Kansas Board of Regents Performance Agreements: The Innovator’s Opportunity Larry Gould, Provost Chris Crawford, Assistant Provost for Quality Management Fort Hays State University Hays, Kansas The Higher Learning Commission 110 th Annual Meeting April 11, 2005

External Accountability and Institutional Performance: Problems and Issues Accountability is Simple: Institutional Performance that Produces Results, Results, Results Producing Results: Problems and Issues 1. Linking Strategy with Operations/Execution 2. Establishing Cause and Effect Linkages 3. How to make Daily Activities that Drive Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Relevant to Units/ Faculty/Staff 4. How to Overcome Self-serving Behaviors as Responses to Accountability Mandates 5. How to Help Faculty and Staff View Goals and KPIs from Multiple Perspectives/Establish Appropriate Unit Goals 6. How to Establish Multiple Goals for Different Time Horizons

Disrupting the Performance Chain: The Kansas Performance Agreement System as Innovator’s Opportunity The Innovator’s Dilemma: Sustaining Growth or Embracing Disruption? The Accountability Mandate as Disruptive Technology: Using External Demands to Create Internal Performance and Change The Origins of the Innovation/Opportunity 1. Senate Bill 345 (1999) – Accountability Mandate I 2. Senate Bill 647 (2002) – Accountability Mandate II 3. Regents Performance Agreement Task Force (Shaping the Agreement System) 4. Inadequacies of Nation-wide Performance-Based Reporting, Budgeting and Funding Models (By 2002, 44 states have reporting models)

Disrupting the Performance Chain: The Kansas Performance Agreement System as Innovator’s Opportunity The Uniqueness/Innovativeness of the Kansas Performance Agreement Compliance and Funding Model ( 1. Establishment of six Regents’ System-wide Goals 2. Institutions may establish three to six institutional goals with at least three in align with three System-wide Goals (establishes the cascading process) 3. Up to three institutional goals may be established as part of the six for customized institutional improvement 4. Consistent with institutional mission, role and scope and must be stretch goals 5. Neither a campus or state approach to performance reporting/interrelates state, system with campus and potentially additional links and pro-activity in the performance chain

The Innovator’s Opportunity: Extending the Cascading Process, Aligning the Organization and Linking Strategy with Operations/Execution EXAMPLE Using Strategy to Power Performance: The College of Business and Leadership Strategic Plan Regents Goal D: Increase Targeted Participation/Access FHSU Goal 2: Increase Hispanic Participation in FHSU Degree Programs COBL Goal 1/Objective 3: Increase awareness of COBL among constituents COBL Goal 3/Objectives 1 & 3: Improve COBL recruiting, retention, and assistance to students Increase student scholarships Developing new SW Kansas campaign with AA Marketing Specialist Hispanic Summer Scholars Program for HS Seniors Diversity imperative within AACSB accreditation process

The Innovator’s Solution: Using the Accountability Mandate for Continuous Quality Improvement, Disruptions and Motivation Department-Based Performance Agreements and Pathways The “Year of the Department” (Rethinking Processes and Opportunities for Improvement) Aligning Faculty Rewards and Incentives with Specific Projects and Strategic Initiatives Institutional Effectiveness Initiatives (Center for Public Safety)

Implications of Embracing the Kansas Performance Agreement System as a Disruptive Technology Helps to Align Institutional Strategy with Department, College and Support Unit Operations/Execution Communicates the Relevance/Importance of Institutional Success to Faculty/Renews the Academic Compact Cascading of Strategy, Goals and KPIs communicates the meaning of initiatives like AQIP, Regents System membership and performance reporting Cascading creates leadership opportunities where there might not be any Enhances participation in improvement activities at unit level

Implications of Embracing the Kansas Performance Agreement System as a Disruptive Technology Enhances participation in improvement activities at unit level Encourages faculty and staff to plan holistically, think strategically and act locally Departments/faculty see problems and opportunities better at the local level and feedback becomes more meaningful Departments see new incentives and opportunities for rewards Measurement becomes more meaningful even though KPIs may be different at unit level Controls unwarranted growth and duplication

The Accountability Paradox: Creating Disruptions for Innovation and Improvement The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) as a Disruptive Technology? Questions? Powerpoint? <