University Planning and Analysis is the result of the February 1992 combination of the Office of Institutional Research and the Office of University Planning. UPA is in a dynamic state because it is attempting to integrate the missions and functions previously housed in separate organizations, and because it is expanding its service to the University and external agencies. Among recent changes is UPA's assumption of the coordinating role for the SACS self-study and site visit. Another change, already discussed, was the May 1993 transfer of UPA's space-planning function to the Division of Finance and Business.
In carrying out its institutional-research function, UPA generates a number of informational reports. Subjects regularly covered include fall enrollment, survey of entering freshmen, salary equity, departmental teaching loads, degrees conferred, attrition and graduation rates, suspension and academic warnings, monthly admissions status, college-enrollment models, and athletic academic status. UPA also responds to a variety of ad hoc requests from internal and external constituents. Reports generated in response to such requests include application and acceptance information categorized by race, gender, college and curriculum; and course grade distributions categorized by college, level of course, and instructor.
As its mission statement indicates, UPA is clearly assigned the lead responsibility for carrying out institutional research. However, UPA relies heavily on support from several other campus organizations in order to create and maintain its primary databases and files. These support services include the Administrative Computing Service, and Registration and Records. Besides these data sources, UPA also has access to all relevant data from the colleges, schools, and administrative units.
Two new professional positions, assistant director and survey coordinator, were added to the UPA staff during the 1992-93 fiscal year. Office space for these positions has been made available through the relocation of the two facilities-planning staff members. Recent technological upgrades to computer equipment have provided the requisite level of computer support and network capability. Therefore, UPA is currently able to meet its immediate personnel, space, and equipment needs. However, UPA will need additional resources in the future.
The SACS criterion requires that UPA regularly evaluate its research functions [3.2.1]. In the past, this evaluation has been done only on an ad hoc basis, with occasional UPA requests for feedback from campus users. One ad hoc survey of the associate deans for academic affairs in each of the colleges indicated that UPA took too long to respond to data requests. It is possible that this situation will be corrected with the above-mentioned hiring of two additional professional staff. However, UPA's increased responsibilities for the CQI program, for student-outcome assessment, and for the unified planning and budget process may well absorb much of the time created by the two additions to the staff.
The 1992 NCSU self-study survey asked faculty to evaluate UPA. As might be expected for a behind the-scenes staff agency, 61 percent of the respondents did not express an opinion. Of those who did rate UPA's performance, 13 percent were very dissatisfied, 15 percent dissatisfied, 66 percent satisfied, and 5 percent very satisfied.
A comprehensive evaluation plan for UPA has recently been developed. This plan identifies several aspects of UPA to be assessed including mission, adequacy of technologies, and level of customer satisfaction. Evaluation will be accomplished through external review, peer review, professional-development plans, and documentation-review teams. This evaluation plan is being implemented in spring 1994.
First, UPA has organized a committee on personnel information. The committee includes UPA staff, college administrators, and staff from Human Resources and the Budget Office. The committee is attempting to determine principles for standardizing the University's diverse personnel databases. Once the committee establishes the principles, and the databases are appropriately modified, it will become much easier to analyze such issues as faculty teaching patterns across colleges or faculty/researcher salary equity.
Second, UPA has begun a drive to make its information more accessible and more user friendly, so that colleges, departments, and other administrative units can use their own computers to access and use University data for reports and analyses without going through UPA. This decentralized system is expected to be available in rudimentary form by early summer 1994. Its databases and its availability will then be expanded over the next several years. Over the long run, this decentralized system should increase the quantity and quality of analyses performed by colleges and departments while simultaneously lessening the demand on UPA's staff. However, in the short run UPA will need to devote additional resources to implement this system expeditiously
Recommendation 3.18: NCSU's Office of University Planning and Analysis should immediately implement a process by which the institutional research function is regularly evaluated.
The evaluation should regularly solicit recommendations from both on-campus customers and from directors of peer agencies at other universities. The proposed evaluation plan is a good approach.
Recommendation 3.19: NCSU's Office of University Planning and Analysis should develop its capacity to respond to requests for information and analysis more quickly, accurately, and consistently.
This is in concord with goal 3 of UPA's annual plan: "Develop office infrastructure in order to respond to requests more quickly, accurately, and consistently." Particular emphasis should be given to the objectives that promote the staff-development plan and the regular evaluation of UPA functions. The achievement of these objectives will enhance UPA's effectiveness in helping the University achieve its overall mission.
Recommendation 3.20: NCSU's Office of University Planning and Analysis should devote additional resources to the University's institutional-effectiveness effort and to the development of decentralized access to data.
The University's institutional-effectiveness and CQI efforts requires ongoing surveys of faculty, staff, students, alumni, and other University customers. Rather than replicate survey capabilities elsewhere, UPA's survey function should be expanded as needed for CQI.
Rapid progress in implementing effective assessment and planning processes (including survey activities and enhanced access to information through decentralized delivery) will be a major and ongoing challenge for the Office of University Planning and Analysis. UPA is encouraged to make changes needed to implement this activity, and the University is encouraged to support UPA's efforts.
