Group08 Presentation

8/17/2019 Group08 Presentation

1/16

Evaluating Impact

valuating Impact

Turning Promises into Evidenceurning Promises into Evidence

HalaHala SalahSalah

Hany ElHany El--SawahSawah

Hany ElHany El--SayedSayed MadkourMadkour

HebaHeba BahaaBahaa ElEl--DinDin

MohamedMohamed MarzoukMarzoukMohamedMohamed SharawySharawy

SamirSamir ElEl--Sherief Sherief

TarekTarek TobelyTobely

Yasser Gad AllahYasser Gad Allah

January 2008January 2008

MIS ProjectMIS Project


2/16

2

1. Background

Higher Education Enhancement Project HEEP

FOEP Faculty of Education Project

ETCP Egyptian Technical Colleges Project

FLDP Faculty-Leadership Development Project

QAAP Quality Assurance and AccreditationProject

HEEPF Higher Education Enhancement ProjectFund

ICTP Information & Communication TechnologyProject


3/16

3

1. Background

Information & Communication Technology

Project ICTP

Infrastructure of information Networks

Management Information System (MIS)

e-learning Digital Libraries

ICT training


4/16

4

1. Background

Objectives of the MIS project

Establish MIS centers in 15 universities

Develop MIS application for all the Egyptianuniversities

Develop MIS/DSS for the SCU


5/16

5

2. Results Chain

InputsInputs ActivitiesActivities OutputsOutputs OutcomesOutcomes ImpactImpact

• Funds

• Data &information

• Humanresources

• TechnicalExpertise

•EstablishingMIS Centers

•Data Entry

•PurchasingEquipment

•Preparing MISapplications

•Training staff

•System testing& rollup

• Improved quality ,relevance, andefficiency ofhigher education

• Enhancedadministrativeprocedures

• Efficiency &effectiveness ofthe ManagementPerformance

• Efficient decisions

• Effective strategicplanning on microand macro level

• MIS Centers

• Reliabledatabases

• Trained staff

• MISapplications

• Reports


6/16

6

3. Primary Research Questions

Does the MIS project enhance theadministration & management efficiency?

Does the MIS project enhance the Quality

of higher education?


7/16

7

4. Outcome Indicators

Time taken to issue students’ certificates, IDs, …etc.

Time taken for a student to enroll

No. of documents (certificate, ID, … etc.) producedper unit of time

Time needed to finish students’ results

Time needed to get a student information

The adequacy and accuracy of the databases &

reports Availability of data for decision making

Staff, student, and top-management satisfaction for

administrative operations Cost effectiveness of the MIS project


8/16

8

4. Impact Indicators

The students’ average Cumulative Marks (nostandardized test)

The average No. of years to finish anacademic programs

The average time between graduation and

employment

The right matching between the

specialization and the job The average income for the graduates

The satisfaction of the job market with the

quality of the graduates


9/16

9

5. Identification Strategy/Method

Efficiency of Administrative system

Randomized roll out - 174 faculties

Quality of Education

Matched difference in differences - between200 treated faculties and 100 faculties thatchose not to participate in the program (non-treated)


10/16

10


Faculties chose notto participate inthe MIS project

174 roll out

Phase 1:

87 faculties

Phase 2:

87 faculties

300 faculties

200 treated 100 not treated

26 pilot faculties

Matching/ DiD

Randomizationt = 0

t = 3 t = 9


11/16

11


26 pilotfaculties

Phase 1:87 faculties

Phase 2:87 faculties

0 3 6 9 months

Randomization


12/16

12

6. Sample and data

Efficiency of Administrative system

Sample

Treatment: 87 randomly selected faculties Control: the rest of the 87 faculties

Data

Quantitative: administrative data Qualitative data: use and satisfaction of MIS


13/16

13

6. Sample and data

Quality of Education

Matched samples

Treatment: from 200 treated faculties Control: from non-treated 100 faculties

Data

Quantitative: administrative data Quantitative: tracer studies of graduates


14/16

14

7. Time Frame/Work Plan

Matching based on available data: Feb.2008

Baseline data collection (tracer study)

Randomization

Intervention Follow-up data collection: 2-3 rounds

26 pilot

faculties

Phase 1: 87

faculties

Phase 2: 87

faculties

0 3 6 9 months

Tracer study

Baseline data

Intervention

Randomization

Follow up data

collection


15/16

15

8. Sources of Financing

MIS project

Universities (Co-finance)


16/16

16

Thank You

Documents

Group08 Presentation