performance excellence at andrews university may 31, 2001, 8:30-5:30 june 1, 2001, 8:00-noon

Performance Excellence at Andrews University

May 31, 2001, 8:30-5:30June 1, 2001, 8:00-Noon

Today’s Agenda

Welcome, ground rules, expectationsCore Values and the Baldrige

FrameworkThe Andrews ProfileAssessments using five Baldrige

CategoriesAcademic Quality Improvement

Project

Exercise: Core Values

Select leader, reporter, scribe, timekeeperBrainstorm elements of perfect

organization - post-its/affinityPersonal valuesReport outRead Core ValuesTeam consensus on most important/whyReport out

Core Values Visionary leadership Learning-centered education Organizational and personal learning Valuing faculty, staff and partners Agility Focus on the future Managing for innovation Management by fact Public responsibility and citizenship Focus on results and creating value Systems perspective

The Seven Categories

LeadershipStrategic planningStudent, stakeholder and market focusInformation and analysisFaculty and staff focusProcess managementOrganizational performance results

Performance Excellence Framework

4

Information & Analysis

5

Faculty/StaffFocus

3Student/

Stakeholder,MarketFocus

7

OrganizationalPerformance

Results

7

OrganizationalPerformance

Results

2

StrategicPlanning

1

Leadership

6

ProcessManagement

Organizational Profile:

Environment, Relationships,

Challenges

Why Focus on Performance Excellence?

Understand performance, guide planning and learning opportunities

Improve organizational, department/unit and personal performance practices, capabilities and results

Deliver ever-improving value to students and stakeholders

Communicate internally and externally

What Are the Benefits?

Organizational, department, personal improvement

Organizational focus and energyStudent, stakeholder, faculty, staff

benefitTie-in with accreditationCan do attitude A strategic advantage

Approach

How? Method(s) established? Appropriate?

Effectiveness and degree Repeatable, integrated, consistently applied Improvement cycles Based on reliable information and data Aligned with organizational needs

Beneficial innovation and change

Deployment

Extent of approach appliedApproach is consistently used by

appropriate areas Think “most, many, some, few”

Results

Outcomes - beyond anecdotesCurrent performancePerformance relative to comparisonsRate and breadthLinkage to key:

student/stakeholder/market requirements organizational challenges processes

Exercise: The Andrews Profile

Table teams10 minutes per flipchartScribe responsesDiscussion

Format of Self-Assessment

Student/Stakeholder/Market Focus Category - entire group

Other Categories Individually read elements Select team roles Identify strengths and opportunities for

improvement Report out (identify elements, “how,” “why”)

Getting to the vital few

Assessment of Category 3Process for educational programsDetermining student needs/expectationsUsing information from current, former,

future studentsImproving listening and learning

methodsStakeholder needs/expectationsImproving listening and learning

methods

Assessment of Category 3

Process for building relationshipsContact requirements for

students/stakeholdersKey measures/indicatorsAccess mechanismsComplaint management processImproving relationships

Assessment of Category 3

Determining student and stakeholder satisfaction

Follow-up on interactionsComparing satisfactionImproving satisfaction determination

approaches

Assessment of Categories 1 and 2

Leadership (Category 1) Teams 1 and 2

Strategic Planning (Category 2) Teams 3 and 4

Assessment of Categories 5 and 6

Faculty and Staff Focus (Category 5) Teams 1 and 3

Process Management (Category 6) Teams 2 and 4

HLC’s AQIP

Forces for change Management Failure prevention and success Accountability Information and knowledge Competition Partnerships and collaboration Short response cycles Continuous improvement view

HLC’s AQIP: Philosophy

Voluntary, alternative processConcentrate on the academic

enterprise, involve faculty more directlyProvide concrete feedback to enable

institutions to reach higher performance levels

Reduce intrusiveness, cost, slower cycles of improvement

HLC’s AQIP: Philosophy

Replace “one-size fits all” approachRecognize and celebrate institutional

distinctiveness and outstanding achievements

Supply public with more understandable, useful information concerning the quality and value of accredited colleges and universities

HLC’s AQIP: Criteria

HLC’s AQIP: Process

InterestExploration

ComprehensiveSelf-Assessment

StrategyForum

+

System Review

All partnering institutionswill also update AQIP with

an Annual Results Inventory

HLC’s AQIP: Distinctions

Performance improvement Nine criteria Processes, outcomes, value added Separate criteria for various work

processes Results in each criterion

Ongoing cycle based on feedback

HLC’s AQIP: Distinctions

CollaborationAlignment with state, national

programsExclusively higher education focusInstitutional support services

Today’s Agenda

Report Out, Categories 5 and 6Assessment, Categories 4 and 7Review of Key Strengths and

Opportunities for ImprovementQ and A, Discussion

Assessment of Categories 4 and 7

Information and Analysis (Category 4) Teams 1 and 4

Organizational Performance Results (Category 7) Teams 2 and 3

Self-Assessment Themes

Key Strengths

Key Opportunities for Improvement

Why Focus on Performance Excellence?

To manage performance, planning, training and assessment

For diagnostic purposes - systems approach to learning and improvement via established set of criteria

To foster broad involvementTo learn and evolve

What Does It Take?

A focus on processA focus on information and analysisA focus on evaluation and

improvementA focus on resultsA focus on peopleA long-term commitment

Some Assumptions

Assumption 1: Two viewpoints “Accountability?*&^%$”

Can’t measure, they make us do it, it takes extra time, it’s an add-on, it will pass

“Let’s keep improving!”We can measure, we should do this for our

students and stakeholders, this is already part of what we do

Assumption 2: This takes commitment, alignment, integration and time

Some Assumptions

Assumption 3: Change via change agents, planned training and education, recognition

Assumption 4: Focus on the entire university through faculty/staff

Assumption 5: Simplify - mission driven

Assumption 6: It’s a culture

Final Questions

Most important thing learned?What questions still remain?Next steps?

The vital few Action plans