Assessment of Performance Index for Academic Teaching Departments at FUTO

1. EXAMPLE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE INDEX FOR ACADEMIC TEACHING DEPARTMENTS Presented at a WORKSHOP ON STRAGEGIC PLANNING / SWOT ANALYSIS OF FUTO BY PROFESSOR M. U. ILOEJE www.profmikeiloeje.com 18 – 19 JANUARY, 2017

2. PREAMBLE - 1 • Recent advances in effective corporate management have made it imperative that for organizations to maintain a lead in the cutting-edge of their competitive markets; they should from time to time assess how well they are fulfilling the principal function(s) for which they were established, and as enunciated in their MISSION STATEMENTS. • That is – an assessment of their special strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats SWOT • As enunciated in our MISSION STATEMENT, one of the principal functions for which FUTO was established is “… to develop and offer academic and professional programs leading to the award of diplomas, first degrees, postgraduate research and higher degrees…”

3. PREAMBLE - 2 • One of the objectives of this Workshop is to provide MNGT with “live” data for strategic planning, development and monitoring of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing our academic programs • I wish I had the “live” data with which to illustrate one example of how this could be done • I will therefore use the data I have from previous years to illustrate in this Workshop an example of “how it can be done” • Using NUC guidelines, I hope to show how each dept can benefit from this SWOT analysis, and use it to strategically enhance its programs, redress its shortcomings, take advantage of available opportunities , and overcome the threats facing her.

4. INTRODUCTION • In corporate analogy, the university is like any other service or production industry. Our raw materials are the freshman new-entrants students procured from the secondary school system through JAMB. • Our finished products are the graduates whom we turn into the labor market each year. • Our front line production workers who transform these raw materials into finished products are the teachers. • The stipulated production time is 5yrs (ie 10 semesters) • Let us therefore analyze how well our raw materials, our finished products, and our front-line production workers are interfacing in fulfilling the mandate(s) for which this university was established

5. RESULTS • TABLE 1 shows an analysis of the Performance of our front-line production workers, the teaching staff as at September 1996. The indices used are Qualification, Sex, and Spread. • TABLES 2 & 3 analyze our raw materials, the freshman new-entrants, dept by dept, in terms of sex, state of origin, and level of course. • TABLE 4 presents an analysis of our finished products, our first degree graduates, dept by dept. • TABLE 5 shows the numbers and percentages of students graduating in more than the stipulated 5years (ie 10 semesters)

6. DISCUSSION - Qualification • NUC guidelines stipulate that in any academic dept offering higher degrees, the ratio of teachers with terminal degrees versus those without terminal degrees should be 80:20 • From Table 1, it can be seen that only Dept of MME met this criterion. Dept of Chem came very close(77:23). • However, Depts of Agric Eng, Civil Eng, Mech Eng, Anim Prod, Project Mngt, TptMngt, have 40% or less of their staff with the required terminal degree • Based on this criteria, can we now see our SWOT ?

7. DISCUSSION - Sex • For engineering and technology programs, NUC expects a 20% female representation on the academic staff strength. • As shown in Table 1, this criteria was satisfied by the following Depts: Biological Sci(35.7%), Maths/Computer(23.1%), Food Sci & Tech(30%), Gen Studies (45.5%) • Although this gender requirement is not sacrosant, however a good representation of females in our staff strength gives FUTO the empowerment of an equal opportunity employer.

8. DISCUSSION - Staff Categories • NUC requires a pyramidal spread in staff categories. i.e. Prof/Readers 20%, SnrLec 35% Lecturers 45% • Using above criteria, lets now examine our SWOT. • Table 1 shows the Depts that either overshot or grossly under-provided for staff in the professorial category. • Only two Depts in the university ie Physics(36.4%) and Agric Eng(37.5%) met the required number of staff in the SnrLec cadre. • What this means is that 17 out of 19 academic depts in the university need more SnrLec on their staff.

9. DISCUSSION - Staff Categories • Only Dept of Physics met the 45% NUC reqt for percentage of Lecturers on their staff • Most depts overshot this requirement. The situation was particularly bad in Civil Eng(70%), Anim Prod(70%), Project Mngt(72.7%),Agric Econ & Ext(75%), Tpt Mngt(75%) • The implication of above scenario is that the unfair bulk of the teaching in these depts is borne by lower and less experienced staff.

10. DISCUSSIONEnrollment of First Degree New Entrants • Table 2 presents the distribution of our freshman admissions. Has the university met its yearly admission quota? Has it met its required 20% female representation? • Being a federal university, FUTO is required by federal government ordinance to satisfy a federal spread in its admission list, while also meeting its catchment area requirement. Are we strong or weak in this criteria? • Table 3 puts to the eye how our freshman admissions are leveraging on our strengths, weaknesses, opportunities , and threats.

11. DISCUSSION Graduation List and Admission to First Degree • Table 4 shows the number, type, and classification of the graduates we put into the labour market during the years indicated. It lists the number of graduates with 1st class honours, 2nd class honours, etc. • The essence is that when a dept (eg Civil Eng) produces a graduate with 1st class honours, what the dept is saying to the labour market is that on a scale of 0 to N5, the dept is willing to bet with N4.5 or above, that based on records available to us, this graduate will perform well as a Civil Engineer. • What strategic questions does this pose, especially for depts which consistently over the years, fail to produce and provide the consuming public market with top grade products?

12. DISCUSSIONAnanysis of The Time It Takes Students To Graduate • Table 5 shows that increasingly more and more students are spending additional time to graduate • By 1993/94 about 22% of our students spent more than the required 10 semesters to complete their bachelor’s degree; ie more than one out of every five students in FUTO was unable to complete their degree progam within the stipulated time. • Reasons proffered for this include: change of degree program; leave of absence on medical/other grounds; failure at examinations thus leading to extra semesters.

13. DISCUSSIONThe Time It Takes Students To Graduate • Whatever the primary reasons might be, there is need for each dept to ask such questions as: • Are we now admitting weaker students? • Are the subject-matter courses which we teach to these students becoming more and more difficult? • Or are our teachers no longer teaching as effectively as before? • WE NEED ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS IF WE MUST IDENTIFY OUR STRENGTHS, OUR WEAKNESSES, OUR OPPORTUNITIES and OUR THREATS….and incorporate the answers in our Strategic Planning Portfolio

14. CONCLUSIONS • Although the data used here are old, I have only used them to illustrate the vast possibilities available to us. • Hopefully, a similar study if done today, may yield more promising conclusions which could strategically empower us towards enthroning FUTO into the pedigree of a modern 21st century university. • As a pioneer and founding staff in this university; occupying my professorial chair for more than a quarter of a century; and who has for many years engaged in many senior management and administrative positions; I am doggedly most passionate about FUTO. • It is my earnest dream that this university excels, more than all others, in all ramifications.

15. THE END • …..and THANKS FOR LISTENING.