With external benchmark for mechanical engineering program at Majmaah University and Jeddah University of Mechanical and Materials Engineering. NCAAA KPI Reference Number: KPI-P-01: Percentage Achieved Program Operational Plan Objective Indicators. The completion percentage is higher than the previous year (53%) but still needs to be improved. The quality committee decided to set the new target performance measure at 70%.
Formation of a committee to investigate the reason for a low percentage of achieved indicators for the mechanical engineering program's operational plan objectives. The rationale for using the external benchmark Mechanical Engineering program in Majmaah University and Jeddah University is as follows. The mechanical engineering program at MU and JU is similar to the program offered by Jouf University and serves a similar demographic.
The KPI is provided by the Mechanical Engineering program at Majmaah University and Jeddah University. The Mechanical Engineering program at MU and JU is similar to the program offered by Jouf University and serves a similar target audience.
How was the benchmark calculated?
Majmaah University was chosen because it was recently accredited by the NCAAA, in addition to its cooperative agreement with JU to provide the necessary data for the NCAAA KPIs. Majmaah University is similar to Jouf University and Jeddah University in governance, infrastructure and budget systems.
Name of the external provider
KPI analysis of the student's assessment of the quality of the subjects of the Mechanical Engineering program. We note that the actual benchmark is much higher than the external benchmark provided by Jeddah. It is lower than the target (4.5) and relatively close to the previous cycle (4.4), which also serves as an internal benchmark.
The decline indicates that ME department staff need to improve the quality of courses, which means improving and diversifying teaching strategies. Taking into account the actual, internal and external benchmarks as well as the ambitions of the program, the quality committee decided to maintain the target benchmark of 4.6. Course evaluation surveys are conducted regularly, allowing for consistent evaluation of course quality from the perspective of ME students.
Course Evaluation Examination must be discussed with students to explain the importance of each section of the examination.
Why this internal benchmark provider was chosen?
Name of the internal benchmark provider
Why this external provider was chosen?
Taking into account the actual, internal and external benchmarks as well as the ambitions of the programme, the quality committee set a new target benchmark of 70%. Taking into account the actual, internal and external benchmarks as well as the ambitions of the programme, the quality committee decided to maintain the target benchmark at 100%. ــــــــــــــــــ ـــــــــــــــــــ ـــــــــــــــــــ ــ KPI Student performance Analysis in the professional and/or national exam for the Mechanical Engineering program.
Keeping in mind the current standards, internal and external, as well as the ambitions of the program, the quality committee has decided to keep the target standard at 50%. The internal standard represents the percentage of graduates from ME programs who within one year after graduation were employed during the first year of their graduation to the total number of ME graduates in the same year, calculated for the 2018-2019 cycle. For this purpose, keeping in mind the current, internal and external standards, as well as the ambitions of the program, the quality committee has decided to keep the target standard at 10%.
Enrolled in postgraduate programs during the first year of graduation in the total number of graduates in the same year. The percentage of graduates from the program who within one year of graduation are enrolled in postgraduate programs during their first year of graduation to the total number of graduates in the same year. Keeping in mind the current internal and external standards, as well as the ambitions of the program, the quality committee has decided to set the new target standard at 9.
In view of the current, internal and external benchmarks and the ambitions of the programme, the quality committee has decided to increase the target benchmark to 4.1.
Standard 4: Students
The actual benchmark value represents the average student satisfaction rate with the various services offered by the ME program on a five-point scale in the annual survey. We note that the actual benchmark is significantly lower than the actual value of the previous year, which also serves as an internal benchmark (3.8). This indicates the success of the institute and department in improving the available facilities and equipment.
Keeping in mind the current and internal standards, and the ambitions of the program, the quality committee has decided to set the new target point at 4. The relevant surveys are carried out regularly, which allows for consistent assessment of facilities and equipment. A new campus has been created for the university where a wide range of quality facilities and equipment are available to program stakeholders.
An appropriate strategy should be developed through focus group discussions with all relevant stakeholders to improve the quality of facilities and equipment available to the programme. Catering capabilities available to ME staff need to be improved as this aspect was ranked relatively lower compared to others. Using the ME program's own actual benchmark from the previous cycle provides a good internal measure of program improvement from one cycle to the next.
The College's Quality Unit in collaboration with DQAA conducts and collects regular evaluation surveys, including among ME students. The results available in their database were considered an authentic and appropriate measure of an internal benchmark. Average of the students' satisfaction with the various services the program offers on a five-point scale in an annual survey.
Average of students' satisfaction rate with the various services offered by the program (restaurants, transport, sports facilities, academic advice, ..) on a five-point scale in an annual survey.
Standard 5: Teaching Staff
The ratio of the total number of students to the total number of full-time and full-time equivalent teaching staff in the program. From the ratio of the total number of students to the total number of full-time and full-time equivalent teaching staff in the program. IPK analysis of the percentage distribution of teaching staff by gender in the Mechanical Engineering program.
Keeping in mind the current standards, internal and external, as well as the ambitions of the program, the quality committee has decided to set the new target standard at 100%. The Mechanical Engineering program at JU is offered only on the main campus and is available to male students only. The internal values of the standards give the percentage distribution of the ME teaching staff based on gender.
KPI Analysis of the percentage of teaching staff distribution based on Branches in Mechanical Engineering programme. The internal benchmark values give the percentage of ME teaching staff distribution based on branches. Prof.: 10 % KPI Analysis of the percentage of teaching staff distribution based on Academic Ranking in Mechanical Engineering programme.
The Mechanical Engineering program at JU is offered only on the main campus and is available only to male students and has different academic rankings. The internal values of the standards give the distribution percentage of ME teaching staff based on the Academic Ranking. Percentage of teaching staff who leave the program each year for reasons other than retirement age relative to the total number of teaching staff.
Taking into account the actual, internal and external benchmarks, and the ambitions of the programme, the quality committee decided to set the target benchmark at 100%. KPI Analysis of the rate of published research per faculty member in Mechanical Engineering program. Taking into account the actual and internal benchmarks, and the ambitions of the programme, the quality committee decided to set the new target benchmark at 1.
KPI analysis of citation rate in refereed journals per faculty member in the Mechanical Engineering program. Keeping in mind the current and internal standards, and the ambitions of the program, the quality committee has decided to set the new target standard at 15.
Standard 6: Learning Resources, Facilities, and Equipment
We note that the current standard is higher than the current value for the previous year, which also serves as an internal reference point and stands at 3.86. Since the previous target was not achieved, the quality committee has decided to maintain the same target (ie, 4.5) for the next year. The quality committee has decided to use the new detailed survey for the evaluation of learning resources from 2019-2020 onwards, and it is expected to provide a more consistent evaluation over the years.
An appropriate strategy must be developed through focused group discussions with all relevant stakeholders to improve the quality of learning resources. An appropriate strategy must be developed through focus group discussions with all relevant stakeholders to further improve the quality of learning resources. The actual benchmark is also equal to the target benchmark (2.0) by a significant margin. The quality committee has decided to maintain the new target benchmark for 3.
NCAAA KPI Reference Number: KPI-P-19: Number of subsidized research projects acquired annually by program staff. KPI Analysis of the rate of the number of subsidized research projects obtained annually by program staff. In comparison, the actual measure for the academic year (which also serves as an internal measure) was 3.
The current benchmark is also more than equal to the target benchmark (5.0). The quality committee has decided to maintain the new target benchmark at 5. By way of comparison: the current benchmark for the academic year, which also serves as an internal benchmark, was 13%. KPI analysis of employer satisfaction with the mission, vision and objectives of the program in the Mechanical Engineering program.
Relevant surveys are conducted regularly that allow for consistent evaluation of the program's mission, vision and goals. An appropriate strategy should be developed through focus group discussions with all relevant stakeholders to review the program's mission, vision and goals annually. The average of the employer's satisfaction rate with the program's mission, vision and goals is calculated on a five-point scale in an annual survey.
