Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
A Comprehensive Faculty Performance Evaluation Model Using Expert Systems (1)

A Comprehensive Faculty Performance Evaluation Model Using Expert Systems (1)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 163|Likes:
Published by Chakshu Agarwal

More info:

Published by: Chakshu Agarwal on Mar 08, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/23/2015

pdf

text

original

 
A Comprehensive Faculty Performance Evaluation Model using Expert Systems1Introduction
In the midst of competitive turbulence, organizations are facing an unprecedented need tore-structure and re-engineer in order to remain competitive and to survive (Grote, 1996and Stivers and Joyce, 2000). Technical educational institutions today are facing extreme pressures of competition in terms of ratings. With the changing paradigms of the wayTEIs manage people, issues of evaluation of performance have risen to the upper level of every decision amking agenda. Performance evaluation systems have come to play anindispensable role in helping TEIs achieve their goals. In TEIs faculty forms the core of human resource Faculty performance plays an important role in the overall evaluation of an institution. Institutions cannot survive with unmotivated and uncommitted faculty inthe continually changing global competitive academic environment. An effective fpesystem contributes as a major component of an organization which allows everyemployee to feel that his/her contribution has had impact on the success of theorganization and should have the desire to add to that success (Boice and Kleiner,1997). Consequently, faculty performance evaluation or faculty appraisal is an importantcomponent of the HR policy of TEIs. A comprehensive fpe system is necessary for anyacademic institution to maintain high standards of excellence, effectiveness andaccountability (Aubrecht,1984). Experience and studies indicate that absence of up-to-date performance evaluation systems has been one of the main reasons for difficulties anddelay in review of recognition and rewards and promotions as well as planning for employee development. Effective performance appraisal systems help to create amotivated and committed workforce and to be effective they require the support of topmanagement to translate organizational goals and objectives into personalized employeespecific objectives (Boice and Kleiner, 1997). When implemented and managed properly,fpe systems are value added service to give the organization a competitive edge byhelping achieve the organizational strategies (Allan, 1994, Kotter and Hesketh,1992,Martin and Bartol, 1998 and Orpen, 1997) .Performance appraisal can be simply defined as “an effort to determine worth”. Moreformally it is defined as “progress towards previously stated objectives”. A fpe process isa formal management procedure used in the performance appraisal of employees. Theobjective of the fpe is to examine the work performance of the employee with a view toidentify weaknesses and strengths. In most organizations fpe results are used to determinethe reward outcomes for the better performing employees as well as identifyopportunities for improvement and development for the not so good or poor performers.It is important to link fpe systems directly to recognition as well as consequences absenceof which will result in employees discounting the appraisal process. Such linkage willallow the employees to distinguish how successful or unsuccessful completion of objectives affects them directly (Boice and Kleiner, 1997). The objective of a fpesystem should reflect the organizational goals and provide linkage between the employeeand organizational performance (Boice and Kleiner, 1997). The organizational goals1
 
should be translated into individual goals as the employee’s personal performance targetsand standards by which the performance will be evaluated.A fpe system must ensure objective, transparent, distinct and fair evaluations and makethe performance evaluations the key input to recognition decisions and personneldevelopment plans. It must comprise an integrated procedure linking mandates,objectives, strategies, activities and employee performance agreements and standards as a basis for both sound staff performance appraisal and more effective overallorganizational performance (Othman, 1994). A well defined performance appraisalsystem supports an integrated human resource strategy which enables the attainment of organizational goals (Dattner, n.d.).A faculty performance evaluation system has a dual purpose – employee developmentand key decision making.
Dual Purpose of Faculty Performance EvaluationKey Decision MakingFaculty Development
o
Support to retention and promotion
o
Establishment and measurement of goals
o
Promotion for faculty developmentand production (Centra, 1977)
o
Fair grant of recognition, awardsand compensation
o
Succession planning
o
Clarify job responsibilities andexpectations
o
Recognition of expertise in criticalareas for job assignments
o
Faculty training programs and QIPs
o
Assessment of individual performance (Centra, 1977)
o
Positive feedback for self improvement (Arreola and Raoul,2000)
o
Motivation towards superior  performance
o
Counseling for poor performance
o
Identification of training anddevelopment needs (Boice andKleiner, 1997)
o
Realization of faculty potential
o
Faculty self assessment and plansfor self improvement and career developmentThe rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the related and other  published work in the field of performance appraisals. It also discusses the work done inthe applications of expert systems to multi criteria decision making. Section 3 emphasizesthe faculty performance evaluation scenario in TEIs. Section 4 categorozes the faculty .activity domains and the metrics for evaluation. Section 5 discusses the characteristics of fpe system and focuses on why most fpe systems are not successful. Section 6 proposes amodel for the fpe and decision making based on based on the faculty activity domainsand institutional objectives for faculty evaluation. Section 7 shows the implementation of the fpe model using expert systems. Section 8 concludes the paper.
2Related Literature
2
 
A)
 Performance Evaluation System
Performance appraisal is a means to evaluate employee’s current performance based onthe performance standards expected from the employee and his/her past performance(Dessler, 2000). Boice and Kleiner(1997) explained the need for appropriate training for supervisors, raters and employees, a system for frequent review of performance, accuraterecord keeping, a clearly defined measurement system and a multi rater group to performthe appraisal.Various methods have been used by organizations to evaluate employee performance.Yee and Chen(2009) and Vicky(2002) pointed out some of these methods as ranking,trait scales, critical incidence narrative, criteria based, management by objectives (MBO),360
0
appraisal and peer review. Yee and Chen(2009) concluded that since differenttechniques have their own advantages and disadvantages, most organizations mix andmatch different techniques to develop their performance evaluation system based on their organizational needs and objectives.According to Othman(1994), most performance evaluation efforts are not successful because they are based on subjective measurement of characteristics and traits of theemployees rather than their actual performance and work accomplished. Such systems become meaningless for career development, rewards and recognition and provide nocorrective actions for ineffective and poor performance.Samarakone(2010) proposed a real time talent management system where managers caneasily and continuously document an employee’s performance and provide coaching,recognition and awards and more based on the actual performance results, information on job related actions or behaviors and employee feedback allowing for improvedmanagement and decision making.Based on the concepts of multi criteria value measurement,Costa(n.d.)proposed afaculty evaluation model that addresses a whole range of academic activities with eachcriteria integrating the quantitative and qualitative components of an academic activity.The model had a two level hierarchical structure with the areas of activity at the first leveland an exhaustive, concise, non-redundant and independent evaluation criteria at thesecond level.Arreola and Raoul(2000) emphasized on the linkage of faculty evaluation to facultydevelopment with the purposes of providing feedback for self improvement and data for  personnel decisions. The proposed system showed the use of faculty evaluation system todevelop an overall comprehensive rating score to aid in using faculty evaluation in promotion and tenure, merit pay and post tenure decisions.Hassna and Raza(n.d.) identified teaching, scholarly endeavor and service to theUniversity as three major components of the appraisal system and these need to work inharmony so as to achieve the desired excellence. They proposed a conceptual model tostudy the relationship among the three components and the results of testing the model3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->