institutional self study 2013/2014 key performance indicators · pdf filekpi-1: stakeholders...

Institutional Self Study 2013/2014

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1

Table of Contents

S.No Contents Page No.

1. Description of Process and the current status 02

2. Area 1: Mission and Objectives 03

3. Area 2: Governance and Administration 09

4. Area 3: Administration of Quality Management 11

5. Area 4: Teaching and Learning 17

6. Area 5: Students Administration and Support Services 33

7. Area 6: Learning Resources 41

8. Area 7: Facilities and Equipment 55

9. Area 8: Financial Planning and Management 61

10. Area 9: Employment Process: Faculty and Staff 62

11. Area 10: Research 68

12. Area 11: Community Relationships 83

2

DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS

The University of Dammam [UOD] has identified 49 indicators for both Institutions and the Programs.

Among them, 33 KPIs were stipulated by the NCAAA and 16 additional indicators were selected to

monitor the performance of various academic and administrative Units.

For Internal Benchmarking, software entitled “UDMetrics” is developed and in place to capture and

analyze all the identified KPIs. UOD utilized data from its component colleges which are homogenous in

nature to fix internal benchmarking. Also, a time trend analysis is utilized to assess the progress towards

the accomplishment of its target benchmarking

Presently, there are no External Benchmarking agreements signed with comparable Institutions. To

facilitate that, a benchmarking contract has been prepared. Five Universities were contacted for exchange

of data and it is included in the analysis. The institutions included in the external benchmarking process of

UOD include:

1. King Saud University, KSA

2. King Abdulaziz University, KSA

3. Taif University, KSA

4. Majmaah University, KSA

5. JUST University, Jordan

The following tables indicate the KPIs [N=32] for the 11 NCAAA standards.

3

STANDARD 1

KPI-1: Stakeholders' awareness ratings of the Mission Statement and Objectives (Average rating on how well

the mission is known to teaching staff, and undergraduate and graduate students, respectively, on a five- point

scale in an annual survey).

NCAAA KPI Reference Number: S1.1

Actual Benchmark (Current results-Present data)

Target

Bench

mark

Internal

Benchmark

External Benchmark**

New

Target Benchmark

Universities

King

Saud

King

Abdul

-Aziz Taif Majmaah

JUST

(Jordan)

4.2

UOD Overall: 3.9

4.1 4.1

Dat

a n

ot

Pro

vid

ed

Dat

a n

ot

Pro

vid

ed

Male=

44.5%

(2.225) Female=

65.8%

(3.44)

Dat

a n

ot

Pro

vid

ed

Dat

a n

ot

Pro

vid

ed

Male - 3.86 Female - 3.96

Vis

ion

Mis

sion

Val

ues

Vis

ion

Mis

sion

Val

ues

3.7 3.8 4.0 3.7 3.9 4.3

Education

Level Vision Mission Values

Secondary 3.5 3.6 3.9

Diploma 3.8 3.8 4.4

Bachelor 3.5 3.7 3.9

Master 4.0 4.0 4.3

Ph. D 4.0 4.3 4.5

Primary Work Vision Mission Values

Government 3.9 4.2 4.4

Private

sector 3.5 3.6 4.0

Students 3.3 3.5 3.8

Job Seeking 2.9 3.2 4.3

Jobless 4.1 4.2 4.2

Others 3.3 3.6 4.1

4

Field Vision Mission Values

Education 3.9 4.2 4.4

Health 3.7 3.6 4.3

Engineering

&

Construction

3.4 3.5 3.8

Business 3.3 3.5 3.7

Judiciary &

Legal

Profession

3.3 3.6 3.0

Information

Technology 3.3 3.4 3.7

Industry 4.6 4.8 4.8

Media &

Press 3.1 3.8 3.9

Total 3.7 3.9 4.2

Beneficiaries Vision Mission Values

Within

University 3.7 3.9 4.2

Outside the University

4.0 3.7 3.8

Role Vision Mission Values

Leadership

Position 4.1 4.2 4.5

Faculty

Members 4.2 4.4 4.6

Staff 3.7 3.9 4.3

Student 3.4 3.6 3.9

KPI Analysis (list strengths and recommendations):

Figure 1: Gender-specific comparison of Stakeholders' ratings of the Mission Statement and Objectives

between UOD and Taif University

0

1

2

3

4

Male Female

3.86 3.96

2.225

3.44

Aver

age

Sco

re

Gender

University of Dammam

Taif University

5

Figure 2: Gender-specific comparison of Stakeholders' ratings of the Mission Statement and Objectives at UOD

Figure 3: Gender-specific comparison of Stakeholders' ratings of the Mission, Vision and values of UOD

Figure 4: Demographic Characteristics of the UOD stakeholders participated in the Survey

3.8

3.85

3.9

3.95

4

Male Female

3.86

3.96

Av

erag

e S

core

Gender

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

Vision Mission Values Vision Mission Values

Male Female

3.7 3.8

4.0

3.7

3.9

4.3

Av

erag

e S

core

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Secondary Diploma Bachelor Master Ph. D

3.5 3.8

3.5 4.0 4.0

3.6 3.8 3.7 4.0 4.3

3.9 4.4

3.9 4.3 4.5

Av

erag

e S

core

Education Level

Vision

Mission

Values

6

Figure 5: Demographic Characteristics of the subjects with respect to their employment status at UOD

Figure 6: Demographic Characteristics of the subjects with respect to their field of employment at UOD

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Government Private

Sector

Students Job Seeking Jobless Others

3.9 3.5 3.3 2.9

4.1 3.3

4.2 3.6 3.5

3.2

4.2 3.6

4.4 4.0 3.8

4.3 4.2 4.1 A

ver

ag

e S

core

Primary Work

Vision

Mission

Values

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Education Health Engineering

and

Construction

Business Judiciary and

Legal

profession

Information

Technology

Industry Media and

Press

Total

3.9 3.7

3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3

4.6

3.1

3.7

4.2 3.6

3.5 3.5 3.6 3.4

4.8

3.8 3.9

4.4 4.3

3.8 3.7

3.0

3.7

4.8

3.9 4.2

Av

erag

e S

core

Vision

Mission

Values

7

Figure 7: Demographic Characteristics of the UOD beneficiaries participated in the survey

Figure 8: Role of the participants responded in this survey at UOD

Figure 9: Categorization of UOD Faculty participated in this survey

The stakeholders’ evaluation of UOD mission equals (3.9) out of 5 and it is for male stakeholders (3.86) while

for female is (3.96). These ratings at Taif University are linearly transformed to be on five point scale because

they present it as percentages to be able to be comparable. The stakeholders’ evaluation of UOD mission is very

close to the target and it is higher than Taif University as an external benchmarking. This could mean that the

stakeholders of UOD have a good knowledge and satisfaction of the mission statement.

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

Within University Outside the University

3.7

4.0 3.9

3.7

4.2

3.8

Av

erag

e S

core

Beneficiaries from

Vision

Mission

Values

0

1

2

3

4

5

Leadership

Position

Faculty

Members

Staff Student

4.1 4.2 3.7 3.4

4.2 4.4 3.9 3.6

4.5 4.6 4.3

3.9

Av

erag

e S

core

Role

Vision

Mission

Values

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Professor Assistant

Professor

Lecturer Teaching

Assistant

4.8 4.4 4.1

3.7

4.7 4.3 4.3 4.1

5.0 4.4 4.5 4.5

Av

erag

e S

core

Faculty Position

Vision

Mission

Values

8

The trend analysis (comparing the performance for this KPI across years) cannot be done because the data

available for only 2013/2014 year. The external benchmark cannot be done because no valuable data from the

universities that have an agreement with UOD.

Strengths

1. There is a notable participation of stakeholders in the UOD survey on the appropriateness of Mission

statement.

2. Majority of the stakeholders have adequate knowledge about the Mission of the University.

Recommendations

1. Since, it has been initiated in this academic year; comparison of the same with the previous year is not

possible. It is recommended to conduct similar survey on a regular basis at UOD which will help the

policy planners to act accordingly.

2. The lack of similar data from the benchmarking partners makes this data comparable. It is

recommended to compare the data with appropriate benchmarking partners to adopt a good practice.

Therefore, UOD needs to look forward other institutes for external benchmarking.

* Explain:

1. Why this internal benchmark provider was chosen?

The external benchmark was set to be equal to the target benchmark (4.1).

2. How was the benchmark calculated?

The internal benchmark equals the actual benchmark plus (5-10%) increase, and it is decided by the

committee of Area 1.

3. Name of the internal benchmark provider.

Based on UOD development strategy and Area 1 Committee discussion.

** Explain:

Among the Benchmarking partners, King Saud, King Abdulaziz, Majmaah, and JUST University do not

provide UOD data about this KPI. Taif University provides it in percentage and it is used for analysis

Taif University

9

STANDARD 2

KPI-2: Handbook, including administrative flow chart and job responsibilities (Average rating on the adequacy of the

Policy Handbook on a five- point scale in an annual survey of teaching staff and final year students).

NCAAA KPI Reference Number - S2.1

Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark*


New

Target

Benchmark

King

Saud

Univers

ity

King

Abdul-

Aziz

univers

ity

Taif

Unive

rsity

Majmaah

University

JUST

University

Jordan

4.2 4.2 4.2 Data not provided 4.4


Figure 10: Stakeholders average rating on the adequacy of the Policy Handbook at UOD

Figure 11: Comparison of the Stakeholders rating on the adequacy of the Policy Handbook between the current and

previous years at UOD

0

2

4

6

Actual Benchmark

(2012/2013)

Actual Benchmark

(2013/2014)

4.2 4.2

Av

erag

e S

core

4.1

4.15

4.2

4.25

4.3

4.35

4.4

Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark*

New Target

Benchmark

4.2 4.2 4.2

4.4

Av

era

ge

Sco

re

10

Average rating on the adequacy of the Policy Handbook on a five point scale equals) (4.2) out 5. (Final years students

were not included for the academic years 2012/2013 and 2013/2014). The actual benchmark is less than the target and

the internal benchmark.

Strengths:

The actual benchmark can be considered as an acceptable level.

Recommendations:

Data about the adequacy of policy handbook from final year students was not collected, so it is recommended to include

final year students (by a special survey Or by adding an item to (PES)) in the next years.

*Explain:


The internal benchmark was set to be equal to the target benchmark (4.2)


The internal benchmark equals the actual benchmark plus (5-10%) increase based on the UOD strategy Plan.


UOD development strategy.

** Explain:

1. Why this external benchmark provider was chosen?

Keeping in view of good practice, two specific criteria was adopted UOD to choose the external benchmarking partner

viz.

(i) Comparability in the Infrastructural facilities (i.e. learning resources) required for the Programs across KSA

(ii) Availability of data as required by the NCAAA.

However, this data is not available at the benchmarking partners Institutions.


The external benchmarking is not done due to the non-availability of data with the external benchmarking partners

3. Name of the external benchmark providers.

Nil (Data not Provided)

11

STANDARD 3

KPI-3: Students' overall evaluation on the quality of their learning experiences. (Average rating of

the overall quality on a five point scale in an annual survey of final year students.)


Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark

*


New Target

Benchmark

UOD Overall: 3.9

3.8 3.8

Universities

4.1

King

Saud

King Abdul-

Aziz

Taif Majmaah JUST

Male Female

3.6

4

Data Not

Provided

3.87

4.1

4.08 3.86

Hea

lth

Tec

hn

ical

Man

agem

ent

Hu

man

itie

s

3.8 4.0 3.6 4


Figure 12: Cluster specific comparison of the overall rating of Students Learning Experience at UOD

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

Health Technical Management Humanities

3.8

4

3.6

4

Av

erag

e S

core

Cluster

Cluster specific overall rating of Quality of Learning

Experiences at UOD during 2013-2014

(Mean rating on a 5-Point scale)

12

Figure 13: Overall rating of Quality of Learning Experience between UOD, KSU, KAU, Majmaah and

JUST university students.

Figure 14: Overall rating of Quality of Learning Experience between Male and Female students

The figure shows the cluster specific comparison of the overall rating of quality of learning experiences

by the students at UOD. Except the Health cluster and Management cluster, the other two clusters are

having their mean rating of 4 in the five point Liker scale. Further analysis was carried out by comparing

the mean rating of the students learning experience at UOD with the mean rating of the students at KSU

and JUST. The result indicate that UOD students have slightly higher mean rating than the KSU students

with respect to the overall rating of the Learning experiences. Also the gender wise comparison inside

3.33.43.53.63.73.83.9

44.1

University of

Dammam

King Saud

University

king

abdulaziz

university

Majmaah

University

JUST

university

3.9

3.6

4 3.87

4.1 A

vera

ge S

core

Universitites

3.7

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

Male Female

4.08

3.86

Av

erag

e S

core

Gender

Comparison of the overall rating of Quality of Students Learning

Experiences between Male and Female during the year 2013-2014

13

UoD shows, the mean rating of Male is slightly higher than the female rating.

Strengths

1. Adoption of UDQuest online application enhances the overall evaluation process throughout the

university

2. Most of the Colleges attached with UOD rated the quality of students experience as satisfactory

indicating better performance of the academic units.

Recommendations

1. Even though the quality of learning experience is rated as satisfactory by majority of the

Colleges, still there is a room for further improvement. An appropriate strategy needs to be

devised at the college level to further increase the quality of learning experience through focused

group discussion with all the relevant stakeholders.

2. Since the students experience in a College covers both academic and administrative areas, there is

a need to improve the quality of administrative process at UOD.

*Explain:


The Internal benchmark provider was chosen based on the homogeneity of the colleges included in each

cluster. Three methods of comparisons were made. One is cluster to cluster comparison and Gender wise

and another is the comparison of similar colleges (specialty wide comparison) within the same cluster.


Average rating of the overall quality on a five point scale in an annual survey of final year students =

Sum of the scores PES /No of students who responded to the survey (PES)


All the Colleges belonging to the four clusters at UOD

** Explain:


Keeping in view of good practice, two specific criteria was adopted UOD to choose the external

benchmarking partner viz.

(i) Comparability in the Infrastructural facilities required for the Programs across KSA


Accordingly, King Saud [KSU] university was chosen. KSU is the first university established in KSA and

it has already attained academic accreditation by NCAAA. KSU and JUST has been adopted as

14

benchmarking partner in the view of good practice.

How was the benchmark calculated?

Average rating of the overall quality on a five point scale in an annual survey of final year students = Sum

of the scores PES /No of students who responded to the survey (PES)

Name of the external benchmark providers.

King Saud University

king Abdul-Aziz university

Majmaah.

JUST university

KPI-4: Proportion of courses in which student evaluations were conducted during the year 2013 -2014


Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark External Benchmark** New Target

Benchmark

UOD Overall:

85%

100% 100%

Universities

100%

King

Saud

King

Abdul-

Aziz

Taif Majma

ah

JUST

Hea

lth

Tec

hn

ical

Man

agem

e

nt

Hu

man

itie

s

100% 100% Data Not

Provided 80% 100%

80 84 82 88

KPI Analysis (list strengths and recommendations)

Figure 15: Proportion of Courses with student’s evaluations conducted during the year 2013-2014 according to

clusters

80% 84% 82% 88%

Per

cen

tag

e

Cluster

Percentage of courses were student's evaluation conducted in 2013-2014

15

Figure 16: Proportion of Courses with student’s evaluations between UOD, KSU ,KAU, Majmaah and

JUST university students

Strengths

1. Fair and equitable distribution of courses related to all the colleges which are included in the four

clusters at UOD

2. The majority of the Courses offered in various programs at UOD have been surveyed.

3. Existing mechanism adopted by UOD to remind the students to participate in the surveys is

highly successful and acknowledged by various stakeholders.

Recommendations

1. Even though the overall response rate is good, still there is a room for improvement in clusters

such as Health; Technical and Management colleges were the response rate is reported less than

90%.

2. The response rate is challenging with the existing the online application to collect data. A

change in the policy to collect data from open access to either conditionality or captive audience

is highly recommended.

*Explain:


The Internal benchmark provider based on the homogeneity of the colleges included in each cluster.

Two methods of comparisons were made. One is cluster to cluster comparison and another is the

comparison of similar colleges (specialty wide comparison) within the cluster.

0102030405060708090

100

University

of Dammam

King Saud

University

king

abdulaziz

university

Majmaah

University

JUST

university

85

100 100

80

100

Per

cen

tag

e(%

)

Universities

16


Proportion of courses in which student evaluations were conducted during the year = No of courses

evaluated by CES/ Total No of courses


All the Colleges belonging to the four clusters at UOD

** Explain:






Accordingly, King Saud [KSU] university was chosen. KSU is the first university established in KSA and

it has already attained academic accreditation by NCAAA. KSU and JUST has been adopted as

benchmarking partner in the view of good practice


Proportion of courses in which student evaluations were conducted during the year = No of courses

evaluated by CES/ Total No of courses

3. Name of the external benchmark provider.



Majmaah University

JUST university

17

STANDARD 4

KPI-5: Ratio of students to teaching staff. (Based on full time equivalents)


Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark

*

External Benchmark** New Target

Benchmark

King Saud

University

King

Abdul-Aziz

University

Taif University

Majmaah University

JUST

University

(Jordan) 12:1

13:1 14:1 14:1 13.6:1 9:1 20:1 12.4:1 25:1


Figure 17: Ratio of students to teaching staff among five different Universities

Figure 18: Trend showing the ratio of students to teaching staff working at UOD from the year 2010 to 2014

The actual result indicated that the ratio of students to teaching staff is measured at 13:1. The actual result is

better than the target of 14:1 which is fixed before measuring the actual performance. Also, based the previous

year’s performance, the internal benchmark is fixed to be equal to the target benchmark. The Ratio of students

0

5

10

15

20

25

University

of

Dammam

King Saud

University

king

abdulaziz

university

Taif

University

Majmaah JUST

university

13:1 13.6:1 9:1

20:1

12.4:1

25:1

No

. of

Stu

den

ts

Universities

0

5

10

15

20

UOD (2010/2011) UOD (2011/2012) UOD (2012/2013) UOD Actual

Benchmark

(2013/2014)

15:1

18:1 16:1

13:1

No

. o

f S

tud

ents

18

to teaching staff (Based on full time equivalents) is less or very close to the external benchmark if consider

King Saud University (14:1) and lower than the Taif University (20:1) and JUST university(25:1).

Strength:

UOD has achieved the target, and needs to keep the ratio at this level or less.

Recommendations

Based on the existing teaching staff working at UOD, it is recommended that more teaching staff needs to be

recruited in case the UOD aims at recruiting more students.

*Explain:


The internal benchmark was set to be equal to the target benchmark (14:1).


The internal benchmark equals the actual benchmark plus (5-10%) increase based on the UOD strategic plan of

development.


UOD development strategic plan.

** Explain:


Keeping in view of good practice, two specific criteria was adopted UOD to choose the external benchmarking

partner viz.

(i) Comparability in the Infrastructural facilities (i.e. learning resources) required for the Programs

across KSA


Accordingly, two universities such as King Saud [KSU] and Taif university were chosen. KSU is the first

university established in KSA and it has already attained academic accreditation by NCAAA. KSU has been

adopted as benchmarking partner in the view of good practice. Also with respect to comparability, Taif

University has been chosen as an external benchmark provider.


Dividing the total number of students at UOD by the total number of full time teaching staff.

3. Name of the external benchmark provider


King Abdul-Aziz university

Taif University

Majmaah University

JUST university

19

KPI-6: Students overall rating on the quality of their courses. (Average rating of students on a five

point scale on overall evaluation of courses.)


Actual Benchmark

(Current results-Present data)

Target

Benchm

ark

Internal

Benchm

ark

External Benchmark** New

Target

Bench

mark Universities

King

Saud

King

Abdul

-Aziz

Taif Majm

aah

JUST

(Jord

an)

3.9

UOD Overall: 3.8

3.9 3.5

Dat

a N

ot

Pro

vid

ed

4.13

Dat

a N

ot

Pro

vid

ed

(45%)

2.25

Dat

a N

ot

Pro

vid

ed

Gender Specific Comparison

Male: 3.7 Female: 3.8

Cluster specific Comparison

Hea

lth

Tec

hnic

al

Man

agem

ent

Hum

anit

ies

3.6 3.6 3.7 3.8

Branch/Campus specific Comparison

Dam

mam

Haf

er A

l-B

aten

Jubai

l

Khaf

ji

Mai

n

Nae

eriy

a

Qat

if

3.8 3.9 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.9

3.6

20


Figure 19: comparison of the overall rating of the Course between the three Universities

Figure 20: Cluster specific comparison of the overall rating of the Course at UOD

The above figure 20 shows Management and Humanities having higher (3.7 & 3.8) mean score than

Health and Technical mean score (3.6). The entire 4 cluster having above average which indicates a

smooth performance in the overall rating of quality of course at UOD.

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5

University of

Dammam

king abdulaziz

university

Majmaah University

3.8 4.13

2.25

Av

erag

e S

core

universities

3.5

3.55

3.6

3.65

3.7

3.75

3.8


3.6 3.6

3.7

3.8

Aver

age

Sco

re

Cluster

Cluster specific overall rating of Quality of courses at UOD during 2013-

2014 (Mean rating on a 5-Point scale)

Health

Technical

Management

Humanities

21

Figure 21: Overall rating of Quality of Learning course between Male and Female Students

Figure 21 indicates that rating of female (3.8) is slightly higher than the Male’s evaluation rating

(3.7). UOD students’ evaluation of their learning experience is very close to target. Since the external

benchmark is not available, the new target benchmark is fixed based the actual performance of UOD

and it is fixed as 4.1 for the forthcoming year.

Strengths

1. Majority of the course taught at UOD having been rated by the students as satisfactory

Recommendations

1. With compared to the time trend analysis of the quality of courses offered at UOD, the target

benchmark is fixed 3.9. But the current performance (3.8) indicated is less than this target

(3.9) indicating a room for improvement.

2. It is recommended to compare the performance with external benchmarking partners to adopt

good practice.

*Explain:


The Internal benchmark was set to (3.5).


The internal benchmark equals the actual benchmark plus (5-10%) increase based on the UOD

strategic plan of development.



3.65

3.7

3.75

3.8

Male Female

3.7

3.8 A

ver

age

Sco

re

Gender

Comparison of the overall rating of Quality of courses by Male and

Female students during the year 2013-2014

22

** Explain:




(i) Comparability in the Infrastructural facilities (i.e. learning resources) required for the

Programs across KSA


Accordingly, two universities such as King Abdulaziz [KAU] and Majmaah university were chosen.

KAU has already attained academic accreditation by NCAAA. KSU has been adopted as

benchmarking partner in the view of good practice. Also with respect to comparability, Majmaah



Since the external benchmark is not available, the new target benchmark is fixed based the actual

performance of UOD and it is fixed as 3.9 for the forthcoming year.



Majmaah University

23

KPI-7: Proportion of teaching staff with verified doctoral qualifications


Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark Internal

Benchmark


New Target

Benchmark King

Saud

University

King

Abdul-Aziz

University

Taif

University

Majmaah

University

JUST University

(Jordan)

57% 65% 65% 73.65% 50.8% 63.5% Data Not

Provided 77.4% 65%


Figure 22: Proportion of teaching staff with verified doctoral qualifications between the Five Universities

Based on the performance of UOD with respect to the recruitment of teaching staff with verified doctoral

qualification, the target benchmark is calculated as 65%. However, while measuring the actual result, it is

found that the percentage of teaching staff with verified doctoral qualification is measured as 57%. This

Proportion of teaching staff with verified doctoral qualifications is less than the external and internal and

external benchmark. Therefore, the UOD needs to recruits new teaching staff with doctoral qualifications.

Strengths

1. More than 50% of teaching staff working UOD have doctoral qualification.

Recommendations

1. When compared with its external benchmarking partners, UOD has to increase the number of

teaching staff with doctoral qualifications.

2. It is recommended to recruit more staff with verified doctoral qualifications.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

University of

Dammam

King Saud

University

king abdulaziz

university

Taif University JUST

university

57

73.65

50.8

63.5

77.4

Per

cen

tag

e(%

) T

each

ing

Sta

ff

Universities

24

* Explain:


The external benchmark was set to be equal to the target benchmark (65%).


The internal benchmark equals the actual benchmark plus (5-10%) increase based on the UOD strategic

plan of development.



** Explain:





across KSA


Accordingly, four universities such as King Saud [KSU], King Abdulaziz [KAU], Taif and JUST

universities were chosen. KSU and KAU have already attained academic accreditation by NCAAA. Both

of them have been adopted as benchmarking partner in the view of good practice. Also with respect to

comparability, Taif University has been chosen as an external benchmark provider.


Proportion of teaching staff with verified doctoral qualifications= Total number of teaching staff with

doctoral qualification/ total number of teaching staff working in the university in that particular year.




Taif University

JUST University

25

KPI-8: Percentage of students entering programs who successfully complete first year


Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark

External Benchmark

New Target

Benchmark Universities

King

Saud

King

Abdul-

Aziz

Taif Majmaah JUST

(Jordan)

79.5% 95% 85% 85.3% 72% Data not

Provided

Data not

Provided 43.42% 95%


Figure 23: Percentage of students entering programs who successfully complete first year at four

different Universities

Figure 24: Trend showing the Percentage of students entering programs who successfully

complete first year at UOD from the year 2010 to 2014

0102030405060708090

University of

Dammam

King Saud

University

JUST university king abdulaziz

university

79.5 85.3

43.42

72

Per

cen

tag

e

Universities

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

UOD (2010/2011)UOD (2011/2012)UOD (2012/2013) UOD Actual

Benchmark

(2013/2014)

75 87 90

79.5

No

. of

Stu

den

ts (

%)

26

The actual result indicates that the percentage of students entering programs who successfully

complete first year is 79.5% during the year 2013-2014. This figure is less that the target

benchmark which is calculated on the basis of time trend analysis. Similarly, it is less than the

internal benchmark which has been fixed based on the number of students who completes the

first year in all the programs offered in UOD. Also, based on the existing performance, the new

target is fixed as 95% for the next academic year.

* Explain:


The internal benchmark was set to (95%).


The internal benchmark equals the actual benchmark plus (5-10%) increase based on the UOD

strategic plan of development.



** Explain:





Programs across KSA


Accordingly, three universities such as King Saud [KSU], King Abdulaziz [KAU], and JUST

universities were chosen. KSU and KAU have already attained academic accreditation by NCAAA. Both

of them have been adopted as benchmarking partner in the view of good practice. Also with respect to

comparability of other Arab Universities, JUST University has been chosen as an external benchmarking

partner


Percentage of students entering programs who successfully complete first year = percentage of

students successfully completes the first year / total number of students enrolled in the program

in that specific academic year.




JUST University

27

KPI-9: Proportion of students entering undergraduate programs who complete those programs in minimum time


Actual Benchmark Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark*


New

Target

Benchmark

Universities

King

Saud

King

Abdul-Aziz

Taif Majmaah JUST

(Jordan)

UOD Overall: 41%

45% 45% 31% 66% 51% Data not

Provided 95.06% 60%


Male Female

60% 39%

Campus specific Comparison

Dam

mam

Cit

y

HA

FR

BA

TE

N

Jub

ail

Kh

afji

Mai

n C

amp

us

Nu

ayri

ah

Qat

if C

amp

us

- Q

T0

1F

28% 44% 45% 36% 56% 22% 51%


Figure 25: Proportion of students entering undergraduate programs who complete those programs in minimum

time at five different Universities

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

University

of Dammam

King Saud King Abdul-

Aziz

Taif JUST

(Jordan)

41% 31%

66%

51%

95.06%

No

. o

f S

tud

ents

(%

)

Universities

28

Figure 26: Gender specific comparison showing the Proportion of students entering undergraduate programs

who complete those programs in minimum time at UOD

Figure 27: Trend showing the Proportion of students entering undergraduate programs who complete those

programs in minimum time at UOD from the year 2010 to 2014

The percentage of students entering undergraduate programs who complete those programs in minimum time is higher

than King Saud university and much less than JUST and Taif Universities. Also couldn’t able to achieve the target

benchmark. Therefore, the UOD needs to improve the level of performance.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Male Female

60%

39%

% o

f st

ud

ents

Co

mp

lete

d

the

Pro

gra

m

Gender

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

46%

37% 41%

% o

f st

ud

ents

Co

mp

lete

d t

he

Pro

gra

m

Academic Year

29

* Explain:


The internal benchmark was set to be equal to the target benchmark (45%).


The internal benchmark equals the actual benchmark plus (5-10%) increase based on the UOD strategic plan of

development.



** Explain:


Keeping in view of good practice, two specific criteria was adopted UOD to choose the external benchmarking partner viz.

(i) Comparability in the Infrastructural facilities (i.e. learning resources) required for the Programs across KSA


Accordingly, four universities such as King Saud [KSU], KAU, Taif university and JUST university were chosen. KSU is

the first university established in KSA and KAU has already attained academic accreditation by NCAAA. Both of them

have been adopted as benchmarking partner in the view of good practice. Also with respect to comparability, Taif



Proportion of students entering undergraduate programs who complete those programs in minimum time= Number of

students completes the program in a minimum year / total number of students admitted in that program.




Taif University

JUST University

30

KPI-10: Proportion of students entering Post Graduate programs who complete those programs

in specified time


Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark


Target

Benchmar

k

Universities

King

Saud

King

Abdul-

Aziz

Taif Majmaah JUST

(Jordan)

100% 100% 100% Data not

provided 25.6 Data not provided 100%


Figure 28: Proportion of students entering Post Graduate programs who complete those

programs in specified time between two universities

From the above figure, it is observed that 100% of students entering undergraduate programs

Complete the Programs in minimum time. Therefore, the UOD needs to keep this level of

Performance.

*Explain:


The internal benchmark was set to be equal to the target benchmark (100%).


The internal benchmark equals the actual benchmark 100%, New target benchmark kept 100% as we need to

keep the performance high.



0

20

40

60

80

100

University of

Dammam

king abdulaziz

university

100

25.6

Per

cen

tag

e(%

)

Universities

31

** Explain:





Programs across KSA


Accordingly, King Abdulaziz University [KAU] was chosen. KAU has already attained

academic accreditation by NCAAA. KAU has been adopted as benchmarking partner in the view

of good practice.


Proportion of students entering undergraduate programs who complete those programs in

minimum time= Number of students completes the program in a minimum year / total number of

students admitted in that program.


King Abdulaziz university

KPI-11: Proportion of graduates from undergraduate programs who within six months of graduation

employed, unemployed, enrolled in studies are:


Actual Benchmark

Tar

get

Ben

chm

ark

Inte

rnal

Ben

chm

ark External Benchmark**

New Target

Benchmark King Saud

University

King

Abdul-

Aziz

University

Taif

Univer

sity

Majmaah

University

JUST

University

(Jordan)

Em

plo

yed

Unem

plo

yed

En

roll

ed i

n S

tud

ies

- - Data not provided -

20% 75% 5%

32


Figure 29: Proportion of graduates from UOD undergraduate programs who within six months of

graduation employed, unemployed, enrolled in studies

The UOD and through Alumni center has started the process of collecting data about the UOD graduates, but

the number of graduates that provided the alumni center was ONLY (264) despite all the effort done by Alumni

Center.

Recommendations:

The UOD needs to find new approaches to encourage graduates to register in Alumni center, so the UOD can

have information about the graduates and employment rate.

** Explain:



partner viz.


across KSA


The data was not available with the benchmarking partners


Proportion of graduates from undergraduate programs who within six months of graduation

employed/unemployed/enrolled in studies = Number of graduates employed/unemployed/enrolled in studies /

Total number of graduates from undergraduate programs who within six months of graduation


Data not provided

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Employed Unemployed Enrolled in Studies

20%

75%

5%

No

. of

Per

cen

tag

e(%

)

Pro

gra

ms

33

STANDARD 5

KPI-12: Ratio of administrative and support service staff to students.

NCAAA KPI Reference Number – S 5.1

Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark


Benchmark

King Saud

University

King

Abdul-

Aziz

University

Taif

University

Majmaah

University

JUST

University

(Jordan) 9:1

17:1 9:1 9:1 2.56:1 11:1 Data Not

Provided 9:1 7:1


Figure 30: Ratio of administrative and support service staff to students between the five universities

The actual performance on Standard-5.1 shows that there is a room for improvement. The 17:1 ratio of students

and administrative/support staff is not highly satisfactory when compared with its benchmarking partners. It is

affecting the staff and students performance reciprocally. UOD needs to hire more supporting staff in order to

reduce this ratio.

0

5

10

15

20

University of

Dammam

King Saud

University

king

abdulaziz

university

Majmaah

University

JUST

university

17:1

2.56:1

11:1 9:1

7:1

No

.of

Stu

den

ts (

Rat

io)

Universities

34

* Explain:


The external benchmark was set to be equal to the target benchmark (9:1) by a decision made by area 5

committee.


The internal benchmark equals the actual benchmark plus (5-10%) increase based on the UOD strategy Plan.


Area 5 committee and UOD development strategy.

** Explain:



partner viz.

(i) Comparability in the Infrastructural facilities (i.e. learning resources) required for the Programs across

KSA


Accordingly, four universities such as King Saud [KSU], KAU, Majmaah and Taif university were chosen. KSU

is the first university established in KSA and KAU has already attained academic accreditation by NCAAA.

Both have been adopted as benchmarking partner in the view of good practice. Also with respect to

comparability, Majmaah University has been chosen as an external benchmark provider.


Ratio of administrative and support service staff to students= Number of Admin staff working at each

respective university/ total number of students enrolled in that university for the specific academic

year. 3. Name of the external benchmark provider.


King Abdul-Aziz University

Majmaah University

JUST University

35

KPI-13: Proportion of total operating funds (other than accommodation and student allowances)

allocated to provision of student services

NCAAA KPI Reference Number: S 5.2

Actual

Benchm

ark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark


Benchmark


King Abdul-Aziz

University

Taif University Majmaah

University

JUST University

(Jordan) 10%

10% 10% 10% Data Not

Provided

Data Not

Provided 31% Data Not

Provided 20%


Figure 31: Proportion of total operating funds (other than accommodation and student allowances)

allocated to provision of student services between three universities

Proportion of total operating funds allocated to the provision of student services at University of Dammam is

very near to the target but it is away from other universities.

* Explain:


The external benchmark was set to be equal to the target benchmark (10%)


The internal benchmark equals the actual benchmark plus (5-10%) increase based on the

UOD strategy Plan.


Area 5 committee and UOD development strategy.

05

101520253035

University of

Dammam

Taif university JUST university

10

31

20

Per

cen

tag

e(%

)

Universities

36

** Explain:




Comparability in the Infrastructural facilities (i.e. learning resources) required for the

Programs across KSA

Availability of data as required by the NCAAA.

Accordingly, two universities such as JUST and Taif university were chosen. JUST has been adopted as

benchmarking partner in the view of good practice. Also with respect to comparability, Taif University has

been chosen as an external benchmark provider.


Proportion of total operating funds allocated to provision of student services= Total operating

funds allocated to students services in each University/ total number of students enrolled in that

respective university during that academic year.


Taif University

JUST University

37

KPI-14: Student’s evaluation of academic and career counseling. (Average rating on the adequacy of academic

and career counseling on a five point scale)


Actual Benchmark (Current results-Present data)

Target Benchmark (Based on previous year

performance)

Inte

rnal

Ben

chm

ark


New

Target

Bench

mark

King Saud

Univer

sity

King Abdul-

Aziz

University

Taif Unive

rsity

Majmaah University

JUST University (Jordan)

3.9

UOD Overall: 3.7 UOD Overall: 3.7

3.1 3.42 3.4

Dat

a N

ot

Pro

vid

ed

3.45

Dat

a N

ot

Pro

vid

ed

Gender specific Comparison Gender specific Comparison

Male - 3.9 Female - 3.7 Male - 3.5 Female - 3.8

Cluster Specific Comparison Cluster Specific Comparison

Hea

lth

Tec

hnic

al

Man

agem

ent

Hum

anit

ies

Hea

lth

Tec

hnic

al

Man

agem

ent

Hum

anit

ies

3.7 3.7 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.2 3.5 3.6

Campus specific Comparison Campus specific Comparison

Dam

mam

Haf

er A

l-B

aten

Jubai

l

Khaf

ji

Mai

n

Nae

eriy

a

Dam

mam

Haf

er A

l-B

aten

Jubai

l

Khaf

ji

Mai

n

Nae

eriy

a

3.6 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.6 3.9 3.7 4.0 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.9

38


Figure 32: Student’s evaluation of academic and career counseling offered at four different universities

Analysis was carried out by comparing the mean rating of the students feedback about the academic and career

counseling offered in their respective universities. The result indicate that UOD students have slightly higher

mean rating than the KSU, Majmaah and King Abdul Aziz University students with respect to the overall rating

of adequacy of academic and career counseling. Further analysis was carried out to explore the mean rating of

the students’ feedback about the academic and career counseling with respect to the variables such as Gender,

Clusters and other campuses in UOD. The results are depicted in the figures 35, 36 and 37.

Figure 33: Cluster specific comparison showing overall rating of academic and career counseling by the students

studying at UOD

3.2

3.33.4

3.53.6

3.7

University

of Dammam

King Saud

University

Majmaah

University

king

abdulaziz

university

3.7

3.42 3.45 3.4

Av

erag

eSco

re

Universities

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8


3.7 3.7

3.5

3.8

Av

erag

e S

core

Cluster

Cluster specific overall rating of Quality of academic and career

counseling at UOD during 2013-2014

(Mean rating on a 5-Point scale)

39

Figure 34: Gender specific Comparison of overall rating of Quality of academic and career counseling offered at UOD

Figure 35: Branch specific comparison of overall rating of Quality of academic and career counseling offered at UOD

Figure 33 shows the overall rating of the Student’s evaluation of academic and career counseling at UOD. The

average rating is 3.7 in the five point Likert scale during the year 2013-2014. Figure 34 suggest comparing the

mean rating of the students’ evaluation of academic and career counseling at UOD with the mean rate showing

Male students (3.9) are high compared to Female (3.7). From Figure 35 it indicates that between branches of

UOD, Khafji and Naeeriya has a mean 3.9 which shows the following of Quality of academic and career

counseling is high among all the other branches. Internal Benchmark was observed based on past 3 year’s data,

to show a gradual increase in the development process.

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

Male Female

3.9

3.7

Av

erag

e S

core

Gender

Comparison of the overall rating of Quality of academic and career

counseling between Male and Female during the year 2013-2014

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

Dammam Hafer Al-

Baten

Jubail Khafji Main Naeeriya

3.6

3.8 3.8

3.9

3.6

3.9

Av

erag

e S

core

Branch

Comparison of the overall rating of Quality of academic and career

counseling between Branches during the year 2013-2014

40

Strengths

4. Adoption of UDQuest online application enhances the overall assessment process throughout the university

5. Most of the Colleges attached with UOD rated the adequacy of academic and career counseling indicating better

performance of the students’ admission and registration deanship.

Recommendations

1. Even though the academic and career counseling is rated as satisfactory by majority of the Colleges, still there is a

room for further improvement. An appropriate strategy needs to be devised to further increase the quality of such

service through focused group discussion with all the relevant stakeholders.

** Explain:


Keeping in view of good practice, two specific criteria was adopted UOD to choose the external benchmarking partner viz.

(i) Comparability in the Infrastructural facilities (i.e. learning resources) required for the Programs across KSU


King Saud (KSU) is the first university established in KSA and it has already attained academic accreditation by NCAAA.

Also, KAU is added insight of Good practice. KSU has been adopted as benchmarking partner in the view of good practice

for external benchmark provider.


Average rating of the adequacy of academic and carrier counseling offered at UOD on a five point scale in an annual

survey of students = Sum of the scores of items in SES survey /No of students who responded to the survey (SES)




Majmaah university

41

STANDARD 6

KPI-15: Number of book titles held in the library as a proportion of the number of students.


Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark* External Benchmark**

New

Target

Benchmark

Pri

nt

Bo

ok

E-B

oo

k

Pri

nt

Bo

ok

E-B

oo

k

Pri

nt

Bo

ok

E-B

oo

k

King Saud

University

King

Abdul-

Aziz

University

Taif

University

Majmaah

University

JUST

University

(Jordan)

Pri

nt

Bo

ok

E-B

oo

k

Pri

nt

Bo

ok

E-B

oo

k

Pri

nt

Bo

ok

E-B

oo

k

Pri

nt

Bo

ok

E-B

oo

k

Pri

nt

Bo

ok

E-B

oo

k

Pri

nt

Bo

ok

E-B

oo

k

2.68 7.84 2.64 6.42 2.64 6.42 15.57 NA 14.5 NA 9.56 4 2.9 17.6 7.7 12 2.81 8.23


Figure 36: Availability of Print and E Books in the Library deanship, UOD between the two academic years

The above figure shows the availability of Print and e-books at the deanship of library affairs, UOD. While

comparing the academic years 2012-13 and 2013-2014, it is clear that the number of print books available

per students increased 2.5 from 2.68. Similarly, the number of e-books is also show an increase from 6.11

per student to 7.84 per student between the two academic years. This increase in the availability of books is

due to increased acquisition to manage the requirements of additional new programs as well as to combat

increased number of students entering the University.

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

2012-2013 2013-2014

2.52 2.68

6.11

7.84

Pro

po

rati

on

of

Bo

ok

s p

er s

tud

ent

Academic Year

Print Books

E-Books

42

Figure 37: Comparison of Print books existing in the Library deanships at UOD, KSU, KAU, Taif, Majmaah

and JUST Universities.

The above figure depicted the availability of print books per student in the deanship of Library affairs at

UOD with respect to the availability of the same in King Saud, King Abdul Aziz, Taif, Majmaah and JUST

Universities during the year 2013-2014. The results indicated that UOD has 2.68 print books per students

whereas KSU and KAU have 15.57 and 14.5 print books per student respectively. Similarly, Taif, Majmaah

and JUST Universities also show higher number of print books per student than UOD. Taking into

consideration the availability of print books in UOD as well as the availability of the same with the external

benchmarking partners and the anticipated students’ intake during the next academic year, a new target

benchmark for UOD is fixed for the academic year 2014-2015 (i.e. 2.81 print books per student).

Figure 38: Comparison of E-books existing in the Library deanships at UOD, Majmaah and JUST

Universities

The above figure depicted the availability of e-books per student in the deanship of Library affairs at UOD

with respect to the availability of the same in Majmaah and JUST Universities during the year 2013-2014.

0

5

10

15

20

University

of

Dammam

King Saud

University

king

abdulaziz

university

Taif

University

Majmaah

University

JUST

university

2.68

15.57 14.5

9.56

2.9

7.7

Pro

po

rati

on

of

Bo

ok

s p

er s

tuen

t

Universities

Print Books

0

10

20

University of DammamMajmaah University JUST university

7.84

17.6

12

Pro

po

rati

on

of

Bo

ok

s p

er

stu

den

t

Universities

E-books

43

The results indicated that UOD has 7.84 e-books per students whereas Majmaah and JUST universities have

17.6 and 12 e- books per student respectively. Taking into consideration the availability of e-books in UOD

as well as the availability of the same with the external benchmarking partners and the anticipated students’

intake during the next academic year, a new target benchmark for UOD is fixed for the academic year 2014-

2015 (i.e. 8.23. e-books per student).

Based on the above findings on both Print and e-books, a list of strength and recommendations has been

made viz.

Strengths

1. Combined print and e- books acquisition in parallel

2. Electronic books acquisition in parallel with global trends in academic libraries

3. Strong paper books acquisition

Recommendations

1. Balanced acquisition across all programs at UOD.

2. Encourage faculty’s participation in collection development.

3. Acquiring textbooks in electronic formats

*Explain:


Since Library deanship is a one providing services to all the colleges and deanships at UOD, the internal

benchmarking have been calculated based on its previous performance (i.e. 3 years trend). Accordingly, the

internal benchmarking of the number of book titles held in the library as a proportion of the number of

students is measured as 2.81 print books per student whereas it is 8.23 e-books per student.


Number of book titles held in the library as a proportion of the number of students =Number of book titles

held in the library in the academic year 2012-2013/ Total No of students Enrolled in the academic year

2012-2013

3. Name of the internal benchmark provider

UOD Deanship of Library Affairs (Previous years trend data)

44

** Explain:





across KSA


Accordingly, Five universities such as KSU, KAU, Majmaah, Taif and JUST universities were chosen. KSU

is the first university established in KSA and it has already attained academic accreditation by NCAAA.

Also, KAU also attained accreditation by NCAAA. Both KAU and KSU have been adopted as

benchmarking partner in the view of good practice. Also with respect to comparability, Taif and Majmaah

Universities have been chosen as an external benchmark provider. Further exploration has been carried out

to compare UOD with other Arab university located outside KSA and accordingly, JUST university from

Jordan was included in the analysis.


Number of book titles held in the library as a proportion of the number of students = Number of book titles

held in the library ∕ Total No of students Enrolled


1) King Saud University

2) King Abdul-Aziz university

3) Taif University

4) Majmaah University

5) JUST University

45

KPI-16: Number of online subscriptions as a proportion of the number of programs offered


Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark


Benchmark

Universities

1.94 1.73 1.73

King

Saud

King

Abdul-

Aziz

Taif Majmaah JUST

(Jordan) 2

2.63 0.21 2.24 Data Not

Provided 1


Figure 39: Number of website subscriptions per program offered in UOD during the academic year 2013-

2014.

The above figure shows the availability of online subscriptions at the deanship of library affairs,

UOD. While comparing the academic years 2012-13 and 2013-2014, it is clear that the number of

online subscriptions as a proportion of the number of programs offered in UOD had increased from

1.65 to 1.94 demonstrating a 17% increase. This increase in the number of online subscriptions due

to the policy adopted by UOD to procure more web based online subscriptions as well as to increase

the e-books to satisfy the needs of the students community. Further, inclusion of new programs

warrants additional online web based subscriptions as a part of their program requirements.

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

1.25

1.5

1.75

2

2012-2013 2013-2014

1.65

1.94

Pro

po

rati

on

of

sub

scri

pti

on

s p

er p

rog

ram

Academic Year

46

Figure 40: Comparison of website subscriptions in the Library deanships at UOD, KSU , Taif and JUST

Universities

The above figure shows number of website subscriptions per program offered in UOD, KSU, KAU,

Taif and JUST Universities and it is measured as 1.94, 2.63, 0.21, 2.24 and 1.0 respectively. When

comparing these values among the five universities, the UOD stands lower than Taif and KSU and

higher than KAU and JUST Universities. Without looking at the definition of online subscriptions

and what has been included in it, the comparison has no value, especially if we know almost all

online subscription is through one consortium. It is hoped that in the forthcoming academic year

2014-2015, a new target benchmark is fixed (i.e. 2 per program) for UOD. Based on the above

findings, a list of strength and recommendations has been made viz.

Strengths

1. The university is very strong in its online subscription.

2. It is similar to other national universities.

3. Usage had been increasing steadily.

Recommendations

1. Ensure that all textbooks are made available online if deemed possible.

*Explain:


Since Library deanship is a one providing services to all the colleges and deanships at UOD, the

internal benchmarking have been calculated based on its previous performance (i.e. 3 years trend).

Accordingly, the internal benchmarking for the number of web site subscriptions as a proportion of

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

University

of Dammam

King Saud

University

king

abdulaziz

university

Taif

University

JUST

university

1.94

2.63

0.21

2.24

1

Pro

po

rati

on

of

sub

scri

pti

on

s p

er p

rog

ram

Universities

47

the number of programs offered in UOD is fixed as 1.73 per student.


Number of web site subscriptions as a proportion of the number of programs offered = No of website

subscriptions in the academic year 2012-2013 ∕ Total No of programs in the academic year 2012-

2013


UOD Deanship of Library affairs (using previous years trend data)

** Explain:




Comparability in the Infrastructural facilities (i.e. learning resources) required for the

Programs across KSA.

Availability of data as required by the NCAAA.

Accordingly, four universities such as King Saud [KSU], KAU, Taif and JUST universities were

chosen. KSU is the first university established in KSA and it has already attained academic

accreditation by NCAAA. KAU also attained accreditation by NCAAA. Both KAU and KSU have

been adopted as benchmarking partner in the view of good practice. Also with respect to

comparability, Taif and Majmaah Universities have been chosen as an external benchmark provider.

Further exploration has been carried out to compare UOD with other Arab university located outside

KSA and accordingly, JUST university from Jordan was included in the analysis


Number of web site subscriptions as a proportion of the number of programs offered =No of website

subscriptions ∕ Total No of programs



2) King Abdul-Aziz university

3) Taif University

4) JUST University

48

KPI-17: Number of periodical subscriptions as a proportion of the number of programs offered

NCAAA KPI Reference Number: S6.3 Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal


New

Target

Benchmark

Pri

nt

Journ

al

E-J

ourn

al

Pri

nt

Journ

al

E-J

ourn

al

Pri

nt

Journ

al

E-J

ourn

al

King Saud

University

King Abdul-

Aziz University Taif University Majmaah

University

JUST

University

(Jordan)

Pri

nt

Jou

rnal

E-J

ou

rnal

Pri

nt

Jou

rnal

E-J

ou

rnal

Pri

nt

Jou

rnal

E-J

ou

rnal

Pri

nt

Jou

rnal

E-J

ou

rnal

Pri

nt

Jou

rnal

E-J

ou

rnal

Pri

nt

Jou

rnal

E-J

ou

rnal

2.71 617 5.3 886 5.29 886 28.68

Data

Not

Provided

Data

Not

Provided

Data

Not

Provided

Data

Not

Provided 2371 4 1566 Data

Not

Provided 1000 5.29 886


The figure 41(a) shows the availability of Print Journals at the deanship of library affairs, UOD between the

academic years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. While comparing the academic years 2012-13 and 2013-2014, it is

perceived that there is a decline in the number of print journals demonstrating a 46% decrease. Similarly, the

figure 41(b) shows the availability of E-Journals at the deanship of Library affairs, UOD between the academic

years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. As like the print Journals, there is a decline in the number of E-Journals in the

year 2013-2014 when compared to the previous year demonstrating 27% decrease. This perceived decrease in

the number of print and E-journals are attributed to several reasons viz.

1) The Deanship of Library Affairs subscribes electronic resources (except individual journals), including e-

journals and e-books, through Saudi Digital Library, a consortium of Saudi Academic Libraries, that

decides subscriptions in consultation of their members and renewal of subscriptions of databases on the

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2012-2013 2013-2014

5.04

2.71

Pro

po

rati

on

of

Jo

ura

nls

per

Pro

gra

m

Academic Year

Print Journal

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2012-2013 2013-2014

843

617

Pro

po

rati

on

of

Jo

ura

nls

per

Pro

gra

m

Academic year

E-Journal

Figure 41 (a) : Number of Print Journals available per program at UOD

between the academic year 2012-2013 and 2013-

2014.

Figure 41 (b) : Number of E-Journals available per program at UOD

between the academic year 2012-2013 and 2013-

2014.

49

basis of their usage and it is beyond the control of Deanship of library Affairs.

2) During the 2012-2013, several free & open access e-journals were included on our client center control,

that’s why the total number was high. In the year 2013-2014, library administration had removed the free

and open access e-journals from our collection based on our collection development policy.

3) Moreover, the Saudi Digital Library has unsubscribed to number of underutilized e-resources in 2013-

2014 (i.e.Thieme and Skyscape) and this could be the reason for the decline in the total numbers of E-

Journals in 2013-2014.

4) Any individually subscribed journal that becomes available in the consortium is cancelled to avoid

duplicate subscription similarly to utilize funds in adding new titles. Actual numbers of combined

individual and online show continued increase with no decline.

Further, exploration was carried out to assess the availability of print Journal with respect to the same in other

universities like King Saud and Majmaah University.

Figure 42: Comparison of the availability of number of Print Journals per Program in the Library deanship

between UOD , KSU and Majmaah Universities

From the above figure-42, it is observed that the number of print journals available per program at UOD is

measured as 2.71 whereas the KSU has 28.68 and Majmaah university have 4 print journals per program. The

perceived differences among the universities might be due to difference in the programs offered and the number

of students enrolled in these universities.

0

10

20

30

University of

Dammam

King saud

University

Majmaah

University

2.71

28.68

4

Pro

po

rati

on

of

Jou

rnal

s p

er

pro

gra

m

Universities

Print Journal

50

Figure 43: Comparison of the availability of number of E-Journals per Program in the Library deanship between

UOD , Taif , JUST and Majmaah Universities

From the above figure-43, it is observed that the number of E-Journals available per program at UOD is

measured as 617 whereas Taif, Majmaah and JUST have 2371, 1566, 1000 journals per program respectively.

Based on the above findings, a list of strength and recommendations has been made viz.

Strengths

1. UOD has very strong journals collection

2. All journals (print & electronic) are available remotely.

3. All resources are accessible by all students from day one of enrollment.

Recommendations

1. Ensure that all high impact journals related to UOD programs are subscribed to.

2. Encourage usage especially in graduate programs.

* Explain:


Since Library deanship is a one providing services to all the colleges and deanships at UOD, the internal

benchmarking have been calculated based on its previous performance (i.e. 3 years trend). Accordingly, the

internal benchmarking for the number of periodical subscriptions as a proportion of the number of programs

offered in UOD is fixed as 5.29 print journals per program and 886 e-Journals per program respectively.


Number of periodical subscriptions as a proportion of the number of programs offered = No of Journals (Print or

Electronical) in the academic year 2012-2013 ∕ Total No of programs in the academic year 2012-2013

0

1000

2000

3000

University of

Dammam

Taif

University

Majmaah

University

JUST

university

617

2371

1566

1000

Pro

po

rati

on

of

Jou

rnal

s p

er p

rog

ram

Universities

E - Journal

51



** Explain:



partner viz.


KSA


Accordingly, four universities such as King Saud [KSU], Majmaah, Taif and JUST universities were chosen.

KSU is the first university established in KSA and it has already attained academic accreditation by NCAAA.

KSU has been adopted as benchmarking partner in the view of good practice. Also with respect to comparability,

Taif and Majmaah Universities has been chosen as an external benchmark provider. Further exploration has been

carried out to compare UOD with other Arab university located outside KSA and accordingly, JUST university

from Jordan was included in the analysis


Number of periodical subscriptions as a proportion of the number of programs offered= No of Journals (Print or

Electronically) / Total No of programs.



2) Taif University

3) Majmaah University

4) JUST University

52

KPI-18: Stakeholder evaluation of library services (Average rating on adequacy of library services

on a five point scale)


Actual Benchmark

Ta

rget

Ben

chm

ark

Inte

rna

l

Ben

chm

ark


New Target


UOD Overall: 3.4

3.38

3.38

Kin

g S

au

d

Kin

g

Ab

du

l-

Aziz

Taif

Ma

jma

ah

JU

ST

(Jord

an

)

3.6


Male: 3.6 Female: 3.4

3.4

4

Data

Not

Provide

d

3.07

3

Cluster specific Comparison

Hea

lth

Tec

hn

ical

Man

agem

ent

Hu

man

itie

s

3.24 3.5 3.31 3.51

Branch specific Comparison

Dam

mam

Haf

er A

l-B

aten

Jub

ail

Kh

afji

Mai

n

Nae

eriy

a

3.5 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.2 3.7

KPI Analysis (list strengths and recommendations)

Figure 44: Adequcy of Library Services as rated by the Users between the academic years 2012-

2013 and 2013-2014 at UOD

From the above figure 44, it is observed that the average mean rating provided by the users about

the adequacy of the library services was measured as 3.2 in the academic year 2012-2013 and it had

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

2012-2013 2013-2014

3.2

3.4

Mea

n S

core

Academic Year

53

been improved to 3.4 during the academic year 2013-2014 at UOD. From the above results, it is

observed that there is an increase in the user satisfaction from the year 2012-13 to 2013-14 at UOD.

Figure 45: Comparison of the mean rating provided by the users about the adequacy of Library

Services offered between five different Universities

From the above figure 45, it is observed that the average mean rating provided by the users about

the adequacy of the library services at UOD and KSU is measured as 3.4. Compared to this value,

both Majmaah and JUST University recorded with a lower mean score 3 during the academic year

2013-2014. Among all the universities, King Abdul Aziz University recorded with a higher mean

rating scale of 4 indicating higher satisfaction among the users about the adequacy of library

services. Based on the above findings as well as taking into consideration of the good practice

adopted by the benchmarking partners, a list of strength and recommendations has been made for

UOD viz.

Strengths

4. The university administration is supportive for learning resources facilities and a

new library will soon open, old libraries renovated recently.

5. New library support collaborative learning.

6. New and old library has computer labs with Wi-Fi available in some

Recommendations

1. Encourage library visit and utilization.

2. Curriculum has to encourage library usage and integrate learning resources during curriculum

writing.

3. Recruit Higher library subject specialist. * Explain:


00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

University

of

Dammam

King Saud

University

king

abdulaziz

university

Majmaah

University

JUST

university

3.4 3.4

4

3.07 3

Mea

n S

core

Universities

54

Since Library deanship is a one providing services to all the colleges and deanships at UOD, the

internal benchmarking have been calculated based on its previous performance (i.e. 3 years trend).

Accordingly, the internal benchmarking for the Stakeholder evaluation of library services is fixed as

3.38 on a five point scale.


Average rating on adequacy of library services on a five point scale = Sum of the scores

given by the students or respondents) in the academic year 2012-2013 / No of students who

responded to the survey (PES) in the academic year 2012-2013



** Explain:





Programs across KSA


Accordingly, three universities such as King Saud [KSU], King Abdul Aziz [KAU], and Majmaah

university were chosen within KSA. JUST university is chosen to explore the good practice adopted

by a Gulf University outside KSA. KSU is the first university established in KSA and it has already

attained academic accreditation by NCAAA. Similarly, KAU is also attained accreditation by

NCAAA. KSU and KAU have been adopted as benchmarking partner in the view of good practice.

Also with respect to comparability, Majmaah University has been chosen as external benchmark

providers.


Average rating on adequacy of library services on a five point scale = Sum of the scores given by

the students or respondents) / No of students who responded to the survey (PES)




Majmaah University

JUST University.

55

STANDARD-7 KPI-19: Annual Expenditure on IT as a proportion of the number of students.


Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark*


Target

Benchmark

Universities

1109 : 1 950 : 1 1021 : 1

King Saud King

Abdul-

Aziz

Taif Majmaah JUST

(Jordan)

950 : 1 Data Not Provided

869 477.89 1173 334

Analysis (list strengths and recommendations):

Analysis & Strengths:

The DICT is striving hard to reduce the cost per student by all means. Some of the recent initiatives

being consolidation, outsourcing, virtual desktop, free MS office to the students’ both on desktop &

cloud, cloud computing etc.

Recently DICT completed the implementation of a campus-wide Wi-Fi network. The university also

uses innovative technologies like online and distance education courses to make higher education

available throughout the kingdom.

There has been a significant reduction of 151 SR per student when we compare the current data

(2013/14) to the year 2012/13.

Due to lack of comparable data from external benchmarking, analysis couldn’t be done but it has been

initiated.

Figure-46: Annual Expenditure on IT as a proportion of the number of students between five universities

0200400600800

10001200

University ofDammam

kingabdulazizuniversity

TaifUniversity

MajmaahUniversity

JUSTuniversity

1109

869

477.89

1173

334

An

nu

al E

xpen

dit

ure

(SR

)

Universities

56

Figure-47: Trend showing the Annual Expenditure on IT as a proportion of the number of students at

UOD from the year 2012/13 to 2013/14

* Explain:

1. Why this internal benchmark provider was chosen? The only source of data was from the “Directorate of Budgeting & Planning & Deanship of Admission &

registration” hence it was chosen.


The data for two years (2011/12 & 2012/13) was calculated and its average was taken as “Internal

benchmark”. After discussion with the Deanship of Information Technology (DICT) the “target

benchmark” was fixed. Since the “target (2013/14)” was not achieved, we decided to retain the same

score as the “new target benchmark”.


Directorate of Budgeting & Planning (Expenses)

Deanship of Admission & Registration (Students)

** Explain:






Accordingly, King Abdulaziz [KAU] and KSU was chosen. Both have already attained academic

accreditation by NCAAA. KSU and JUST has been adopted as benchmarking partner in the view of good

practice. Other three universities are chosen taking into account of the comparability with UOD. Also,

these are the only source to obtain data with respect to the particular KPI.


Only the expenditure value could be obtained from the source. Also the total number of students from

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2012/13 2013/14 (Actual /

current )

Target 2013/14

1260

1109

950

An

nu

al E

xpen

dit

ure

(SR

)

57

JUST University is not known. Even if we consider it as 22,000 approx. as mentioned in their website, it

is lower to the number of students of UOD. Due to lack of comparable data from external benchmarking,

analysis couldn’t be done.



Taif University

Majmaah University

JUST University

KPI-20: No. of accessible computer terminals (workstations) per student. (Additional indicator)


Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark External Benchmark** New

Target

Benchmark

0.17 per

student

1 per

student

0.12 per

student

King

Saud

King

Abdul

-Aziz

Taif Majmaa

h

JUST

(Jordan)

1 per

student Data

Not

Provide

d

0.18

Data

Not

Provide

d

0.05 0.09


UOD students have access to computers throughout the University either from computer labs or from the

personal tabs. Although this appears on the surface to be minimal, in this age of computers taking the form

of laptops, notebooks, smartphones and electronic tablets, every student seems to have access to the power

of electronic computing and rarely are seen using the computers made available on campus. Since UOD is a

technologically advanced campus, should the need for additional computers be raised additional computing

capacity is as simple as purchasing them and earmarking classrooms / labs to hold them. Comparing to the

previous year (2012/13) there has been a slight increase in the numbers in 2013/14.

58

Figure 48: No. of accessible computer terminals (workstations) per student between Universities

Figure 49: No. of accessible computer terminals (workstations) per student at UOD from the year 2012/13

to 2013/14

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

University ofDammam

king abdulazizuniversity

MajmaahUniversity

JUST university

0.17 0.18

0.05

0.09

No

.of

Co

mp

ute

r p

er S

tud

ents

Universities

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

2012/13 2013/14 (Actual /

current )

Target 2013/14

0.15 0.17

1

No

.of

Co

mp

ute

r p

er S

tud

ents

59

KPI-21: (Additional KPI) Average overall rating of adequacy of facilities and equipment in a

survey of teaching staff.

Institutional KPI Reference Number: S 7.3

Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark*

External Benchmark** King Abdulaziz University

New Target

Benchmark

3.7 4 4 4 4.5


The scores were calculated from the consolidation of “items 25, 26, 27 & 28 of Academic job

satisfaction survey (AJSS)” for teaching staff related to facilities, working condition &

equipment.

The targets were fixed on the basis of different stages of completion of new projects.

Recommendation:

Exclusive survey focusing only on facilities, equipment availability, conditions & maintenance

will be developed and administered.

* Explain:


The sources of data were “DICT & Warehouse” regarding the distribution but in the recent times DICT is

not fully involved as the colleges directly request through purchase department. Getting the consolidated

data from the warehouse was difficult hence DICT provided the data.


The data for three years (2010/11, 2011/12 & 2012/13) was calculated and its average was taken as

“Internal benchmark”. After discussion with the Deanship of Information Technology (DICT) the “target

benchmark” was fixed and the same was retained as “new target” since it was not achieved.


Deanship of Information Technology (DICT)

Deanship of Admission & Registration (Students)

** Explain:


The only source to obtain data with respect to the particular KPI.


Only the value i.e. number of PCs could be obtained from the source. Also the total number of students

from JUST University is not known. Even if we consider it as 22,000 approx. as mentioned in their website,

it is lower to the number of students of UoD. Due to lack of comparable data from external benchmarking,

analysis couldn’t be done but has been initiated.



Majmaah University

JUST University

60

Figure 50: Comparison of faculty rating on facilities & equipment vs. target

* Explain:


The only source of data with consolidation of all scores across the colleges of UoD is maintained &

calculated by the “Measurement & Evaluation unit” hence chosen.


Earlier the survey (AJSS) was done only in 2012/13 hence the same score of the year was kept as

both “Internal & Target benchmark” in order to know the trend. Since the “Actual benchmark”

(2013/14) was close to the “Target” hence the “new target benchmark” was increased also keeping

in mind the completion of different construction projects.


Measurement & Evaluation unit, Deanship of Quality & Academic Accreditation

** Explain:


The only source to provide data for this KPI.


Nil


King Abdulaziz University

4 3.7

4

0

1

2

3

4

5

2012/13 2013/14 (Actual /current )

Target 2013/14

Comparison of rating vs target

61

STANDARD 8

KPI-22: Total operating expenditure (other than accommodation and student allowances) per student


Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark*


Benchmark

King Saud

University

King

Abdul-Aziz

University

Taif

University

Majmaah

University

JUST

University

(Jordan) 31,000 SAR

36,956 SAR 31,000 SAR 31,000 SAR 75,500

SAR

Data Not Provided


Figure 51: Comparison of the total operating expenditure (other than accommodation and student allowances)

per student between UOD and KAU for the year 2013-2104

Figure 52: Total operating expenditure (other than accommodation and student allowances) per student at UOD

for the year 2013-2104

Form the above figure, it is found that the Total operating expenditure spent (other than accommodation and

student allowances) per student during the academic year 2013-2014 is 36,956 SAR. When compared with the

target fixed as per the previous year’s data, it is slightly higher.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

University of Dammam king abdulaziz university

36956

75500

Am

ou

nt

of

(SA

R)

Universities

28000

29000

30000

31000

32000

33000

34000

35000

36000

37000

Internal Benchmark* Target Benchmark Actual

Benchmark(2013/2014)

31000 31000

36956

Am

ou

nt

of

(SA

R)

62

Recommendations

It is highly recommended to bring the operating expenditure to the minimum in the next academic year by

implementing appropriate cost control strategies

** Explain:



partner viz.


KSA


Accordingly, King Abdulaziz [KAU] university was chosen. KAU has already attained academic accreditation

by NCAAA. KAU has been adopted as benchmarking partner in the view of good practice.


Total operating expenditure (other than accommodation and student allowances) per student= Expenditure

spent for all students at UOD in a particular academic year/ total number of students enrolled in the university

at that particular year.


King Abdulaziz university

STANDARD 9

KPI 23: Proportion of teaching staff leaving UOD in the past year for reasons other than age retirement:


Actual Benchmark Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark External Benchmark**

New Target

Benchmark

0.002

0.005 0.006

King Saud

University

King

Abdul-

Aziz University

Taif

University

Majmaah

University

KFUPM

University

0.001

Data not provided 0.3 Male Female

0.001 0.002

63

KPI Analysis

The proportion of the teaching staff leaving UOD for reasons other than retirement in 2013/2014 have decreased from

the previous year (from 0.006 to 0.002), at the institutional level, table and chart (1). This indicates obvious

improvement of teaching staff retention. UOD also implementing new strategies and plans for making UOD

attractive and compete with other institutions by increasing the offers to all new and senior teaching staff (Attachment

9.1.11). in addition to that another two projects (Specialized polyclinics) are going on for facilitating teaching staff

health services in female campus in Al Rayyan and in the main campus for males (as well as King Fahad University

Hospital and the governmental health centres are the main Health providers for UOD staff outside the campuses).

This indicates the improvement of the services provided from UOD towards the teaching staff.

A comparison between Males and females has been considered, the proportion of female teaching staff who left UOD

for reasons other than age retirement; 0.007 and for males teaching staff; 0.005 in 2012/2013, while it's 0.002 for

female teaching staff and 0.001 for males teaching staff. Table and chart (2) The target benchmark for Deanship of

Faculty Affairs and Personnel is not specified, however, UOD increase the offers to the teaching staff to be more

attractive and compete with other universities specially for females teaching staff, and also planning to minimize the

proportion and keep the retention of valuable staff by many procedures, the below priorities among them. Due to

various personal reasons it's always impossible to reach 0%, however the target benchmark of UOD is to minimize it

as much as possible.

Statistics of UOD Annual Reports have been chosen as internal benchmark provider because it’s tracking and

calculating those who left UOD and follow-up the trends, corrective actions for making UOD attractive and assure

that the faculty members are satisfied and working in good environment.

The Committee has calculated this benchmark by considering the faculty members who left UOD in the last two

years for reasons other than retirement as numerator, and the total number of the faculty members at UOD as

denominator to calculate the proportion at the institutional level, as it's demonstrated below in the figure:

Figure 53: Proportion of teaching staff who left UOD for reasons other than age retirement in the academic years

2012/2013 and 2013/2014 at UOD

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

2012-2013 2013-2014

0.006

0.002

Pro

po

rtio

n

64

Figure 54: Proportion of males and females teaching staff who left UOD for reasons other than age retirement in the

academic years 2012/2013 and 2013/2014.

King Fahad University for Petroleum and Minerals has been chosen as external benchmark provider because it's a

leading university in the kingdom and the gulf and Arab region; in addition to that it's institutionally accredited by

NCAAA.

Figure 55: Comparison of the proportion of male and female teaching staff who left the University for reasons other

than age retirement between UOD and KFUPM

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

0.007

F M F M

2012-2013 2013-2014

0.007

0.005

0.002

0.001

Pro

po

rtio

n

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

University of Dammam JUST university

0.002

0.3

Pro

po

rtio

n

Universities

KFUPM

65

KPI 24: Proportion of teaching staff participating in the professional development activities in the

past year


Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal


New

Target

Bench

mark

1.62 1.10 1.10

King Saud

University

King

Abdul-Aziz

University

Taif University

Majmaah University

JUST

University

(Jordan) 1.70

0.72 0.296 0.237 Data not

provided 0.44

Strengths and recommendations: The number of the teaching staff participated in the professional development activities in 2012/2013 is

2087 participant, with proportion 1.05 at UOD level, in 61 training activities, 46 lecture and 15 workshop,

while 4309 teaching staff have participated with proportion 1.62 in 146 training activities, 82 lectures and 64

workshops in 2013/2014. The ratio of teaching staff participated in each activity is 1:1.62 and this ratio

demonstrates that each teaching staff has participated in more than one activity, and this ratio doesn’t

guaranteed that all the participants have been involved in all professional activities conducted by Deanship

of Educational Development.

It's obvious that there is big progress regarding the number of teaching staff who have participated in

2013/2014 compared with 2012/2013, and also the number of training activities, workshops and lectures in

addition to four international workshops and three orientation programs, core competencies training

programs, and twenty one faculty members sent abroad in 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 (Attachment 9.3.10).

The Deanship of Educational Development believes that there is poor cooperation and support from some

colleges, therefore DED suggested some policies to improve the participation in professional development

activities. These policies will be submitted to the university council, and DED has also prepared a plan to

recruit more staff in 2015/2016.

Another Benchmark at the level of females and males also has been considered, and it's obvious that the

percentage of participation in the professional development activities of the Saudi males is very low (12.9%)

while the participation Non Saudi females is the highest (90%) as it's appear in table and chart (4)

Recommendations

Submitting policies to the university council to let the faculty members attend at least a number of

professional activities per semester of year.

Supporting facilities, as human resources, DED is planning to recruit 4 qualified faculty members in

2015/2016

Internal Benchmarking

The committee has chosen the Deanship of Educational Development as internal benchmark provider

because it is responsible for the quality of learning and teaching practices of the teaching staff.

66

Figure 56: Proportion of teaching staff participated in the professional development activities in UOD in the

academic years 2012/2013 and 2013/2014

The above figure below demonstrates the proportion of teaching staff (Saudi and Non-Saudi of

teaching staff together) participated in the professional development activities in UOD in the

academic years 2012/2013 and 2013/ 2014

Figure 57: Percentage of male and female teaching staff participated in the professional development

activities in UOD in the academic years 2012/2013 and 2013/2014

The above figure demonstrates the percentage of male and female teaching staff participated in the

professional development activities in UOD in the academic years 2012/2013 and 2013/2014. The

internal benchmark provider is the Deanship of Educational Development. Further, the committee

has calculated this benchmark by considering the teaching staff who participated in professional

development activities at UOD and other comparable universities [N=4] in the last two years and it

is shown in the figure below:

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2013 2014

1.05

1.62

Pro

po

rtio

n

Academic Year

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Female Male Female Male

Saudi Non Saudi

76%

13%

90%

76%

No

. of

Per

cen

tag

e(%

)

Gen

der

67

Figure-58: Proportion of teaching staff participated in the professional development activities in the four

Universities

The above figure below demonstrates a higher proportion [1.62] of teaching staff (Saudi and Non-

Saudi of teaching staff together) at UOD participated in the professional development activities in

the academic years 2012/2013 and 2013/ 2014 when compared with other universities.

External Benchmarking

KSU is chosen as the external benchmarking partner and it has been chosen because there are a lot of

similarities between UOD and KSU regarding the mission, and the second thing KSU has been accredited

institutionally from NCAAA and it’s one of the distinguished universities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Similarly, keeping in view of good practice, other universities like KAU is chosen. Deanship of Educational

Development has just started the statistics of teaching staff who attended its professional activity.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

University ofDammam

King SaudUniversity

kingabdulazizuniversity

TaifUniversity

JUSTuniversity

1.62

0.72

0.296 0.237 0.44

Pro

po

rtio

n

Universities

68

STANDARD 10

KPI: 25. Number of refereed publications in the previous year per full time equivalent teaching staff


Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark

External Benchmark New Target

Benchmark

Universities

0.27 0.26 0.25

King

Saud

King

Abdul-

Aziz

Taif Majma

ah

JUST

(Jorda

n)

0.50

0.81

0.2

0.34 0.38 0.53


While observing the past five years data, the number of publications of UOD in refereed journals (indexed in

Web of Science and Scopus) shows a gradual and steady progression. Having the publication number of 157 in

2009/10, it has grown slowly and consistently to 267 for the year 2013/14.

Figure-59: Number of refereed publications in the previous year by all teaching staff at UOD

The actual benchmark for number of publications per teaching staff was calculated by considering the

publications indexed in Web of Science and Scopus and the teaching staff of UOD (Lecturers, Assistant

Professors, Associate Professors and Professors in main campus). The actual benchmark of 0.27 shows the

number of refereed publications/teaching staff for the academic year 2013/2014. The target benchmark (0.26)

was calculated by considering the previous two academic years. By focusing the data of three consecutive

years, it is apparently evident that there is an annual growth of 7.6%.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

157 167 184

246 267

Nu

mb

er o

f P

ub

lica

tio

ns

Academic Years

69

Figure - 60: Number of refereed publications in the previous year per full time equivalent teaching

staff at UOD

* Explain:


Since most of the colleges of UOD have been established newly, certain group of colleges (cluster) could not

be focused to establish internal benchmarking. Consequently, the internal benchmark of publication ratio was

calculated based on the past two years of UOD data irrespective of a particular cluster/college.


The publication ratio for 2011/12 and 2012/13 were 0.22 and 0.25 respectively and based on this, the

calculated internal benchmark is 0.25.


The UOD’s past two years publication ratio was considered to calculate the internal benchmark.

** Explain:

Figure - 61: Number of refereed publications in the previous year per full time equivalent teaching

staff between the five Universities

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

0.22 0.25 0.27

No

. of

Pu

bli

cati

on

s/T

each

ing

Sta

ff

Academic Years

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

University

of

Dammam

King Saud

University

king

abdulaziz

university

Taif

University

Majmaah

University

JUST

university

0.27

0.81

0.2

0.34 0.38

0.53

No

. of

Pu

bli

cati

on

s/T

each

ing

Sta

ff

Universities

70


The King Saud University (KSU) was considered as external benchmark since it has been accredited by

NCAAA and has also achieved top notch in the ranking of Arab universities by Webometrics Ranking of

Universities, 2015.


The publication ratio was calculated for the year 2013/14 by keeping total number of publications as

numerator and total number of teaching staff as denominator.


Kind Saud University


Taif university

Majmaah University

JUST university

KPI: 26. Number of Citations in refereed journals in the previous year per full time equivalent

teaching staff


Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark

* External Benchmark**

New Target

Benchmark

0.05

0.30

0.29

King

Saud

King

Abdul-

Aziz

Taif Majmaah JUST

(Jordan)

0.10 0.49

Data not

provided

Data not

provided 0.62 0.75


The actual benchmark of citation ratio was observed as 0.05 for the year 2013/14.While focusing the

citation ratio of past two years (2011/12 and 2012/13), they are 0.38 and 0.21 respectively. As of

December 2014, the total number of citations for each academic year was considered and then calculated

for the particular academic year’s citation ratio.

71

Figure-62: Total number of Citations in refereed journals in the previous year by all the teaching

staff at UOD

The actual benchmark for total number of citations per teaching staff was calculated by considering the


Professors, Associate Professors and Professors in main campus). The target benchmark was calculated by

considering the past two years’ data. Based on the actual benchmark and consensus of committee meeting,

the target benchmark was fixed at 0.10.

Reason for Down-Trending of Data from 2010 to 2014

The total number of citations for each year i.e., from 2010 to 2014, was calculated in the month of

December, 2014. Hence, the projected number of citations for the year 2010 publications has got about

four years to get 542 citations and the same is applicable for 2011, 2012 and 2013 data. However, as per

the definition of this KPI, the number of citations for the particular year’s publications has to be calculated

in the very next year. But, due to the practical difficulty, this method of calculation was adopted only for

the year 2014. Thus, this calculation method describes the down-trending of data.

Figure – 63: Number of Citations in refereed journals in the previous year per full time equivalent teaching

staff

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

542 516

323

210

45

To

tal

Nu

mb

er o

f

Cit

atio

ns

Academic Years

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

0.38

0.21

0.05

Nu

mb

er o

f

Cit

atio

ns/

Tea

chin

g

Sta

ff

Academic Year

72

* Explain:


Since most of the colleges of UOD have been established newly, certain group of colleges (cluster) could

not be focused to establish internal benchmarking. However, by considering the main campus and

branches as two different groups of colleges in UOD, the following graph has been plotted.

Figure-64: Branch specific comparison showing Number of Citations in refereed journals in the previous year

per full time equivalent teaching staff at UOD

The internal benchmark of citation ratio was calculated based on the past two years of UOD data.


The citation ratio for 2011/12 and 2012/13 were 0.38 and 0.21 respectively and based on this, the

calculated internal benchmark is 0.29.


The UOD’s past two years citation ratio was considered to calculate the internal benchmark.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

470 456

264

145

34

78 60

59

65

11

To

tal

Nu

mb

er o

f C

itat

ion

s in

Mai

n C

amp

us

& B

ran

ches

Academic Years

Branches

Main Campus

73

Figure-65: Number of Citations in refereed journals in the previous year per full time equivalent teaching staff

between universities

** Explain:


The King Saud University was considered as external benchmark since it has been accredited by NCAAA

and has also achieved top notch in the ranking of Arab universities by Webometrics Ranking of

Universities, 2015.


The citation ratio was calculated for the year 2013/14 by keeping total number of citations as numerator

and total number of teaching staff as denominator.



Majmaah University

JUST university

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

University of

Dammam

King Saud

University

Majmaah

University

JUST university

0.05

0.49

0.62

0.75

No

. of

Pu

bli

cati

on

s/T

each

ing

Sta

ff

Universities

74

KPI: 27. Proportion of full time teaching staff with at least one refereed publication during the

previous year


Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark


Benchmark

Universities

29.9%

25%

22.3%

King

Saud

King

Abdul-

Aziz

Taif Majmaah JUST

(Jordan)

33% Data not

provided

Data not

provided

Data not

provided 20% 56%


Figure - 66: Number of full time teaching staff at UOD with at least one refereed publication from

the year 2010 to 2014

While observing the past five years data, the number of teaching staff with at least one refereed publication

are 219, 222, 159, 255 and 293 for the academic years 2009/10, 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14

respectively. Although there is a minor drop in 2011/12, the data trend shows a stable upward trending.

The internal benchmark was calculated by considering the data of past years. Likewise, the target

benchmark was also fixed at 25% based on the past data and the consensus of the meeting.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

219 222

159

255

293

Nu

mb

er o

f T

each

ing

Sta

ff w

ith

at

leas

t

on

e re

fere

ed p

ub

lica

tio

n

Academic Year

75

Figure - 67: Proportion of full time teaching staff at UOD with at least one refereed publication

during the previous year

The actual benchmark for total number of citations per teaching staff was calculated by considering the


Professors, Associate Professors and Professors in main campus). The target benchmark was calculated by

considering the past two years’ data. Based on the actual benchmark and consensus of committee meeting,

the target benchmark was fixed at 0.10.

* Explain:


Based on the past two years’ data i.e. 18.9% and 25.6% (for 2011/12 and 2012/13 respectively), the average

value was found out and the internal benchmark was set as 22.3%.


The internal benchmark equals the target benchmark plus (5-10%) increase based on the UOD strategy

Plan.


The UOD’s past two years publication ratio was considered to calculate the internal benchmark.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

18.9 %

25.6 %

29.9 %

% o

f T

each

ing

Sta

ff w

ith

atl

east

on

e

refe

reed

Pu

bli

cati

on

Academic Year

76

Figure-68: Branch specific comparison of Number of full time teaching staff with at least one

refereed publication at UOD from the year 2010 to 2014

As plotted in the graph above, the data on the % of teaching staff with at least one refereed publication has

been categorized into two as colleges in main campus and branches.

** Explain:

Figure-69: Proportion of full time teaching staff with at least one refereed publication between

three universities

Name of the external benchmark provider.

Majmaah University

JUST University

0

50

100

150

200

250

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

194 186

136

199

241

25 36

23

55 52

% o

f te

ach

ing

sta

ff w

ith

at

leas

t o

ne

refe

reed

pu

bli

cati

on

Academic Year

Main Campus

Branches

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

University of

Dammam

Majmaah

University

JUST university

29.9

20

56

% o

f T

each

ing

Sta

ff w

ith

atl

east

on

e re

fere

ed

Pu

bli

cati

on

Universities

77

KPI: 28. Number of papers/reports presented at academic conferences during the past year per

full time equivalent faculty members


Actual

Benchmark Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark

External Benchmark New

Target


0.07

0.07

0.06

King

Saud

King

Abdul-

Aziz

Taif Majmaah JUST

(Jordan)

0.08 Data

not

provid

ed

0.255 Data not

provided Data not

provided 0.08


Figure -70: Number of papers/reports presented by full time equivalent faculty members of UOD

at academic conferences during the past years

The number of papers presented at the academic conferences per teaching staff for the past three

academic years were 0.07, 004 and 0.07 (2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 respectively). Due to the

difficulty to access the actual number of papers presented by teaching staff of all colleges of UOD, the

committee has displayed the data related to deanship of scientific research. In other words, the data

displayed here is of the teaching staff who received fund from deanship of scientific research for their

paper presentation. The actual benchmark was 0.07 and the target benchmark was calculated based on the

past two years’ data and set at 0.07. As per the previous years’ data and the consensus of the committee

meeting, the new target was set as 0.08.

0

20

40

60

80

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

48 50 62

43

67

Nu

mb

er o

f P

aper

s

pre

sen

ted

at

acad

emic

con

fere

nce

s

Academic Year

78

Figure-71: Number of papers/reports presented at academic conferences during the past year per full time

equivalent faculty members of UOD

* Explain:


Due to the unavailability of cluster based data, the internal benchmark was calculated based on the past

two years’ data.


Based on the previous two years data i.e., 0.07 and 0.04 (for 2011/12 and 2012/13 respectively), the

average value was found out and the internal benchmark was set as 0.06.


The UOD’s past two years data was considered to calculate the internal benchmark.

** Explain:

Figure - 72: Number of papers/reports presented at academic conferences during the past year per full

time equivalent faculty members between UOD and JUST Universities

Name of the External Benchmark provider


JUST university

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

0.07

0.04

0.07

Nu

mb

er

of

pap

ers

pre

sen

ted

in

aca

de

mic

con

fere

nce

s p

er

teac

hin

g

staf

f

Academic Year

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

University of

Dammam

king abdulaziz

university

JUST

university

0.07

0.255

0.08

Nu

mb

er o

f p

aper

s p

rese

nte

d

in a

cad

emic

co

nfe

ren

ces

per

teac

hin

g s

taff

Universities

79

KPI: 29. Research income from external sources in the past year as a proportion of the number

of full time faculty members


Actual

Benchmark Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark

External Benchmark (data expressed in SAR)

New

Target


27,752

18,500

16,500

King

Saud

King

Abdul-

Aziz

Taif Majmaah JUST

(Jordan)

30,000

78,728

94,856

Data not

provided

75,17

11,229


The research income from external sources i.e., especially from funded research projects of teaching staff

of UOD was 17440, 15414 and 27752 SR for the academic years 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14

respectively. Based on the past two years data, the target benchmark was kept at 18500 SR and the actual

benchmark was observed at 27752 SR. Therefore, as per the consensus of the committee meeting and the

actual and previous year data, the target benchmark was set at 30,000 SR.

Figure – 73: Research income from external sources in the past year as a proportion of the number of full

time faculty members at UOD.

* Explain:


Due to the unavailability of cluster based data, the internal benchmark was calculated based on the past

two years’ data.


Based on the previous two years data i.e., 17,440 SR and 15,414 (for 2011/12 and 2012/13 respectively),

0

10000

20000

30000

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

17440 15414

27752

Res

earc

h I

nco

me

fro

m

Ext

ern

al

So

urc

es/T

each

ing

Sta

ff

(in

SA

R)

Academic Year

80

the average value was found out and the internal benchmark was set as 16,500.



** Explain:

Figure – 74: Research income from external sources in the past year as a proportion of the number of full

time faculty members working at four different Universities of KSA

1. Reason for choosing External Benchmark



Universities, 2015.

2. Calculation of External Benchmark

The research income from external sources in the past year as a proportion of full time faculty members

was calculated for the year 2013/14 by keeping total research income from external sources in the past

year as numerator and total number of teaching staff as denominator.

3. Name of the External Benchmark provider



Majmaah University

JUST university

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

University

of Dammam

King Saud

University

king

abdulaziz

university

Majmaah

University

JUST

university

27752

78728

94856

7517 11229

Re

sear

ch I

nco

me

fro

m E

xter

nal

So

urc

es/T

each

ing

Sta

ff (

in S

AR

)

Universities

81

KPI 30: Proportion of the total annual operational budget dedicated to research


Actual

Benchmark

Target

Benchmark

Internal

Benchmark External Benchmark**

New Target

Benchmark

2.68%

1.5%

1.33%

King

Saud

King

Abdul-

Aziz

Taif Majmaah JUST

(Jordan)

3%

6% 1% 6.01% 2.10% 3%


The proportion of annual operational budget dedicated to research for the academic years 2011/12, 2012/13

and 2013/14 are 1.26%, 1.39% and 2.68% respectively. By considering the past two years’ proportions, and

the actual benchmark, the target benchmark was set at 1.5%. Based on the consensus of committee meeting

and previous data, the new target was set at 3%.

Figure – 75: Proportion of the total annual operational budget dedicated to research at UOD in the

past three years

* Explain:


Due to the unavailability of cluster based data, the internal benchmark was calculated based on the past two

years’ data.


Based on the previous two years data i.e., 1.26% and 1.39% (for 2011/12 and 2012/13 respectively), the

average value was found out and the internal benchmark was set as 1.33%.



0

1

2

3

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

1.26 % 1.39 %

2.68 %

% o

f B

ud

get

ded

icat

ed

to R

esea

rch

Academic Year

82

** Explain:

** External Benchmark

Figure – 76: Proportion of the total annual operational budget dedicated to research among the five

different Universities studied.

1. Reason for choosing External Benchmark



Universities, 2015.

2. Calculation of External Benchmark

The proportion of annual operational budget dedicated to research was calculated for the year 2013/14 by

keeping proportion of fund dedicated to research as numerator and total operational budget of KSU as

denominator.

3. Name of the External Benchmark provider



Taif university

Majmaah University

JUST university

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

University

of Dammam

King Saud

University

king

abdulaziz

university

Taif

University

Majmaah

University

JUST

university

2.68

6

1

6.01

2.1 3

% o

f B

ud

get

ded

icat

ed t

o R

ese

arch

Universities

83

STANDARD 11

KPI-31: Proportion of full time teaching and other staff actively engaged in community service

activities


Act

ual

Ben

chm

ark

Tar

get

Ben

chm

ark

Inte

rnal

Ben

chm

ark


Benchmark

King Saud

King

Abdul-

Aziz

Taif Majmaah JUST

(Jordan)

0.35

0.26 0.35 0.35 Data not provided 0.037 0.11 Data not

provided

Data not

provided


The available data showed that UOD teaching staff engaged in (0.26) activities per FACULTY member in the

academic year2013/2014, while it was (0.31) and the target benchmark is (0.35). Therefore, the new target

benchmark set to be (0.35) because the target benchmark has been achieved. When compare UOD (2.6) with

external benchmark Taif university (0.11) is less.

There is some missing information or data about the community services activities at UOD. Before January

2014 Deanship of Community Service and Sustainable Development had not been established, and there are

many community services that conducted but not reported. The deanship Community Service and Sustainable

Development and committee units at the colleges and UOD administrations will work on preparing accurate

data about these activities in the coming years which will help reporting accurate reports.

Figure 77: Proportion of full time teaching and other staff actively engaged in community service

activities between UOD and Taif Universities.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

University of Dammam king abdulaziz university Taif University

0.26

0.037

0.11

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f fu

ll ti

me

teac

hin

g an

d o

ther

sta

ff

acti

vely

en

gage

d in

co

mm

un

ity

serv

ice

acti

viti

es

Universities

84

Figure 78: Number of community service activities per every faculty member at UOD for the current year

(2013/2014) and the previous three years.

Figure-79: Three categories of community service activities conducted by UOD to service community for the

current year (2013/2014) and for the previous three years.

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

0.36 0.37

0.31

0.26 P

rop

ort

ion

of

full

tim

e te

ach

ing

an

d

oth

er s

taff

act

ivel

y e

ng

aged

in

com

mu

nit

y s

erv

ice

acti

vit

ies

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

111

83

119 105

75 93

127

330

75

50

122

56

No

.of

Co

mm

un

ity

ser

vic

e

acti

vit

es Training, educational and

rehabilitation programs

Conferences, workshops, and

Lectures

85

Figure-80: Number of cases treated at the University Hospital.

* Explain:


The area 11 committee had a meeting dedicated to set the internal benchmark. Based on averaging the actual

performance of the UOD performance for the last three years and by focusing on the performance of the last

year, the committee set the internal benchmark as (0.35)


It was a decision made by Area 11 committee.


Area 11 Committee.

** Explain:



partner viz.

(iii) Comparability in the Infrastructural facilities (i.e. learning resources) required for the Programs across

KSA

(iv) Availability of data as required by the NCAAA.

Accordingly, two universities such as King Abdulaziz [KSU] and Taif university were chosen. KAU has

already attained academic accreditation by NCAAA. KAU has been adopted as benchmarking partner in the

view of good practice. Also with respect to comparability, Taif University has been chosen as an external

benchmark provider.


Name of the external benchmark provider.


Taif University

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

4000000

2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

2504782

3304325 3338085 3675325

No

. of

Cas

es

86

KPI-32: Number of community education programs provided as a proportion of the number of

departments


Act

ua

l B

ench

ma

rk

Ta

rget

Ben

chm

ark

Inte

rna

l B

ench

ma

rk


Target Benchmark

(New

anticipated

outcome

based on the

KPI

analysis)

King Saud King

Abdul-Aziz Taif Majmaah

JUST

(Jordan) 0.76

0.64 0.76 0.76 Data not

provided 0.687 2.34

Data not

provided

Data not

provided


The available data showed that every department at UOD conducted (0.64) educational program to serve

the community in the academic year2013/2014, while it was (0.72) and the target benchmark is (0.76).

Therefore, the new target benchmark set to be (0.76) because the target benchmark has not been achieved.

Also, it should be noted that none of the universities (2 from KSA and one from Jordan) provided data

about this KPI.

There is some missing information or data about the community services activities at UOD. Before

January 2014 Deanship of Community Service and Sustainable Development had not been established,

and there are many community services that conducted but not reported. The deanship Community

Service and Sustainable Development and committee units at the colleges and UOD administrations will

work on preparing accurate data about these activities in the coming years which will help reporting

accurate reports.

87

Figure-81: Number of community education programs provided as a proportion of the number of

departments between UOD and Taif Universities

Figure 82: Number of educational programs conducted by every department at UOD for the current year

(2013/2014) and the previous three years.

*Explain:


The area 11 committee had a meeting dedicated to set the internal benchmark. Based on averaging the

actual performance of the UOD performance for the last three years and by focusing on the performance

of the last year, the committee set the internal benchmark as (0.76).


It was a decision made by Area 11 committee.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

University of

Dammam

king abdulaziz

university

Taif University

0.64 0.687

2.34

Pro

port

ion

of

the

nu

mb

er o

f d

epart

men

ts

Universities

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

0.90

0.53 0.72 0.64

pro

po

rtio

n o

f th

e n

um

ber

of

dep

artm

ents

88


Area 11 Committee.

** Explain:





Programs across KSA


Accordingly, two Universities such as King Abdulaziz [KAU] and Taif University were chosen. KAU has

already attained academic accreditation by NCAAA. KSU has been adopted as benchmarking partner in

the view of good practice. Also with respect to comparability, Taif University has been chosen as an

external benchmark provider.



Taif University

institutional self study 2013/2014 key performance indicators · pdf filekpi-1: stakeholders...

Documents