Performance Management: HEQSF Scorecard

1. Performance Management: HEQSF Scorecard Presentation to the HEDA User Group November 2013 David BleazardDirector: Institutional Planningbleazardd@cput.ac.za Performance_Management_Nov2013_1

2. Objective • To show how CPUT is adapting the Performance Management Scorecard to track the HEQSF programme development process

3. Background • The alignment of qualifications to the new Higher Education Qualification Sub-Framework (HEQSF) is a huge challenge for UoTs • B.Techs being phased out • New qualification types include Higher Certificate, Diploma, Degree, Professional Degree, Advanced Diploma • CPUT estimates that it will have to develop about 200 new qualifications during the next five years • The processes for development and approval of the qualifications are complex, both internally and externally

4. Stages and Steps Category A qualifications: Minor amendments required to align to HEQSF Approximately 40 qualifications – mostly postgraduate qualifications Category B qualifications: Less than 50% change to existing curriculum Approximately 70 qualifications – mostly National Diplomas Category C qualifications: More than 50% change to existing curriculum Approximately 110 qualifications – more than half are B.Tech qualifications to be phased out and replaced by HEQSF aligned qualifications

5. Example of Stage & Steps

6. Applied Technology • How to keep track of all the processes and their associated documentation? • The idea arose of using the newly developed Performance Management Scorecard to track and report on progress • The various stages (and steps within stages) of the HEQSF process have been incorporated within the model • Custom-built reports have been developed by IDSC to report on progress to Faculties and Departments

7. Accessing the Module

8. Plans List

9. Plan Example

10. Updating the Plan

11. Attachments

12. Attachment Example

13. Reporting • Reporting was a primary requirement in the conceptualisation of the HEQSF Scorecard • Two levels of reporting are currently available • Detailed Report • Overview Report

14. Accessing the Reports

15. Detailed Report

16. Filter Capability

17. Filter Outcome

18. Drill-down Capability

19. Overview Report

20. Original Conception

21. Suggested Enhancements • Alphabetic Order • Alphabetic ordering of Faculties and Departments can be achieved, but is clumsy • Entering Performance • When data is entered in the Performance Agreement window, the cursor jumps to the top of the page; it should stay at the level of the amended item • Deletion Warnings • Warnings should appear before Faculties, Departments or Qualifications are deleted • Removing Documents • It should be possible to remove a document uploaded in error

22. Challenge • The main challenge in using the HEQSF Scorecard arises from the complexity of the process • A great deal of information for a wide variety of qualifications needs to be captured and updated • Only one person, the Head of Academic Planning, is managing the process and implementing the tracking

23. Advantages • Without something like the Scorecard, the HEQSF alignment process will become unmanageable • The Scorecard provides reports that can be shared with the Faculties and Departments • A central view of the process and its progress is available