Institutional Profile
Parameter F
EFFECTIVE MONITORING OF PERFORMANCE
The office and individual performance of each of the academic and administrative unit and individual faculty and administrative employees in the Polytechnic University of the Philippines is being evaluated through various performance metrics such as Office Performance Commitment and Review, Individual Performance Commitment and Review, and Faculty Teaching Effectiveness Evaluation. The basis of guidelines for the evaluation of the performance of the offices and individual employee of the University includes: (1) Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 13 series 1999- Revised Policies on the Performance Evaluation System, Administrative Order No. 25 Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF)’s Results-Based Performance Management System (RBMPS), and 2015 PUP Strategic Performance Management System.
f.1 assessment tools on performance
The PUP continuously improving and crafting policy and guidelines to properly and efficiently assess the performance of the each of the academic and administrative offices and individual faculty and administrative employees of the University. The University has been using the Performance Evaluation System (PES) contained the 2015 Civil Service Commission’s approved Strategic Performance Management System to evaluate the office and individual performance of each of academic and administrative offices and faculty and administrative employees in the University. The PUP’s PES is anchored to CSC Memorandum Circular No. 13 series 1999 and IATF Result-Base Management System which has two primary tool to evaluate the office and individual performance which are: (1) Office Performance Commitment and Review (OPCR), and (2) Individual Performance Commitment and Review (IPCR). Aside from OPCR and IPCR, the PUP has been also implementing an evaluation of the Faculty’s teaching effectiveness through Instruction and Teaching Effectiveness Evaluation System (ITEES).
f.1.1. The pup strategic performance management system
f.1.1.a Key players of the pup-spms and their responsibilities
The following are the key players in the implementation of the PUP-SPMS with their corresponding responsibilities:
f.1.1.b the pup spms cycle
The PUP SPMS Procedures in both tabular and flow chart formats are shown in Exhibits 15 and 16, respectively.
f.1.2. The office performance commitment review
The performance evaluation of the Delivery Units in the PUP is being monitored through the Office Performance Commitment Review (OPCR). The delivery units are cluster into four, namely:
f.1.3. The individual performance commitment review
The individual performance of the academic and administrative employees is evaluated using the Individual Performance Commitment Review (IPCR). The evaluation is a management function which is positioned on the concept that personnel development is better directed by an initial analysis of the present personnel situation. The results of the performance evaluation therefore will serve as a guide in improving the individual personnel even as it defines and identifies the level and quality of his performance in a stated period. The PUP Performance Evaluation for academic personnel hopes to:
A. Find out the level of classroom performance of the faculty based on the student, area chairperson and dean’s assessment
B. Discover the level of performance of the faculty in teaching-related activities
C. Know individual faculty output in research, teaching/testing materials, educational devices, inventions/discoveries
The Level of faculty performance shall be classified as outstanding very satisfactory, fair and poor. Classroom performance shall be based on ratings given by students, area chairpersons and deans. Student ratings shall be drawn from the results of the PUP Students Evaluation Instrument administered to four (4) classes/sections in the case of full-time faculty and two (2) classes in the case of part- time faculty. Rating of the area chairpersons and deans shall be drawn from observations or other strategies which shall be agreed upon in the College.
Performance in teaching-related activities shall be based on documents covering: Attendance in University functions/assignments like: Commencement Exercises, Academic Council Meeting, University Foundation Activities, University Seminar/Workshops, University entrance Examination
Timely submission of accurate reports, like: Grade Sheets, Enrolment reports, Committee reports, Daily Time Record, Other reports required by the College/University Research/Writing Output shall be based on: Relevant research report submitted, Teaching materials submitted for use in the Department, Testing materials, validated or in the process of validation submitted to the Department, Original/Modified educational devices submitted, Inventories, discoveries related to field of study submitted.
An enhancement factor like those cited below may be givin an additional 5% over and above the total ratings: Voluntary assistance in college activities, Enrolment in graduate school without reducing efficient performance in the classroom and job-related activities.
Tangible contribution to the University without lowering efficient performance in the classroom and job-related activities.
f.2. Latest assessment tools USED IN DIFFERENT PROJECTS
To continuously monitor the performance of the delivery units and individual the university continuously revising and updating the assessment tool. The University are using the following tools in order to assess the performance of individual and offices: (1) Office Final Output and Success Indicators; (2) Action Plan; (3) Quarterly Accomplishment Reports; (4) Office Performance and Commitment and Review; (5) Individual Performance and Commitment and Review (IPCR); (6) Instruction and Teaching Effectiveness Evaluation System (ITEES).
The Office Final Output and Success Indicators refers to the list of final output that the delivery units are expected to produce measurable by success indicators with targets set by the units.
The Action Plan refers to a detailed plan outlining actions need to achieve goals and targets
The Quarterly Accomplishment Report (QAR) of the University serves as mechanism of the University to monitor the Quarterly Accomplishment of the individual and delivery unit. The QAR is being managed by the planning arm of the University – Institutional Planning and Quality and Management System (IPQMSO). The QAR was revised last March 2021 to harmonize the collection of data the university need for the reportorial requirements in other government agencies such Commission on Higher Education, Department of Budget and Management, Department of Science and Technology, Inter-agency Task Force for Performance Management, Philippine Association of State University and Colleges.
The Office Performance and Commitment Review (OPCR) Form serves as instrument used to determine the performance of delivery unit (both academic and administrative offices) by comparing its actual accomplishments with its commitments within a certain rating period. The IPQMSO is the responsible office in the collection and endorsement of the OPCR, meanwhile the Performance Management Team is the responsible for the over-all supervision of the OPCR process who ensure compliance to and success of the University’s SPMS. The recalibration of the OPCR is part of the planning and evaluation process of the performance of the university.
The Individual Performance and Commitment Review (OPCR) Form serves as instrument used to determine the performance of both faculty and administrative employee by comparing its actual accomplishments with its commitments within a certain rating period. The HRMD is the responsible office in the collection and endorsement of the OPCR, meanwhile the Performance Management Team is the responsible for the over-all supervision of the OPCR process who ensure compliance to and success of the University’s SPMS. The recalibration of the IPCR is part of the planning and evaluation process of the performance of the university.
The Instruction and Teaching Effectiveness Evaluation System (ITEES) formerly PUP Faculty Evaluation systematically summarize, analyze and the data collected through the Online Faculty Evaluation Survey on the evaluation of instructional and teaching practices of the University’s faculty members conducted by four sets of evaluators which are students, superior, peers, and self.
f.3. three distinct prevailing best practices RELATED TO ASSESSMENT
