Vol 14, Issue 3, (2024) E-ISSN: 2222-6990

Assessing Faculty and Staff by using KPI

Prof. Dr. Baan Jafar Sadiq
Department of English-College of Education for Women/ University of Baghdad
Email: [email protected]

To Link this Article: http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i3/20727 DOI:10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i3/20727

Published Date: 19 March 2024

Abstract
A key performance indicator (KPI) is a measurement type of performance that helps to
understand how the institution and, the organization are performing and permits to
understand if an institution is directed in the right direction or not. The current paper aims to
assess the faculty and staff by using metrics of KPI through analyzing the data collected from
Baghdad University/ College of Education – Departments of English. Finally, the paper reveals
the faulty direction of Baghdad University in managing the faculty and staff category by
loading the staff with more hours without any rewards or even research grants and training
abroad. Thus, these reasons affect the learning process and the whole performance of the
university. The University of Baghdad would pay more attention to its staff by increasing the
number of instructors and employees sending the staff for training and rewarding the
productive staff for improving the performance of the university. Baghdad University is one
of the ancient universities and it should keep the attention to the global list of universities.
Keywords: KPI, Faculty and Staff, Assessing, Performance Measurement

Introduction
The Problem and the Significant of the Paper
Higher education determines the development of any society because it promotes economic
growth and provides every individual with the foundation for a successful career. Therefore,
the main theme of this study is the quality of higher education, understood as the pursuit of
continuous improvement of all higher education processes and their outcomes to realize an
ideal knowledge-based economy and society (Chou & Gornitzka, 2014): 2).
The World University Rankings were launched in 2003, and the Shanghai Rankings were
launched in the first year. Various ranking lists have appeared and gained popularity among
students and the academic community within a short period of time. Currently, you can find
various rankings, such as Shanghai Ranking (ARWU), Times HE, U-Multi Ranking, QS
(Quacquarelli Symonds), Leiden Ranking (Lazi´c, et al., 20021: 7). A review of the relevant
literature includes an examination of the institutional quality of higher education, the demand
for accountability systems in higher education, and examples of accountability systems used
in higher education. One accountability system for higher education is the Malcolm Baldrige

1217
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 1 4 , No. 3, 2024, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 2 -6990 © 2024

Standards of Educational Excellence. The Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) was
developed by the North Central Association's Commission on Higher Education based on the
educational standards of this Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award. . AQIP was developed as an
alternative accreditation process based on continuous improvement to promote quality
practices in higher education institutions. Finally, the importance of identifying and using key
performance indicators (KPIs) is demonstrated (Breakwell & Tytherleigh, 2010: 3).
Through the using of key performance indicators and analyzing the criteria of it, the higher
education in any country reveals a range of weakness and strength as well the problems,
including finance, research, quality, practical impact, and post-graduation professional
fulfillment. The solution to these problems is strategic planning and strategies
implementation in universities and institutions. Strategy, on the other hand, is the path to a
desired position, therefore, universities need a strategic plan and measuring metrics for
successfully tracking the progress towards set of goals. That means that there is a need for
indicators that measure organizational performance at an organizational level and are
intended to be used within university or institution to support strategic processes. (Petrov
and Kamenova Timareva, :2014, 1).

Table (1)
Ranking of National Higher Education Systems 2020 Melbourne Institute

*Ranking of National Higher Education Systems 2020 Melbourne Institute

As the colleges and universities in the United States are trying with acquiring KPI, other
countries such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Canada, mandate KPI for their
colleges and universities. In the United Kingdom, the Higher Education Funding Council for
England mandates KPI and benchmarks for each organization. These KPI focus on six broad
aspects of established performance: (1) participation of historically marginalized and
underrepresented groups; (2) student progression in the curriculum or time to graduate; (3)
learning outcomes of each degree; (4) efficiency of learning and teaching; (5) job placement
or employment of graduates and; (6) research output of the university (Breakwell &
Tytherleigh, 2010). While the table has shown the top 50 ranking of national higher education
but University of Baghdad did not appear even with top 100.

1218
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 1 4 , No. 3, 2024, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 2 -6990 © 2024

Most activities will have more than one key performance indicator. The measurements should
provide results that compare to the universities’ goals and also measure increases or
decreases in costs to achieve those outcomes. In addition, the board should evaluate key
performance indicators for risks as part of the overall picture. Multiple key performance
indicators in higher education boards will ensure progress in productivity and effectiveness.
Boards should look to various departments within the institution such as finance, risk
management, technology, compliance, etc. to contribute tools that will help them set
appropriate key performance indicators. In contrast, the nonacademic criteria are focused on
current and former university students’ achievements (Lazi´c, et al., 2021:2)
Staff are the most important resource for any university or institution and usually the largest
factor of cost. Academic staff work like other professionals in an environment where they
have a fair degree of autonomy and, in some cases, no fixed working hours. Those engaged
in research and enterprise activities may spend a lot of time in activities that are difficult to
plan and manage, and often take place outside the institution. Yet as market and financial
pressures increase, institutions need to be able to monitor and manage staff performance,
and they also need to invest in their staff and to manage their portfolios of activity in a more
strategic way. These issues create challenges for colleges and institutions, and Human
Resources strategies are still relatively recent and weak in many higher education colleges (
Cubie, 2006:3).
Baghdad University depends on traditional academic performance which focuses on students’
achievement and the rate of their students each year while rating higher education
institutions, it’s important to consider the concept of outcomes as the quality not the
quantities. Appropriate metrics should measure the end outcome because they provide a
better indicator of how students may or may not be successful in the real world after their
college days are over. Also, the satisfaction of the students as well the staff and faculty as an
important key for successful teaching and the ecology of the learning environment.
The current paper is significant because Baghdad university needs appropriate measures and
results to have a meaningful way to compare themselves with peer universities. Knowing KPI
of other institutions and being able to benchmark can aid colleges and universities in the
approach, deployment, learning and integration of strategic planning, and areas of growth
leading to performance excellence. This means that the higher education in universities need
metrics which should measure the organizational performance at these universities and be
used inside the universities to support the strategic process. Thus, key performance indicators
refer to the responsibility of the governing body to monitor institutional performance. This
new and additional guidance should help higher education at universities and their governing
bodies in thinking about how they can best carry out this responsibility.

The Aim of the Research

The research aims at using key preforming inductors to assess the University of Baghdad
according the faculty and staff.

The Question of the Research

The research answers the question whether University of Baghdad succeed or failed in their
leading to their staff and faculty.

1219
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 1 4 , No. 3, 2024, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 2 -6990 © 2024

The definition of the term

KPI
Higher education KPIs are used to understand how an institution, university and department,
or even a student is progressing toward their goals. KPIs are not goals themselves briefly it is
the tools you need to understand and measure success.
Also, it means “represent a set of measures focusing on those aspects of organizational
performance that are the most critical for the current and future success of the organization”
(Parmenter, 2010, p. 4).

Related studies
Petrov and Kamenova-Timareva (2014)
This study surveys many types of assessing higher education institutions and presents a
framework for the evaluation of KPI in HEIs. The key performance indicators for higher
education institutions, developed by Craig Kennedy, and the UK Performance Indicators
(UKPIs) for higher education (HE). The study uses many criteria for developing HEIs such as A.
Academic Perspective B. Financial Perspective C. Research Perspective D. Facilities
Perspective E. Sustainability Perspective.
The current study uses one criterion in assessing HEIs, which is the faculty and staff such as
Average Faculty Salary and Benefits Employee Satisfaction Faculty, Tenure Rate Number of
Endowed Chairs and Professorships Staff, Turnover Rate Staff participation in central HR
training because there are many of information that could not be reached by the author for
the other criteria.

Zatul iffah, etal (2021)

The aim of this paper is to examine the influence of students’ differences in gender,
nationality, and educational level on their perception of the educational attributes of teaching
quality, research quality, and internationalization quality of the Malaysia Public Research
Higher Education Institutions (MPRHEIs) in meeting the challenge of global sustainability. The
sample of the paper is 500 students from five MPRHEIs who were selected as the respondents
of the study, which comprised undergraduates in their second year and above as well as local
and international postgraduates. The paper has used a questionnaire and the findings show
that most hypotheses in the study are supported. There is agreement between this paper and
Zatul iffah (2021) in using one criterion in the assessment HEIs. But, the finding of this study
disagrees with the current paper.

Methods of the Research

The sample of the research is the College of Education for Women / Department of English.
The research has interviewed many instructors as well it has prepared a questionnaire to
collect the data of the research. The questions have been asked to 33 instructors in the
academic year 2020-2021
The research has chosen one KPI category which is related to academic faculty and the staff
for its importance, as the author’s point of view, which is disregarded from the University of
Baghdad rather it has depended on the amount of publication research and the students'
graduation rather than the quality of the learning. Thus, the current research has relied on
these items in the questionnaire. Also, the paper has added other items for their importance
such as awards, research grants, staff participation abroad for higher education training, and

1220
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 1 4 , No. 3, 2024, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 2 -6990 © 2024

the satisfaction of academic faculty and staff to investigate the qualities of the instructors and
the progress of the university to improve their students and instructors.

Table (2)
The items of the questionnaire
Items N=33 % Global Serbia
Faculty Workload 33 91 4% 4%
Student-to-Faculty Ratio 908 27.5 3% 4%
Key performance Faculty & Staff Tenure Rate 2 454 3% 5%
indicator of Faculty Turnover 0 0 56% 10%
academic Faculty & Awards 1 0.03 61% 6%
Staff Researchers grants 0 0 3% 6%
Facility & staff satisfaction 33 24 74% 61%
Researches publication 65 1.9 20% 4%
Staff participation in abroad HE 0 0 56% 6%
training

Amount of grant/awards received External grants Faculty receiving grants/awards

Grants/awards applied Grants/awards received Internal grants Publications Scholarly activity
other Students receiving grants/awards (Ballard,2013:67). The last column is about the
comparison of Baghdad University and Serbia institution of technology (Lazi´c, etal , 2021: 9-
14)

Results
The results have shown that 91% of the sample is over loading by more hours they
responsible for i.e ( assistant instructor 12 hours, instructor 10 hours, assistant professor 8
hours, professor 6 hours) while most vast of the sample have more than 24 hours weekly and
60% of the sample have more than 30 hours weekly.
The number of students in the department is (894) students divided into four levels, the first-
year stage is ( 384) , the second-year stage is (220) students, the third-year stage is (185)
students, and the fourth-year stage is ( 105). Furthermore, the department has 14 students
in the higher studies. The total number of students is 908. So, the percentage of the staff to
the students is ( 27.51%). The instructors of the department also should teach English to other
departments. The total amount is increased to (33.34 %) . While the item of the faculty & Staff
tenure rate is 454 because the department has only two employees, the instructors are duty
about many administrative things in the department. The zero percentage is scored for the
item of the faculty turnover undoubtedly 0% and staff participation in abroad HE training.
contrary to the part of award and researchers grants 0.0 3 %. This means that one of the
instructors has an award from Baghdad University and none of the instructors have got
research grants. So, from these reasons above the staff have 24% satisfaction which is
represented low satisfaction comparing with other staff. Finally, the staff is productive in
publishing the research because the total number of publications as articles or books is 65 in
the academic year 2020-2021. Contrary to Lazi´c, etal (2021) compare Serbia institutions of
technology, and Ballard (2013) compares Western Michigan University with other higher
education systems both studies reveal high satisfaction of academic staff and faculty that
reflects the number of awards, the ratio of the academic staff with the students, the present

1221
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 1 4 , No. 3, 2024, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 2 -6990 © 2024

number of training abroad and grants but both studies conflicting with this paper from the
low number of the mentioned above with the huge number of work loading of Baghdad
University’s staff sample which reflect the low satisficing of them. High scores of satisfaction
of both students and academic staff reflect the quality of the institution. Thus, the results
have shown the poor performance of the Baghdad University System and revealed its
competitiveness problems.

Discussions of the Results

All the data have revealed that there is mismanagement from the Baghdad University to the
staff and faculty because the university has loaded the instructors with more than the
proposed hours and students without rewards and grants. Forevermore, the instructors are
responsible for publishing their research, and take many Administrative positions
simultaneously with teaching and supervising the students also, the academic staff is not
satisfied with their vocation. The University of Baghdad might improve its ranking in higher
education by paying more attention to KPIs and the whole performance of the university not
focusing on special indicators and disregarding the other. furthermore, the University of
Baghdad could make a benchmark for comparing the academic year with its and with other
global universities. Heading the staff and faculty is a crucial element for the ecology of the
teaching and learning environment as well as for improving society.

Recommendations
The institutions as well as the universities are recommended to concentrate on the staff and
faculty members, instructors, and professors who are crucial for the learning process. Thus,
giving them training and awards for their research lowers the time of teaching because most
of them are loaded by the times and the huge numbers of students. These points will lower
the quality of the learning and teaching.
The institutions as well as the universities are recommended to put their criteria for
developing the KPI and paying more attention to improving their learning and teaching.

1222
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 1 4 , No. 3, 2024, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 2 -6990 © 2024

References
Breakwell, G. M., & Tytherleigh, M. Y. (2010). University leaders and university performance
in the United Kingdom: Is it “who” leads, or “where” they lead that matters most?
Higher Education, 60(5), 491-506. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9311-0 Brooks, R. (2005).
Measuring university quality. The Review of Higher Education, 29(1),1–21.
Brodjonegoro, S. S. (2009), “Higher education reform in Indonesia”,
www.tfhe.net/resources/satryo_soemantri_brodjonegoro2.htm
Chauhan, C. P. S. (2008), “Higher education: current status and future possibilities in
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka”,
Analytical Reports in International Education, Vol. 2. No. 1, pp. 29-48.
Chou, M. H., Gornitzka, A. (Eds.) Building the Knowledge Economy in Europe: New
Constellations in European Research and Higher Education Governance; Edward Elgar
Publishing: Chatterham, UK, 2014; ISBN 978 1 78254 528 6
Parmenter, D. (2010). Key performance indicators (KPI): Developing, implementing, and using
winning KPI’s. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Petrov, Petar & Kamenova-Timareva, Marina. (2014). Key Performance Indicators a
Framework for Higher Education Institutions.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343480859
Ranking of National Higher Education Systems. (2020). Melbourne Institute: Applied
Economic & Social Research University of Melbourne. March
2020.https://www.universitas21.com/agm-2020/u21-rankings
Petrov, P., and Kamenova-Timareva, M. (2014) A Key Performance Indicators a Framework
for Higher Education Institutions.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343480859

1223
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Vol. 1 4 , No. 3, 2024, E-ISSN: 2 2 2 2 -6990 © 2024

Appendix (1) The Questionnaire

No. The item The
answer
1 How many weekly hours are you responsible for teaching?
2 What are the numbers of the students that you are responsible for teaching
3 Have you responsible to contact student? How many hours?
4 Have you received an award from Baghdad University? How many?
5 Have you received research grants from Baghdad University? How many?
6 What are your satisfaction about your vocation ?
7 Have you received any training abroad?
8 How many research have you published in academic year 2021- 2020?
9 Have you turn into part time for department administration?

1224