APAR

1. NEW KEY PERFORMANCE INDEX (KPI) AND ANNUAL APPRAISAL REPORT (APAR) FOR ACADEMIC STAFFMohamed RidzaWahiddin, PhD, DScIIUM Chief Information Officer, (CIO) © 2014 IIUM. All Rights Reserved

2. To address and provide awareness of NEW KPI / APAR to all academic staff of every Kulliyyah

3. MOVING FORWARD… The NEW KPI / APAR is TRANSPARENT and more objective in terms of assessment. The NEW APAR is based on SMART principle, focusing on the following areas:- • a clear indication of what is expected of every staff cum alignment to the University’s KPI in sustaining the recognition of “The Premier International Islamic Research University”. • encompasses rating scales to ensure objective assessment. • can recognize top performing individuals, and identify poor and mediocre performers that require assistance

4. 7 APRIL 2015 LAUNCHING OF MALAYSIA EDUCATION BLUE PRINT THE JOURNEY 2014/2015 30 MARCH 2015 WORKSHOP 3 23 JANUARY 2015 DEANS’ COUNCIL 20 JANUARY 2015 WORKSHOP 2 31 OCTOBER 2014 WORKSHOP 1 28 APRIL 2014 ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE FOR PMS 21 MARCH 2014 SHARING SESSION WITH UPM PROF RIDZA CHAMPION 12 MARCH 2014 UMC MEETING

5. THE JOURNEY 2015/2016 14 JAN 2016 ROAD TOUR TO KULLIYYAHS STARTS 6 JAN 2016 ENDORSEMENT BY UMC 3 DEC 2015 SPECIAL SESSION WITH DEANS 1 DEC 2015 WORKSHOP WITH PROF. RIDZA 11 NOV 2015 SPECIAL UMC MEETING 22 OCT 2015 BENCHMARKING VISIT TO UM 13 OCT 2015 BENCHMARKING VISIT TO UPM 9 SEPT 2015 UMC MEETING

6. EXISTING APAR OF ACADEMIC STAFF There is limited flexibility in the assessment. Staff do not have track “options” to follow; teaching track/ research track/ leadership track/ professional practice track/ etc.

7. EXAMPLE OF KPI OF A DS54 STAFF

8. BAFFLING ASSESSMENT

9. OBSERVATIONS OF EXISTING APAR • The percentage of low performers amongst staff is less than 1% which is not logical due to the fact that the assessments in the APAR do not reflect the actual performance and output of the staff. • The rating in APAR (8 and above) does not reflect the actual output of the staff. • The existing APAR did not satisfy and align with the MyRA requirements. • Conference/s attended by Academic Staff did not contribute much to the University’s achievements even though it costs a lot of money.

10. IIUM PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (PMS) FEATURES 1 2 University KPI Individual KPI 4 3

11. NEW APAR (effective 2016) For item (2)-(5), the KPIs are cascaded from MyRA requirements For item (5), the KPIs are cascaded from the Minister of MoHE.

12. RUBRIC FOR NEW APAR NOTE: For 2016, the “on target” will be rated 4

13. RATIONALE

14. KPIs and Corresponding Points

15. KPIs and Corresponding Points

16. KPIs and Corresponding Points

17. POSSIBLE KPIs SELECTION for PART A

18. POTENTIAL POINTS

19. POSSIBLE KPIs SELECTION

20. POTENTIAL POINTS

21. TEACHING HOURS FOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS

22. APAR WEIGHTAGE FOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS

23. PROPOSED TRACKS (for IIUM)Based on Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025

24. KPI CASCADING AND MONITORING PROCESS CORPORATE LEVEL MyMOHES KRA PROJECTS / INIATIVES MOHE / MEB / Playbooks Research Myra1 Academic SETARA Monitoring Agencies OCS DR(R&I) DR(A&P) KCDI KPI COMMITTEE Deans / Directors + HOD & Administrator INDIVIDUAL LEVEL Administrator / Academic / Researcher (APAR Performance Management System)

25. Project Life Cycle (Implementation of New APAR)

26. CURRENT STANDING (2015) IIUM – ACTIVE PERSONEL DISTRIBUTION

27. CURRENT STANDING PROBABLE 2015 MYRA SCORES

28. ASPIRATIONS KPI & APAR – POTENTIAL POST 2016 MYRA SCORES

29. ASPIRATIONS IIUM – POSSIBLE MYRA SCORES

30. ASPIRATIONS MyRA STAR RATING 3 CONSECUTIVE YEARS PERFORMANCE QUALIFIES IIUM FOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITY (RU) STATUS

31. 2015 IIUM – AIKOL ACTIVE PERSONEL DISTRIBUTION

32. AIKOL – POTENTIAL MYRA SCORES CONTRIBUTION