Opportunities by xiuliliaofz


									Category 1. Helping Students Learn
Opportunity or Super Opportunity                                                                                            Who? Target? Completed?
1P1 The factors considered in determining common student learning objectives are not specified and no process is
described for determining specific program learning objectives. A well-defined process for determining learning
objectives will ensure that essential skills and knowledge will continue to be embedded in programs and courses. (O)
1P3 The College uses several tools to determine the degree to which students are prepared, but it does not indicate
how the prerequisite skills and knowledge levels are established. Having a well-defined process for determining the
preparation students need to be successful will enable the college to identify and address any gaps in necessary skills
and knowledge. (O)
1P5b Once students are on-campus, DCCC deploys advisors, the eCompass and proficiency exams to match student
interests with their needs and abilities. However, it is not clear how students are connected to the resources the college
offers, e.g., the Choices programs and Myers' Briggs Personality Type Inventory. (O)
1P6 It is not clear how DCCC identifies and communicates the factors that contribute to effective teaching and
learning. While a process is in place to evaluate full-time faculty there is no consistent process outlined for the ongoing
evaluation of adjunct faculty as it relates to determining and documenting effective teaching and learning. Having a
well-articulated document that prescribes the factors that contribute to effective teaching and learning is essential in
establishing the standards in this area. (O)
1P9b DCCC does not indicate how learning support functions are involved in identifying or delivering services to
support student learning or development. Clearly articulating the methods by which support functions monitor the
degree to which needs are met will enable the College to address the factors that promote success. Also, aligning the
needs identification process with specific college values will be helpful. For example, 96.5% of the faculty is Caucasian
and diversity is embedded in the College vision and values. However, there seems to be no evidence that current or
projected faculty development plans are underway that support the learning needs of faculty related to diversity. (O)
1 P10 Co-curricular activities are an integral part of the mission in which participants explore career opportunities and
practice classroom knowledge. In addition, they provide an opportunity to reinforce the nine general education
objectives. However, the College does not explain the process for how the goals for these activities are aligned with
curricular learning objectives. (O)
1P11b The focus of assessment has been on initial placement rather than post assessment due to lack of satisfaction
with available instruments. Developing effective assessment instruments beyond those for initial placement will provide
essential data to drive decisions for improvement. In addition, the portfolio does not address program-level
assessment. (O)
1P12 DCCC monitors success of students transferring to four-year institutions, utilizes employer satisfaction rates and
feedback, and tracks licensure and certification rates in programs as applicable. Determining the degree to which
students are prepared as they complete programs, for example, by taking advantage of the CAAP exam, will provide
valuable information to serve as a basis for improvement. (O)
1R1 Table 1.5 indicates ASSET Placements and Table 1.6 indicates grade distribution for 2003-2007. Table 1.7
compares DCCC’s CAAP assessment results in Spring 2008 with national results. The CAAP results indicate for this
one year DCCC’s results are comparable to the national results. Although DCCC has made a start in assessment and
provides data for five years on two different measures, it is unclear how DCCC uses these results in the program
review process mentioned in 1P2 and 1P7. Designing and applying methods to assess the degree to which students
have mastered learning objectives at the program and institutional levels will provide information to initiate program
improvements. The CAAP results do provide DCCC with a baseline to determine trends and comparisons with national
benchmarks. (O)
1R2 Although DCCC provides data on employer satisfaction and student academic performance at transfer institutions,
the results are mixed. Also, it is not clear how these results are used to improve the processes for student learning and
in the program review process mentioned in 1P2 and 1P7. (O)
1R3b DCCC’s results indicate that during the last five years there has been a decrease in the night and outreach
enrollment and number of awarded degrees and certificates. Programming beyond the regular day expands enrollment
possibilities for non-traditional students. Also, the results shown do not provide information as to the success of the
individual processes associated with student learning. (O)
1R4 DCCC compares itself to peer institutions in headcount and credit hours generated. While this may indicate the
degree to which the colleges are serving their populations in terms of enrollment, they do not provide a comparison of
the impact that is occurring as a result of instruction. It does not answer the question of how performance of DCCC
compares in terms of student learning indicators. Benchmarking in terms of student performance may provide a
framework for identifying improvement targets. (O)
1I1, 1I2 The College does not clearly indicate the methodology it uses to identify targets and improve processes
related to this category. Having a well established system that clearly identifies and measures key performance
indicators for functions associated with Helping Students Learn serves as the basis for continuous improvement.
DCCC has the ability to develop specific improvement plans for things within their control and influence, even if they
cannot address issues such as socio-economic factors in the community. (OO)

Category 2. Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives
2P1 Although DCCC lists six processes to determine objectives, it is unclear how these processes are aligned and
integrated to identify distinctive objectives. A systematic process may enable an institution to be agile and to position itself
to serve unique needs of its stakeholders and capitalize on opportunities in the marketplace. (O)
2P3 DCCC considers input from various sources to identify faculty and staff needs relative to its distinctive objectives. This
includes enrollment estimates, projected activities, and available resources for intercollegiate competition and cultural
programming, as well as requests from local business and industry to determine customized training. Although DCCC
provides opportunities for faculty and staff to provide input into needs determination, the process for capturing this input and
incorporating it into the Other Distinct Objectives is unclear. The development of a specific process for this could ensure
that these needs are identified and addressed. (O)
2P4 The Portfolio does not describe specifically how assessment feedback is incorporated in readjusting the objectives or
the processes that support them. Having a well developed system to effectively utilize assessment feedback for distinctive
objectives enables an institution to modify programs and activities for continual improvement. (O)
2R1 Overall rates of participation, indicating stable trends, are provided for three of the objectives: Business, Technology,
and Continuing Education; Adult Basic Education/ESL Instruction; and Intercollegiate Competition. While participation rates
do provide one aspect of results, they do not indicate the actual impact of offering these distinctive objectives. Identifying
the impact, in terms of objectives of these activities, enables institutions to determine if goals are being met in terms of
desired outcomes. Additionally, although Figure 2.3 indicates that cultural programming is assessed by attendance, DCCC
reports it does not track attendance data on cultural programming. It is not clear how these measures are aligned with this
objective. (O)
2R2 While DCCC does not compare results in Business, Technology and Continuing Education at the present time, DCCC
indicates it will utilize statewide data from a Kansas State Department of Education initiative to compare short-term, non-
credit courses in the future. This data will provide useful information to help DCCC compare how it is meeting their
objectives in this area. (O)
2R3 Benefits of the four distinctive objectives are broadly articulated as providing DCCC with an improved ability to fulfill its
mission. However, the report does not provide any evidence in the form of quantifiable data or specific cause and effect
examples or results as to how this occurs. (O)
2I1, 2I2 DCCC acknowledges that it does not have a process that facilitates the use of results for improvement of the
processes and systems for other distinct objectives or to establish targets for improvement. Development and
implementation of such process will assist DCCC in accomplishing these objectives and to engage in meaningful
continuous quality improvement. (OO)
2I2 While DCCC does list targets for improvement, the targets are vague in their wording. Structuring the targets in a clear,
measurable manner would facilitate clear communication of expectations and performance measurement. (O)

Category 3. Understanding Students’ & Other Stakeholders’ Needs
3P1b While DCCC collects data regarding students’ needs from a variety of sources, it is not clear how analysis of this
feedback is used beyond the program and department level. A well-defined process for sharing feedback on a wider level
will enable the College to identify gaps and select the appropriate course of action that meets student needs in a changing
economic and demographic environment. (O)
3P3 The college acknowledges that it does not have a systematic process to analyze the changing needs of all
stakeholders to determine need-driven courses of action. Having a systematic process to analyze all stakeholder needs
enables institutions to set priorities that align with strategic goals and resources. (O)
3P4b While a number of stakeholder groups were identified in 3C1, the Portfolio focuses only on the methods to build and
maintain relationships with employers. (O)
3P5b While DCCC reports various methods to identify new student and stakeholder groups such as underprepared
students and the Hispanic population, the report does not cite the actual process that is used to determine if particular
emerging groups should be addressed within DCCC’s educational offerings and services beyond the statement that their
function is to serve as a comprehensive community college. Having a well designed process to determine the efficacy of
addressing emerging student and stakeholder groups enables an institution to establish whether it is mutually beneficial to
invest resources to recognize the group. (O)
3P6b While the Portfolio describes the method by which student and employees are able to initiate complaints as well as
the means by which actions are communicated, it does not address how the information is analyzed in a formative and
summative manner, nor does it identify the vehicle that can be used by other stakeholders to register complaints. A system
that enables an institution to track and aggregate complaints will provide the type of information that can be used to
determine if there are patterns that indicate a need to adjust processes.
3P7 The Portfolio indicates that there is no systematic process to determine student and other stakeholder satisfaction, and
indicates no measures that are regularly collected and analyzed to gauge student and other stakeholder satisfaction. A
systematic method for determining satisfaction rates for individual groups of students and stakeholders enables colleges to
better identify specific needs. (O)
3R1 Although the information presented in the college developed instrument illustrates that DCCC students are generally
satisfied with instruction and support services, as referenced in the Portfolio, this data is limited to a two year period that will
establish the baseline for future tracking. Additionally, the Portfolio does not provide information about the scale that was
used in presenting the data. (O)
3R2 The Portfolio does not provide direct information about the impact that is being realized as a result of building
relationships with students in terms of retention, transfer, etc. (O)
3R3 While results indicate employers of DCCC graduates are satisfied with performance of graduates, no information is
provided about satisfaction of other stakeholder groups. Having a well developed system to measure the satisfaction of all
key stakeholders provides institutions with information to ensure that needs are being met. (O)
3R4 The Portfolio does not provide direct information about the impact that is being realized as a result of building
relationships with other stakeholders in terms of participation in activities, contributions to projects, financial support, etc.(O)
3R5 DCCC’s evidence of satisfaction of students and other stakeholders in comparison with other entities is limited only to
students in the form of the Faces of the Future Survey, with survey result rates being lower than the national data.
Additionally, in comparing DCCC’s top and bottom five items, the top five tend to be responses in the area of how students
envision the treatment received particularly in reference to acceptance of race and gender, while the bottom five tend to be
within areas of academic and support services. (O)
3I2 While the College acknowledges the importance of improving its process for understanding students’ and other
stakeholders’ needs through the development of a systematic and comprehensive process, the Portfolio has not clearly
articulated the methods by which DCCC sets targets and improves processes and systems for understanding the needs of
key student and other stakeholder groups. Systematic processes designed to understand the needs of DCCC’s students
and other stakeholders will enable the college to implement or adjust services to meet client needs. (OO)

Category 4. Valuing People
4P2b The College does not have a defined retention plan or a plan for changes in personnel. Development of such a plan
may help DCCC be more proactive in addressing the possibility of 17% of staff retiring within the next five years, identifying
and fulfilling changing staffing requirements, and diversifying the faculty and staff in accordance with the mission. (O)
4P3b The Portfolio cites the smallness of the College as the impetus behind whatever innovation and communication that
occurs within the institution, but does not specifically indicate how actual work processes and activities contribute to factors
associated with communications, cooperation, high performance, innovation, empowerment, organizational learning, and
skill sharing. Identifying how these factors are integrated into work functions will provide a basis to capitalize and expand
the talents that enable individuals to contribute to a higher performance organization. (O)
4P4c While training is provided for teaching through interactive television, it is not clear if resources are available for helping
faculty improve classroom teaching. (O)
4P5 While the Portfolio cites examples of triggers and general activities that serve to identify training needs, it does not
specifically address their relationships to factors associated with helping students learn, accomplishing other distinctive
objectives, or how it contributes to a culture of continuous improvement. For example, it is not clear that DCCC has a
systematic process to review demographic trend data to determine current and future workforce needs. Designing feedback
systems that measure effectiveness of practices ensures that the college has a well focused target of workforce and
training needs. (O)
4P6b Evaluations of tenured faculty members are limited to once every three years, and student input for faculty member
performance is restricted to one class selected by the instructor. Such infrequent assessment limits an institution’s ability to
respond with appropriate interventions or establish the type of timely feedback to address targeted professional
development initiatives. (O)
4P8 DCCC has processes in place for evaluation, recognition, and rewards, but it is not clear how they are aligned with
objectives in categories 1 and 2. The College has an opportunity to develop a systematic process for determining key
issues related to the motivation of faculty, staff, and administrators. A systematic process that is aligned and integrated with
the planning process may improve DCCC’s deployment of actions to improve employee motivation. (O)
4P9 While the Portfolio describes activities and policies that address health, safety, and well-being, it does not indicate the
method by which it evaluates employee satisfaction with the activities and policies. Having a method to determine the
degree of satisfaction will enable an institution to improve or expand services related to health, safety and well-being. (O)
4P10 While the Portfolio cites a number of information sources used to gather data that could be related to Valuing People,
the actual indicators seem to be limited to turnover rate and absenteeism. Having a comprehensive list of impact indicators
that measure both the degree to which employees demonstrate satisfaction and attendant influences on college goals
provides a more substantive basis to make decisions to improve an organization. (O)
4R1 Although DCCC cites a number of data gathering sources regarding Valuing People in 4P10, the portfolio limits the
information about the results to turnover rate of employees by classification. Additional evaluation of data as well as a
review of how the evidence contributes to valuing people will allow identification of target areas for improvement. For
example, turnover data provided in the Portfolio indicated a much higher turnover rate among program-technical employees
and classified staff (24% and 28%, respectively) than faculty and administration (6% and 1%, respectively). (O)
4R2, 4R3 The Portfolio does not address how Valuing People initiatives and process translates to improved productivity
and effectiveness of staff. Institutions that are able to clearly identify how production and effectiveness are impacted by the
outlay in developing people will provide proof that there has been a good return on investment to reach organizational
goals. (OO)
4R4 DCCC acknowledges it does not compare results in valuing people to other institutions. However, Human Resources
and Business Services are currently conducting a salary comparison, an area that DCCC knows it is lower in than its peers.
This comparison will provide information DCCC can use to establish an improvement plan in this particular area. The
establishment and comparison of additional measures will allow the College to more aggressively target and address
Valuing People initiatives. (O)
4I1, 4I2, DCCC relies on information from a variety of sources to determine improvements to processes and systems for
valuing people, but does not describe the methods used to improve processes and systems. Having a well designed
process for setting improvement targets will ensure that an institution is directing resources to areas that will have the
greatest impact on employee production and effectiveness. (O)

Category 5. Leading & Communicating
5P5b The Portfolio provides a list of mechanisms that facilitate communication, but does not specifically address how two-
way communication occurs between levels and functions. A well designed system that promotes such two-way
communication breaks down the silo effect and serves to facilitate integration and support between functions and levels. (O)
5P6b While the information provided describes the mechanisms to facilitate communication, it appears to be designed to
primarily address internal recipients and not extended to key stakeholder groups and other external audiences. Expanding
information to key stakeholder groups and other external audiences provides the opportunity to gain support and
confidence within the service area. (O)
5P7 The Portfolio generally describes the opportunities for general professional development, but does not specifically
address how leadership abilities are encouraged, developed, and strengthened among faculty, staff, and administrators. By
establishing opportunities targeted toward leadership development, an institution creates the capacity to facilitate effective
decision making and establish a potential pool of leaders to support succession planning. (O)
5P8 Although the college has up-to-date job descriptions and clear lines of authority, no formal mechanism exists for
leadership succession. A well designed succession plan will enable DCCC to not only increase its ability to effectively
transition changes in leadership, but to also ensure that its mission and goals transcend key personnel moves. (O)
5P9 While the College lists multiple data sources, it is not clear how these are analyzed and assessed in regards to
effective leadership and communication. Doing so would enable DCCC to identify needed improvements and areas of
strength. (O)
5R1 DCCC currently does not have methods in place to determine the impact that is being realized as a result of its leading
and communicating systems. Identifying key performance indicators that establish the expected outcomes of leading and
communicating systems and developing a means to measure those outcomes enable institutions to improve practices. (O)
5R2 DCCC currently does not have a method in place to compare results of leading and communicating with other entities.
Benchmarking against other institutions establishes a basis to identify and address targets for improvement. (O)
5I1, 5I2 The Portfolio does not specifically indicate how DCCC identifies targets and the methodology used to improve
processes, nor does it indicate how targets are communicated internally or to other stakeholders. Designing systems that
use results to identify targets and having processes to implement data-driven changes enables an institution to become a
high performance organization. (O)

Category 6. Supporting Institutional Operations
6P1 DCCC has recently discontinued the use of the Noel-Levitz student satisfaction inventory. DCCC has the opportunity to
investigate various tools to determine which options may be feasible for them to use in the future that will provide
comparison data. (O)
6P2 The Portfolio cites general activities, such as Conversation Day and committee work, as a means by which support
needs of faculty, staff and administration may be identified. While this may provide a global view of the method by which
general needs of the college may be surfaced, it does not address specific functions associated directly with faculty, staff
and administration support, nor does it indicate the feedback systems that are used to identify support needs that could, in
turn, suggest processes or programs that could be initiated or improved. Only employee exit interviews, (a good practice for
any organization) is mentioned as a method to ascertain information directly related to perceived needs of personnel.
Additionally, the Portfolio does not address how the college determines the support needs of other key stakeholder groups.
Having a well focused process that utilizes input from a variety of sources that impact on services for personnel and other
key stakeholder groups enables colleges to direct resources where it best serve the needs of employees and other key
stakeholders. (O)
6P3 DCCC indicates in its Portfolio who is responsible for the management of supports services in various areas, however
it does not explain the processes utilized. Additionally, it does not indicate how the college documents the degree to which
knowledge sharing, innovation or empowerment is occurring. (O)
6P4 While individual departments are focused on continuous improvement, the College has an opportunity to look at the
information in the context of the broader organization to improve college-wide processes. Because processes and systems
can involve, or be impacted by more than one department, considering data (and the associated learning) across
departments could enable DCCC to better identify challenges and utilize strengths. (O)
6R1, 6R2 DCCC has a low rate of uncollectible accounts and its Title IV default rate while slightly above peer institutions is
below the national rate. DCCC’s results for retention, completion rates and financial assistance are similar or slightly better
than its main competitors. This information tends to be summative in nature and provides only a small part of the
information that may be available to the college. The table provided in 6P5 illustrates a listing of a number of other
measures that tend to be more formative, such as that garnered through student surveys, focus groups, or course
evaluation. Utilizing such formative information can provide more direct feedback that can be used to make time-sensitive
improvements. Additionally, the information provided about financial assistance, while interesting, does not really seem to
demonstrate the effectiveness of support services associated with this function, but may be more of a reflection of
demographics. The information about stakeholder feedback associated with student financial assistance referenced in 6P5
again provides more formative type data to support continuous improvement. (O)
6R3 There is no evidence of how the peer comparison data is used to identify ongoing or future improvement targets. It is
not clear what variances are significant in the results reported. (O)
6I1, 6I2 While DCCC uses various methods to improve current processes and systems, it recognizes the need to develop a
more formal process to identify targets and implement improvements to support institutional operations. A well developed
system to identify targets and implement improvements ensures the ability to effectively use information of results from key
performance indicators to drive decisions that will improve operational effectiveness and efficiency. (O)

Category 7. Measuring Effectiveness
7P1b The Portfolio provides a chart of the type of data collected, who manages it and how it is used, but it does not
specifically describe the process for selecting such information and data. (O)
7P2 Although it is stated that determining the information and data needs of departments is a decentralized process, the
Portfolio does not specifically describe the method by which the college determines the information and data collection,
storage and accessibility demands required to support the functions of individual departments and units or how these needs
are met. A well designed system driven by user demand enables up-to-date services that will support department and unit
functions. (O)
7P3 DCCC does not have a formal process for determining needs and priorities with respect to acquiring comparative data.
Systematic processes that determine the need for comparative data and information ensures the capacity to establish a
means to selectively identify what information is needed for benchmarking purposes. (O)
7P4b While the Portfolio indicates that the college analyzes and shares information and data through its President’s
Cabinet, Dean’s meetings, Instructional Council, Curriculum Committee, Assessment Committee, and within Student
Services, it does not specifically describe the method by which information and data is analyzed at the institutional level to
gauge overall performance. Having a process to focus in on key essential information that transcends categories enables
an overall view of institutional well being. (O)
7P7 While DCCC technical staff monitors its hardware and software systems for such factors as downtime, information
consistency, processing speed and system errors, the Portfolio does not describe the measures that are collected and
analyzed regularly to determine the effectiveness of its information management processes. Establishing key performance
indicators would provide the ability to determine if the methods for managing information services are supporting the needs
of end users in making data-driven decisions. (O)
7R1 The Portfolio states that the effectiveness of the methods by which information is processed is the degree to which it is
able to generate useful accurate information to support daily operations, but it does not provide information to indicate the
extent to which this is happening. Having a well designed system to measure effectiveness would enable DCCC to meet
the needs of end users by having reliable on-demand sources of information to assist with decision making. (O)
7R2 DCCC does not currently have a system in place for comparing the effectiveness of its information management
processes with peer institutions. A systematic process to compare performance and identify gaps with peer institutions and
against national benchmarks would enable it to identify and apply best practices related to management of information. (O)
7I1 Except to indicate that changes in the information management system are triggered by suggestions offered by internal
users and demands from accrediting agencies and oversight entities, the Portfolio does not describe the actual process that
DCCC uses to improve the methods used to measure effectiveness. Having a means to determine the effectiveness of the
methods by which it acquires, generates, and processes information and data enable it to have accurate information on
demand to drive performance improvement efforts. (O)
7I2 While DCCC indicates the Office of Information Technology along with the Technology Committee is responsible for
establishing improvement targets, the Portfolio does not indicate specific targets, the process used to identify those targets,
or how current results and improvements are communicated. Established processes that identify improvement targets
ensure that the College is committing resources to information management priorities that satisfy needs and yield highest
return. (O)

Category 8. Planning Continuous Improvement
8P2 As DCCC reviews the current strategic planning process, the organization has an opportunity to establish methods to
select short-term objectives and long-term strategies. Determining measurable strategies and objectives would enable the
institution to operate at both a tactical and strategic level to position itself proactively to meet local conditions and
prospective market demands. (O)
8P3 While the Portfolio states that key action plans are developed at both the institutional and unit level, it does not
specifically indicate how progress reports are regularly tracked and communicated to students, faculty, staff, administrators,
and key stakeholder groups. Well-developed progress monitoring and communication systems for key action projects will
assure accountability within the institution. (O)
8P4 DCCC recognizes that its current process for aligning planning with all organizational levels does not allow for the
integration of unit or department level activities. The revised planning process is intended to improve alignment of planning
with institutional goals by the development of a smaller number of specific goals from which department, programs, and
functional groups will select the objective that they are impacted by the most and are the ones upon which they can have
the most impact. (O)
8P6 The Portfolio states that there is not a separate process for establishing resource needs for initiatives associated with
the strategic planning process, instead it is handled through the normal budgeting process. By designing a separate method
to identify resource requirements of strategic initiatives, DCCC would be more apt to preserve the integrity of its planning
process. (O)
8P7 While the Portfolio describes its professional development program in general terms and indicates that broad
participation of personnel in planning processes occurs, it does not specifically indicate how faculty, staff, and administrator
capabilities are developed and nurtured to address requirements regarding changing institutional strategies and action
plans. Designing opportunities for professional development targeted to build capacity to participate effectively in the
planning process as well as acquire specific skills to carry out emerging initiatives would enable the college to maintain a
cadre of personnel to be productively engaged in developing and executing strategic objectives. (O)
8P8 DCCC has the opportunity to identify measures to assess the effectiveness of its planning processes as it revises
them. A focus on the listed broad based measures and the Johnson Community College benchmarking project mentioned
in 8P5 may provide DCCC with needed peer institution comparisons and benchmarks. (O)
8R1b DCCC did not have results from the current strategic plan available at the time of the report. The revised planning
process provides an opportunity to have measurable and meaningful results in regards to accomplishing institutional
objectives and action plans. (O)
8R2, 8R3 DCCC has identified a need to develop a method to establish performance projections of targeted strategies as
well as devise a system to compare its results with other entities. (O)
8R4 Evidence of effective planning was not included in the results presented for the current plan. DCCC has an opportunity
to collect and report evidence specific to their strategic and action plans which will help guide their continuous improvement
process. (O)
8I1, 8I2 As the college initiates its revised planning process, it has the opportunity to establish a systematic method to set
targets and establish a formal process to implement improvements that are driven by measurable outcomes. (O)
Category 9. Building Collaborative Relationships
9P1b DCCC describes a number of collaborative relationships but does not identify how it develops and builds these types
of relationships. While a single process may not be appropriate, processes appropriate for each group could be identified
and monitored to ensure that the needs of all involved are being met. (O)
9P2 The Portfolio does not address the methods that are used to assess the degree to which varying needs of partners are
being met. A well established system that monitors the mutual benefits that are accrued through relationships with entities
that serve or are served by DCCC provides the type of information necessary to continue to strengthen the bonds with
those entities. (OO)
9P4 Although DCCC has integrated its measures for collaborative relationships into its overall institutional effectiveness
measures, it does not specifically indicate the key performance indicators that can be directly attributed to collaborative
relationships. As an example, what impact is being realized as a result of efforts to strengthen collaborative relationships
with feeder high schools in terms of increased enrollment or more effective program selection by the student? Having well-
established performance indicators serve as a basis to determine if the objectives of collaborative relationships are
delivering the expected outcomes. (O)
9R1, 9R2 Although DCCC provides results in Categories 1 and 2, these results focus on students and not other
stakeholders. DCCC has the opportunity to develop measures for other stakeholders’ collaborative relationships and use
trend, peer institution comparisons, and benchmarks. Improvements in the Kansas State Board of Education Post
Secondary Database and the Johnson County Community College Benchmarking Project may provide DCCC with data and
information for appropriate comparisons. (O)
9I2 While the College employs a number of processes for building collaborative relationships, it is not clear that DCCC has
performance results that are based on established targets. The College has an opportunity to establish a formal process for
setting targets that would enable it to determine whether or not efforts to build and maintain collaborative relationships were
providing desired results. (O)

To top