campus quality survey 1998, 1999, & 2001 comparison office of institutional research &...
TRANSCRIPT
Campus Quality Survey1998, 1999, & 2001 Comparison
Office of Institutional Research & PlanningJuly 5, 2001
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
ScaleShould Be Is Now Performance Gap
2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998
1. Top Management Leadership & Support 4.58 4.56 4.60 3.07 3.06 2.91 1.51 1.50 1.69
2. Customer Focus 4.46 4.43 4.47 3.23 3.24 3.03 1.23 1.19 1.44
3. Strategic Quality Planning 4.48 4.47 4.50 3.04 3.12 2.83 1.44 1.35 1.67
4. Quality Assurance 4.47 4.43 4.48 3.26 3.21 3.08 1.21 1.22 1.40
5. Measurement & Analysis 4.52 4.47 4.54 3.07 3.11 2.55 1.45 1.36 1.99
6. Quality & Productivity Improvement Results 4.50 4.45 4.51 3.14 3.17 2.98 1.36 1.28 1.53
7. Employee Training & Recognition 4.54 4.52 4.55 2.95 2.89 2.76 1.59 1.63 1.79
8. Employee Empowerment & Teamwork 4.55 4.51 4.57 3.11 3.13 3.02 1.44 1.38 1.55
Scale Summaries
Ranked ItemsShould Be Is Now Performance
Gap
2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998
(1) 27. There are effective lines of communication between departments. 4.55 4.60 4.56 2.62 2.70 2.44 1.93 1.90 2.12
(2) 37. There is a spirit of teamwork and cooperation in this organization. 4.62 4.59 4.64 2.71 2.86 2.48 1.90 1.72 2.16
(3) 2. This institution involves its employees in planning for the future. 4.52 4.53 4.61 2.62 2.91 2.66 1.90 1.62 1.95
(4) 48. Employee suggestions are used to improve our institution. 4.54 4.51 4.54 2.66 2.74 2.55 1.88 1.76 1.99
(5) 32. Administrators pay attention to what I have to say. 4.53 4.58 4.56 2.68 2.71 2.55 1.85 1.86 2.01
(6) 41. This institution analyzes all relevant data before making decisions. 4.61 4.54 4.59 2.79 2.81 2.55 1.82 1.73 2.04
(7) 14. This institution analyzes complaints to determine appropriate remedial action.
4.52 4.53 4.51 2.74 2.78 2.57 1.78 1.75 1.94
(8) 26. Employees are rewarded for outstanding job performance. 4.59 4.64 4.61 2.81 2.64 2.61 1.78 2.01 1.99
(9) 36. Administrators share information regularly with faculty and staff. 4.58 4.58 4.58 2.82 2.84 2.57 1.76 1.74 2.01
(10) 30. Administrators set examples of quality services in their day-to-day performance.
4.59 4.58 4.68 2.84 2.96 2.73 1.76 1.62 1.95
(11) 47. This institution plans carefully. 4.58 4.58 4.61 2.85 2.97 2.75 1.73 1.60 1.87
(12) 28. Employees are encouraged to provide suggestions on ways to improve the work flow.
4.55 4.56 4.57 2.82 2.87 2.75 1.72 1.69 1.82
(13) 9. Employees receive special training in improving customer service. 4.49 4.45 4.44 2.77 2.68 2.68 1.71 1.77 1.76
(14) 19. Employees are empowered to resolve problems quickly. 4.47 4.43 4.48 2.77 2.78 2.55 1.70 1.65 1.93
(15) 31. Administrators recognize faculty and staff when they do a good job. 4.62 4.60 4.60 2.93 2.81 2.69 1.70 1.80 1.91
Survey Items with Largest Performance Gaps - 2001
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
Characteristics2001 1999 1998
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Number of Employees completing survey. 302 100% 310 100% 314 100%
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION
Very satisfied 33 10.9 46 14.8 28 8.9
Satisfied 125 41.4 124 40.0 119 37.9
Neutral 47 15.6 52 16.8 43 13.7
Somewhat dissatisfied 53 17.6 48 15.5 70 22.3
Not satisfied at all 9 3.0 13 4.2 23 7.3
No response 35 11.5 27 8.7 31 9.9
IMPRESSION OF QUALITY
Excellent 48 15.9 41 13.2 27 8.6
Good 133 44.0 144 46.5 140 44.6
Average 83 27.5 94 30.3 95 30.3
Below average 28 9.3 26 8.4 43 13.7
Inadequate 7 2.3 3 1.0 6 1.9
No response 3 1.0 2 0.6 3 0.9
Satisfaction & Quality
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
Employee Satisfaction
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
8.9
14.8
10.9
37.940.0
41.4
13.7
16.815.6
22.3
15.5
17.6
7.3
4.23.0
9.9
8.7
11.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Per
cent
Res
pons
es
Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Somewhatdissatified
Not satisfied atall
No response
1998 1999 2001
Impression of Quality
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
8.6
13.215.9
44.646.5
44.0
30.3 30.3
27.5
13.7
8.4 9.3
1.9 1.0 2.30.9 0.6 1.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Per
cent
Res
pons
es
Excellent Good Average Below average Inadequate No response
1998 1999 2001
Characteristics2001 1999 1998
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Number of Employees completing survey. 302 100% 310 100% 314 100%
DIVISION
Instruction 138 45.7 157 50.7 187 59.6
Student Development 47 15.6 65 20.9 81 25.8
President’s/Finance/Development 117 38.7 88 28.4 46 14.6
EMPLOYEE GROUP
Faculty 94 31.1 113 36.5 122 38.9
Classified 130 43.1 127 40.9 130 41.4
Dept. Chair 18 6.0 18 5.8 14 4.5
Administrative/Professional 57 18.9 50 16.1 47 14.9
No Response 3 0.9 2 0.7 1 0.3
Survey Demographics
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
Details by Scale andSurvey Items
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
4.60 4.56 4.58
2.913.06 3.07
1.691.50 1.51
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Should Be Is Now Performance Gap
1998 1999 2001
Scale 1 – Top Management Leadership & Support – Examines how all levels of senior management create and sustain a clear and visible quality value system along with management systems support that guides the activities of the organization.
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
ItemShould Be Is Now Performance Gap
2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998
TOP MANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP & SUPPORT
4.58 4.56 4.60 3.07 3.06 2.91 1.51 1.50 1.69
6. Team efforts are effective on this campus. 4.52 4.50 4.55 3.07 3.06 2.83 1.46 1.44 1.72
13. Job responsibilities are communicated clearly to employees.
4.57 4.55 4.62 3.27 3.07 3.03 1.30 1.48 1.59
20. Administrators treat students as their top priority.
4.54 4.50 4.55 3.41 3.34 3.25 1.13 1.16 1.30
25. Administrators are committed to providing quality service.
4.61 4.63 4.68 3.15 3.33 3.10 1.47 1.30 1.57
26. Employees are rewarded for outstanding job performance.
4.59 4.64 4.60 2.81 2.64 2.61 1.78 2.00 1.99
30. Administrators are examples of quality performance in their day-to-day activities.
4.59 4.58 4.68 2.84 2.96 2.73 1.76 1.62 1.95
32. Administrators pay attention to what I have to say.
4.53 4.58 4.56 2.68 2.71 2.55 1.85 1.86 2.01
33. My supervisor helps me improve my job performance.
4.60 4.58 4.63 3.57 3.60 3.67 1.03 0.98 0.96
35. Administrators have confidence and trust in me. 4.62 4.56 4.60 3.32 3.35 3.11 1.30 1.21 1.49
36. Administrators share information regularly with faculty & staff.
4.58 4.58 4.58 2.82 2.84 2.57 1.76 1.74 2.01
41. This institution analyzes all relevant data before making decisions.
4.61 4.54 4.59 2.79 2.81 2.55 1.82 1.73 2.04
Scale 1 – Top Management Leadership & Support – Scale Summary and ratings for Detailed Items
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
4.47 4.43 4.46
3.033.24 3.23
1.441.19 1.23
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Should Be Is Now Performance Gap
1998 1999 2001
Scale 2 – Customer Focus – Assesses overall customer service systems and the responsiveness and ability of the organization to meet requirements and expectations.
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
Scale 2 – Customer Focus – Scale Summary and ratings for Detailed Items
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
ItemShould Be Is Now Performance Gap
2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998
CUSTOMER FOCUS 4.46 4.43 4.47 3.23 3.24 3.03 1.23 1.19 1.44
1. This institution listens to its students. 4.50 4.52 4.52 3.69 3.67 3.45 0.80 0.85 1.07
3. This institution regularly conducts surveys to evaluate its programs and services.
4.38 4.34 4.43 3.26 3.32 2.70 1.12 1.02 1.74
5. Students have a way to provide feedback on their level of satisfaction with campus programs and services.
4.48 4.42 4.44 3.51 3.49 3.20 0.97 0.93 1.25
9. Service personnel receive special training in customer service. 4.49 4.45 4.44 2.77 2.68 2.68 1.71 1.77 1.76
11. This institution promotes excellent employee-to-student relationships. 4.51 4.50 4.57 3.32 3.42 3.34 1.19 1.08 1.23
14. This institution analyzes complaints to determine appropriate action. 4.52 4.53 4.51 2.74 2.78 2.57 1.78 1.75 1.94
15. Student input is systematically measured & monitored as a basis for improvement.
4.41 4.36 4.38 3.20 3.13 2.84 1.21 1.23 1.54
16. Student survey results are published and posted regularly. 4.38 4.30 4.32 2.71 2.69 2.30 1.67 1.61 2.02
21. Administrators cultivate positive relationships with students. 4.40 4.39 4.51 3.33 3.32 3.20 1.07 1.07 1.31
23. Guarantees of satisfaction are offered to students to ensure quality service.
4.23 4.10 4.17 3.19 3.07 2.89 1.05 1.03 1.27
24. Students believe faculty care about what they think. 4.51 4.50 4.55 3.43 3.44 3.41 1.07 1.06 1.41
25. Administrators are committed to providing quality service. 4.61 4.63 4.68 3.15 3.33 3.10 1.47 1.30 1.57
39. Campus services are “user-friendly”. 4.63 4.58 4.63 3.73 3.75 3.67 0.90 0.83 0.96
4.50 4.47 4.48
2.833.12 3.04
1.671.35 1.44
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Should Be IsNow Performance Gap
1998 1999 2001
Scale 3 – Strategic Quality Planning – Examines the organization’s quality planning process and reviews how all key quality requirements are integrated into the process.
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
Scale 3 – Strategic Quality Planning – Scale Summary and ratings for Detailed Items
ItemShould Be Is Now Performance Gap
2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998
STRATEGIC QUALITY PLANNING
4.48 4.47 4.50 3.04 3.12 2.83 1.44 1.35 1.67
2. This institution involves its employees in planning for the future.
4.52 4.53 4.61 2.62 2.91 2.66 1.90 1.62 1.95
3. This institution regularly conducts surveys to evaluate its programs and services.
4.38 4.34 4.43 3.26 3.33 2.70 1.12 1.01 1.74
14. This institution analyzes complaints to determine appropriate actions.
4.52 4.53 4.51 2.74 2.78 2.57 1.78 1.75 1.94
15. Student input is systematically measured and monitored as a basis for improvement.
4.41 4.36 4.38 3.20 3.13 2.84 1.21 1.23 1.54
17. We use regional data to compare our performance with that of other institutions.
4.37 4.35 4.32 3.37 3.29 3.09 1.00 1.06 1.24
47. This institution plans carefully. 4.58 4.58 4.61 2.85 2.97 2.75 1.73 1.61 1.87
48. Employee suggestions are used to improve our institution.
4.54 4.51 4.54 2.66 2.74 2.55 1.88 1.77 1.99
49. The mission, purpose and values of this institution are understood by employees.
4.57 4.53 4.63 3.65 3.82 3.53 0.92 0.71 1.09
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
4.48 4.43 4.47
3.08 3.21 3.26
1.401.22 1.21
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Should Be Is Now Performance Gap
1998 1999 2001
Scale 4 – Quality Assurance – Examines the approaches used by the organization to design, assess, control, and improve processes.
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
Scale 4 – Quality Assurance – Scale Summary and ratings for Detailed Items
ItemShould Be Is Now Performance Gap
2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998
QUALITY ASSURANCE 4.47 4.43 4.48 3.26 3.21 3.08 1.21 1.22 1.40
5. Students have a way to provide feedback on their level of satisfaction with campus programs and services.
4.48 4.42 4.44 3.51 3.49 3.20 0.97 0.93 1.25
7. Each department has written, up-to-date service expectations. 4.42 4.38 4.47 3.28 3.30 3.20 1.14 1.08 1.25
12. Established standards and procedures define job expectations for employees.
4.48 4.43 4.57 3.23 3.14 3.05 1.26 1.29 1.52
13. Job responsibilities are communicated clearly to employees. 4.57 4.55 4.62 3.27 3.07 3.03 1.30 1.48 1.59
15. Student input is systematically measured and monitored as a basis for improvement.
4.41 4.36 4.38 3.20 3.13 2.84 1.21 1.23 1.54
17. We use regional data to compare our performance with that of other institutions.
4.37 4.35 4.32 3.37 3.29 3.09 1.00 1.06 1.24
18. This institution continually evaluates and upgrades its processes for collecting data.
4.40 4.33 4.43 3.15 3.20 3.03 1.25 1.13 1.40
23. Guarantees of satisfaction are offered to students to ensure quality service.
4.23 4.10 4.17 3.19 3.07 2.89 1.05 1.03 1.27
28. Employees are encouraged to provide feedback on ways to improve the work flow.
4.55 4.56 4.57 2.82 2.87 2.75 1.72 1.69 1.82
38. I know what is expected of me. 4.63 4.61 4.64 4.01 3.90 3.88 0.62 0.71 0.76
44. Employees are involved in the development and improvement of performance measures.
4.56 4.48 4.56 2.97 3.06 3.02 1.59 1.42 1.54
45. Written procedures clearly define who is responsible for each operation and service.
4.57 4.52 4.59 3.14 2.99 3.00 1.43 1.53 1.59
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
4.54 4.47 4.52
2.55
3.11 3.07
1.99
1.36 1.45
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Should Be Is Now Performance Gap
1998 1999 2001
Scale 5 – Measurement & Analysis – Reviews the scope, validity, use, and management of data and information that underscore the organization’s TQM system.
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
Scale 5 – Measurement & Analysis – Scale Summary and ratings for Detailed Items
ItemShould Be Is Now Performance Gap
2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998
MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS 4.52 4.47 4.54 3.07 3.11 2.55 1.45 1.36 1.99
4. It is easy to get information at this institution. 4.55 4.51 4.56 3.19 3.12 2.95 1.36 1.39 1.61
10. This institution has “user-friendly” computer systems to support personnel.
4.57 4.46 4.61 3.42 3.47 3.20 1.15 0.99 1.41
17. We use regional data to compare our performance with that of other institutions.
4.37 4.35 4.32 3.37 3.29 3.09 1.00 1.06 1.24
18. This institution continually evaluates and upgrades its processes for collecting data.
4.40 4.33 4.43 3.15 3.20 3.03 1.25 1.13 1.40
22. Efforts to improve quality are paying off in this institution.
4.55 4.50 4.52 3.10 3.33 2.96 1.45 1.17 1.56
28. Employees are encouraged to provide feedback on ways to improve work flow.
4.55 4.56 4.57 2.82 2.87 2.75 1.72 1.69 1.82
36. Administrators share information regularly with faculty and staff.
4.58 4.58 4.58 2.82 2.84 2.57 1.76 1.74 2.01
41. This institution analyzes all relevant data before making decisions.
4.61 4.54 4.59 2.79 2.81 2.55 1.82 1.73 2.04
42. Quality process tools and methods are used regularly to solve problems.
4.49 4.40 4.48 2.96 3.06 2.76 1.53 1.34 1.72
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
4.51 4.45 4.50
2.983.17 3.14
1.531.28 1.36
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Should Be Is Now Performance Gap
1998 1999 2001
Scale 6 – Quality & Productivity Improvement Results – Reviews the measurable results of the organization’s quality improvement efforts.
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
Scale 6 – Quality & Productivity Improvement Results – Scale Summary and ratings for Detailed Items
ItemShould Be Is Now Performance Gap
2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998
QUALITY & PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT RESULTS
4.50 4.45 4.51 3.14 3.17 2.98 1.36 1.28 1.53
7. Each department has written, up-to-date service expectations. 4.42 4.38 4.47 3.28 3.30 3.20 1.14 1.08 1.27
12. Established standards and procedures define job expectations for employees.
4.48 4.43 4.57 3.23 3.14 3.05 1.26 1.29 1.52
15. Student input is systematically measured and monitored as a basis for improvement.
4.41 4.36 4.38 3.20 3.13 2.84 1.21 1.23 1.54
18. This institution continually evaluates and upgrades its processes for gathering data.
4.40 4.33 4.43 3.15 3.20 3.03 1.25 1.13 1.40
22. Efforts to improve quality are paying off in this institution. 4.55 4.50 4.52 3.10 3.33 2.96 1.45 1.17 1.56
23. Guarantees of satisfaction are offered to students to ensure quality service.
4.23 4.10 4.17 3.19 3.07 2.89 1.05 1.03 1.27
27. There are effective lines of communication between departments.
4.55 4.60 4.56 2.62 2.70 2.44 1.93 1.90 2.12
29. Faculty and staff take pride in their work. 4.66 4.68 4.73 3.71 3.75 3.84 0.95 0.93 0.89
37. There is a spirit of teamwork & cooperation on this campus. 4.62 4.59 4.64 2.71 2.86 2.48 1.90 1.73 2.16
42. Quality process tools and methods are used regularly to solve problems.
4.49 4.40 4.48 2.96 3.06 2.76 1.53 1.34 1.72
43. This institution believes in continuous quality improvement. 4.56 4.58 4.61 3.34 3.52 3.29 1.22 1.06 1.31
45. Written procedures clearly define who is responsible for each operation and service.
4.57 4.52 4.59 3.14 2.99 3.00 1.43 1.53 1.59
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
4.55 4.52 4.54
2.76 2.89 2.95
1.791.63 1.59
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Should Be Is Now Performance Gap
1998 1999 2001
Scale 7 – Employee Training & Recognition – Examines the efforts to develop the full potential of employees for quality improvement and analyzes training efforts, rewards, and incentives in place to recognize individuals.
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
Scale 7 – Employee Training & Recognition – Scale Summary and ratings for Detailed Items
ItemShould Be Is Now Performance Gap
2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998
EMPLOYEE TRAINING & RECOGNITION
4.54 4.52 4.55 2.95 2.89 2.76 1.59 1.63 1.79
8. Processes for selecting, orienting, training, empowering and recognizing personnel are carefully planned.
4.53 4.45 4.52 2.86 2.74 2.54 1.68 1.71 1.98
9. Service personnel receive special training in customer service.
4.49 4.45 4.44 2.77 2.68 2.68 1.71 1.77 1.76
19. Employees are empowered to resolve students’ problems quickly.
4.47 4.43 4.48 2.77 2.78 2.55 1.70 1.65 1.93
24. Students believe faculty care about what they think. 4.51 4.50 4.55 3.43 3.44 3.41 1.07 1.06 1.14
26. Employees are rewarded for outstanding job performance.
4.59 4.64 4.61 2.81 2.64 2.61 1.78 2.00 1.99
31. Administrators recognize employees when they do a good job.
4.62 4.60 4.60 2.93 2.80 2.69 1.70 1.80 1.91
48. Employee suggestions are used to improve our institution.
4.54 4.51 4.54 2.66 2.75 2.55 1.88 1.76 1.99
50. Professional development programs to improve job performance are available to employees.
4.59 4.58 4.64 3.40 3.28 3.09 1.19 1.30 1.55
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
4.57 4.51 4.54
3.02 3.13 3.11
1.551.38 1.44
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Should Be Is Now Performance Gap
1998 1999 2001
Scale 8 – Employee Empowerment & Teamwork – Determines the effectiveness and extent of work force involvement in continuous quality improvement and the approaches used to enhance employee empowerment.
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
Scale 8 – Employee Empowerment & Teamwork – Scale Summary and ratings for Detailed Items
ItemShould Be Is Now Performance Gap
2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998 2001 1999 1998
EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT & TEAMWORK
4.55 4.51 4.57 3.11 3.13 3.02 1.44 1.38 1.55
6. Team efforts are effective on this campus. 4.52 4.50 4.55 3.07 3.06 2.83 1.46 1.44 1.72
8. Processes for selecting, orienting, training, empowering and recognizing personnel are carefully planned.
4.53 4.45 4.52 2.86 2.74 2.54 1.68 1.71 1.98
13. Job responsibilities are communicated clearly to employees. 4.57 4.55 4.62 3.27 3.07 3.03 1.30 1.48 1.59
19. Employees are empowered to solve students’ problems quickly.
4.47 4.43 4.48 2.77 2.78 2.55 1.70 1.65 1.93
20. Administrators treat students as their top priority. 4.54 4.50 4.55 3.41 3.34 3.25 1.13 1.16 1.30
28. Employees are encouraged to provide feedback on ways to improve the work flow.
4.55 4.56 4.57 2.82 2.87 2.75 1.72 1.69 1.82
33. My supervisor helps me improve my job performance. 4.61 4.58 4.63 3.57 3.60 3.67 1.03 0.98 0.96
34. This institution uses teams to solve problems. 4.51 4.39 4.50 3.00 3.09 3.04 1.51 1.30 1.46
35. Administrators have confidence and trust me. 4.63 4.56 4.60 3.32 3.35 3.11 1.30 1.21 1.49
37. There is a spirit of teamwork and cooperation on this campus. 4.62 4.59 4.64 2.71 2.86 2.48 1.90 1.73 2.16
40. My department meets as a team to plan and coordinate work. 4.65 4.61 4.67 3.73 3.77 3.93 0.92 0.84 0.74
44. Employees are involved in the development and improvement of performance measures.
4.56 4.48 4.56 2.97 3.06 3.02 1.59 1.42 1.54
46. Quality improvement teams have been established on this campus.
4.38 4.44 4.47 2.96 3.09 3.02 1.42 1.35 1.45
Campus Quality Survey Comparisons1998, 1999, & 2001
Click the “Back” button on your browser to return to the
IE-RP main page.