IOC - Report Overview 1

Post-Tenure ReviewInstitute Oversight Committee

Report Overview

July 19, 2002

Robert McMath

Farrokh Mistree

IOC - Report Overview 2

IOC – Committee 2002

Faculty• Philip Auslander. LCC• Meiyin Chou. Physics

• Cheol Eun. Management

• Steve French. Architecture

• Richard Fujimoto. CoC

• Gary May. ECE

Administrators• MGT. Terry Blum / Eugene

Comisky.• EGR. Narl Davidson / Don Giddens• CoC. Jim Foley• Arch. Tom Galloway• IAC. Sue Rosser• Sci. Gary Schuster

Co-Chairs Bob McMath & Farrokh Mistree

IOC - Report Overview 3

IOC - Process

• April 8, 2002 Organizational Meeting– Agreed on Objective– Agreed on Tasks– Agreed on Modus Operandi

• April 12, 2002 Packets distributed• April 17, 2002 Allocation of Reading Tasks

Solicitation of input– From Chairs / Unit Heads (~ 15)– From faculty who had been reviewed (~100)

Approval of Human Research Board• May 15, 2002 Receipt of responses• June 8, 2002 Review of findings

Recommendations

Elements of report

IOC - Report Overview 4

IOC – Periodic Peer Reviews

• Periodic Peer Reviews are aimed at facilitating faculty development, and ensuring intellectual vitality and competent levels of performance by all faculty throughout their professional careers. In both regards, the goal is to maximize the talents of tenured faculty within the broad array needed for effective performance of the units and the Institute.

• Periodic Peer Reviews are both retrospective and prospective, inasmuch as they recognize past contributions and provide the means for continuous intellectual and professional growth.

IOC - Report Overview 5

IOC – Key Recommendations

• Retain faculty-driven, peer evaluation process• Retain provision that the decision of the faculty peer

reviewers is final• Focus on faculty development with 5/3 year recommendation

to be part of the process• Change name from Post-Tenure Review (PTR) to Periodic

Peer Review (PPR)• Replace Special Recognition feature with Program for Faculty

Development for all• Major review of PPR process every five years with monitoring

between major reviews• Responsibility instituting and maintaining Program for Faculty

Development and monitoring process:– Dean of the Colleges of Architecture, Engineering, Ivan Allen,

Sciences– VP Academic for Unitary Colleges of Computing and

Management

IOC - Report Overview 6

IOC - Recommendations

• A candidate has the right to nominate one faculty member (with full voting rights) to PPR Committee; serve as advocate.

• All candidates to provide a summary of his/her past activities and goals for the next five years. Up to 5 pages.

• Chair / Unit Head to provide an assessment of the goals of the candidate to the PPR. No comment on 3/5.

• PPR Committee to address letter to candidate, record vote in letter and all members of the PPR Committee to sign the letter.

• PPR Committee letter to include assessment of positives, constructive feedback after careful evaluation of performance and goals, and recommendations to Chair / Unit Head relevant to faculty development.

• PPR Committee to provide justification in case of a 3 year recommendation.

IOC - Report Overview 7

IOC - Suggested Time-Line• Chair / Unit Head and Candidate agree on evaluation criteria in

writing. – Target date: End of summer session.

• Candidate advocate to be identified. – Target date: End October.

• Candidate packet to Chair / Unit Head.– Target date: End October.

• PPR Committee Activity Completed.– Target date: End January of following year.

– Distribution: Chair / Unit Head and Candidate.

• Chair / Unit Head comments on PPR recommendations relevant to faculty development for transmission to next level.– Target date: Mid-February of following year.

• Letter from President to candidate / Other letters– Target date: Mid-March of following year.

IOC - Report Overview 8

IOC - Report Table of Contents

Content• Recommendations

• Peer Review Process Policy

• Peer Review Process Implementation Guidelines

Appendices• Process Adopted• Perceived Effectiveness of Post-Tenure Review Process - Survey

of Tenured Faculty

• Perceived Effectiveness of Post-Tenure Review Process - Survey of School Chairs and Program Directors

• Summary of Review of PTR Packets by Members of IOC

• Best Practices

• Guidelines and Forms for Conducting IOC Review

• Current PTR Policy and Proposed PPR Policy

IOC - Report Overview 9

IOC – Issues for Executive Board to Consider

• Change in focus from PTR to PPR• Replacement of Special Recognition feature with Program for

Faculty Development• The Institute PPR Committee (old IOC) performs a major

review only once every 5 years.– VP Academic. Co-Chair.– Deans of Colleges.– Seven faculty nominated by Institute Executive Board (EB)– Chair to be a faculty member. Report to EB, Senate and faculty.

• In the in-between years Faculty Development Oversight Committee (FDOC) to consist of– VP Academic. Chair.– Deans of Colleges– One Executive Board representative– One faculty member nominated by Executive BoardReport to be sent to Executive Board