Support Service Template and Presentation posted for the May 30, 2013 TransformUS Town Hall.
Please provide template comments below.
Support Service Transformation Task Force
Final Criteria and Weightings
Importance to the University of Saskatchewan (26%):
This criterion will focus on the overall importance of the support service to the success of the institution.
Internal demand (17%):
This criterion will focus on factors related to the level of internal (inside the institution) need for the support service.
External demand (10%):
This criterion will focus on factors related to the level of external (outside of the institution) need for the support service, as well as external mandates influencing the support service’s efforts.
This criterion will focus on the quality of the support service.
Cost effectiveness (21%):
This criterion will focus on the resources consumed and the revenues generated by the support service relative to its output.
Opportunity analysis (10%):
This criterion allows the support service to describe the additional contributions it could make with specified additional resources.
The Support Service Transformation Task Force approved the above final criteria and weightings at its May 8, 2013 meeting. All feedback received via the blog was reviewed by the task force and some changes were made to the final criteria and their descriptors. The Support Service Transformation Task Force thanks all those that took the time to post comments and questions to the blog and provides the following responses to particular comments and questions. The criteria represent the highest level of analysis that will be undertaken. A guide is being developed to assist those tasked with completing support service assessment templates. Continue reading
Over the past weeks, we have received a significant number of responses to our invitation to the campus community to contribute their comments concerning the criteria and weightings which will guide the process of academic program prioritization. These comments and suggestions have been important to us as we have prepared the final version of the criteria.
One observation we frequently heard was that the criteria in the form originally presented were somewhat vague, and that it was not clear what information would be relevant to some of them. In the final version of the criteria, we have provided brief explanatory sentences that we hope will help to explain the essence of each of the criteria. Continue reading
As we have met with members of the campus community over the past few weeks, a number of questions have been asked about the quintile system the task force will be using to categorize academic programs. You may recall that the quintiles have been designated as follows:
1. Candidate for enhanced resourcing
2. Candidate for retention with current resourcing
3. Candidate for retention with reduced resourcing
4. Candidate for reconfiguration to enhance efficiency/effectiveness
5. Candidate for phase out, subject to further review Continue reading