OIPD Customer Satisfaction Survey: Spring 2011

Transcription

1 OIPD Customer Satisfaction Survey: Spring 2011 The Office of Institutional Research and Data Warehouse

2 Executive Summary The Office of Institutional Research and Data Warehouse (IR), under the Vice President of Institutional Planning & Development (IPD), conducted the OIPD customer satisfaction survey for the first time at the end of spring The study is designed to capture perception and satisfaction of some selected customers on the following items: OIPD s assistance to develop units Strategic Plan (SP) Alignment of each unit s SP with the University s SP Training and support provided by OIPD to computerize each unit s SP using SPOL system OIPD Team s response to queries and requests Quality of communication with OIPD The survey was developed by the Office of Institutional Research (IR). In spring 2011, an online survey was ed to a few selected users who were provided with the services by OIPD Team in the AY of A total of 68 out of 121 actual users completed the survey that yielded around 56% response rate. College management had the highest response rate (86%). In order to make a fair comparison of response bias and response rate, customers are grouped into five major categories. Customers N % Associate Dean (2) Coordinator (4) Dean (2) = University Management Department Head (3) = College Management Director (1) = Department Head Manager (1) = Coordinator President (1) 1.8 5= SPOL Coordinator SPOL Coordinator (5) Vice President (1) Total Respondents Rates Customers Grouped for Comparison Please select one of the following that apply to you: N % % N % 1= University Management = University Management = College Management = College Management = Department Head = Department Head = Coordinator = Coordinator = SPOL Coordinator = SPOL Coordinator Total 68 Total 121 Page 2 of 8

3 Results: Overall satisfaction is about 70% or more. However, it is very important to make judgment and pay special attention to use the results because all items are not equally applicable to all uses. Case in point, Q1 and Q2 are applicable to most of the administrators. However, Q 3 may not be applicable to all. This question applies mostly to SOPL coordinators whose job was to use SPOL for documentation. It is reflected in the results. Overall Satisfaction Total N= 68, NA excluded S. Agree \ Agree Count % I am satisfied with the OIPD Team s assistance to develop my unit s strategic plan 42 69% I am satisfied with the alignment of my unit s SP with the University s SP 49 78% I am satisfied with training and support provided by OIPD to computerize my unit s SP using SPOL system 37 60% I am satisfied with the OIPD Team s response to our queries and requests 48 76% The quality of communication with OIPD was satisfactory 48 73% Response from SPOL Coordinators S. Agree / Agree Count % I am satisfied with the OIPD Team s assistance to develop my unit s strategic plan % I am satisfied with the alignment of my unit s SP with the University s SP 9 82% I am satisfied with training and support provided by OIPD to computerize my unit s SP using SPOL % system I am satisfied with the OIPD Team s response to our queries and requests % The quality of communication with OIPD was satisfactory % All, excluding SPOL Coordinators S. Agree \ Agree Count % I am satisfied with the OIPD Team s assistance to develop my unit s strategic plan 30 61% I am satisfied with the alignment of my unit s SP with the University s SP 40 77% I am satisfied with training and support provided by OIPD to computerize my unit s SP using 25 50% SPOL system I am satisfied with the OIPD Team s response to our queries and requests 36 71% The quality of communication with OIPD was satisfactory 36 67% Page 3 of 8

4 RESPONSE BY JOB CLASSIFICATION/CATEGORIES University management S. Agree \ Agree Neutral S. Disagree \ Disagree Count % Count % Count % I am satisfied with the OIPD Team s assistance to develop my unit s SP 8 73% 2 18% 1 9% I am satisfied with the alignment of my unit s SP with the University s SP 8 73% 2 18% 1 9% I am satisfied with training and support provided by OIPD to computerize my unit s SP using SPOL system 7 78% 2 22% 0 0% I am satisfied with the OIPD Team s response to our queries and requests 10 91% 0 0% 1 9% The quality of communication with OIPD was satisfactory 7 64% 3 27% 1 9% College management S. Agree \ Agree Neutral S. Disagree \ Disagree Count % Count % Count % I am satisfied with the OIPD Team s assistance to develop my unit s SP 8 73% 3 27% 0 0% I am satisfied with the alignment of my unit s SP with the University s SP 10 83% 2 17% 0 0% I am satisfied with training and support provided by OIPD to computerize my unit s SP using SPOL system 7 58% 4 33% 1 8% I am satisfied with the OIPD Team s response to our queries and requests 7 64% 4 36% 0 0% The quality of communication with OIPD was satisfactory 9 75% 3 25% 0 0% Department Head S. Agree \ Agree Neutral S. Disagree \ Disagree Count % Count % Count % I am satisfied with the OIPD Team s assistance to develop my unit s SP 13 62% 6 29% 2 10% I am satisfied with the alignment of my unit s SP with the University s SP 19 90% 1 5% 1 5% I am satisfied with training and support provided by OIPD to computerize my unit s SP using SPOL system 10 48% 7 33% 4 19% I am satisfied with the OIPD Team s response to our queries and requests 13 62% 6 29% 2 10% The quality of communication with OIPD was satisfactory 13 62% 6 29% 2 10% Coordinator S. Agree \ Agree Neutral S. Disagree \ Disagree Count % Count % Count % I am satisfied with the OIPD Team s assistance to develop my unit s SP 0 0% 3 60% 2 40% I am satisfied with the alignment of my unit s SP with the University s SP 2 29% 3 43% 2 29% I am satisfied with training and support provided by OIPD to computerize my unit s SP using SPOL system 0 0% 5 71% 2 29% I am satisfied with the OIPD Team s response to our queries and requests 5 71% 1 14% 1 14% The quality of communication with OIPD was satisfactory 6 67% 2 22% 1 11% Page 4 of 8

5 Respondents comments 1. Areas of satisfaction about OIPD Personally feel that the OIPD is one of the very active unit in the university which is working in pace with the requirements of rapid development that the university is witnessing. I never felt any problem in dealing with the OIPD and very satisfied with the help and services provided by the unit. The services offered by OIPD are of high quality; I see that such services have positive and high impact on the effectiveness of the University at the institutional level. In addition, such services are increasing the integrity and reliability of the University at the regional and international levels. The system of uploading the information of the strategic plan is complicated, the previous one was much better. I am really satisfied with the excellent services, the up-to-date technology used, and the communication. Please continue these excellent efforts. The university is rapidly improving its support services and planning and assessment systems. However, increased coordination and streamlining of various planning functions is necessary. For example linking strategic planning with HR objectives and assessments on the one hand and with Academic Evaluation Office requirements like self-study reviews or AUPRS. In other words better coordination and collaboration between OIPD, HR and AEO is necessary. This should also apply to the IT systems used whereby budgeting systems are integrated with planning, assessment and progress reporting. Need to know about the procurement policy and the other department policies which considered as a general concern for QU staff The Quality of Service in most QU departments is improving (SPOL coordinator). 2. Areas of concern about OIPD Multiple OIPD initiatives are confusing, and the same information is being requested repeatedly from OIPD staff. Information that has been submitted by my unit is not always reflected in SACS documents. Seems to be little sharing of information between members of OIPD. Currently, OPID is engaged in running a number of reports, surveys and data collection exercises, and yet the reporting of facts back to the stake holders is not satisfactory. Where are the findings of OPID fed into? This is another unclear issue. Not all reports are posted on the OPID web-site or any other venue. It seems that some of the reports are Page 5 of 8

6 being passed to pertinent VPs, and it is left to the VP to decide on the mechanism to act on these reports, disseminate them, comment on them, etc. Providing reports that are not sought/needed by Colleges or do not have strong relevance to their objectives is not the current need. The SPOL software does not seem to be useful Respondents recommendations Needs to create stronger coordination with the units to which OPID provides statistics and reports. Lack of communication and coordination of effort have resulted in duplication of efforts. To quote an example, surveys are run at the OPID level and another survey is run at the academic unit level. The issue of utilizing OIPD reports needs to be strengthened; closing of loop needs to be formulated. Filtering data collection and reporting should be an added-value. Overwhelming people with data is another important issue we need to focus on. We need more workshops giving us some information and skills in order to understand the policies and the rules and how we can match and apply it to the our SP. The different service and academic units are not connected together with one system such as Oracle system or other system. This disconnection affects the quality and the speed of Execution of work. Need more institutional and department training for developing unit strategic plans, assessment measures and targets. Need better system than SPOL! SPOL does not calculate anything and seems to require me to enter the same information over and over again in different areas. I want to better understand how to set budgets in-line with department's strategic plan--i have not received any training for this and have never seen any offered in this past year ( ). Since budgets for next year need to be submitted soon, there has been no training offered yet. The implementation mechanism of Faculty/TA performance evaluation system should be improved to consider the exact numerical values of the scale system. Feedback is very important for customers. Following up a request could be much easier process. Technologies are invited to ease our work life. Page 6 of 8

7 Conclusion & recommended actions: Based on the results of this study, it was clear that respondents have some concerns regarding their perception about SPOL system, Faculty/TA evaluation system, data collection & reporting, and surveys. Therefore, the offices under the Office of Institutional Planning & Development (OIPD) look promptly at all the major concerns and recommend the following actions to be implemented to improve the level of satisfaction. Below is their recommendation. Office of Institutional Research and Data Warehouse: 1. Conduct meetings with data owner and data requester to fully serve their needs. 2. Conduct meetings with QU colleges and Administrative Department management to review the OIPD survey results and the surveys they conducted at the level of colleges and administrative unit. 3. Initiate an action plan, if necessary to improve any of the items of the surveys (this process already started from spring 2011) Office of Assessment & Evaluation 1. Review the Faculty/TA evaluation system and take all the action necessary to improve the process in order to meet the objective. 2. Conduct a set of meetings with colleges management and Faculty to find out the gaps in the system. The Strategic Planning Unit 1. Prepare a reply to all stakeholders describing the actions that are taken or will be taken to improve the system of uploading the information of the strategic plan. 2. Improve SPOL software to be flexible and suitable to all the stakeholders. Further recommended actions 1. Develop five focus groups from the following group of respondents to discuss the results of the study and the feedback related to their areas: a. University Management b. College Management c. Department Head d. Coordinator e. SPOL coordinator 2. Develop and implement an action plan by the office of VP, for Institutional Planning and development based on the study results, the comments and recommendations of participants, the focus groups results and the meeting results with stakeholders to improve the level of satisfaction. Page 7 of 8

8 Customer Satisfaction Survey 2011 The purpose of this survey is to collect information regarding the assistance and support provided by various units. Your feedback will help us improve the quality of services in the future. Kindly fill out the appropriate circle. Thank you in advance for your participation. Area Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Office of Institutional Planning and Development (OIPD) I am satisfied with the OIPD Team s assistance to develop my unit s Strategic Plan (SP) I am satisfied with the alignment of my unit s SP with the University s SP I am satisfied with training and support provided by OIPD to computerize my unit s SP using SPOL system I am satisfied with the OIPD Team s response to our queries and requests The quality of communication with OIPD was satisfactory Procurement Dept I am satisfied with time that took to complete the procurement process (from start to end) I am satisfied with the quality of service offered by the dept in general I am aware of policies and procedures of the procurement dept I am satisfied with the policies and procedures of the procurement dept The quality of communication with the dept was satisfactory Budget/Finance Dept Current budget reflected the needs of my unit I am aware of the new process to link my budget to my strategic plan My new budget is aligned my unit s SP The quality of communication with the dept was satisfactory Please give us your comment(s): Page 8 of 8