Project Plan for the development of performance indicators for UoTs and UoT related parts of CUs

1. Project Plan for the development of performance indicators for UoTs and UoT related parts of CUs Chris van Rensburg

2. Origin of the Project • Finland South Africa Higher Education Programme • Institutional ITC Systems, processes and human capacity • Institutionalisation of internal quality assurance systems • Research and Collaboration Component • Tor approved in 2004 • Workshop 19 & 20 Feb 2007 • Conference 10 & 11 May 2008

3. Finland South Africa Conference resolution That UoTs collaborate with CUs to produce a budgeted plan and implementation strategy which speaks to the issues of how the sector wants to be measured through the development of appropriate criteria, indicators and benchmarks. How this is to be devolved to separate institutions is a separate matter.

4. Course of Events • Conference 10 & 11 April • Project proposal 20 April • MoA contract signed 8 May • First workshop 8/9 May • Approval of Project Plan 8 May • Second workshop 28/29 May

5. Project Objectives • To develop a set of performance indicators by which UoTs and UoT- related aspects of CUs want their performance in teaching and learning, research and innovation and engagement with society to be measured. • To identify some unique contributions of UoTs to academe in terms of research, scholarship and innovation • To give some pointers to the identity of UoTs in South Africa’s differentiated HE system • To project a sub-sectoral development trajectory for UoT’s and to some extent CU’s

6. Expected Outputs and Outcomes • A set of performance indicators acceptable to the sector • A document that identifies unique contributions of UoTs and identifies them as a sub-sector in a differentiated higher education system component • A documented sector development trajectory for UoTs and CUs • An engagement with the DoE and other relevant players such as the CHE/HEQC on these documents and their implications. • Further co-operation between institutions in Finland and South Africa

7. Project plan • Phase 1 : Development of a Detailed Project Plan • Phase 2 : Design of an Identity Map and a Sector Development Trajectory • Phase 3 : Identification of an appropriate set of Institutional Performance Indicators • Phase 4 : Discuss set of Identified Performance Indicators with the Finnish Experts and the DoE and HEQC to finalise the assessment framework • Phase 5 :Testing and piloting the calculations of Performance indicators • Phase 6: Present set of tested Performance Indicators to the SATN Board • Phase 7 :Present set of SATN approved Performance Indicators to the DoE the CHE and the CEPD • Phase 8 :Final Project Report

8. Phase 2 : UoT Characteristics • Technology Programmes • Research and Innovation through technology and technique in strategic areas • Entrepreneurial and innovative ethos • National and International impact and recognition • Sustainable engagement • Financial sustainability

9. Phase 3 Identification of an appropriate set of Institutional Performance Indicators Activity 1 • Research and identification of acceptable performance indicators appropriate for the UoT and CU sectors and reporting back to UoTs and CUs; • Preparation of a draft document on sectoral PIs. • A two day workshop to identify and discuss suggested PIs with the Expert team; • Dr Nico Cloete (or other experts) could be invited as specialist consultants assist with the identification of sectoral institutional performance indicators • Outcome • Documented set of appropriate sectoral Institutional Performance Indicators; Timeline 27 & 28 May 2008

10. Phase 3 Identification of an appropriate set of Institutional Performance Indicators Activity 2 Institutional Workshop: This Activity would require about 40 representatives of the UoTs and CU’s to to attend the workshop The selection of the institutional representatives will be the responsibility of the institutional project leaders. Outcome • The aim of this workshop would be to familiarise institutional representatives with the : intrinsic characteristics and value of each PI the application and implementation of each PI in the institution Timeline 12 & 13 June 2008

11. Phase 3 Identification of an appropriate set of Institutional Performance Indicators Activity 3 • Institutional re-alignment of PIs: • It would also be appreciated if you could nominate and institutional leader that would be competent to organise and run an Institutional performance indicator alignment workshop Outcome • The aim of the workshops would be to familiarise institutional staff with the • intrinsic characteristics and value of each PI • the application and implementation of each PI in the institution Timeline End of July 2008

12. Phase 8:Final Project Report Proposed Template for the Final report on the project for the development of performance indicators for UoTs and UoT-related parts of CUs • 1 Introduction – Expert team • 2 The Position, Role and Function of Universities of Technology in South Africa – Prof Roy du Pre • 3 The Position, Role and Function of Comprehensive Universities in South Africa - ?? • 4 Characteristics, Attributes, Criteria Enablers and Benchmarks –UoT Typology Project Committee • 5 Sectoral Evidence Based Institutional Performance indicators –Expert Team • 6 Institutional Profiles - Elmar de Wet and his Co- workers • 7 Conclusion

13. Identified Performance Indicators • How many of them are unique for UoTs or CUs? • Do they assist in the differentiation debate? • Are they primarily QA instruments? • Would they be used for measuring the implementation of the institutional strategic plan? • Would they be used in management decision making? • Do we have the logistical and IT infrastructure to implement them? • How should the benchmarks be determined?