1. September 17, 2002IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations1 Post-Tenure Review Institute Oversight Committee Report Overview & Recommendations to Georgia Tech Faculty September 17, 2002 Robert McMath Farrokh Mistree

2. September 17, 2002IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations2 IOC – Committee 2002 Faculty Philip Auslander. LCC Meiyin Chou. Physics Cheol Eun. Management Steve French. Architecture Richard Fujimoto. CoC Gary May. ECE Administrators MGT. Terry Blum / Eugene Comisky. EGR. Narl Davidson / Don Giddens CoC. Jim Foley Arch. Tom Galloway IAC. Sue Rosser Sci. Gary Schuster Co-Chairs Bob McMath & Farrokh Mistree

3. September 17, 2002IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations3 IOC – Process Key Features Organization – Agreed on Objective – Agreed on Tasks – Agreed on Modus Operandi Analysis of Packets –IOC Member read 20+ –Co-Chairs read all 60+ Solicitation of input – From Chairs / Unit Heads (~ 15) – From faculty who had been reviewed (~100) Briefed Institute Executive Board

4. September 17, 2002IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations4 IOC – Objectives of Reviews Post-Tenure Reviews are aimed at facilitating faculty development, and ensuring intellectual vitality and competent levels of performance by all faculty throughout their professional careers. In both regards, the goal is to maximize the talents of tenured faculty within the broad array needed for effective performance of the units and the Institute. Post-Tenure Reviews are both retrospective and prospective, inasmuch as they recognize past contributions and provide the means for continuous intellectual and professional growth.

5. September 17, 2002IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations5 IOC – Key Recommendations Retain faculty-driven, peer evaluation process Retain provision that the decision of the faculty peer reviewers is final Focus on faculty development with 5/3 year recommendation to be part of the process Change name from Post-Tenure Review (PTR) to Periodic Peer Review (PPR) Replace Special Recognition feature with Program for Faculty Development for all Major review of PPR process every five years with monitoring between major reviews Responsibility instituting and maintaining Program for Faculty Development and monitoring process: –Dean of the Colleges of Architecture, Engineering, Ivan Allen, Sciences –VP Academic for Unitary Colleges of Computing and Management

6. September 17, 2002IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations6 IOC - Recommendations A candidate has the right to select one faculty member (with full voting rights) for the PPR Committee; serve as advocate. All candidates to provide a summary of his/her past activities and goals for the next five years. Up to 5 pages. Chair / Unit Head to provide an assessment of the goals of the candidate to the PPR. No comment on 3/5. PPR Committee to address letter to candidate, record vote in letter and all members of the PPR Committee to sign the letter. PPR Committee letter to include assessment of positives, constructive feedback after careful evaluation of performance and goals, and recommendations to Chair / Unit Head relevant to faculty development. PPR Committee to provide justification in case of a 3 year recommendation.

7. September 17, 2002IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations7 IOC - Suggested Time-Line Chair / Unit Head and Candidate agree on evaluation criteria in writing. –Target date: End of summer session. Candidate advocate to be identified. –Target date: End October. Candidate packet to Chair / Unit Head. –Target date: End October. PPR Unit Level Committee Activity Completed. –Target date: End January of following year. –Distribution: Chair / Unit Head and Candidate. Chair / Unit Head comments on PPR recommendations relevant to faculty development for transmission to next level. –Target date: Mid-February of following year. Letter from President to candidate / Other letters –Target date: Mid-March of following year.

8. September 17, 2002IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations8 IOC - Report Table of Contents Content Recommendations Peer Review Process Policy Peer Review Process Implementation Guidelines Appendices Process Adopted Perceived Effectiveness of Post-Tenure Review Process - Survey of Tenured Faculty Perceived Effectiveness of Post-Tenure Review Process - Survey of School Chairs and Program Directors Summary of Review of PTR Packets by Members of IOC Best Practices Guidelines and Forms for Conducting IOC Review Current PTR Policy and Proposed PPR Policy

9. September 17, 2002IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations9 IOC – Recommendations Change in focus from PTR to PPR Replace Special Recognition feature with Program for Faculty Development The Institute PPR Committee (old IOC) Function –Once every five years: Perform a major review. –In between years: Ensure continuous improvement of the Periodic Review Process and its emphasis on faculty development. Composition (No change from current) –VP Academic. Co-Chair. –Deans of Colleges. –Seven faculty nominated by Institute Executive Board (EB) –Chair to be a faculty member. Report to EB, Senate and faculty. (No change from current) Institute PPR starting 2003 Fall

10. September 17, 2002IOC - Report Overview & Recommendations10 Motion The Georgia Tech Faculty on September 17, 2002 endorses the Recommendations of the 2002 Institute Oversight Committee (Post-Tenure Review) documented on Page 9 of this presentation.