Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Successful Applications of the Balanced Scorecard
in Higher Education
Deborah F. Beard
To cite this article: Deborah F. Beard (2009) Successful Applications of the Balanced
Scorecard in Higher Education, Journal of Education for Business, 84:5, 275-282, DOI: 10.3200/ JOEB.84.5.275-282
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.5.275-282
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 489
View related articles
usiness and educational institu-tions are experiencing challenges such as increased competition, global-ization, emerging technology, resource constraints, and the consequences of unethicalbehavior.Leadersinbusiness andeducationaremoreoftenrecogniz-ing the importance of beandeducationaremoreoftenrecogniz-ing customer focused by identifying and separating value-addedandnonvalue-addedactivi-tiesbyandincollectinginformationfor performanceevaluationandcontinuous improvement.
Leaders of educational institutions mustanswertheseimportantquestions: Areschoolsmeetingtheirmissions?Are schools offering educational value to theirstudents?Canschoolsimprovetheir processes and create additional value whilecontainingorreducingcosts?Are schoolseffectivelyandefficientlyusing scarceresourcessuchasintellectualcap-ital, state appropriations, other revenue sources,people,andtime?
Are there management tools used in business that may be useful in higher education? The answer to this ques-tion isyes, and the balanced scorecard (BSC)isonesuchtool.Althoughpub-lishedreportsofsuccessfulapplications ofBSCinhighereducationarelimited, the potential for successful application exists.Ireportsuccessfulapplicationof BSCattwoeducationalinstitutionsthat have received the Malcolm Baldrige NationalQualityAward(2003).
The BSC is an integrated results-oriented set of key-performance mea-sures, including financial and nonfi-nancial measures, which comprise current performance and drivers of future performance. The BSC should be a component of a strategic man-agement system that links the entity’s mission,corevalues,andvisionforthe future with strategies, targets, and ini-tiatives that are explicitly designed to informandmotivatecontinuousefforts towardimprovement(Hoffecker,1994; Kaplan&Norton,1992a,1992b,1993, 1996a, 1996b; Maisel, 1992; Newing, 1994, 1995). The identification, com-munication, and evaluation of these key-performance indicators play an importantroleinstrategicplanning,in translating strategy into action, and in evaluatingperformance.
TheconceptoftheBSCwasfirstintro-ducedbyKaplanandNorton(1992b)in their widely cited article, “The Bal-anced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance,” which appeared in the
Harvard Business Review. The wide-spreadadoptionanduseoftheBSCin businessiswelldocumented.
ThebasicpremiseoftheBSCisthat financial results alone cannot capture value-creating activities. Kaplan and Norton (1992b) suggested that organi-zations,whileusingfinancialmeasures, shoulddevelopacomprehensivesetof additional measures to use as leading
SuccessfulApplicationsoftheBalanced
ScorecardinHigherEducation
DEBORAHF.BEARD
SOUTHEASTMISSOURISTATEUNIVERSITY CAPEGIRARDEAU,MISSOURI
B
ABSTRACT.Aretheremanagement toolsthatprofessionalsuseinbusiness thatacademicshaveusedsuccessfully inhighereducation?Theanswertothat questionisyes ,andthebalancedscore-card(BSC)isonesuchtool.Theauthor reportsonmeasuresthatadministrators chosefortheBSCsof2educational institutionswhosesuccesseshavebeen recognizedthroughtheMalcolmBald-rigeNationalQualityAward.
Keywords:balancedscorecard,key performancemeasures,MalcolmBald-rigeNationalQualityAward
Copyright©2009HeldrefPublications
indicators,orpredictors,offinancialper-formance.Theysuggestedthatmeasures shouldbedevelopedthataddressthefol-lowingfourorganizationalperspectives:
1.Financial perspective: “How shouldweappeartoourstakeholders?”
2.Customer perspective: “How shouldweappeartoourcustomers?”
3.Internal business processes per-spective: “What processes must we excelat?”
4.Learning and growth perspective: “How can we sustain our ability to changeandimprove?”
All of the measures in the four perspectives must be aligned with the organization’svisionandstrategicobjec-tives,enablingmanagerstomonitorand adjust strategy implementation (Kaplan &Norton,1996b).TheBSCprovidesa way of organizing and presenting large amountsofcomplex,interrelateddatato provideanoverviewoftheorganization and foster effective and efficient deci-sion making and continuous improve-ment.DevelopingtheBSCrequiresthe identificationofseveralkeycomponents ofoperationsandfinancialperformance, establishinggoalsforthesecomponents, and then selecting measures to track progresstowardthesegoals. the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Improvement Act (1987). The primary objectiveoftheprogramistohelpU.S. businesses improve their competitive-nessintheglobalmarketbyidentifying role-model organizations, recognizing them,anddisseminatingtheirbestprac-ticesthroughouttheUnitedStates.
The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program, after adapt-ing the business criteria and establish-ing education criteria for performance, awarded the first award for education. The University of Wisconsin—Stout wasoneofthefirstthreerecipients.
TheMalcolmBaldrigeNationalQual-ityAward Program (2003), “Education Criteria for Performance Excellence,”
was designed to help organizations use an integrated approach to perfor-mance management that results in (a) thedeliveryofever-improvingvalueto students and stakeholders, which con- tributestoeducationqualityandorgani-zational stability; (b) the improvement of overall organizational effectiveness and capabilities; and (c) organizational andpersonallearning.Thecriteriaplace heavyemphasisonthedevelopmentof a comprehensive measurement system thatisconsistentwiththeBSC.
The Malcolm Baldrige National QualityAwardProgram(2003)identi-fies 11 core values and concepts that comprisethephilosophicalfoundations ofperformanceexcellenceineducation including visionary leadership; learn-ing-centered education; organizational andpersonallearning;valuingfaculty, staff,andpartners;agility;focusingon the future; managing for innovation; managingbyfact;socialresponsibility; focusingonresultsandcreatingvalue; andhavingasystemsperspective.
These Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program (2003) core values and concepts are embodied in seven categories that include leader-ship; strategic planning; a student, stakeholder,andmarketfocus;measure- ment,analysis,andknowledgemanage-ment; faculty and staff focus; process management; and organizational per- formanceresults.
Each of these seven categories con- tainsasetofrequirementsthatanorga-nization should address in its process ofself-assessment.Forexample,inthe organizational performance results cat-egory,theorganizationmustspecifythe taken together to represent a holistic appraisalofstudentlearning(customer perspective).
2.Student- and stakeholder-focused resultsshouldinvolvesatisfactionmea-surements about specific educational program and service features, delivery, interactions, and transactions that bear on student development and learning
and the students’ and stakeholders’ futureactions(customerperspective).
3.Budgetary, financial, and market resultsshouldincludeinstructionaland
4.Faculty and staff results should includeinnovationandsuggestionrates, courses or educational programs com-pleted,learning,on-the-jobperformance improvements,cross-trainingrates,col-laboration and teamwork, knowledge andskillsharingacrossworkfunctions, units, and locations, employee well-being, satisfaction, and dissatisfaction (learningandgrowthperspective).
5.Organizational effectiveness results, including key internal opera-tional-performance measures, should include the following: the capacity to improve student performance and stu-dent development, the educational cli-mate, indicators of responsiveness to student or stakeholder needs, supplier andpartnerperformance,keymeasures or indicators of accomplishment of organizationalstrategy,andactionplans (internalbusinessprocessperspective).
6.Governance and social responsi-bilityresultsshouldincludeinternaland externalfiscalaccountability,measures orindicatorsofethicalbehaviorandof stakeholder trust in the governance of the organization, regulatory and legal compliance,andorganizationalcitizen- ship(governanceandsocialresponsibil-ityperspective).
A comprehensive set of leading and lagging measures or indicators tied to student, stakeholder, or organization-al performance requirements should be chosen and represent a clear basis for aligning all plans, processes, mea-sures, and proposed actions with the organization’s goals and priorities; for monitoringactualperformance;andfor providingabasisforimprovingstudent, operational, and financial performance (Malcolm Baldrige National Qual-ityAward Program, 2003). The results represent a BSC for the educational institutioninwhichthelaggingindica-torisstudent-learningresultsandother resultsareconsideredleadingindicators
ordriversofstudentlearning(Karatha-nos&Karathanos,2005).Learningcan betrackedwhilemonitoringprogressin building the capabilities and acquiring theresourcesthatenhancethecapacity sen and Einstein (2006) revealed how BSCcouldbeimplementedatacollege ofbusiness.KarathanosandKarathanos (2005) presented the detailed measures oftheBSCsofthefirstthreerecipientsof (2003) proposed that BSC be used by educationalinstitutionstoreinforcethe importance of managing—rather than onlymonitoring—performance.Suther-land (2000) reported that the Rossier School of Education at the University ofSouthernCaliforniaadoptedBSCto assess its academic program and plan-ningprocess.Bailey,Chow,andHaddad (1999) surveyed business deans about potentiallyusefulmeasures.Changand Chow (1999) reported that responses in a survey of 69 accounting depart-mentleadersweregenerallysupportive of BSC’s applicability and benefits to accountingprogramsbyenhancingstra- tegicplanningandcontinuousimprove-mentefforts.
The National Association of Col-lege and University Business Officers (NACUBO) reported in 1996that the University of California, San Diego’s (UCSD) senior management launched a BSC planning- and performance-monitoring system for 30 institutional (but not instructional) functions using threeprimarydatasources:(a)UCSD’s internalfinancialreports;(b)NACUBO benchmarks; and (c) faculty, staff, and student customer-satisfaction surveys.
UCSD reported several benefits and outcomesasaresultofthisinitiative.
ThepaucityofreportedBSCapplica-tions in educational institutions, espe-cially in the instructional functions, does not imply a lack of applicabil-ity. There may be a lack of awareness or understanding of its application as part of strategic management and the need to focus on multiple measures of performance. Gourman (1993) and the
Educational Rankings Annual (Hatten-dorf, 1996) explicitly recognized the limitationsofanyonerankingmethod-ology. Rather than selecting one rank-ingapproach,theEducationalRankings Annual (Hattendorf) provided separate rankings on the basis of four groups of measures including (a) reputation rankings derived from the opinions of collegeanduniversitypresidents,deans, department chairpersons, senior schol-ars,andothers;(b)citationanalysis;(c) faculty productivity, measured by the numberofpublications;and(d)statisti- calrankingsderivedfromsuchinforma-tion as endowment, library facilities, and admissions selectivity. Rankings in the media byU.S. News & World Report,Business Week, andFortune alsoincludedmultiplemeasures.
Thus, existing ranking approaches consider multiple facets of educational programs. However, these approaches do not select the various measures or organize them on the basis of an inte-grated system of performance drivers and diagnostic indicators. Moreover, the media rankings do not relate these measures to each institution’s mission. The usefulness of these existing rank-ings for guiding individual programs toward continuous improvement and changeisquestionable.
Thepresentarticlepresentstheresults of successful implementation of BSC at the Kenneth W. Monfort College of Business at Northern Colorado, a 2004 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award recipient, and at the University of Wisconsin—Stout, the first univer-sity to receive the award in 2001. The detailed measures comprising the BSCs of these two institutions are presented intheAppendix.AlthoughtheBSCsof these two institutions cover all but one oftheperspectivesoftheaward(gover-nance and social responsibility was not
addeduntil2003),theirindividualmea-suresdifferconsiderablyinseveralareas, reflecting the differences in their indi-vidualmissions,corevalues,andvision.
The University ofWisconsin—Stout (2001)providesadistinctarrayofpro-grams leading to professional careers focused on the needs of society. Some unique characteristics include the fol-lowing: (a) More than half of the 27 undergraduateprogramsarenotoffered at any other campus in the University of Wisconsin system, and several are unique in the nation; (b) the programs emphasize business-relation processes and staying current with fast-changing technology and market dynamics; and (c) traditional instruction is reinforced by extensive technology laboratories andindustrypartnerships.
The university’s programs also include the following key student requirements and corresponding mea-sures or indicators: (a) cutting-edge, career-oriented programs (number of newprograms,placementsuccess);(b) high-quality, active-learning educa-tion (percentage of lab instruceduca-tion and faculty contact); (c) effective student support services (retention, academic success, student satisfaction); and (d) related employment and academic or careergrowthopportunities(placement in major, graduate success, employer satisfaction; Karathanos and Karatha-nos,2005).
The Kenneth W. Monfort College of Business (2004) at Northern Colo-rado’s mission is to deliver excellent undergraduate business programs that prepare students for successful careers and responsible leadership in busi-ness. Some of its unique characteris-tics follow: (a) pursuing excellence in undergraduate-onlybusinesseducation, uniquelyamongitsregionalandnation- alpeers;(b)oneoffiveundergraduate- onlyprogramsnationallytoholdAsso-ciation to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business accreditations in business andaccounting;and(c)commitmentto aprogramstrategyofhigh-touch,wide-tech, and professional depth to make the college of business a value leader comparedwithitscompetition.
In addition, the programs have the following key strategic objectives and corresponding measures or indicators:
(a)buildahigh-qualitystudentpopula- tion(averageACTscoreofnewfresh-menandaveragetransferstudentGPA); (b)maintainhigh-qualityfaculty(over-all percentage of faculty academically and or professionally qualified); (c) maintain adequate financial resources (available state funds and available private funds); and (d) develop mar-ketreputationconsistentwithprogram excellence (college of business media coverage;KennethW.MonfortCollege ofBusiness,2004).
Evaluating performance by using key-performance indicators and incor-poratingthoseevaluationsintostrategic planning have served these institutions well in their search for and attainment ofcontinuousimprovement.Bothinsti-tutions’ applications for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Pro-gramprovidedextensivedatarelatingto thekeyperformancemeasuresusedby theseorganizations.
Conclusions
Although being recognized in rank-ings in national media reports can be satisfying and valuable to student recruitment, an integrated management system that includes BSC should be considered for application in higher education. Identifying and using key performance measures consistent with theinstitution’smissionandcorevalues and seeking continuous improvement offeropportunitiestocreateeducational value in higher education. BSC, as a strategy-based management system, enablesnotonlybusinessorganizations butalsoeducationalinstitutionstoclar-ifytheirvisionsandtranslatestrategies
into operational objectives, measures, andactionsinalignmentwiththeirmis-sionsandcorevalues.Furthermore,the process of establishing the BSC pro-vides the opportunity for identifying what really matters to customers and stakeholders:whytheinstitutionexists, whatisimportanttotheinstitution,and whattheinstitutionwantstobe.
NOTE
DeborahF.Beard isaprofessorintheDepart-mentofAccountingandManagementInformation Systems in the Donald L. Harrison College of Business.Herresearchinterestsincludeprogram assessment, experiential learning, information security, and convergence of international finan-cial reporting standards and generally accepted accounting principles of the United States. She teachescostandmanagerialaccounting,interme- diateaccounting,accountingtheory,andaccount-ingprinciples.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Deborah F. Beard, Southeast Missouri State University, 1 University Plaza, MS5815,CapeGirardeau,MO63701,USA.
E-mail:dfbeard@semo.edu
REFERENCES
Bailey,A.,Chow,C.,&Haddad,K.(1999).Con-tinuous improvement in business education: Insightsfromthefor-profitsectorandbusiness deans.Journal of Education for Business, 75,
165–180.
Chang, O. H., & Chow. C. W. (1999). The bal-anced scorecard:A potential tool for support-ing change and continuous improvement in accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education,1,395–412.
Cullen, J., Joyce, J., Hassall, T., & Broadbent, M. (2003). Quality in higher education: From monitoringtomanagement.QualityAssurance inEducation,2,1–5.
Gourman,J.(1993). TheGourmanreport:Arat-ing of undergraduate programs in American and international universities. Los Angeles: NationalEducationStandards.
Hattendorf, L. C. (1996).Educational rankings annual.Detroit,MI:GaleResearch.
Hoffecker, J. (1994). Using the balanced scorecard to develop company wide
performance measures.Journal of Cost Man-agement,8(3),5–17.
Kaplan,R.S.,&Norton,D.P.(1992a).Strategic learning and the balanced scorecard.Strategy andLeadership,24,18–25.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992b). The balancedscorecard-measuresthatdriveperfor-mance.HarvardBusinessReview,70,71–79. Kaplan,R.S.,&Norton,D.P.(1993).Puttingthe
balancedscorecardtowork.HarvardBusiness Review,71(5),134–142.
Kaplan,R.S.,&Norton,D.P.(1996a). Trans-lating strategy into action: The balanced scorecard. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996b). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic manage-mentsystem.HarvardBusinessReview,74(1), 75–85.
Karathanos,D.,&Karathanos,P.(2005).Apply-ingthebalancedscorecardineducation. Jour-nalofEducationforBusiness,80,222–230. KennethW.MonfortCollegeofBusiness.(2004).
KennethW.MonfortCollegeofBusiness2004 Baldrige application summary. Retrieved July 30, 2006, from http://www.quality.nist.gov/ PDF_files/Monfort_Application_Summary.pdf Maisel, L. S. (1992). Performance
measure-ment: The balanced scorecard approach.
JournalofCostManagement,6(2),47–52. Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award
Pro-gram. (2003).Education criteria for perfor-manceexcellence.Gaithersburg,MD:Author. MalcolmBaldrigeNationalQualityImprovement
Actof1987,Pub.L.No.100-107,§3711a,101 Stat.724(1987).
National Association of College and University Business OfficersWeb site. (1996). Retrieved July20,2006,fromhttp://www.nacubo.org
Newing,R.(1994).Benefitsofabalancedscore-card.Accountancy,114(1215),52–53. Newing, R. (1995). Wake up to the balanced
scorecard.Management Accounting, London, 73(3),22–23.
Papenhausen, C., & Einstein, W. (2006). Imple-menting the balanced scorecard at a college of business.Measuring Business Excellence, 10(3),15–22.
Sutherland, T. (2000, Summer). Designing and implementinganacademicscorecard. Account-ingEducationNews,11–13.
University of Wisconsin-Stout. (2001). Univer- sityofWisconsin-Stout2001Baldrigeapplica-tion summary.Retrieved January 10, 2004, from http://www.quality.nist.gov/PDF_files/ UWStout_Application_Summary.pdf
APPENDIX
BalancedScorecardMeasuresofTwoRecipientsofthe MalcolmBaldrigeNationalQualityAwardinEducation:
UniversityofWisconsin—Stoutand
KennethW.MonfortCollegeofBusiness(MCB)atNorthernColoradoUniversity(UNC)
(appendixcontinues)
Baldrigeexpectedmeasuresin
educationcriteria MeasuresusedatUniversityofWisconsin—Stout MeasuresusedatKennethW.MonfortCollegeofBusiness
Studentlearningresults (Customer-focusedresults) Shouldbebasedonavarietyof assessmentmethodsandshouldreflect theorganization’soverallmissionand improvementobjectivesandtogether shouldrepresentholisticappraisalsof studentlearning
1.FreshmanACTscores 2.Freshmanretention 3.“Atrisk”freshmanretention 4.Activelearning
5.Computercompetency 6.Skillsdevelopment Leadership Problemsolving Conflictresolution Communication 7.Diversityappreciation 8.Graduationrate 9.Studentjobplacement 10.Employmentinmajorfield 11.Salariesofgraduates 12.Annualincomeofalumni
13. Alumniratingofprogrameffectiveness 14.Alumnidevelopmentofactive learningskills
15.Alumniappreciationofdiversity 16.Skillassessmentbyemployers Basicskills
Communications Technical
Organizationalorproblemsolving Leadership
1.FreshmanACTscores
2.EducationTestingServicesfield achievementtestinbusiness 3.Studentparticipationinmarketplace 4.Employersurvey
Programquality Studentlearning 5.Parentsurveys
6.EducationalBenchmarkingInstitute’s undergraduatebusinessexitstudy: Abilitiesandskillsdevelopment Usetechnology
Managetechnology Analyzeandinterpretdata Thinkcritically
Solveproblems Leadership Presentation 7.Exitstudy
Academicrigorofbusinesscourses vs.nonbusinesscourses
8.Alumnisurvey
Abilitytoapplytechnology
Student-andstakeholder-focusedresults Studentandstakeholdersatisfaction measurementsaboutspecificeduca- tionalprogramandservicefeatures, delivery,interactions,andtransactions thatbearuponstudentdevelopment andlearningandthestudents’and stakeholders’futureactions
1.Freshmanratingsofeducational experience
2.Numberoftransfers-in
3.Numbersthatwouldattendagain 4.Studentsatisfactionwithcampus environment
5.Alumnisatisfactionwithinstruction 6.Alumniindicationthattheywould attendagain
7.Employerratingsofgraduates’ preparation
8.BoardofRegentssatisfactionwith Missionappropriateness Studentoutcomes Leadership Accountability Fulfillingmission
9.Communityratingsofcustomerservice
1.Studentorstakeholdersatisfaction withprogram,perceptionofvalue, andreferral
2.Alumnisatisfaction 3.Employersatisfaction
4.Satisfactionwithqualityoffaculty andinstruction
5.Satisfactionwithqualityofteaching inbusinesscoursescomparedto non-businesscourses
6.Satisfactionwithaccessibilityof majorcourseinstructors
7.Satisfactionwithbreadthofcurriculum Globalperspective
Interactionwithpractitioners Instructorspresentingtechnology issues
Practicalexperiences
8.Satisfaction:facilitiesandcomputing resources
9.Satisfaction:trainingtousebusiness schoolcomputingresources
10.Satisfactionwithavailabilityof computers
11.Satisfactionwithqualityofclassrooms 12.Satisfactionwithsizeofenrollments forrequiredandmajorcourses
APPENDIX(cont.)
(appendixcontinues)
13.Studentsatisfactionwithemphasis onhigh-qualityteaching
14.Valuecreationforstudents,parents, andemployers
Comparingexpenseofeducation quality,ratethevalueofinvestment made
15.Stakeholderreferrals Student(juniors,seniors) Parent
Employers
16.Extentbusinessprogramexperience fulfilledstudentexpectations 17.StudentretentionofMCBrelativeto UNC
Budgetary,financial,andmarketresults Instructionalandgeneraladministrative expendituresperstudent,tuitionand feelevels,costperacademiccredit, resourcesredirectedtoeducationfrom otherareas,scholarshipgrowth
1.Tuitioncomparisons
2.On-campusroomandboardcosts 3.Tuitionrevenues
4.Prioritizationoffunding 5.Budgetallocationtoinstruction 6.Budgetallocationtoinstitutional support
7.Expendituresallocatedtopersonnel 8.Yearendbudgetvariancesfrom budgetplan
9.Universityreserves 10.Foundationassets
11.Scholarshipdollarsawarded
1.Statebudgetgrowthrelativetoinflation 2.Growthrateofdirectcostpercredit hourrelativetoinflation
3.Proportionofstatebudgetspenton instruction
4.Nonlaborexpenditures 5.Growthinnonstatebudget
6.Annualtuitionandfeesvs.peersand nationalaverage
7.Studentscholarshipsnumber Valueawarded
8.Competitionforhighquality studentsvs.peers
9.FinleyFreshmanScholars Attending
Commits 10.ShareofWestern UndergraduateExchange ScholarProgram:diversity 11.Freshmanadmitsandenrollees
Facultyandstaffresults
Innovationandsuggestionsrates; coursesoreducationalprograms completed;learning;on-the-job performanceimprovements; cross-trainingrates;collaboration andteamwork;knowledgeandskill sharingacrossworkfunctions,units, andlocations;employeewell-being, satisfaction,anddissatisfaction
1.Keyindicatesoffacultyandstaff morale,well-being,anddevelopment 2.Employeesatisfaction:
Allemployees Classified Unclassified
3.Facultyvoluntaryturnover 4.Classifiedstaffgrievances 5.Diversity:
Womenfaculty Minorityfaculty
6.Discriminationandharassment 7.Facultywithdoctorate 8.Professionaldevelopment expenditures
9.Satisfactionwithopportunitiesfor trainingorprofessionaldevelopment 10.EvaluationofMicrosofttraining 11.Safetytraining
12.Injuryoraccidentrates 13.Worker’scompensationclaims 14.Worker’scompensationexperience modificationfactor
1.Facultyqualifications
Proportionofclassestaughtby academicallyorprofessionally qualifiedfaculty
Numberofexecutiveprofessors 2.Facultysurvey
Salary,promotion,andtenure processrating
3.Degreetowhichseniorfaculty mentorjuniorfaculty
4.Intellectualcontributions
Refereedresearchin5-yearwindow 5.Stafftechnologycertifications 6.Facultysatisfaction
Overall
Evaluationofundergraduateprogram Facultysharingacommonvision Computersupport(hardwareand software)
7.Staffsatisfaction Well-beingandattitudes
Overallsatisfactionandcomparison toUNC
APPENDIX(cont.)
(appendixcontinues)
Organizationaleffectivenessresults, includingkeyinternaloperations’ performancemeasures
Capacitytoimprovestudentperfor- mance,studentdevelopment,education climate,indicatorsofresponsivenessto studentorstakeholderneeds,supplier andpartnerperformance,keymeasures orindicatorsofaccomplishmentof organizationalstrategyandactionplans
1.Distinctiveprograms 2.Undergraduatecurriculum 3.Federalgrantexpenditures 4.Laboratory-basedinstruction 5.Enrollment
6.Distancelearningopportunities 7.Auditcompliance
8.Safetyandsecurityperformance 9.Supportserviceseffectiveness: Currentstudents
Alumni
10.Employees’assessmentofbudget- planningprocess
11.Informationtechnologyuse 12.Studentassessmentof Computerlabs Librarysupport Diningservices Studentcenterservices Residentlife
13.Purchasingtransactions 14.Efficientuseofelectricity 15.Trendsinenergyuse
1.Studentquality Freshman ACTs>24 AverageACTs TransferinGPA 2.Graduatesproduced Number
Rateofincreasevs.UNC 3.Alumniplacementsurvey
Percentagenotplacedorattending graduateschoolrelativetoUNCand stateunemploymentrate
Percentageplacedinposition relatedtomajorrelativetoUNC 4.Supportprocessperformance Admissions
Freshmanbusinessadmits Number
AverageACT
FinleyScholarcommits Careerservices
Collegetransitioncenter Prebusiness
Reinstates IT
Library
Studentsatisfaction Advisingcenter
GraduationratesrelativetoUNC Foundation
Auditissues
Annualgivinginnumberanddollars 5.Studentsurvey
Percentagecitingreputationof collegeorfacultyasreasonfor attendingMCB
6.MCBpresscoverage
StoriesonMCBorprofessorsin media
7.MCBvs.peersonvalue
Averageclasssizesvs.tuitionand fees
Averageclasssizesvs.percentage ofdoctorallyqualifiedfaculty vteachingbusinesscore Ratioofstudentmajorstolab desktopcomputers
8.MCBvalueforstudents’average startingsalary/4yearsoftuition andfees
9.PatternofMCBaccomplishments demonstratingorganizational effectiveness
Governanceandsocialresponsibility results
Fiscalaccountability,bothinternal andexternal;measuresorindicatorsof ethicalbehaviorandofstakeholder trustinthegovernanceofthe
[ThiscomponentnotaddedtoBaldrige
NationalQualityProgramuntil2003.] 1.Satisfactionwithbusinesscurricu- luminstructorspresentingethical issues
2.Satisfactionwithbusiness curriculuminstructorspresenting socialresponsibilityissues
APPENDIX(cont.)
Note.AdaptedfromtheUniversityofWisconsin–Stout2001MalcolmBaldridgeQualityAwardapplicationsummaryandtheKennethW.MonfortCollege ofBusiness2004MalcolmBaldridgeNationalQualityAwardapplicationsummarywithpermission.
organization;regulatoryandlegal
compliance;organizationalcitizenship 3.Percentageoffacultycontributingto UnitedWay 4.Noviolationsorcitationsforprior5 years
Affirmativeaction Equalemployment Treatmentofstudents
5.Facultyorstaffinvolvement(local andregional)
Universityservice
Numberofcommitteechairs Numberoncommittees Collegeservice
Percentageoncommittees Departmentservice Percentageoncommittees Communityservice Percentageoncommittees Sponsorships
