or

further study

a)65%

b)10% (c)10%

a) 58%

b-)0% (c)50%

a-42% b-5% c)55%

a)50% b)5% c)45%

65% N/A N/A

a-60% b-10% c)10%



1:7 1:11 1:9 1:10 1:16 1:9



S5.3 16. Student evaluation of academic and career counselling. (Average

75% 65% 65% 70% N/A 80%

rating on the adequacy of academic and career counselling on a five point scale).





15:1 10:1 10:1 N/A N/A 20:1


N/A N/A N/A N/A 65% 20:1



8000:1 6000:1 6000:1 N/A N/A 10000:1


2:1 3:1 N/A N/A N/A 1:1

S7.3 22. Stakeholder evaluation of a) Websites, b) e-learning services c) Hardware and software d) Accessibility e) Learning and Teaching f) Assessment and service g) Web-based electronic data management system or electronic resources.

75% 70% N/A N/A N/A 80%



N/A N/A N/A N/A 65% N/A

Standard 9


5% 5% 10% 4% N/A 0%

Faculty and Staff Employment Processes


100% 100% 80% N/A N/A 100%


S10.1

26. Number of refereed publications in the previous year per full time equivalent member of teaching staff.

80 77 19 N/A 140 90

S10.2


20 10 19 N/A 67% 20

S10.3


80% 50% 45% N/A 12 100%

S10.4


3 0 N/A N/A 26 5

S10.5


6 1 0 0 11 10


23% 20% N/A N/A N/A 25%


S11.1


85% 80% 20% 20 yes 90%

S11.2


3:1 2:3 1:3 1:1 19 3:1



NCAAA Standards

KPI Code

NCAAA KPI

Targ

et

Ben

ch

mark

Actu

al

Ben

ch

mark

Inte

rnal

Ben

ch

mark

14

35

Inte

rnal

Ben

ch

mark

Ph

ysic

s D

ep

t.14

34

Ex

tern

al

Ben

ch

mark

Qassim

U

niv

ersity

New

Targ

et

Ben

ch

mark



85% 80% 80% 68% N/A 90%



75% 70% 70% N/A N/A 80%



85% 85.6% 78% 74% 100% 90%


100% 100% 77.37% 66% 100% 85%


100% 100% 100% 100% N/A 100%


100% 100% 100% 100% N/A 100%

Standard 4 Learning and Teaching

S4.1 7. Ratio of students to teaching staff. 1:10 1:9 1 :11 1:5 1:16 1:10


75% 85% 60% 80% yes 80%


80% 86% 80% 96% N/A 85%

S4.4 10. Percentage of students entering programs who successfully complete first year.

75% 75% 73% 40% 75% 80%


20% 24% 17.3% 11% 27.7% 25%



S4.7 13. Proportion of graduates from undergraduate programs who within six months of graduation are: (g) employed (h) enrolled in further study (i) not seeking employment

or further study

a)60%

b)10%

(c)10%

a) 59.38%

b) 0%

c) 40.62%

a) 58%

b-)0%

(c)50%

a)54% b)0% c)15%

65% N/A N/A

a-65%

b-10% c)10%


1:9 1:9 1:14 1:17




S5.3 16. Student evaluation of academic and career counselling. (Average rating on the adequacy of academic and career counselling on a five point scale).

75% 64 65% 84% N/A 80%



3.5 3.07 2.79 3.5


6 5.5 3.46 3.25


N/A N/A N/A N/A 65% 20:1



1666 1666 1173 670


1:4 1:8 1:20 1:1

S7.3 22. Stakeholder evaluation of a) Websites, b) e-learning services c) Hardware and software

80% 68% 62%

d) Accessibility e) Learning and Teaching f) Assessment and service g) Web-based electronic data management system or electronic resources.



15746 9349 9788 15746

Standard 9 Faculty and Staff Employment Processes


5% 6% 5% 12% N/A 0%


100% 95% 100% 65% N/A 100%


S10.1

26. Number of refereed publications in the previous year per full time equivalent member of teaching staff.

80 73 77 9 140 90

S10.2


20 44 10 8 67% 20

S10.3


80% 80% 50% 56% 12 100%

S10.4


3 1 0 6 26 5

S10.5


6 0 1 0 M SR

11 10


1% 0.22% 0.20% 1.5%


S11.1


85% 80% 80% 45% yes 90%

S11.2


6.5 5.63 5.6


3. The KPI Achievements for the Mathematics Program Compared With the External Benchmarks

The following text illustrates the analysis of the KPIS of Mathematics program and the comparison with the external benchmarks.

NCAAA KPI Reference Number S1.1

Institution/Program Reference Number S1.1

KPI: 1. Stakeholder evaluation ratings of the Mission Statement and Objectives (Average rating

on how well the mission is known or the proportion of policy decisions that refer to the mission

among criteria for the decision made the on a five point scale).

Actual Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark

Math. Dept.

1435

Internal

Benchmark

Physics.

Dept. 1435

External

Benchmark

Qassim

University 1434H

New Target

Benchmark

80% 90% 80% 68% -- 85%

Stakeholder evaluation ratings of the Mission Statement and Objectives have been measured via the

average ratings of staff members and students to the questionnaire

1- "The mission statement should be clear enough to provide criteria for evaluation of progress

towards the achievement of the program goals and objectives."

2- "Statements of major objectives should be accompanied by specification of clearly defined and

measurable indicators that are used to judge the extent to which objectives are being

achieved."

3- "The mission should establish directions for the development of the program that are

appropriate for a program of its type and the needs of students in Saudi Arabia."

4- "Goals for the development of the program should be consistent with and support the

mission."

This indicator shows that awareness ratings of the mission statement and objectives are 80%,

while the target benchmark is 90%. The external and internal benchmarks did not consider this

KPI so it is (N/A).

80 90 8068

0

85

0102030405060708090

100

Actual TargetBenchmark

TargetBenchmark

InternalBenchmarkMath. Dept.

1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark

QassimUniversity 1434H

New TargetBenchmark

Recommendations

Students must be know the mission, objective and learning outcome before the beginning

the term, so course professor discussion with students that in the first lecture.

Giving workshops of teaching staff and students present the mission, objectives and

vision of program.

University, college and department missions and objectives should be posted in the front

of campus entrance as well as in restaurant, sport club and community services unit

room.



KPI: 2. Stakeholder evaluation of the Policy Handbook, including administrative flow

chart and job responsibilities.

Actual Benchmark

Target Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark

Math. Dept.

1435

Internal

Benchmark

Physics. Dept.

1435

External Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

70% 75% 70% N/A N/A 80%

Analysis:

The result of this indicator denotes that the actual benchmark is 70%, whereas the

target benchmark is 90%. The external and internal benchmarks did not consider this

KPI so it is (N/A).

70 75 70

0 0

75

01020304050607080


TargetBenchmark

InternalBenchmark

Math. Dept. 1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI 3. Students overall evaluation on the quality of their learning experiences at the

institution.

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark

Math. Dept.

1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.

1435 H

External

Benchmark

Qassim

University1434H

New Target

Benchmark

85.8 (4.29)

85% 78% 74% 100% 90%

Analysis:

This indicator is the average rating of the answer on question 22 of NCAAA Program Evaluation Survey

“Overall I was satisfied with the quality of my learning experiences at this institution.”

The average response to this item was 85.8% only in the male section while the target

benchmark was 85%. This percentage is better than last year (the other benchmark).

Recommendations

Improving the level of teaching both topics: English language and computer science.

Provides the collage with Mathematics labs (open and specialized labs)

Establishment of different clubs to provide scientific and social services for the students.

86 85 78 74100 90

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


TargetBenchmark


1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI: 4. Proportion of courses in which student evaluations were conducted during the year.

Actual Benchmark

Target Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark Math.

Dept. 1435 H

Internal Benchmark

Physics Dept.1435 H

External Benchmark

Qassim University

1434

New Target

Benchmark

100% 85% 77.37% 66% 100% 100%

Analysis :

This indicator was estimated based on the survey used to evaluate the courses by students

during the last year 2015 using the NCAAA form. Clearly it is shown that the actual

benchmark was 100%; it is better than the last year. It means that all courses were sure

evaluated during the last year.

10085 77.37 66

100 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


TargetBenchmark


1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI:5. Proportion of programs in which there was independent verification within the

institution of standards of student achievement during the year.

Actual Benchmark Target Benchmark Internal Benchmark

Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal Benchmark

Physics Dept.1435

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

100% 100% 100% 100% N/A 100%

Analysis:

This indicator was estimated based on the survey used to evaluate the courses by students during the

last year 2014 using the NCAAA form. Clearly it is shown that the actual benchmark was 100%; so it

meets the target benchmark. It means that all courses were evaluated during the last year. While the

external and internal benchmarks did not consider this KPI so it is (N/A).

Recommendations

• An internal committee should be formed from all departments in order to verify the student's

achievement.

100 100 100 100

0

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


TargetBenchmark


1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI: 6. Proportion of programs in which there was independent verification of standards of

student achievement by people external to the institution during the year.


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal Benchmark

Physics Dept.1435 H

External

Benchmark

Qassim

University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

100% 100% 100% N/A N/A 100%

Analysis:

It is shown that the actual benchmark was 100%; so it meets the target benchmark. This means that

there was independent verification of standards of student achievement by people (evaluators)

external of all programs in the college.

Recommendations

Keeping on bringing external evaluators for verification of standards of student

achievement.

100 100 100 100

0

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


TargetBenchmark


1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI:7. Ratio of students to teaching staff (Based on full time equivalents)


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.1435

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

1:9 1:10 1:11 1:5 1:16 1:10

analysis:

The number of teaching staff includes lecturers, assistant, associate, and full professors. The chart

was done using the ratio of teaching staff to student. In average, the ratio was 1:9. It is clear

shown that the actual benchmark meets the target benchmarks, and it is better than the last year, as

well as it is better than external benchmark Qassim University.

Strengths:

1- The teaching staff will have more time for student.

2- The students will have more hands-on time with his teacher

3- Different teaching strategies and learning styles can be accommodated.

4- Increasing the social and mental Student-teacher values.

Recommendations

Keeping on this ratio because it met with the target benchmarks.

01:09 01:11 01:12

01:05

01:1601:10

00:5701:0001:0301:0601:0901:1201:1401:17


TargetBenchmark


1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark

QassimUniversity

1434H

New TargetBenchmark



KPI:8. Students overall rating on the quality of their courses.


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1435H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

85% 87% 60% 80% yes 90%

The data and statistics of this KPI were estimated using the survey item number 24 from the

NCAAA Course Evaluation Survey (CES). By answering the question: “Overall I was satisfied with

the quality of this course”. The actual benchmark for this KPI was 8 5 %, it is less than target

benchmark while the external benchmark Qassim University was N/A.

Recommendations

Improve the level of teaching both topics: English language and mathematics.

Provides the collage with open computer labs.

85 87

6080

0

90

0102030405060708090

100


TargetBenchmark


1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI:9. Proportion of teaching staff with verified doctoral qualifications


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.1435

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

86% 87% 80% 96% N/A 90%

Analysis:

This indicator shows that the actual benchmark (86%) close to target benchmark, as well as that it is

better than the last year while the external benchmark Qassim University was N/A.

Recommendations Increasing a high quality teaching staff with verified doctoral qualifications. Furthermore, seek

to increase a full professor as well as associate and assistant professors according to the strategic

plan for the faculty, in addition to, various highly skilled teaching staff within the education process

earns it effectiveness.

86 87 8096

0

90

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


TargetBenchmark


1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI:10. Percentage of students entering programs who successfully complete first year.


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1435H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

75% 75% 73% 40% 75% 80%

Analysis:

This indicator shows that the actual benchmark (75%), which is equal with the target benchmark

and big difference with external benchmark Qassim University which is 75%.

75 75 73

40

75 80

0102030405060708090


TargetBenchmark

InternalBenchmark

Math. Dept. 1434

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1434

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI:11. Proportion of students entering undergraduate programs who complete those

programs in minimum time.


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.1435

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

24% 25% 17.3% 11% 27.7% 30%

Analysis:

The result for this KPI, the actual benchmark was (24) is less than external benchmark Qassim

University (27.7) and target benchmark, but it is better than last year.

Recommendations

To activate the Academic Advising committee to identify the problems faced students

and find solutions for the students’ problems.

Improving the level of teaching both topics: English language and mathematics.

24 2517

11

28 30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


TargetBenchmark

InternalBenchmark

Math. Dept. 1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI:13. Proportion of graduates from undergraduate programs who within six months of

graduation are: (a) employed (b) enrolled in further study (c) not seeking employment or

further study


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.1435

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

a) 59.38%

b) 0%

c) 40.62%

a)60%

b)10%

(c)10%

a) 58%

b)0%

(c)50%

a)50%

b)5%

c)45%

65%

N/A

N/A

a-65%

b-10%

c)10%

Analysis:

a) The result of employed part of this KPI, the actual benchmark is less than external (Qassim

University) and target benchmarks, but it is better than the last year.

b) The result of enrolled in further study part of this KPI, the actual benchmark is less than target

benchmarks, while the external benchmark Qassim University was N/A.

c) The result of not seeking employment or further study part of this KPI, the actual benchmark

(40.62%) still high, so it is hoped improving to meet with target benchmarks, while the external

benchmark Qassim University was N/A.

Recommendations

Support the graduated student with some specialized high-level training courses that helps

to raise the employment opportunities for our graduated students.

Work to set up partnerships with the business sector.

59 60 58 5465 65

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


TargetBenchmark

InternalBenchmark

Math. Dept. 1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI:14. Ratio of students to administrative staff


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.1435

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

1:9 1:9 1:14 1:17 1:9

Analysis:

The total no. of student for the year 1435H is 19296, the total no. of administrative staff is

2137 with ratio 1:9 which is good.

Recommendations

Increasing number of science technicians.

The university can Increase accepting number of students through increasing

administrative staff.



KPI: 16. Student evaluation of academic and career counseling. (Average rating on the

adequacy of academic and career counseling on a five point scale).


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.1435

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

64% 80% 65% 84% 75%

01:09 01:09

01:14

01:09

01:17

01:09

01:0401:0601:0701:0901:1001:1201:1301:1401:1601:17


TargetBenchmark


1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark

QassimUniversity

1434H

New TargetBenchmark

Analysis:

The result for this KPI, the actual benchmark shows that there is no improvement in this KPI

regarding to the last tear and it is less than internal (Physics. Dep.) Benchmark and target

benchmark, while the external benchmark Qassim University were N/A.

Recommendations Improve Academic Advising activities work.

6480

6584

0

75

0102030405060708090


TargetBenchmark

InternalBenchmark

Math. Dept. 1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI: 17. Stakeholder evaluation of library and media center. (Average overall rating

of the adequacy of the library & media center


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1435 H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

3.07 3.5 2.79 3.07 3.5 3.5

Analysis:

This indicator is among the key indicators

of the university and is one of the National authority for measurement and academic

accreditation, which measures the percentage of user satisfaction of library services and

media.

3.073.5

2.79 3.073.5 3.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4


TargetBenchmark


1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI: 18. Number of web site publication and journal subscriptions as a proportion of

the number of programs offered


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1435 H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

5.5 6 3.46 3.46 3.25 30

Analysis: The Number of web site publication and journal subscriptions as a proportion of the number

of programs offered has been calculated with the information given by the dean of

information technology. Where it has been found that 300 websites are established at

mu.edu.sa domain. The actual number of websites as a proportion of number of program

offered is 100.

Strength:

Teaching staff, student, and administrates have access to existing web sites.

Information technologies have beneficial role at physics program and its applications.

Recommendation

Improvements of the established websites by updating information weekly or as soon as possible

Increasing the number of student-related web sites in order to enhance the education process.

5.5 6

3.46 3.46 3.25

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


TargetBenchmark

InternalBenchmark

Math. Dept. 1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI: 20. Annual expenditure on IT budget


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1435 H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

1666 1666 1173 1666 670 1666

Analysis:

The results of this KPI show that, within two consecutive years, MU gave priority to IT

expenditure. The allocated amount is considerable larger than that of the External

Benchmark. This is understandable in light of the incompletion

1666 1666

1173

1666

670

1666

0200400600800

10001200140016001800


TargetBenchmark


1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI: 21. Stakeholder evaluation of the digital library. (Average overall rating of the

adequacy of the digital library.


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1435 H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

1:8 1:4 1:20 1:8 1:1 1:4

Analysis:

The number of accessible computer per student increased at a good rate from0.125 to 0.25.

01:08 01:0401:20

01:08 01:01 01:04

00:00

00:14

00:28

00:43

00:57

01:12

01:26


TargetBenchmark


1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark

QassimUniversity

1434H

New TargetBenchmark



KPI: 22. Stakeholder evaluation of

a) Websites b) e-learning services

c) Hardware and software d) Accessibility

e) Learning and Teaching f) Assessment and service


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1435 H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

68% 80% 62% 68% N.A. 80%

Analysis:

The result for this KPI, the actual benchmark is less than target benchmark while the external


Recommendations

Increasing software, IT security, and IT maintenance.

Increasing Accessibility through existence open labs.

6880

62 6880

0102030405060708090


TargetBenchmark

InternalBenchmark

Math. Dept. 1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI: 23. Total operating expenditure (other than accommodation and student

allowances) per student.


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1435 H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

9349 15746 9788 9349 15746 15746

Analysis:

This indicator is among the key indicators of the university and is one of the National

authorities for measurement and academic accreditation, this external benchmark was

chosen for possibility reach it in the year 2020. This KPI was measured by the total of

operating expenditure per student by using King Khalid University.

Strengths :

MU's student is getting great operating expenditure meet their need.

Recommendations :

Increase the operating expenditure per student gradually to reach target in order to provide better

teaching facilities and services.

9349

15746

9788 9349

15746 15746

02000400060008000

1000012000140001600018000


TargetBenchmark


1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark

QassimUniversity

1434H

New TargetBenchmark



KPI:24. Proportion of teaching staff leaving the institution in the past year for reasons other

than age retirement

Actual Benchmark

Target Benchmark

Internal Benchmark

Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.1435

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

6% 5% 5% 12% N/A 0%

Analysis:

The result for this KPI, the actual benchmark is better than last year until now while the external


Recommendations

Keeping on teaching staff, if there are no reasons to leave because this satisfies the

homogeneity and adaptation in the work.

Improve the support for new and existing faculty members through establishment of better

tenure, and rewarding system.



KPI: 25. Proportion of teaching staff participating in professional development activities

during the past year.

Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark Math.

Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1435 H

External

Benchmark

Qassim

University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

95% 100% 100% 65% N/A 100%

6 5 5

12

0 00

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


TargetBenchmark

InternalBenchmark

Math. Dept. 1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Analysis:

Through this KPI, It is clear shown that the actual benchmark meets the target benchmarks, as

well as it are good, while the external benchmark Qassim University was N/A.

Recommendations

Keeping on this ratio because it met with the target benchmarks and it is 100%.

95 100 100

65

0

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


TargetBenchmark


1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI: 26. 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)


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.1435

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

73 80 77 9 140 90

Analysis:

Through this KPI, it is clear shown that the actual benchmark better than the last year but

it is less than the target benchmarks, but it is much better than the last year. However, the actual

benchmark is less than external benchmark Qassim University.

Recommendations

Increasing efficiency research groups.

Increasing support of the scientific research.



KPI: 27. Number of citations in refereed journals in the previous year per full time equivalent

teaching staff


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.1435

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

44 20 10 8 76 20

73 80 77

9

140

80

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160


TargetBenchmark


1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

Analysis:

Through this KPI, it is shown that the actual benchmark is less than the target benchmarks, but it

is better than the last year. However, the actual benchmark is less than external benchmark

Qassim University.

Recommendations


Establish postgraduate programs

44

2010 8

76

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


TargetBenchmark

InternalBenchmark

Math. Dept. 1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI: 28. Proportion of full time member of teaching staff with at least one refereed

publication during the previous year.


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.1435

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

80% 80% 50% 56% 12 100%

Analysis:

Through this KPI, it is shown that the actual benchmark is less than the target benchmarks, but it

is better than the last year. However, the actual benchmark is less than external benchmark

Qassim University.

Recommendations


Establishing postgraduate programs

80 80

50 56

12

80

0102030405060708090


TargetBenchmark

InternalBenchmark

Math. Dept. 1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI: 29. Number of papers or reports presented at academic conferences during the past year

per full time equivalent members of teaching staff


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics Dept.1435

H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

1 3 0 6 26 5

Analysis:

Through this KPI, it is shown that the actual benchmark is one, it is much than less the external

benchmark Qassim University; this shows that there is weakness in this side.

Recommendations

Encourage the teaching staff for participating in academic conferences and support

them.

1 30

6

26

30

5

10

15

20

25

30


TargetBenchmark

InternalBenchmark

Math. Dept. 1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI: 30. Research income from external sources in the past year as a proportion of the

number of full time teaching staff members


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1435 H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

0M S.R

6 MS.R 1 M S.R 0 M S.R 11 M S.R 10 M S.R

Analysis:

Through this KPI, it is shown that the actual benchmark is weak and less than the target

benchmarks. However, the actual benchmark is less than external benchmark Qassim University.

Recommendations

Increasing efficiency research groups and encourage them to apply through external sources.

0

6

1 0

11 10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


TargetBenchmark

InternalBenchmark

Math. Dept. 1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI: 31. Proportion of the total, annual operational budget dedicated to research.


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1435 H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

0.22% 1% 0.20% 0.22% 1.5% 1%

Analysis:

The total budget to the university is 950 million SR twenty (20) millions are for research

The university achieved its target in terms of proportion of the total, annual operational

budget dedicated to research. In addition, its performance in this field is better than

external benchmark’s performance.

0.22

1

0.2 0.22

1.5

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6


TargetBenchmark


1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI: 32. Proportion of full time teaching and other staff actively engaged in

community service activities


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1435 H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

80% 85% 20% 20% N/A 90%

Analysis:

Through this KPI, it is shown that the actual benchmark is less than the target

benchmarks, but it is much better than the last year. While the external benchmark Qassim

University was N/A.

Recommendations

Encouraging the university of teaching and other staff actively engaged in community

service activities.

80 85

20 200

90

0102030405060708090

100


TargetBenchmark


1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark



KPI: 33. Number of community education programs provided as a proportion of the

number of departments.


Math. Dept. 1435 H

Internal

Benchmark

Physics

Dept.1435 H

External

Benchmark

Qassim University

1434H

New Target

Benchmark

5.63 6.5 5.6 5.63 6.5

Analysis:

Through this KPI, it is shown that the actual benchmark is less than the target

benchmarks.

Recommendations Increasing number of community education programs to encourage the employers in order

to complete their study.

5.63

6.5

5.6 5.63 5.63

5

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6

6.2

6.4

6.6


TargetBenchmark


1435

InternalBenchmark

Physics. Dept.1435

ExternalBenchmark


New TargetBenchmark

4. List of Action Recommendations Based On the Analysis and Assessment of the KPI for Mathematics Program

Recommendations for improvement are made for action to be taken to overcome problems or weaknesses identified. The actions recommended should be expressed in specific, measurable for terms for assessment, rather than as general statements. Each action recommendation should indicate who should be responsible for the action, timelines, and any necessary resources.

Action Recommendation 1

Giving workshops of teaching staff and students present the mission, objectives

and vision of program.

Person (s) responsible The quality and accreditation committee and the program coordinator with the organization with the vice dean of the Quality and Development.

Timelines (For total initiative and for major stages of development)

One month at the beginning of each academic year

Resources Required

Available

Action Recommendation 2. Improving the level of teaching both topics: English language and mathematics.

Person(s) responsible

The faculty dean and head of program

Timelines

Ongoing

Resources Required Available

Action Recommendation 3.

Provides the collage with Mathematics labs (open and specialized labs) Person(s) responsible

Dean of the faculty with the coordination with Management of University Timelines

Each semester Resources Required

Available


Establishment of different clubs to provide scientific and social services for the students. Person(s) responsible

Department of Mathematics Dean of the faculty with the coordinator of the computer science program

Timelines Each semester



Establishment for awareness programs (workshops or lectures) to spread the culture

of quality among the students.

Person(s) responsible The quality and accreditation committee and the program coordinator

Dean of the faculty with the coordination with Management of University Timelines

Each semester Action Recommendation 6

Increasing a high quality teaching staff with verified doctoral qualifications.

Furthermore, seek to increase a full professor as well as associate and assistant

professors according to the strategic plan for the faculty.

Person(s) responsible

Dean of the faculty with the department

Timelines

Ongoing



To activate the Academic Advising committee to identify the problems faced

students and find solutions for the students’ problems.

Improve the level of teaching both topics: English language and mathematics.

Person(s) responsible Counseling committee and The quality and accreditation committee

Timelines Each semester

Resources Required

Available


Support the graduated student with some specialized high-level training courses that

helps to raise the employment opportunities for our graduated students.

Person(s) responsible Dean of the faculty with the head of department

Timelines Annually


Action Recommendation 9: The university can Increase accepting number of students through Increasing administrative staff.

Person(s) responsible Dean of the faculty with the vice dean of the faculty for the quality and development

Timelines

Annually


Action Recommendation 10: Increasing number of community education programs to encourage the employers in order to complete their study.

Timelines Ongoing

Resources Required

Available

Program Action Plan Table Directions: Based on you're “Analysis of KPIs and Benchmarks” provided in the above Program KPI and Assessment Table,

list the recommendations identified below.

No. Recommendations Action point Assessment

Criteria

Responsible

Person

Start

Date

Completion

Date

1 Enhance the level of

students learning outcomes

Enhancement of

the English

background of the

students.

The achievement

level of the intended

learning outcomes by

direct using indirect

assessment methods.

The independent

committee feedback.

The verification of

standard

achievements.

The comparison

with the external

and internal

benchmarks.

Different

questionnaires.

- Head of department

- Quality and

accreditation

committee

Following up the

field experience

activities according

to the aimed

outcomes.

Provide the

necessary books to

the library

Increase the number

of training courses in

the campus

Enhance the

programming skills

of the students

2

Enhance the researches work

and activities per faculty

member

Improve the research

work and activities

Amount of

fund was obtained

by faculties for

researches and


- Scientific research unit

Establishment

postgraduate studies

Provide research lab

for researches

projects

Number of

graduates’ projects

participated in

scientific conference

with papers.

The citations for

researches were done

by the faculties a

year.

Motivate the

faculties for the

research work

3 Follow of the alumni and

graduates

Establishment for

alumni unit in the

faculty with specific

tasks to enhance

both of alumni and

graduates level as

well.

Level of

employers

satisfaction

Level of

alumni and

graduates

satisfaction on the

eservice provided by

alumni unit

Ratio of

graduates were

employed to the total

graduates per year

Deanship of the faculty

Motivates the

students with the

importance of

continues learning

and communication

with the program as

well

5 The verification from the

standard achievement

Establishment of

an external

independent

committee

The feedback

from the

independent

committee

The percentage of


- Quality and

accreditation

committee

students

6

Improve personal, teaching,

and research skills level of

faculties

Establish plan for

workshops and

training courses for

the different skills

needed to enhance

the level of the

faculties

The level of

students satisfaction

on the teaching and

the program as well.

The number of

researches per year

for each faculty and

for the program

as whole

Comparison with

external benchmarks

Deanship of the faculty

Mathematics Program Key Performance Indicators and ... · c) Copy & print facilities, d)...

Documents

Transcript of Mathematics Program Key Performance Indicators and ... · c) Copy & print facilities, d)...