“Interviews, documentation, and the customer satisfaction survey lead to
the conclusion that OIR operates effectively with a small staff. Those, moreover, who do business with OIR
and know its operations, with very few exceptions, experience a high degree of
satisfaction in their dealings with the OIR staff. Of its activity areas, OIR appears to perform most successfully
supplying mandated reports to state agencies, administering its various tasks,
and providing management information to units of the university.
The
two areas of activity that generate the most comment and suggestions are the
master planning process and devising measures of organizational
effectiveness. Regarding the master
planning process, this evaluation confirms the findings of OIR's June 1997
assessment. Upper levels of university
administration find the process most useful, yet timeliness of the planning
document has proved to be a general concern.
Lower levels of administration do not find guidance in the plan or that
it directly accommodates their initiatives.
In truth many of the concerns expressed about the master planning
process do not lie with OIR but with the administration of the process by
divisions, colleges, and departments
Similarly,
upper level administrators are likely to see benchmarking and other measures of
effectiveness as useful or potentially useful, but lower level administrators
tend either to be unaware of their use or to see them as potentially
threatening. Some comments about
performance measures reflect a lack of awareness, at the departmental level, of
how existing evaluation processes may address external review requirements. Many of the same respondents are unsure of the
nature of university-wide performance measures.”
1)
Maintain
its capacity to perform the mandated reporting functions in exemplary,
efficient fashion.
2)
Maintain
its capacity to coordinate and promulgate the university Master Plan.
3)
Maintain
its capacity to facilitate and distribute various measures of effectiveness for
the university, its subunits, and, specifically, the Division of Administration
and Finance.
4)
Maintain
its capacity to generate accurate reports of information important to management
decision making.
5)
Maintain
its capacity to meet its mission effectively and efficiently.
6) Maintain its strong, cooperative relationships with other offices and divisions that facilitate its several activities so they may continue to be achieved in an exemplary, timely fashion.
7)
Clarify
and focus, in consultation with higher levels of administration and in light of
limited resources, its mission within the growing and changing needs of the
university by
a)
reexamining
the primary functions and responsibilities of OIR,
b)
identifying
the primary customers that OIR is to serve.
c) reviewing specific OIR activities, such
as the facilities inventory, to determine if they may be more effectively
administered by other units of the university.
d) Status: OIR’s Mission Statement was
revised in 1999-2000
e) Status: The responsibility for updating
of the university’s facilities inventory is currently being shared with
Resource Planning.
8)
Clarify
in all communications the source of initiatives (e.g., SCHEV, the legislature,
local administration) OIR is undertaking and the role OIR plays in advancing
their implementation.
a)
Status: This is being accomplished through the quarterly newsletter and
in conversations with JMU staff as needed.
9)
Continue
to raise the profile of OIR's informational services within the university
community, especially awareness of its web site offerings.
a)
Status: OIR send periodic email messages to various groups about the
web site. OIR annually does a mini-evaluation of its services. In October 2000
OIR instituted a quarterly newsletter to all JMU staff.
10)
Examine
the kinds of managerial information those below the vice-president level need
and determine whether these are kinds of information OIR can or should provide.
a)
Status: Informal conversations have been held with various offices. OIR
also coordinates the Data Analysis Team that has developed the specifications
for common downloads of information for decision-making across multiple
divisions.
11)
Continue
to pursue the recommendations of OIR's June 1997 evaluation of the planning
process.
a) Status: OIR is working very closely with the Division of Institutional Effectiveness staff to revise the planning process. The web-based planning process should effectively address many of these concerns. Another evaluation of the planning process will occur within the next 12