Search News


Browse Archives

News

Dashboard Fever

October 22, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

LAS VEGAS -- As pressure has built on colleges and universities to prove their performance to increasingly questioning external audiences, many institutions have realized that they must start by better understanding their own strengths and weaknesses.

That has led increasing numbers of individual institutions, public university systems (like the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities), and state higher education entities (like Indiana's Commission of Higher Education) to collect and organize data from massive and complex data warehouses in easily digestible forms, resulting in an explosion of dashboards and other mechanisms. Most of them relate to things such as finances, facilities and, increasingly, student persistence.

This week's annual conference of the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources suggested that the concept might be about to take off in another realm: assessing performance of campus employees.

Several sessions at this year's meeting revolved around efforts on various campuses to bring together in one place reams of data that are often housed in different places and viewed independently; they had titles such as “Workforce and Employee Engagement: Strategies, Approaches and Metrics for Higher Education Institutions” and “HR Measurement in a Community College Environment.”

While the specific objectives of the efforts vary somewhat, they generally are designed to give department chairs, deans and other campus leaders better information about how departments -- and, at least conceivably, individual faculty and staff members -- are performing, to help drive decision making about which programs and initiatives are best suited to help the institutions meet their goals.

At a time when most institutions are confronting expanding enrollments and the likelihood of diminished revenues – creating the need to do more with less – many are realizing that they are going to have to pay more attention to the efficiency and productivity of their staffs. That’s not something they’ve historically done well.

“There’s a real interest in making database-driven decisions rather than going from our guts,” said Laura Gast, senior research consultant for Ohio State University’s Office of Human Resources, who (with her colleague Ken Orr) helped create her institution’s HR Faculty Dashboard.

The Ohio State project was one of three winners of the human resources association’s Sungard Higher Education Innovation Awards this year, and it brought oohs and aahs from many of the HR officials who watched Gast and Orr’s presentation of it Tuesday. Administrators at Ohio State have been similarly won over, Gast said, primarily because it has collected in one easily accessible (and powerfully adaptive) tool an array of information that has been hard to come by in the past.

“A lot of departments did not have easy access to basic information about their faculty,” Gast said. “HR had some” – salary and some demographic data – while information about promotion and tenure, for instance, was housed in the Office of Academic Affairs. By building a single data warehouse that combines individual-level demographic information (including hirings and separations) with compensation data, department chairs can produce reports (with powerfully simple charts) that tend to drive home trends in ways that jar academic administrators.

Orr described the dean of engineering’s reaction upon seeing, in brightly colored bar charts drawn from the HR office’s data warehouse, that “68 percent of his full professors would be eligible to retire within five years.”

“We’re getting data into the hands of the people who need it on a day to day basis,” said Gast.

Based on what’s in the Ohio State database so far, there is little that would be likely to generate controversy among humanists or scientists on the Columbus campus. But one could envision that changing a bit if Gast and Orr carry out their plans to draw in all sorts of other data – about research grants, teaching loads, etc. – that, taken together, would arguably transform the dashboard project from a planning tool into an accountability tool, as well.

Asked if she thought faculty members might be threatened by a system that allowed department chairs to more readily scan their ranks to gauge professors’ productivity on a range of measures, she said perhaps so – especially “the unproductive ones…. Professors are some of the people who want this information the most,” she added. (You could imagine legislators as eager to get their hands on it, too.)

Lest anyone worry that faculty members are being singled out for scrutiny at Ohio State, never fear. Gast and Orr and their colleagues are preparing to roll out an Employee Analytics database and dashboard, too, with as-yet-undefined metrics.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Dashboard Fever

  • Bait and switch
  • Posted by More o' the same on October 22, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • I was interested in this article because I thought it would add some light to a burning issue on my campus -- that is, how to figure out if our levels of staffing were appropriate for the work. As budget cuts have become more of a reality and it's clear that some folks are likely going to lose their jobs in the coming year, my campus finds itself with no way of knowing (except some administrator's "gut") who we need and who we don't. How many folks do you need in procurement? or payroll? etc. How many administrative jobs really accomplish anything (we have several administrative depts where there are folks with $100K salaries supervising 1-2 people!). Instead, I read another article about how to measure faculty workload. Ho hum. Faculty are the only people on my campus whose workload and productivity (teaching load, SFR, publication success and grant-writing) that anyone knows anything about and faculty workload is a constant subject of discussion -- esp by folks (administrators, mostly) who think that if faculty just worked harder/more/more efficiently (meaning using more and more expensive technology) that all our budget problems would be solve. But, if these same administrators are asked how they know that we have the right number of people doing any other task, their response is "because I feel we do". On my campus the number of faculty and faculty lines have shrunk over the past 10 years (including during years that were thought to be "good" for higher ed) but our staff and administrative numbers keep growing and growing. As we talk about layoffs, all the talk is about lecturers and even some TT faculty, but almost none about these other folks. I actually don't want anyone to lose their job, but if layoffs are coming, it seems odd that the only people anyone is talking about laying off are faculty -- a little counterintuitive when our whole reason for existing is to teach students --- don't you think?

    So. count me completely unimpressed by this article. As always, those in charge of institutions of higher ed eschew self-reflection and self-analysis in times of crisis. After all, we all know that the faculty are the source of all inefficiencies that exist . . . ..

  • Back to basics
  • Posted by Sue Metzner , Director of Human Resources on October 22, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • I did not attend the CUPA-HR national conference. I have stopped attending these conferences because the kinds of topics that gets presented (at CUPA and at SHRM) tend to be "amazing new tools and breakthroughs" that are supposed to solve fundamental workplace problems. These discoveries sound glitzy and provide name recognition and publishing opportunity for the authors/presenters. They are chosen as conference sessions because they are the latest flash in the pan and junior HR people run around like ferrets on crystal meth spouting the jargon they pick up there. Sadly the Higher Ed groups are usually at least 10 years behind their corporate counterparts -- dashboards are old news. The fact is, if you want to know who is producing good work in an organization and which departments are appropriately staffed, you have to resort to basics: follow sound HR and training practices, develop and then count on good supervisors/managers to manage people and resources well. It's not sexy but it's what works. This is not to say that it is easy to do -- it's much more difficult than devising a new "system".

    Certainly succession planning is important (realizing that 60% of your engineering faculty will retire in 5 years), but it is nothing new. Manager/deans trained in basic management skills are already doing this or should be.

    Sorry to be the grinch du jour.

     

  • human resources
  • Posted by dankprofessor , Professor, Sociology at Cal State Long Beach on October 23, 2009 at 4:45am EDT
  • A prior comment- "I actually don't want anyone to lose their job, but if layoffs are coming, it seems odd that the only people anyone is talking about laying off are faculty -- a little counterintuitive when our whole reason for existing is to teach students --- don't you think?"

    I agree but I would go one step beyond- assess the efficiency of HR faculty and employees. Or simply get rid of them as a cost saving initiative.