Docstoc

merit

Document Sample
merit Powered By Docstoc
					    DEPARTMENT OF OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

                               AND

                 INFORMATION SYSTEMS




   Promotion, Tenure and Merit Guidelines


       Merit Guidelines Effective: January 1, 2007

Promotion & Tenure Guidelines Effective: January 1, 2007




       (Approved by the OM&IS Department faculty on 11/30/06)
                   (Journal Lists Updated 4/24/06)
          (Promotion & Tenure Guidelines Updated 10/9/06)
                                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                                              Page

I. Promotion and Tenure Guidelines ..................................................................1

II. Threshold for Merit Consideration ................................................................4

III. Merit Evaluation .............................................................................................5

          Introduction ................................................................................................5
           Teaching .....................................................................................................6
                 Student Evaluation ........................................................................6
                  Peer Evaluation .............................................................................7
            Scholarship ..............................................................................................8
            Service ....................................................................................................12

IV. Merit Score Computation ............................................................................15

V. Weights Used in Merit Score Computation ...............................................15

VI. Merit Score Interpretation .........................................................................16

VII. Translation of Merit Ratings into Merit Salary Increases ......................16

VIII. New Faculty Provision ..............................................................................16

IX.     Revisions in the Merit Plan ........................................................................17

APPENDIX A: Journal Ranking Procedures ..................................................18

APPENDIX B: Journal Lists .............................................................................21

APPENDIX C: Faculty Plan ..............................................................................26

APPENDIX D: Faculty Service Report.............................................................27




                                                                      iii
I.     Promotion and Tenure Guidelines for the Department of Operations Management
       and Information Systems (Effective January 1, 2007)


Considerations for the Granting of Tenure

To be considered for tenure within the Department of Operations Management and Information
Systems, the following minimum requirements must be satisfied:

       Service at the rank of Assistant Professor, at this and/or other institutions of higher
       education, for a total of six years, except in the instance of extraordinary circumstances or
       an extraordinary record of achievement.

       Demonstrated support of the mission and strategic objectives of the department, college,
       and university through scholarship, teaching, and service.

       Scholarship: Evidence that the applicant is moving towards achieving professional
       recognition in their discipline by having a minimum of four (4) articles with NIU
       affiliation accepted in refereed English-language business-related journals of which at
       least one (1) should be a B+ or higher and two (2) additional articles should be B or
       higher on the OM&IS departmental journal ranking lists. A faculty member who does not
       meet this threshold level will not be tenured. Moreover, just meeting this threshold level
       does not ensure tenure. A faculty member should be prepared to provide evidence of his
       or her contribution to their publications and the development of a stream of scholarly
       output.

       Teaching: Evidence of quality teaching by having averaged at least a 3.6 over the last
       three years on the departmental teaching merit evaluation. A faculty member who does
       not meet this threshold level will not be tenured. Moreover, just meeting this threshold
       level does not ensure tenure.

       Service: Evidence that the applicant is contributing to the department, college, university,
       and/or professional/academic organizations through service activities. These activities
       may include serving on committees, participating as a reviewer, etc. While service is
       required, scholarship and teaching are more important components.

       Collegiality as demonstrated by participation in department meetings and activities, and
       treating faculty, students and constituents with respect. The applicant’s standing in this
       subjective measure will be determined annually by the personnel committee and
       communicated to the applicant in writing.




1
Considerations for the Promotion to Associate Professor

To be considered for eligibility for promotion to Associate Professor within the Department of
Operations Management and Information Systems, the following minimum requirements must be
satisfied:

       Service at the rank of Assistant Professor, at this and/or other institutions of higher
       education, for a total of six years, except in the instance of extraordinary circumstances or
       an extraordinary record of achievement.

       Demonstrated support of the mission and strategic objectives of the department, college,
       and university through scholarship, teaching, and service.

       Scholarship: Evidence that the applicant is moving towards achieving professional
       recognition in their discipline by having a minimum of four (4) articles with NIU
       affiliation accepted in refereed English-language business-related journals of which at
       least one (1) should be a B+ or higher and two (2) additional articles should be B or
       higher on the OM&IS departmental journal ranking lists. A faculty member who does not
       meet this threshold level will not be promoted. Moreover, just meeting this threshold
       level does not ensure promotion. A faculty member should be prepared to provide
       evidence of his or her contribution to their publications and the development of a stream
       of scholarly output.

       Teaching: Evidence of quality teaching by having averaged at least a 3.6 over the last
       three years on the departmental teaching merit evaluation. A faculty member who does
       not meet this threshold level will not be promoted. However, just meeting this threshold
       level does not ensure promotion.

       Service: Evidence that the applicant is contributing to the department, college, university,
       and/or professional/academic organizations through service activities. These activities
       may include serving on committees, participating as a reviewer, etc. While service is
       required, scholarship and teaching are more important components.

       Collegiality as demonstrated by participation in department meetings and activities, and
       treating faculty, students and constituents with respect. The applicant’s standing in this
       subjective measure will be determined annually by the personnel committee and
       communicated to the applicant in writing.




2
Considerations for the Promotion to Professor

To be considered for eligibility for promotion to Professor within the Department of Operations
Management and Information Systems, the following minimum requirements must be satisfied:

       Service at the rank of Associate Professor, at this and/or other institutions of higher
       education, for a total of six years, except in the instance of extraordinary circumstances or
       an extraordinary record of achievement.

       Demonstrated support of the mission and strategic objectives of the department, college,
       and university through scholarship, teaching, and service.

       Scholarship: Evidence that the applicant has achieved national recognition in their
       discipline by publishing a continuous stream of scholarly work in refereed journals. This
       includes having a minimum of four (4) articles with NIU affiliation accepted in refereed
       English-language business-related journals of which at least one (1) should be a B+ or
       higher and two (2) additional articles should be B or higher on the OM&IS departmental
       journal ranking lists since promotion to Associate Professor. Moreover, during the
       applicant’s academic career at least one (1) journal publication with NIU affiliation
       should be an A- or higher on the OM&IS departmental journal ranking lists. A faculty
       member who does not meet this threshold level will not be promoted. Moreover, just
       meeting this threshold level does not ensure promotion. A faculty member should be
       prepared to provide evidence of his or her contribution to their publications.

       Teaching: Evidence of quality teaching by having averaged at least a 3.6 over the last
       three years on the departmental teaching merit evaluation. A faculty member who does
       not meet this threshold level will not be promoted. However, just meeting this threshold
       level does not ensure promotion.

       Service: Evidence that the applicant is contributing to the department, college, university,
       and/or professional/academic organizations through service activities. These activities
       may include serving on committees, participating as a reviewer, etc. In addition, the
       applicant must have assumed some leadership role in these activities.

       Collegiality as demonstrated by participation in department meetings and activities, and
       treating faculty, students and constituents with respect.




3
II.       Threshold for Merit Consideration

The faculty merit guidelines for the Department of Operations Management and Information
Systems will be used to assess the faculty member’s annual contribution to the Department, the
College of Business, and the University. These guidelines will also be used as a means for
determining annual faculty merit salary increases. The guidelines are designed to support the
mission, vision, and strategic objectives of the Department, College, and University.

Eligibility for merit consideration for each faculty member will be based upon professional
academic performance and will be determined by the Department Chair and the Personnel
Committee. Each faculty member must meet a minimum threshold for merit to receive any merit
salary adjustment. The faculty member meets the minimum threshold for merit consideration if
such is determined by the Chair in conjunction with the Personnel Committee. Unless there are
extraordinary circumstances that have been communicated to the Chair and the Personnel
Committee, if a faculty member’s three-year-average merit rating is below 3, then the faculty
member will be considered ineligible for merit salary increase. Reasons for a faculty member
being ineligible for a merit salary adjustment must be documented by the Chair and Personnel
Committee and communicated to the faculty member in writing. The three-year running average
will consist of the most recent three years in which threshold was met.

Professional academic performance involves many activities related to the areas of teaching,
scholarship, and service. Acceptable performance of these activities is necessary to maintain the
professional integrity of the faculty member, the Department, and the College as a whole.

Professionalism in Teaching

Faculty members are responsible for contributing value by demonstrating professionalism in their
teaching by:

         Treating learners with respect and courtesy.
         Maintaining a high level of subject matter knowledge.
         Meeting classes at designated times.
         Ensuring that course content is accurate, current, and appropriate according to the
          curricular intent of the Department and College.
         Employing effective instructional methods.
         Incorporating innovation and new technologies in courses where appropriate.
         Establishing and holding office hours according to Departmental and College policy.
         Applying appropriate grading standards in a fair and consistent manner.


Professionalism in Scholarship

Faculty members are responsible for contributing value by demonstrating a reasonable level of
scholarship activity by:


4
          Engaging in individual or group research activity which leads to scholarly publications or
           presentations.
          Attending research or professional seminars, conferences, or other functions to maintain
           expertise in research and to support the Departmental and College missions.
          Being available for interaction with peers to support research creativity, understanding,
           and collaboration among faculty members in the Department and/or College.


Professionalism in Service

Faculty members are responsible for contributing value by demonstrating a reasonable level of
responsiveness to Departmental or College requests for service assignments. This contribution
includes participation in service activities that are deemed necessary to achieve Departmental or
College objectives. Such activities include:

          Attending Departmental and College faculty meetings and other functions.
          Being involved in professional and academic organizations.
          Responding to reasonable requests for committee participation from the Department,
           College, and University.
          Actively supporting student organizations and functions.
          Serving as faculty marshal at graduation.
          Participating in Departmental and College recruiting activities.




III.       Merit Evaluation

Introduction

The values of the activities performed will be assessed to determine the annual merit rating. This
rating will be used to determine the amount of the annual merit salary increase. Each faculty
member, together with the Department Chair, shall determine the objectives to be pursued, the
types of assignments to be performed, the results to be anticipated, and the criteria for evaluating
the effort expended and results achieved. The faculty member is responsible for submitting a
faculty plan of expected activities and a Faculty Service Report of completed activities to the
Department Chair according to the established timetable. See Appendix D for a sample Faculty
Service Report (FSR). All activities reported in the Faculty Service Report for merit evaluation
purposes must have the approval of the Department Chair.




5
The faculty plan and the final merit evaluation may be weighted, with the approval of the
Department Chair, so that effort expended and results achieved are expressed as a combination of
the following categories:

                          Teaching:          40% to 80% of the evaluation*
                          Scholarship:       10% to 50% of the evaluation
                          Service:           10% to 50% of the evaluation
*Only faculty members with teaching loads of 3 classes per semester or above may apply more than 60% of the
evaluation to teaching. Faculty members with teaching loads below 3/3 may apply a maximum of 60% of the
evaluation to teaching.

Teaching load is the sum of the credit hours for all courses taught by the faculty member. An
additional three hours is added to the faculty member’s load computation for each semester in
which at least one class section is taught in a mass lecture setting, i.e., has at least one hundred
registered students

The extent and expectations for teaching, scholarship and service activities are based on the
percentage weight agreed upon by the faculty member and Chair.


Teaching

The teaching evaluation will consist of two rating categories, student and peer. The student
evaluation will be used as the basis for the final teaching evaluation. The peer evaluation will
then adjust this basis based on activities presented in the faculty service report. Teaching will be
evaluated using the course evaluations for all classes taught during the calendar year. Offload
courses such as EMBA and PMBA will not be considered in determining the teaching evaluation
score.

Student Evaluation

Course evaluation surveys will be conducted for every departmental course by the department
Student Advisory Board at the end of each semester. For each class taught, an arithmetic mean is
calculated by averaging the subgroup average of questions 1-21 with question 22 (overall
teaching effectiveness). This average is then multiplied by 1.08 if the course is taught in a mass
lecture setting with a student enrollment of greater than 100 students. Team-taught courses may
utilize a team evaluation instead of, or in addition to, the individual course evaluation. The
department will provide a preliminary form that summarizes the student evaluation scores for all
courses taught during the year. This form will also determine a tentative student evaluation score
based on all courses taught during the year. Faculty shall review the preliminary summary form
for accuracy, indicate any courses that are to be excluded from consideration, make the necessary
changes to the student evaluation scores, and submit a final summary form with the annual
faculty service report.




6
The faculty member may elect not to have a student evaluation counted for a course under the
following circumstances: 1) the first time the faculty member teaches the course within a five-
year period, 2) the first time the faculty member teaches the course in a distance education
environment, 3) the first time the faculty member teaches the course as an officially designated
“on-line” course, 4) the course is team-taught and only one evaluation is determined for the entire
faculty team. It is the faculty member’s responsibility to note on the faculty service report when
the student evaluation for a particular class should not be included, and why. The mean of the
evaluations will be calculated for all eligible courses for all semesters for the faculty member. If
all courses taught during the year fall within these four circumstances, then the faculty member
will be assigned a student evaluation score equal to the departmental average. This will serve as
the final student evaluation score.

Peer Evaluation

The teaching performance of each faculty member will also be evaluated by the Chair and
Personnel Committee to determine a peer evaluation score using a two-step process. First, the
Chair and Personnel Committee will establish whether the faculty member performed
satisfactorily.

To receive at least a satisfactory peer evaluation, the faculty member must demonstrate the
following:

     Competency in the subject matter of the course
     Relevancy, currency, and organization of course topics as presented in the course syllabus
     Integration of the computer, communications, international, and ethics in the course
      topics where appropriate
     Accessibility of the faculty member to students
     Maintain grading integrity

Accessibility is measured by the level of availability of the faculty member to students
electronically via email and during open office hours. To receive at least a satisfactory
evaluation, the following minimum number of office hours must be maintained based on
teaching load:

Semester Teaching Load                             Minimum Number of Office Hours/Week
12 hours or more                                   6 hours
7-11 hours                                         5 hours
6 hours or fewer                                   4 hours

The office hour policy must be explicitly stated in the course syllabus, reported to the
Departmental office during the first week of every semester, and indicated on the annual faculty
service report.




7
Grading integrity is maintained by ensuring that a faculty member’s grading system for a specific
course is appropriate for the course level. To receive at least a satisfactory evaluation, the final
grade point average computed for a course should reflect the following guidelines:

Course Level                                       Expected Course GPA
Pre-Business (UBUS 223)                            2.2
Principles (OMIS 338 & 351)                        2.5
Major Undergraduate                                2.9
Graduate Phase I (500-level)                       3.2
Graduate Phase II (600-level)                      3.3

Faculty shall include the final GPA for each section taught along with the expected course GPA
on the annual faculty service report. Significant deviations to the above guidelines, as judged by
the Chair and the Personnel Committee, must be explained by the faculty member to avoid a
reduced peer evaluation.

Once satisfactory teaching performance has been established, the Chair and Personnel Committee
will jointly determine a peer evaluation score. The peer evaluation process will be used to adjust
the student evaluation score upward for extraordinary teaching-related activities. Note that the
purpose of the peer evaluation is not to reward ordinary teaching-related activities. However, all
faculty are encouraged to prepare a case for consideration. The maximum increase of 0.6 points
will be awarded for extraordinary activities based on activities reported on the Faculty Service
Report. Violations of the office hour and grading policy, or other information shared by the chair
may have a negative effect on the peer evaluation score.

The peer evaluation score will be comprised of three categories: teaching awards, professional
involvement, and teaching loads. To receive a positive adjustment, faculty must present
supporting information pertaining to one or more of these three categories. Excellence in a
category will result in a maximum of 0.2 points contribution towards the peer evaluation score.

     Category                               Examples and clarifying comments
Teaching Awards          This category will consider various teaching awards at the university,
                         college and department level. Awards such as the Presidential Teaching
                         Professorship and the Excellence in Undergraduate teaching award will
                         receive 0.2 points, while departmental teaching awards will receive 0.1
                         points.
Business Partnership     Projects that interface with the business community, guest speakers, and
                         company tours will be considered. Recall, points are awarded for
                         extraordinary efforts
Teaching Loads           Honors capstone projects, independent study courses, ELC projects that
                         do not count within required course preps, unusually large number of
                         sections taught or new course preparations, participation in teaching
                         improvement activities, and significant course enhancements which
                         demonstrate innovation in course design and/or delivery.



8
The Chair will work in conjunction with the Personnel Committee to determine the peer
evaluation score and the final teaching evaluation score. The final teaching evaluation score will
be determined by adding the peer evaluation score to the student evaluation score.

Scholarship

The unit of measure for the scholarship category is the scholarly unit, a number which is assigned
to a discrete unit of scholarly activity. The total number of scholarly units earned by the faculty
member during the calendar year is computed. The total number of scholarly units will be used
to compute the final scholarship score for the faculty member as described in the section Merit
Score Computation.

General rules and guidelines which apply to the scholarly category include:

               The Chair and the Personnel Committee reserve the right to re-evaluate the
                ranking of all scholarly work should circumstances warrant.
               The date of record, for merit review purposes, is the date of the acceptance letter
                informing the faculty member of the future publication of the work or the
                following year, whichever the faculty member prefers.
               All publication acceptances must be unconditional by the editor or publisher.
               Each publication or presentation can be counted only once.
               Whenever an article results from a paper presentation, the article will be counted
                separately.

       Copies of acceptance letters or first page of publication must be included with the Faculty
       Service Report to be considered for merit evaluation purposes. Published books, articles,
       and proceedings papers must be furnished if requested by the Chair or Personnel
       Committee.

One of the primary methods by which faculty share their research results with the academic
community is through refereed journal publications. The Department of Operations Management
and Information Systems uses a five-level journal ranking scale. These rankings are updated
every five years, or more often as needed. For a description of the journal ranking process, see
Appendix A of this document. The general guidelines for awarding scholarly units for refereed
journals are described in the table below.

Refereed Journals

                                                      Sole Author – additional scholarly
               Journal Rank     Scholarly Units                 points to add
                    A                15,000                        1,500
                    A-               10,000                        1,000
                    B+                6,000                         600
                    B                 3,000                         300
                    C                 1000                          100



9
Research is also disseminated through conferences. The Department distinguishes between
national/international conferences and regional conferences, and between different types of
conference participation: having a paper published in the Proceedings, doing a presentation, and
participating on a panel. Differences in the level of quality of various conferences (typically
determined by the level of difficulty of having a paper, panel, or presentation accepted) will be
considered by the Chair and Personnel Committee when assigning scholarly units. The general
guidelines for awarding scholarly units for conference participation are described in the table
below.

Conferences

           Conference Type                     Scholarly Units
National/International Conference
                                                     500
Proceedings
National/International Conference Panel
                                                     250
National/International Conference
                                                     250
Presentation (No Proceedings)
Regional Conference Proceedings
                                                     250
Regional Conference Panel
                                                     150
Regional Conference Presentation (No
                                                     150
Proceedings)
Conference Workshop/Seminar/Tutorial
                                                     250


Notes related to Conferences:

        A published Abstract does not count as a Proceedings publication.
        Invited Conference Proceedings/Presentation/Workshop/Tutorial – add 25%
        Best Paper Award – double the units earned
        Other conference contributions – determined by Chair/Personnel Committee


Other Scholarly Activity

Activity                            Scholarly Units            Comments
Book Related to Scholarly           10,000 (1st publication)
                                                               Awarded upon publication
Pursuits                             3,000 (other editions.)
Editor of a Book Related to
                                             2,000             Awarded upon publication
Scholarly Pursuits
Chapter in a Scholarly Book
with Individual Chapters by                  2,000             Awarded upon publication
Different Authors


10
Other Scholarly Activity
                                       Scholarly Units                 Comments
 (continued)
Publication Related to Teaching                                Determined by Chair and
                                           Variable
                                                                Personnel Committee
Other Scholarly Activity                                       Determined by Chair and
                                           Variable
                                                                Personnel Committee


Determining Scholarship Merit Score

The total of scholarly units is used to determine the Scholarship Merit Score.

                                  Scholarship Merit
            Scholarship Units           Score
                     >=15000                      5
                       12000                    4.9
                       10000                    4.8
                        9000                    4.7
                        8000                    4.6
                        7000                    4.5 ↑    Far Exceeds Expectations
                        6000                    4.4
                        5000                    4.3
                        4000                    4.2
                        3000                    4.1
                        2000                    4.0
                        1500                    3.8 ↑    Exceeds Expectations
                        1000                    3.6
                          900                   3.5
                          800                   3.4
                          700                   3.3
                          600                   3.2
                          500                   3.0 ↑    Meets Expectations
                          400                   2.8
                          300                   2.7
                          200                   2.6
                          100                   2.4 ↑    Less than Expectations
                           90                   2.0 ↓    Far Below Expectations
                           80                   1.8
                           70                   1.5
                           60                   1.0
                           50                   0.8
                           40                   0.5
                 Less than 40                     0




11
Service Activities
The unit of measure for the service category is the service unit, a number which is assigned to a
discrete unit of service activity. The extent and expectations for service activities are based on
the percentage weight agreed upon by the faculty member and chair in the faculty plan. The
number of units assigned to various service activities are presented below:

Service Activity                                   Number of Service Units*

University Committees
   Chair of Committee                              25 % additional
   Academic Planning Council                       4.0 units
   Faculty Senate                                  4.0 units
   Computing Facilities Advisory Committee         2.0 units
   Library Advisory Council                        2.0 units
   Dean’s Designee - Doctoral Dissertation         1.0 unit
   Other University Committees                     Those not listed will be determined by
                                                   the Chair and Personnel Committee.
College Committees
   Chair of Committee                              25 % additional
   College Curriculum Committee                    4.0 units
   College Council                                 4.0 units
   Strategic Planning Council                      2.0 units
   Summer Research Grant Committee                 1.0 units
   Other College Committees                        Those not listed will be determined by
                                                   the Chair and Personnel Committee.
Department Committees
   Chair of Committee                              25 % additional
   Personnel Committee                             4.0 units
   Curriculum/Assessment Committee                 4.0 units
   Graduate Committee                              0.5 unit
   Appeals Committee                               0.5 unit
   New faculty mentor                              1.0 unit
   Recruiting activities (specify)                 0.5-1.0 units
   Hardware/Software Administrator                 0.5 – 2.0 units
   Graduate Colloquium Coordinator                 1.0 unit
   Faculty advisor to student organizations        1.0 unit
   Other Department Committees                     Those not listed will be determined by
                                                   the Chair and Personnel Committee.
Professional Organization Activities
   Officer                                         1.0-4.0 units
   Committee Member                                0.5 – 2.0 units
   Editor/Associate Editor of Journal              3.0 units for an A or A- journal
   (not to exceed 5 extra points for manuscript    2.0 units for a B+ or B journal
   reviews)                                        1.0 units for a C journal


12
     Manuscript Reviewing for Journal             1.0 unit for an A, or A- journal
                                                  0.75 units for a B or B+ journal
                                                  0.5 units for a C journal
     Manuscript Reviewing for Conference          .5 unit per conference
     Track Chair at Conference                    1.0 – 3.0 units
     Session Chair at Conference                  0.25 unit each
     Discussant at Conference                     0.25 unit each

Monies received from grants, scholarships,        To be determined by the Chair and
gifts, or in-kind contributions to the            Personnel Committee
Department
Strategic alliance activities                     To be determined by the Chair and
                                                  Personnel Committee
Faculty internships                               To be determined by the Chair and
                                                  Personnel Committee
Development and delivery of custom                1.0 unit for each 20 direct contact hours
professional seminars and training classes        of seminar or training class presentation
related to the mission of the department
Executive / Professional MBA Instruction          1.0 unit for each 20 direct contact hours
                                                  of EMBA/PMBA instruction
External tenure/promotion evaluator               1.0 unit
External grant application evaluator              1.0 unit
Media Appearance                                  0.5 – 1.0 units
Other service activity                            Determined by the Chair and
                                                  Personnel Committee

*Note: Service units are adjusted for partial-year activities and committee memberships.

Because the merit evaluation process is conducted on a calendar year basis, and many
committees are organized around an academic year calendar, it is essential for a faculty member
to specify, by semester, committee service. For example, if a faculty member served on the
Personnel Committee for the academic year 2005-2006, it would be reported on the 2005 Faculty
Service Report as Personnel Committee, Fall 2005, and on the 2006 Faculty Service Report as
Personnel Committee, Spring 2006. For committee memberships which do cover the entire
calendar year, this can be indicated by, for example, as OSA Faculty Advisor, Spring-Fall 2006.

The total number of service units, determined using the service units above, will be used to
determine a faculty member’s service merit rating based on the following table.




13
Determining Service Merit Score

 Number of Service Units        Service Merit Rating
                     >=20                                5
                      19.5                             4.9
                        19                             4.8
                      18.5                             4.7
                        18                             4.6
                      17.5                             4.5   ↑ Far Exceeds Expectations
                        17                             4.4
                      16.5                             4.3
                        16                             4.2
                      15.5                             4.1
                        15                             4.0
                      14.5                             3.9
                        14                             3.8   ↑ Exceeds Expectations
                      13.5                             3.7
                        13                             3.6
                      12.5                             3.5
                        12                             3.4
                      11.5                             3.3
                        11                             3.2
                      10.5                             3.1
                        10                             3.0   ↑ Meets Expectations
                       9.5                             2.9
                         9                             2.8
                       8.5                             2.7
                         8                             2.6
                       7.5                             2.5
                         7                             2.4
                       6.5                             2.3   ↑ Less Than Expectations
               Less than 6                             2.2   ↓ Far Below Expectations


Faculty service consists of a wide variety of activity. There may be circumstances which cause
the Department, the College, or the University to request a faculty member to provide necessary
and important services to advance the mission and goals of the institution. Likewise, the faculty
member may volunteer to perform service that is approved by the Department Chair and which
supports the mission of the Department. The faculty member should be evaluated for these types
of service and rewards should accompany meritorious service in these cases. Examples of this
type of service include the development of student and faculty exchange programs, activity which
advances strategic alliances, the receipt of monetary grants, student scholarships and chaired
professorships, membership on doctoral dissertation committees, participation in university-wide
initiatives, and special assignments from the Chair, Dean, or other university officials.

Documentation related to the monies and in-kind contributions received, and hours spent on
service activities, must be presented to the Department Chair to be considered for merit


14
evaluation purposes. Evidence of contribution may be in the form of letters, logs, time cards,
listings of activities, receipts, etc.

The total number of service units earned by the faculty member during the calendar year is
computed and a service score is determined using the assigned service percentage weight in the
faculty plan. The total number of service units will be used to compute the final service score for
the faculty member as described in the section Merit Score Computation.

IV.    Merit Score Computation

The final merit rating for a faculty member is the weighted average of the faculty member’s merit
scores and the assigned category weights. The following is an example of how the final merit
rating would be determined for a faculty member who has elected to use weights of 50% for
teaching, 30% for scholarship, and 20% for service.

              Category             Weight               Rating             Score
           Teaching 1              .50  x               4.2 =                2.1
           Scholarship 2           .30 x                3.6 =               1.08
           Service 3               .20 x                2.5 =                 .5
                                                                           ------
           Merit Rating:                                                    3.68
       1
         Teaching can be weighted from 40-80%, with anything above 60% restricted to those with teaching loads
                of 3/3 or above. The teaching rating is determined by averaging the student rating with the peer
                evaluation, as it is currently.
       2
         Scholarship can be weighted from 10-50% of the evaluation. Here we are assuming that the faculty
                member had a total of 1000 scholarly units.
       3
         Service can be weighted from 10-50% of the evaluation. Here we are assuming that the faculty member
                had a total of 7.5 service units.



V.     Weights Used in Merit Calculations

The faculty member and the chair will determine the weights for the next merit period each
spring at their annual evaluation meeting. This will allow the faculty member and the chair to set
some targets for the upcoming year. A faculty member may request that a revision be made to
the faculty plan and assigned category weights. These revisions may reflect a more accurate
description of the activities completed during the year. The request must be made in writing and
approved by the Department Chair.




15
VI.    Final Merit Rating Interpretation

A descriptive performance interpretation of the final merit rating for a faculty member can be
made as follows:

                Far Exceeds Expectations             4.50 and above
                Exceeds Expectations                 3.75 - 4.49
                Meets Expectations                   3.00 - 3.74
                Less Than Expectations               2.25 - 2.99
                Far Below Expectations               2.24 and below


VII.   Translation of Merit Ratings into Merit Salary Increases

The calculation of the annual merit salary increase for the faculty member is based on the three-
year moving average of the annual merit ratings and the amount of money allocated to the
Department for annual merit salary increases. The annual salary increase awarded to each person
is directly proportional to the portion of the total of the three-year averages for the Department
attributed to the individual.

As an example, assume the annual merit amount allocated to the Department is $10,000 and the
three-year averages for the four faculty members in the Department were as follows:

                       Three-Year Average            Salary Increase
       Person 1              4.01                       $ 2,509*
       Person 2              3.83                         2,397
       Person 3              4.35                         2,722
       Person 4              3.79                         2,372

       Total:                15.98                      $10,000


                *Increase = $10,000 x (4.01 / 15.98) = $2,509


VIII. New Faculty Provision

This provision applies only to the first year that a faculty member is employed by the OMIS
Department. New faculty members who begin in the Fall semester must report their activity in
the Spring, regardless of the fact that they had neither completed an entire year within the
Department, submitted a faculty plan, nor established category weights for the current year. In
this case, the faculty member’s final merit rating will be determined by evaluating the activity
from the date of employment to the end of the calendar year, using the default category weights
of 60 percent teaching and 40 percent scholarship, or the average final rating for all departmental
faculty, whichever is greater. This rating will be used to compute salary increases in lieu of a


16
three-year moving average. At the end of the first entire year that a faculty member has
completed within the Department, the merit salary increase will be based on the two-year average
for the faculty member. At the end of the second entire year that a faculty member has worked
within the Department, the salary increase will be based on the three-year average. From this
time forward, a three-year moving average will be used.


IX.    Revisions in the Merit Plan

The Merit Plan and Strategic Plan of the Department will be reviewed annually at the Fall faculty
meeting of the Department. Revisions to update or enhance these plans can be approved by a
majority vote of the regular faculty at this time. Any revised plans will become effective on
January 1 of the following year.




17
                                                  APPENDIX A

                                  JOURNAL RANKING PROCEDURE

Journal Ranking Levels

The OMIS Department journal ranking system will consist of five levels: A, A-, B+, B, and C. A and A- journals are
those that publish the highest level of quality research and have the most influence in the academic community. B+
and B journals are those that publish quality research and have considerable influence in the academic community.
C journals are any other relevant English-language journals. The published OMIS Department journal lists will
display the A, A-, B+, B, journals, Any relevant English-language journal not on the list will be considered to be a C
for merit purposes. Three separate journal lists will be maintained: Operations Management, Information Systems,
and Interdisciplinary. The Interdisciplinary category will include general business journals as well as journals that
are of a more specialized nature.

Journal Ranking Criteria

The OMIS Department journal lists are developed using two sources of information: published journal ranking
studies and other universities’ journal ranking information. These journal ranking studies should be from peer-
reviewed publications. If the ranking study is published but not peer-reviewed, it must be approved by the Personnel
Committee. Other university journal rankings should be obtained from peer and research-oriented universities
(Carnegie I research rating plus peer schools identified for AACSB accreditation). These university journal
rankings could be lists used for promotion and/or merit decisions or written documentation of journal quality
provided by department chairs.

To determine a journal’s ranking, a minimum number of external ranking sources and published studies is required.
The minimum number of sources can come from either category (published ranking or university ranking). The
following table gives this information for each ranking level.

                              Table 1. Minimum Sources of Evidence Required
                                       Minimum Number of        Minimum Number of
                                        External Sources         Published Studies
                           A                   5                         3
                           A-                  4                         2
                           B+                  3                         1
                           B                   2                         -
                           C                   -                         -


Ranking Process

For each list, a set of journals has been given an initial ranking. This ranking is subject to change. Anyone who feels
a journal is incorrectly ranked is welcome to gather additional information in an effort to improve the journal’s
ranking. The ranking of a journal to be added to a list will be determined using the same process. Periodically the
lists will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary by the Personnel Committee. The decision-making body will be the
Personnel Committee and Department Chair.

Part 1:

Find the published ranking of journal quality or the average of quality and relevance ranking (but not relevance
alone) for the journal to be ranked. Divide that by the number of journals included in the ranking. Use that % to
determine the percentile score using the table below. The published study must be less than ten (10) years old.




18
                                Table 2. Determining Value for Published Ranking
                                             Ranking /              Percentile
                                        Number of Journals            Score
                                 If <= .10 (but > zero)                 5
                                 If <= .20, but >.10                   4.5
                                 If <= .30, but > .20                   4
                                 If <= .40, but > .30                  3.5
                                 If <= .50, but > .40                   3
                                 If <= .60, but > .50                  2.5
                                 If > 0.60, but ranked at all           2
                                 Not ranked                          (blank)

Part 2:

University rankings of journals from similar departments must first be converted to a 5-point scale, as shown in the
following table.

                           Table 3. Converting Alphabetic Ranking to Numeric Value
                               University Ranking            Numeric Values
                               A or A+                              5
                               A-                                  4.3
                               B+                                  3.7
                               B                                    3
                               B-                                  2.5
                               C                                    2
                               Anything below                       1

Part 3:

To determine the OMIS Department journal ranking, the weighted average of all available (not “best of”) rankings
are used, taking into account the minimum number of external sources and the minimum number of published studies
as indicated in Table 1 on page 1. The weighted average of the rankings is used to determine the rank of the journal,
based on Table 4 below.

For example, for a journal to be ranked as an A, the weighted average of rankings would be used with the caveat that
three of these must be published studies. In the event that only four external sources are available, or only two
published studies are available, then the highest that this journal could be ranked is A-, assuming that the weighted
average of rankings puts the journal at the A- level or above (4 or above as seen on table below).

                                        Table 4. Determining Journal Rank
                             Overall Average Score              Journal Rank*
                      >= 4.5                                           A
                      >= 4, but < 4.5                                  A-
                      >=3.3, but < 4                                   B+
                      >= 2.5, but < 3.3                                 B
                      Every other refereed journal                      C
                                  * assuming that minimum source criteria are met

Procedure for Evaluating Journals not on the Journal List

Journals Ranked by Other Departments in the COB
Any article published in a journal that is not on the OMIS lists is assumed to be a C level publication, unless it is on
the journal list from another department in the College of Business. If the other department in the CoB has different
levels of journals, the personnel committee and department chair will determine the level of the journal. For


19
example, Strategic Management Journal is considered an A journal by the Management Department; it would be
considered either an A or A- journal by the OMIS Department (since Management does not utilize A- on their
scale) upon review by the OMIS personnel committee and department chair.

Other Journals not Ranked by the OMIS Department
If a faculty member believes that he/she will publish an article in a journal that should be considered an A or B level
publication, prior to submission the faculty member should gather relevant information about the journal and its
reputation (e.g., published studies or university rankings). The OMIS personnel committee and department chair
shall review the material provided by the faculty member and any other relevant information and determine, based on
the system described above, whether the publication should be considered as an A, A-, B+, or B level publication.

Procedures for Updating the Journal Lists

The department journal list will be updated every five years by the OMIS personnel committee and department chair
using the above journal ranking criteria. A journal’s ranking can move up at any time during the year upon inclusion
of new published studies or university rankings. A journal’s ranking will be lowered only at the start of the year,
based on new data submitted the previous year. A publication’s ranking for merit and promotion and tenure will
be determined by the ranking at the time of submission, unless the ranking goes up, in which case the higher
ranking will be used.




20
                                           APPENDIX B

                                        JOURNAL LISTS
                                      (Last updated April 24, 2006)

                                 Information Systems Journals

Journal Name                                                          Rank
Communications of the ACM                                              A
Information Systems Research                                           A
Journal of MIS                                                         A
MIS Quarterly                                                          A
Decision Support Systems                                               A-
European Journal of Information Systems                                A-
IEEE Transactions on Computers                                         A-
Information and Management                                             A-
ACM Computing Surveys                                                 B+
ACM Transactions                                                      B+
Communications of the AIS                                             B+
Database                                                              B+
Information Systems Journal                                           B+
International Journal of Electronic Commerce                          B+
Journal of Database Management                                        B+
Journal of the ACM                                                    B+
Computer(IEEE)                                                         B
Human-Computer Interaction                                             B
Information Resource Management Journal                                B
Information Science                                                    B
Information Society, The                                               B
Information Systems Management                                         B
Information, Technology, and People                                    B
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies                        B
International Journal of Mobile Communications (4/24/06)               B
Internet Research (4/24/06)                                            B
Journal of Computer Information Systems                                B
Journal of Electronic Commerce                                         B
Journal of Global Information Management                               B


21
Journal of Global Information Technology Management                        B
Journal of Information Systems Management                                  B
Journal of Information Science                                             B
Journal of Information Systems                                             B
Journal of Information Systems Accounting                                  B
Journal of Information Systems Education                                   B
Journal of Information Technology Management                               B
Journal of International Technology and Information Management (4/24/06)   B
Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce                B
Journal of Organizational and End-User Computing                           B
Journal of Software Maintenance                                            B
Journal of Strategic Information Systems                                   B
Journal of Systems and Software                                            B
Journal of Systems Management                                              B




22
                                Operations Management Journals



Journal                                                                   Rank

Decision Sciences                                                          A

Journal of Operations Management                                           A

Management Science                                                         A

Naval Research Logistics                                                   A

Operations Research                                                        A

Production and Operations Management                                       A

European Journal of Operational Research                                   A-

IIE Transactions                                                           A-

International Journal of Production Research                               A-

Interfaces                                                                B+

International Journal of Operations and Production Management             B+

Journal of Business Logistics                                             B+

Manufacturing and Service Operations Management                           B+

Operations Research Letters                                               B+

Annals of Operations Research                                              B

Computers and Industrial Engineering (UK)                                  B

Computers and Operations Research                                          B

International Journal of Logistics Management                              B

International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management            B

International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management    B

International Journal of Production Economics                              B

International Journal of Service Industry Management (4/24/06)             B




23
Journal of Supply Chain Management (formerly Int. Journal of Purchasing
and Materials Management)                                                 B

Journal of The Operational Research Society                               B

Journal of Transportation Management                                      B

Mathematical Programming                                                  B

Mathematics of Operations Research                                        B

Omega                                                                     B

Production and Inventory Management                                       B

Quality Management Journal (4/24/06)                                      B

Supply Chain Management Review                                            B




24
                                   Interdisciplinary Journals

Journal                                                         Rank
Harvard Business Review                                          A
Human Factors (4/24/06)                                          A-
Healthcare Management Review (4/24/06)                          B+
Sloan Management Review                                         B+
Journal of Healthcare Management (4/24/06)                       B




25
                                    APPENDIX C

                                   FACULTY PLAN


Name: _________________________       Year: _______________

Categories:

I.     Teaching                                         _____%    (40% - 80*%)

              Student Evaluation      __%                     *Can be above 60%
                                                              only if teaching load
              Peer Evaluation         __%                     is 3/3 or above.

              Plans:




II.    Scholarship

              Plans:                                    _____%    (10% - 50%)




III.   Service

              Plans:                                    _____%    (10% - 50%)




26
                                         APPENDIX D

                          COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
                         FACULTY SERVICE REPORT

                  January 1, 20XX through December 31, 20XX

Please complete this form and return to the Chair of your department by                  .

Attach to this form a copy of your faculty plan and any relevant information and documents such
as manuscripts or letters of acceptance for articles. For each item listed on the FSR, record the
number of points expected based on the department’s merit guidelines. Calculate the
Estimated Score for each category.


 NAME:                                                       RANK:


                                        TEACHING
                     _____ Estimated Teaching Score           ___ % weight




                                      SCHOLARSHIP
                    _____ Estimated Scholarship Score          ___ % weight




                                         SERVICE
                      _____ Estimated Service Score          ___ % weight




27
 NAME:


                              CHAIR'S OVERALL EVALUATION

     __ *Excellent                               Far above expectations
 __ *Good                                        Exceeds expectations
     ___ Satisfactory                            Meets expectations
     __ *Less than satisfactory                  Less than expectations
     __ *Failure                                 Far below expectations

 *Provide written documentation why individual exceeds or does not meet expectations.




28

				
DOCUMENT INFO
qihao0824 qihao0824 http://
About