Posted on behalf of Greg Bothun (Physics)
Its been my experience while at the UO that the UO often chooses to remain insular on many issues.
With respect to Performance Metrics as a way to evaluate Academic Departments there is a fairly robust literature on the Pros and Cons of this that I offer here, although I seriously doubt any of these references will be consulted:
Metrics to Evaluate Academic Departments:
What is the right way to measure departmental performance?
Performance measurement in academic departments: the strategy map approach
Criteria and Metrics for “Academic Programs:” Degree/Certificate Programs and Academic Departments
This is the Boise State Comprehensive Model
Evaluating the performance of academic departments: an analysis of research-related output efficiency
Herding Cats? Management and University Performanc
This is a broad overview of the economics of the matter and whether or not there is a demonstrable payoff
The 2016 AAUP Statement on “Academic Analytics” short, worth reading
Applying the Yardstick, Department by Department
I will stop there – as I said these are unlikely to be consulted by any community of scholars here at the UO.
Perhaps the most important thing is a decent articulation (this means one that is actually believed) of what the goal is in applying performance metrics, on a department basis, here at the UO.
I like the “Applying the Yardstick” article in the Chronicle. It strikes me that what CAS is doing might end up being similar to what Oklahoma State has done:
“Now, with the college entering year five of its annual departmental evaluation, Ms. Borland and others say that Mr. Danilowicz’s plan — one that is unique at Oklahoma State and rare nationwide — has measured up. It has forced units to take a hard look at what they do, helped them sharpen their goals, and encouraged them to seek out precise data that can justify how they operate.
And by focusing on using the metrics process to help each department get better and come in line with the university’s strategic goals, the process has largely avoided the apples-to-oranges comparisons that can worry heads of departments that don’t generate lots of money.”