Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
2009 Student Satisfaction Survey: Key FindingsPresented at the Management Committee 19 May 2009 Professor George Subotzky Executive Director: Information & Strategic Analysis
2009 Student Satisfaction Survey • Key indicator of management and operational service delivery & priorities for improvement • 5th annual survey: allows tracking institutional performance & service delivery over time – particularly significant around 5-year reviews • 5 Indices and composite USSI: • General Unisa Student Satisfaction Index (GUSI) • Unisa Registration Efficiency Index (UREI) • Unisa Student Support Service Index (USSSI) • Unisa Academic Performance Index (UAPI) • Unisa Administrative and Professional Services Index (UAPSI) • Combine to form the composite Unisa Student Satisfaction Index (USSI)
Overview of Main 1-year Trends: 2008-9 All indices down • Composite Unisa Student Satisfaction Index (USSI): down 5,16 points to an unprecedented low of 63,15 • General Unisa Student Satisfaction Index (GUSI): down 7,84 points to 63,84 • Unisa Admin & Professional Services Index (UAPSI): down 7,58 points to 67,56 • Unisa Academic Performance Index (UAPI): down 4,74 points to 62,79 • Unisa Student Support Service Index (USSSI): down 4,02 points to 59,11 – 1st time below 60 for any index • Unisa Registration Efficiency Index (UREI): down 1,63 points to 62,44 (following 9-point drop last year)
Overview of Main 5-year Trends: 2005-9 All indices down • Composite Unisa Student Satisfaction Index (USSI): down 10,09 points to an unprecedented low of 63,15 • Unisa Registration Efficiency Index (UREI): down 13,47 points to 62,44 • General Unisa Student Satisfaction Index (GUSI): down 12,47 points to 63,84 • Unisa Student Support Service Index (USSSI): down 8,80 points to 59,11 • Unisa Academic Performance Index (UAPI): down 8,34 points to 62,79 • Unisa Admin & Professional Services Index (UAPSI): down 7,40 points to 67,56
Implications for Planning • Along with other review & reflective sources, the annual student satisfaction survey identifies areas for serious attention in order to improve service delivery, success, excellence, quality & relevance • It therefore represents a key set of indicators of institutional performance and improvement initiatives • The 5-year longitudinal trends indicate a disturbing steady decline in student satisfaction across all indices • Clearly, the University has not responded adequately to these indications over the years and has not been able to effect the required changes in the operational areas concerned in a coordinated and integrated way
Conclusion • A hallmark of an effective learning organisation is its ability to learn from its intelligence sources and to rapidly effect the strategic or operational changes required – this is the role of actionable intelligence • The shorter the feedback loop, the more effective is the learning and change/improvement process • Within the integrated strategic management framework, these insights must generate effective, concerted, integrated and coordinated change/improvement efforts
Main Recommendation To achieve an effective, integrated solution, the following 2 steps are recommended: • The primary responsibility and process for managing the improvement process must be confirmed • Clearly, primary responsibility for this belongs to the DSPQA • The process must integrate related initiatives, including: • Quality Improvement Plans • Ongoing monitoring & evaluation/organisational performance management in relation to the IOP and 2015 SP • Strategic project reviews • Service excellence • Risk management & internal audit initiatives • It will also have to draw from other performance indicators and sources of intelligence, such as the monitoring of student complaints
Main Recommendation (2) • Utilising these various sources, an annual Improvement Action Plan is drawn up, comprising: • Clear identification of the problem areas/issues • Clear identification of the responsible operational units • A clearly defined process of formally referring the problem areas/issues to the operational units concerned • This would include requesting the operational units to draw up detailed improvement plans, with clearly specified internal responsibilities, targets, performance measures and timelines • These would be submitted to the DSPQA by a specified date (prior to the finalisation of the IOP) for approval in terms of planning consistency and practicability (adequate resources, time and identified dependencies) • Once approved, these would be integrated into the IOP which would then be monitored and evaluated as part of the IOP reviews