Campus Quality Survey 1998, 1999, & 2001 Comparison Office of Institutional Research & Planning July 5, 2001

Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001 Scale Should BeIs NowPerformance Gap Top Management Leadership & Support Customer Focus Strategic Quality Planning Quality Assurance Measurement & Analysis Quality & Productivity Improvement Results Employee Training & Recognition Employee Empowerment & Teamwork Scale Summaries

Ranked Items Should BeIs Now Performance Gap (1) 27. There are effective lines of communication between departments (2) 37. There is a spirit of teamwork and cooperation in this organization (3) 2. This institution involves its employees in planning for the future (4) 48. Employee suggestions are used to improve our institution (5) 32. Administrators pay attention to what I have to say (6) 41. This institution analyzes all relevant data before making decisions (7) 14. This institution analyzes complaints to determine appropriate remedial action (8) 26. Employees are rewarded for outstanding job performance (9) 36. Administrators share information regularly with faculty and staff (10) 30. Administrators set examples of quality services in their day-to-day performance (11) 47. This institution plans carefully (12) 28. Employees are encouraged to provide suggestions on ways to improve the work flow (13) 9. Employees receive special training in improving customer service (14) 19. Employees are empowered to resolve problems quickly (15) 31. Administrators recognize faculty and staff when they do a good job Survey Items with Largest Performance Gaps Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Characteristics NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent Number of Employees completing survey %310100%314100% EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Not satisfied at all No response IMPRESSION OF QUALITY Excellent Good Average Below average Inadequate No response Satisfaction & Quality Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Employee Satisfaction Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Impression of Quality Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Characteristics NumberPercentNumberPercentNumberPercent Number of Employees completing survey %310100%314100% DIVISION Instruction Student Development President’s/Finance/Development EMPLOYEE GROUP Faculty Classified Dept. Chair Administrative/Professional No Response Survey Demographics Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Details by Scale and Survey Items Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Scale 1 – Top Management Leadership & Support – Examines how all levels of senior management create and sustain a clear and visible quality value system along with management systems support that guides the activities of the organization. Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Item Should BeIs NowPerformance Gap TOP MANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP & SUPPORT Team efforts are effective on this campus Job responsibilities are communicated clearly to employees Administrators treat students as their top priority Administrators are committed to providing quality service Employees are rewarded for outstanding job performance Administrators are examples of quality performance in their day-to-day activities Administrators pay attention to what I have to say My supervisor helps me improve my job performance Administrators have confidence and trust in me Administrators share information regularly with faculty & staff This institution analyzes all relevant data before making decisions Scale 1 – Top Management Leadership & Support – Scale Summary and ratings for Detailed Items Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Scale 2 – Customer Focus – Assesses overall customer service systems and the responsiveness and ability of the organization to meet requirements and expectations. Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Scale 2 – Customer Focus – Scale Summary and ratings for Detailed Items Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001 Item Should BeIs Now Performance Gap CUSTOMER FOCUS This institution listens to its students This institution regularly conducts surveys to evaluate its programs and services Students have a way to provide feedback on their level of satisfaction with campus programs and services Service personnel receive special training in customer service This institution promotes excellent employee-to-student relationships This institution analyzes complaints to determine appropriate action Student input is systematically measured & monitored as a basis for improvement Student survey results are published and posted regularly Administrators cultivate positive relationships with students Guarantees of satisfaction are offered to students to ensure quality service Students believe faculty care about what they think Administrators are committed to providing quality service Campus services are “user-friendly”

Scale 3 – Strategic Quality Planning – Examines the organization’s quality planning process and reviews how all key quality requirements are integrated into the process. Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Scale 3 – Strategic Quality Planning – Scale Summary and ratings for Detailed Items Item Should BeIs NowPerformance Gap STRATEGIC QUALITY PLANNING This institution involves its employees in planning for the future This institution regularly conducts surveys to evaluate its programs and services This institution analyzes complaints to determine appropriate actions Student input is systematically measured and monitored as a basis for improvement We use regional data to compare our performance with that of other institutions This institution plans carefully Employee suggestions are used to improve our institution The mission, purpose and values of this institution are understood by employees Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Scale 4 – Quality Assurance – Examines the approaches used by the organization to design, assess, control, and improve processes. Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Scale 4 – Quality Assurance – Scale Summary and ratings for Detailed Items Item Should BeIs Now Performance Gap QUALITY ASSURANCE Students have a way to provide feedback on their level of satisfaction with campus programs and services Each department has written, up-to-date service expectations Established standards and procedures define job expectations for employees Job responsibilities are communicated clearly to employees Student input is systematically measured and monitored as a basis for improvement We use regional data to compare our performance with that of other institutions This institution continually evaluates and upgrades its processes for collecting data Guarantees of satisfaction are offered to students to ensure quality service Employees are encouraged to provide feedback on ways to improve the work flow I know what is expected of me Employees are involved in the development and improvement of performance measures Written procedures clearly define who is responsible for each operation and service Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Scale 5 – Measurement & Analysis – Reviews the scope, validity, use, and management of data and information that underscore the organization’s TQM system. Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Scale 5 – Measurement & Analysis – Scale Summary and ratings for Detailed Items Item Should BeIs NowPerformance Gap MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS It is easy to get information at this institution This institution has “user-friendly” computer systems to support personnel We use regional data to compare our performance with that of other institutions This institution continually evaluates and upgrades its processes for collecting data Efforts to improve quality are paying off in this institution Employees are encouraged to provide feedback on ways to improve work flow Administrators share information regularly with faculty and staff This institution analyzes all relevant data before making decisions Quality process tools and methods are used regularly to solve problems Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Scale 6 – Quality & Productivity Improvement Results – Reviews the measurable results of the organization’s quality improvement efforts. Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Scale 6 – Quality & Productivity Improvement Results – Scale Summary and ratings for Detailed Items Item Should BeIs Now Performance Gap QUALITY & PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT RESULTS Each department has written, up-to-date service expectations Established standards and procedures define job expectations for employees Student input is systematically measured and monitored as a basis for improvement This institution continually evaluates and upgrades its processes for gathering data Efforts to improve quality are paying off in this institution Guarantees of satisfaction are offered to students to ensure quality service There are effective lines of communication between departments Faculty and staff take pride in their work There is a spirit of teamwork & cooperation on this campus Quality process tools and methods are used regularly to solve problems This institution believes in continuous quality improvement Written procedures clearly define who is responsible for each operation and service Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Scale 7 – Employee Training & Recognition – Examines the efforts to develop the full potential of employees for quality improvement and analyzes training efforts, rewards, and incentives in place to recognize individuals. Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Scale 7 – Employee Training & Recognition – Scale Summary and ratings for Detailed Items Item Should BeIs Now Performance Gap EMPLOYEE TRAINING & RECOGNITION Processes for selecting, orienting, training, empowering and recognizing personnel are carefully planned Service personnel receive special training in customer service Employees are empowered to resolve students’ problems quickly Students believe faculty care about what they think Employees are rewarded for outstanding job performance Administrators recognize employees when they do a good job Employee suggestions are used to improve our institution Professional development programs to improve job performance are available to employees Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Scale 8 – Employee Empowerment & Teamwork – Determines the effectiveness and extent of work force involvement in continuous quality improvement and the approaches used to enhance employee empowerment. Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Scale 8 – Employee Empowerment & Teamwork – Scale Summary and ratings for Detailed Items Item Should BeIs Now Performance Gap EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT & TEAMWORK Team efforts are effective on this campus Processes for selecting, orienting, training, empowering and recognizing personnel are carefully planned Job responsibilities are communicated clearly to employees Employees are empowered to solve students’ problems quickly Administrators treat students as their top priority Employees are encouraged to provide feedback on ways to improve the work flow My supervisor helps me improve my job performance This institution uses teams to solve problems Administrators have confidence and trust me There is a spirit of teamwork and cooperation on this campus My department meets as a team to plan and coordinate work Employees are involved in the development and improvement of performance measures Quality improvement teams have been established on this campus Campus Quality Survey Comparisons 1998, 1999, & 2001

Click the “Back” button on your browser to return to the IE-RP main page.