This website is best viewed in a browser that supports web standards.
Skip to content or, if you would rather, Skip to navigation.
Expand All Questions | Collapse All Questions
The University’s KQIs (see Organizational Overview) and other foundational statements provide a context for leaders in managing performance and determining what measures are appropriate for tracking strategic initiatives. The SSPP drives collection, analysis, and use of data to track operational performance at the departmental/unit level. The SSPP also drives strategy deployment, helps improve existing processes, and uncovers the need for innovation (SSPP Step 6). In all cases, it serves as a template for determining requirements, selecting performance measures, identifying better practices, and setting performance goals. Step 1 of the SSPP requires the formulation of process KQIs and requires linkage to and thus alignment with the strategic KQIs.
To ensure further alignment, Step 3 of the SSPP calls for the formulation of an assessment strategy to monitor formative and summative measures and indicators. In this step, the department/unit selects appropriate data for each of the process KQIs identified in Step 1 and specifies when and how the data are to be collected and analyzed for support of decision-making. A matrix is used to show the alignment of the data/information system with related process requirements. A further description of the integration of information and processes into the larger educational system is addressed in the annual report. For each KQI, consideration is given to the appropriate mix of assessment types, the point in the process where assessment is done, and the need for repeating assessments on an appropriate cycle and for ensuring that assessment results are forwarded to someone with assigned responsibility. Consideration is also given to appropriate or inappropriate uses of the data. Information related to daily operations is typically tracked on departmental Dashboards. These departmental measures are aggregated though the Dashboard system to track overall institutional performance.
We select comparative data using one or more of these three criteria: 1) The source is a member of a comparative group; 2) The source is “best in class”; and 3) The source has comparable measures/indicators. Targets are set by reviewing data from organizations in an appropriate comparative group (i.e., Peer 41, Missouri, or National) or from an organization that is best-in-class (i.e. benchmarking). Data are analyzed by looking at those pertaining to individual institutions (if available) and in the aggregate. Other nationally normed instruments are used for comparative data whenever they are valid for our needs.
Comparative data are used to create a context to analyze trends, identify opportunities for benchmarking, and set performance targets. Because Northwest has been collecting performance data for almost 20 years, all measures at Northwest are made relative to appropriate comparisons. When available, performance is tracked relative to competitor performance, which is available through the use of nationally-normed tests. In instances where competitive comparisons are not available because of the higher education industry, trends are used to support decision-making. If available and appropriate, Northwest compares itself to the institutions in the Peer 41. Other instances provide the opportunity to compare Northwest to other Missouri institutions or national averages.
This is accomplished through the SSPP and by collecting and sharing information through the Dashboard, annual reports, 5-year reports, and annual department visits. On the Dashboard, relevant comparative data are displayed with the most recent Northwest data. When appropriate, Cabinet members evaluate the comparative information and determine appropriate performance targets, which are then entered into the Dashboards. Regardless of the method used, a mathematical analysis of actual performance to target performance is conducted, and a numeric indicator is gen¬erated. Where multiple indicators are aggregated into a single overall metric, each contributing metric is assigned a weight. The overall weighted metric is then goes on the Dashboard display. Contributing metrics are also analyzed in order to create an indicator showing when drill-down is needed.
Northwest uses two processes to ensure that hardware and software remain reliable, secure and user-friendly: The Computer Users’ Group (CUG) and the Department of Information Systems (IS). The Computer User’s Group (CUG) is comprised of professional and administrative staff from offices that rely heavily on the computing system for daily operations. It reviews software needs and evaluates standard solutions through bi-weekly meetings. Current technology suppliers are given first review to help keep systems and databases integrated with similar user screen layouts and functions. Northwest avoids initial releases of commercial software preferring to wait until the initial bugs have been corrected. Programmers do not have access to live production software and hardware. Users do not have access to developmental software and hardware. Information Systems (IS) manages the electronic campus and receives input from the CUG regarding reliability, security, and user-friendliness. IS also ensures that hardware and software meet the performance requirements from a management perspective. The Vice President for IS sits on the President’s Cabinet, where he provides direct input for setting hardware and software priorities. IS operates a help-desk to assist faculty, staff and students with computing problems. IS has conducted several cycles of improvement in securing the Northwest network, which now includes subnets in each building.
How Northwest ensures the continued availability of data and information in the event of an emergency. Web-based instructional and courseware support systems are outsourced to eCollege and eCompanion, which maintain a complete emergency fail-over computing center. The library automation systems and database retrieval systems are outsourced to Mobius, which also has emergency backup systems. The high-speed Internet, voice, and video fiber circuits are in a ring configuration so an alternate path can be activated in case of an emergency. Also, building subnets can go off-line without impacting the rest of the campus network. Servers for Human Resources and Financial Systems reside in the Administration Building and have backup hardware and data in the highly secure University computing center housed in the basement of the library. Student records, alumni records, email, personal network storage and the University web-site systems utilize a highly redundant Storage Area Network (SAN) data-storage system.
Central computing systems--including major servers, central data storage, networking hubs and firewalls--are powered through an uninterruptible power supply (UPS). All systems are backed up on a regular schedule. Protection levels are set to regulate improper or accidental updates to the data and to control access from the individual level up through total campus access. Critical network subsystems have backup or fail-over computers (such as firewalls and network domain controllers). PC backup storage space is provided for faculty, administrative and student PC-users on a centralized data storage system that is also backed up to tape on a regular basis and stored at a remote site. A remote SAN mirrors all data in the computing center SAN. Several remote servers connected to the mirrored SAN allow services to be restored rapidly.
How Northwest ensures accuracy, integrity, timeliness, and security of data. Data are checked for accuracy, reliability and integrity in several scenarios. The OAIA tracks data relative to historic performance, so if a data point is precipitously lower or higher than expected, the data point and any calculation leading to it are validated. Data entered into Northwest’s Dashboard system at the departmental level (relative to the SSPPs) is validated in much the same way. When available, performance data relative to competitive comparison provide a context by which accuracy, validity and integrity can be verified.
The Dashboard system is the mechanism by which data are provided across the institution as soon as they become available. To ensure that data on the Dashboard remains secure, individuals are given editing privileges only in their areas of responsibility. For instance, a faculty member in the English Department may only have the ability to enter data relative to English, but he or she still has the ability to view data from the Chemistry Department for benchmarking purposes. Because Northwest is a publicly-funded institution, the information housed on the Dashboard is available to anyone upon request. Individual-level data (i.e. social security numbers, individual student test scores, etc.) are not available on the Dashboard.
The CUG meets regularly to provide input for acquiring, prioritizing, and aligning data and information mechanisms. This group reviews data and information availability in terms of service needs and provides input to IS. They review emerging needs with the programming staff, prioritize improvement proposals, explore whether new software should be purchased and suggest improvements to data systems such as changing data elements, descriptor codes, reporting formats and sunsetting or reactivating unused data fields. This group also does long-range planning for data-architecture needs.
IS department members monitor new software releases and patches that support more reliable and secure in¬formation systems. They stay abreast of changing technology through professional contacts, service contracts, professional journals, and conferences. They consult with the Vice President for IS and other units to ensure that systems are reliable, secure, and maintainable. Students and faculty are surveyed to track their changing needs for computing resources and are asked to approve new systems.