North Central Accreditation Self-Study Process
Campus Quality Survey
In 1997, the institution approved and implemented the strategic plan. One of the steps in strategic planning is continuous solicitation of feedback from both internal and external constituencies. To collect that feedback from our internal constituents, the Executive Council authorized the use of the Campus Quality Survey with all faculty and staff. The survey, developed by Performance Horizons Consulting Group in Wisconsin, has been used twice — in Fall 1998 to establish benchmarks and in Fall 1999 to monitor campus change. The survey will continue to be used every two years to monitor progress.
Services / Programs that Received High Ratings on the Survey
Employees answer each question twice: once to rate “How it should be” and once to rate “How it is now.” The difference between these two ratings is a performance gap. A small performance gap indicates that employees’ expectations are being met.
The list of services and programs that generated the smallest performance gaps was remarkably similar in 1998 and 1999. For example, in both years, the winners were:
• Computer technology is integrated into academic programs
• Computing environment is a competitive advantage in higher education
• Regional data is used to evaluate the institution’s performance
• Efforts to improve quality are paying off
• Mission, purpose and values are understood by employees
• Institution listens to students
• Students have a way to provide feedback on campus programs / services
In 1999, some new services and programs were added to the list of those with small performance gaps:
• Institution has user-friendly computer systems to support personnel and students
• Campus services are user-friendly
• Institution regularly conducts surveys to evaluate programs / services
Another way to evaluate services and programs is to look at the employees’ average level of satisfaction. Many of the services and programs that received the smallest performance gaps also received the highest satisfaction ratings from employees:
• Computer technology is integrated into academic programs
• Computing environment is a competitive advantage in higher education
• Institution has user-friendly computer systems to support personnel and students
• Mission, purpose and values are understood by employees
• Institution listens to students
• Efforts to improve quality are paying off
• Campus services are user-friendly
The average satisfaction ratings for these seven services / programs ranged from 3.84 to 4.54 (on a 5-point scale with 5 = very satisfied or strongly agree). These ratings were generally higher than the national norms for the same services / programs.
Campus services / programs were also rated from excellent to poor by faculty and staff. The five services / programs that received the highest ratings include:
• On the 1998 survey
• Library and learning resources
• Bookstore services
• Payroll services
• Business Office services
• Health and nursing services
• On the 1999 survey
• Library and learning resources
• Computer information systems and services
• Bookstore services
• Media / audio visual technology services
• Payroll services
Services / Programs that Received Lowest Ratings on the Survey
The performance gap is the difference between the ratings of “How it should be” and “How it is now.” A large performance gap indicates that employees’ expectations are not being met. (For example, employees have high expectations for a particular service / program but feel that the current level of performance is not as good as it should be.)
The list of services and programs that generated the largest performance gaps was also remarkably similar in 1998 and 1999. For example, in both years, the list included:
• Employees are rewarded for outstanding job performance
• DSU employees’ workload is fairly distributed
• Effective lines of communication exist between departments
• Service personnel receive special training in customer service
• Processes for selecting, orienting, training, empowering and recognizing personnel are carefully planned
• Administrators recognize employees when they do a good job
• DSU faculty and staff have adequate input into the allocation of computing resources
• Written procedures clearly define who’s responsible for each operation and service
• Each department has written, up-to-date service expectations
• Job responsibilities are clearly communicated to employees
Another way to evaluate services and programs is to look at the employees’ average level of satisfaction. Many of the services and programs that received the largest performance gap also received the lowest satisfaction ratings from employees:
• Employees are rewarded for outstanding job performance
• DSU employees’ workload is fairly distributed
• Effective lines of communication exist between departments
• Service personnel receive special training in customer service
• Processes for selecting, orienting, training, empowering and recognizing personnel are carefully planned
• Written procedures clearly define who’s responsible for each operation and service
The average satisfaction ratings for these six services / programs ranged from 2.48 to 3.14 (on a 5-point scale with 1 = very dissatisfied or strongly disagree). Relatively speaking, even the services / programs that received low satisfaction ratings received ratings that were above average. And, faculty and staff across the country expressed concern about 6 of the 10 services / programs on the DSU list.
Campus services / programs were also rated from excellent to poor by faculty and staff. The five services / programs that received the lowest ratings were the same for both years:
• Security / police services
• Communications with other departments
• Research and planning services
• Recruitment and orientation of new employees
• Budget planning and coordination
Overall Satisfaction with Employment
Finally, faculty and staff were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with their employment. In 1998, 66 percent of DSU employees rated themselves as satisfied or very satisfied with their job. In 1999, the overall satisfaction rating percentage jumped to 76 percent.
Faculty and staff were also asked to rate their overall impression of the institution’s quality. In 1998, 76 percent rated DSU’s quality as either excellent or good. In 1999, that quality rating jumped to 85 percent.
Actions Taken to Improve the Low Ratings and Decrease Performance Gaps
After the first survey administration, the NCA Organizing Committee asked for feedback from faculty, staff, and students to improve low ratings and to decrease performance gaps for campus services / programs. Solutions that have been implemented to date include:
• Campus Communication
• Instituted a series of brown bag presentations on issues of concern to the camp
•
Instituted monthly updates on BOR and NCA activities
•
Created campus-wide web calendar
• Employee Satisfaction / Recognition
•
Improved employee recognition by publicly celebrating awards and
promotions
•
Expanded the supervisor evaluation process
•
Increased access to faculty and staff training
The administration and the NCA Organizing Committee continue to solicit feedback and solutions from faculty, staff, and students.
Commendations from the Research Company
The Performance Horizons Consulting Group provided the survey instrument itself and also analyzed the DSU data. In their executive summary on the DSU results, they noted, “The university’s national reputation for computer technology is recognized by faculty and staff who take pride in this initiative. All of those responsible for this exemplary effort should be commended, particularly the faculty who have integrated technology into their courses.”
Summary
presented to all Faculty and Staff (PowerPoint presentation)
Summary
presented to Career Service Employees (PowerPoint presentation)