MILWAUKEE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE 2012 FEEDBACK REPORTecampus.matc.edu/accreditation/pdf/2012...

MILWAUKEE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE

2012 FEEDBACK REPORT

Milwaukee Area Technical College

2012 Feedback Report

2909 Landmark Place, Suite 110

Madison, WI 53713

(608) 663-5300

(608) 663-5302 (fax)

www.wisquality.org

Feedback Report page 1

Wisconsin Forward Award Feedback Report

for Milwaukee Area Technical College

Introduction

The Wisconsin Forward Award Board of Examiners has evaluated your organization’s application report for

Wisconsin Forward Award assessment and recognition. This feedback report contains background information on

the evaluation and scoring process, as well as the findings of the Examiner Team that reviewed your

organization’s application. The findings include an Executive Summary of overall findings, as well as detail by

Category Item of your organization’s strengths and opportunities for improvement relative to the Criteria for

Performance Excellence.

Preparing to Read Your Feedback Report

Your feedback report contains Wisconsin Forward Award Examiners’ observations that are based on their

understanding of your organization. The Examiner Team has provided comments on your organization’s

strengths and opportunities for improvement relative to the Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence. The

feedback is non-prescriptive. It will tell you where Examiners think you have strengths to celebrate and where

they think that improvement opportunities exist. The feedback will not say specifically how you should address

these opportunities. The specifics will depend on what you decide is most important to your organization.

Applicant organizations read and use feedback comments in different ways. We and the Baldrige National Quality

Program suggest the following practices for your consideration:

Take a deep breath and approach your Wisconsin Forward Award feedback with an open mind. You applied

to get the feedback. Read it, take the time to digest it, and read it again.

You know your organization in ways in which the Examiner team can’t. There might be relevant information

that was not communicated to them or that they did not fully understand. Although we strive for the best and

most relevant feedback at all times, we do not achieve it in every comment. If Examiners have misread your

application or misunderstood your organization on a particular point, don’t discount the entire feedback

report. Consider the other comments and focus on the most important ones.

Use your strength comments to understand what the Examiners observed you do well. Continue to sustain,

evaluate, and improve the things you do well and build on them to achieve world-class performance and a

competitive advantage. Sharing those things you do well with the rest of your organization can speed

organizational learning. Celebrate your strengths. You’ve worked hard and should congratulate yourselves.

Prioritize your opportunities for improvement. You can’t do everything at once. Think about what’s most

important for your organization at this time and decide which things to work on first. You may decide to

address all, some, or none of the opportunities for a particular Item. It depends on how important you think

any one particular Item or comment is to your organization.

Use the feedback as input to your strategic planning process. Focus on the strengths and opportunities for

improvement that have an impact on your strategic goals and objectives.

If WFA can provide additional support of guidance as you progress in your performance excellence journey,

please do not hesitate to contact us at (608) 663-5300 or [email protected].


Executive Summary

Based on the Wisconsin Forward Award Board of Examiners’ review of the organization’s written application

and site visit review Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) scored in

■ Band 3 in process Items (Categories 1–6)

■ Band 2 in results Items (Category 7)

■ Band 3 overall

This assessment places the organization at the Proficiency recognition level. For an explanation of the scoring

bands, please refer to Figures 4, 5, and 6 on pages 51 to 54 of this document.

Key Strengths/Outstanding Practices

■ Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) uses a PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) methodology throughout

the organization, including 1) developing and deploying the strategic plan, 2) setting and deploying the

mission, vision, and values, as well as shared governance; 3) identifying and meeting student and other

stakeholder requirements and designing educational programs; 4) improving student satisfaction; and 5)

designing and improving work systems and processes.

■ MATC employs 90 Advisory Committees consisting of business, industry and labor representatives in

addition to alumni, students, and faculty members. The Advisory Committees assist with planning and

evaluation of the college’s vocational and technical education programs and include 886 citizen

representatives. Input from these committees feeds into strategic planning and budgeting processes as well

as improvements in educational offerings.

■ The Budget Development Committee addresses the college’s financial viability including addressing future

sustainability by developing budget assumptions such as enrollments, local property taxes, state aid, student

fees, salary and benefit projections, operating and capitol expenditures, program assumptions, and

enterprise activities. This committee includes administrative staff members, union representatives, and

students.

Significant Improvement Opportunities for Process Items

■ While there exist multiple sources for data and information and a significant amount of data are gathered in

support of the annual strategic planning process, for monitoring the progress of strategic action projects and

improvement projects, and in support of key work system and work process improvements through PDCA

cycles, MATC does not appear to have a systematic approach to the use of data, including aggregation and

analysis, to monitor processes and identify and address strategic challenges and opportunities for

improvement and innovation via its PDCA methodology. Therefore the organization appears to be reactive

to circumstances rather than proactive towards opportunities, which may limit the ability to compete for

students and tuition dollars in an increasingly competitive market.

■ It is unclear how the organization is addressing its long-term sustainability during strategic planning

development and deployment given: 1) a lack of focus on strategic challenges and advantages, 2) a failure

to project future performance including performance relative to competitors, and 3) a lack of understanding

of future workforce capability and capacity needs as well as needed core competencies.


■ Many processes appear to be non-systematic, indicating what the organization does, but not clearly

demonstrating how work is performed. Examples include senior leadership communication and engagement

with the workforce, students and stakeholders, strategic planning (who is involved and how is it conducted),

identifying needs of current and future students and stakeholders, selecting and using data and information,

knowledge management, workforce management (capacity and capability), and identifying work system

and work process requirements.

Significant Strengths for Results

■ MATC is seeing some positive results associated with student success and engagement, specifically

Prepared Learning Institute (PLI) course completions, program graduates and program graduate

employment, post-secondary course completion, comparative part-time graduation rates, comparative full-

time success rates, and smart start sessions.

■ Several areas associated with operational effectiveness show positive results including student satisfaction,

workforce climate factors, human resources requisitions, foundation contributions, and grant support.

■ Many measures for areas of strategic importance are being gathered and are at the beginning stages of being

monitored for opportunities for improvement.

Significant Improvement Opportunities for Results

■ Most results lack comparators, and even fewer include comparators related to other schools with whom

MATC directly competes for students and financial dollars (including both local institutions and those that

offer online courses). Lack of appropriate comparators may hinder sustainability in an ever-competitive

market with decreasing funding.

■ The organization appears to be in the early stages of collecting data as evidenced by some of the results

presented, which lack trending. In addition, many results lack segmentation. Without the existence of

trended or segmented data and a focus on monitoring strategic data, it may be difficult for the college to

understand where it is on the journey towards excellence in education and training for its diverse

community.

■ Several areas of strategic focus are showing negative trends, including adult basic education enrollment,

general fund reserve, foundation contributions, college preference among district residents, market

penetration, and part-time student retention rates. No actions are evident in response to these negative

trends, which will likely have an effect on long-term sustainability.


Details of Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement

1.0 Leadership

Your overall score in this Category is in the 30–45 percentage range. Refer to Figure 2, “Criteria Scoring

Guidelines (Process),” on page 49.

1.1 Senior Leadership

Your score in this Item is in the 30–45 percentage range.

Strengths:

Item reference Description

1.1a(1,3),

b

Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) uses a PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) improvement

cycle throughout its system, and senior leaders utilize that process to develop strategic plans, set

and deploy the mission, vision, and values, and execute a shared-governance decision-making

model. Leaders use numerous methods to communicate with the workforce through listening and

learning sessions each semester, Conversation Days, quarterly review of key performance

indicators (KPI), newsletters, emails, the website, the President’s Blog, research compiled by the

Office of Institutional Research & Strategic Planning (IRSP), and SWOT analysis to understand

college, community, and employment trends. The collection of one- and two-way communication

methods enables leadership to inform stakeholders and receive feedback that can be used to make

improvements across the organization. Leaders focus on action plans to achieve strategic goals and

mostly use the seven Core Committees to execute strategic plans. The Core Committees each have

co-chairs, including one each from faculty and administration with direct connection to the

President. Activities are reported to the District Board monthly so that progress can be measured

and adjustments can be made as needed.

1.1a(3),

b(2)

Innovation grants are used to promote the value of excellence and identify improvement

opportunities. Faculty members submit proposals that are directly connected to achieving strategic

goals and meeting MATC’s vision and mission. These new programs help to identify new

opportunities for the school, engage staff members in collaborative efforts that improve

performance, and deliver positive experiences for students and stakeholders.

1.1a(3) MATC creates a sustainable organization through succession planning and developing future

organizational leaders. Leaders are analyzing current and future staffing needs of the institution

and held training sessions on succession planning in the 2009–2010 school year. The Vice

Presidents then developed plans for their respective areas and identified individuals for further

leadership development, including stretch assignments to enhance skills and expose workforce

members to new areas. As of 2012, leaders also put 32 employees through the Wisconsin

Leadership Development Institute (WLDI), and 79% of those administrators have been promoted

(Figure 7-3m).


Opportunities for Improvement:


1.1a(1) It is unclear how senior leaders encourage high performance throughout the college and how their

actions reflect a commitment to the organization’s values. This may make it more difficult for

them to engage the workforce in achieving MATC’s mission and vision and to remain competitive

in a highly competitive environment.

1.1a(2) It is not evident how senior leaders’ actions demonstrate their commitment to legal and ethical

behavior nor how they promote a climate that requires it. Role model organizations seek

opportunities to exceed requirements and to excel in areas of legal and ethical requirements. This

also supports the core values of integrity and accountability.

1.1 MATC seems to be in the early stages of leadership development, given an overall approach that is

deployed systematically throughout the organization with some initial cycles of learning and

limited integration of that learning. There seem to be many metrics collected, yet it is unclear

which are critical to enable leaders to focus on creating and balancing value for students and other

stakeholders in their organizational performance expectations. The organization appears to be in

the early stages of deploying cycles of improvement.

1.1b(1) Based on internal survey results and Personal Assessment of the College Environment (PACE)

survey scores (Figures 7.3f, 7.3g, and 7.3h) it appears that the methods senior leaders use to

communicate and engage the entire workforce are not systematically deployed.


Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

Approach No systematic approach to Item

requirements is

evident; information is

anecdotal.

The beginning of a systematic

approach to the

basic requirements of

the Item is

evident.

An effective, systematic

approach,

responsive to the basic

requirements of

the Item, is evident.


approach,

responsive to the overall

requirements of



approach,

responsive to the multiple

requirements of


An effective, systematic approach,

fully responsive to the

multiple requirements of the Item, is evident.

X

Deployment Little or no deployment of

any systematic approach is

evident.

The approach is in the early stages of

deployment in most areas or

work units,

inhibiting progress in

achieving the


the Item.

The approach is deployed,

although some areas or work

units are in early

stages of deployment.

The approach is well deployed,

although deployment may

vary in some

areas or work units.


with no significant gaps.

The approach is fully deployed without

significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or

work units.

X

Learning An improvement

orientation is not evident;

improvement is

achieved through reacting

to problems.

Early stages of a

transition from reacting to

problems to a

general improvement

orientation are

evident.

The beginning of

a systematic approach to

evaluation and

improvement of key processes is

evident.

A fact-based,

systematic evaluation and

improvement

process and some organizational

learning,

including innovation, are in

place for

improving the efficiency and

effectiveness of

key processes.

Fact-based,


improvement and

organizational learning,

including

innovation, are key management

tools; there is

clear evidence of refinement as a

result of

organizational-level analysis and

sharing.

Fact-based, systematic

evaluation and improvement and

organizational

learning through innovation are key

organization-wide

tools; refinement and innovation, backed by

analysis and sharing,

are evident throughout the organization.

X

Integration No

organizational alignment is

evident;

individual areas or work units

operate

independently.

The approach is

aligned with other areas or work

units largely

through joint problem solving.

The approach is in

the early stages of alignment with

basic

organizational needs identified in

response to the

Organizational Profile and other

process Items.

The approach is

aligned with overall

organizational

needs identified in response to the

Organizational

Profile and other Process Items.

The approach is

integrated with current and future

organizational


Organizational


The approach is well


organizational needs

identified in response to the Organizational

Profile and other

Process Items.

X

The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; rather the overall range and score is one

which the Examiner team felt was the most descriptive of the organization’s achievement level for this Item.

Item 1.1

Overall

Scoring Range

0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

X


1.2 Governance and Societal Responsibilities


Strengths:


1.2a(1) MATC instituted an internal audit in July 2010 and now holds regular, public Audit Committee

meetings, demonstrating financial and operational transparency in accordance with Wisconsin

statutes, accountability for management’s actions, and protection of stakeholder interests.

1.2c The organization supports and strengthens its key communities by encouraging employees to

participate in numerous volunteer capacities. Over 56,000 individual volunteer hours and over

29,000 employee volunteer hours were logged in 2011.



1.2b It is unclear how MATC ensures or promotes ethical behavior in all interactions or what the key

processes, measures, or indicators are to monitor ethical behavior beyond what is statutorily

required with open meetings and public records. It is also not evident how the organization

responds to breaches of ethical behavior. Even though a policy exists, no evidence of its

effectiveness is presented.

1.2a(2) It is unclear how senior leaders and the governance system utilize performance reviews to

determine executive compensation and to advance MATC leaders’ personal and professional

development. It is also unclear how Board members are evaluated and what processes are utilized

to improve any underperformance. Performance evaluation captures and reflects the core values of

excellence and accountability.

1.2c(2) Although the development of the School of Pre-College Education provides an approach towards

addressing the strategic challenge of increasing under-prepared learners, the number of participants

is trending down (Figure 7-4c), and it is unclear how the school is using cycles of learning to

integrate improvement efforts to address this concern.


Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%


requirements is


anecdotal.


approach to the


the Item is

evident.


approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of





X



evident.



work units,


achieving the


the Item.



units are in early




vary in some






work units.

X



improvement is


to problems.

Early stages of a


problems to a

general improvement

orientation are

evident.

The beginning of


evaluation and


evident.

A fact-based,


improvement


learning,


place for


effectiveness of

key processes.

Fact-based,


improvement and


including


tools; there is


result of


sharing.



organizational


organization-wide




X

Integration No


evident;


operate

independently.

The approach is


units largely


The approach is in


basic


response to the


process Items.

The approach is


organizational


Organizational


The approach is


organizational


Organizational






Profile and other

Process Items.

X



Item 1.2

Overall

Scoring Range

0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

X


2.0 Strategic Planning



2.1 Strategy Development


Strengths:


2.1a(1) Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) conducts its strategic planning annually using a

systematic PDCA-based approach. Key process steps are outlined in Figure 2-1a (Strategic

Planning Annual Cycle) using multiple inputs as identified in Figure 2-1b (Input for Strategic

Plan). The multiyear strategic plan includes both short-term and long-term plans, with longer-term

plans broken out into phases, which include action projects aligned with the faculty’s academic

calendar. The strategic plan is monitored through a decision-making process that involves the

entire college community and is updated each spring with input from the Office of Institutional

Research & Strategic Planning (IRSP).

2.1b(1) Five key strategic goals align with thirteen key strategic objectives in the 2011–2012 strategic plan

(Figure 2-1c). The plan aligns with the college’s core values and indicates timetables for

accomplishing both short-term and long-term action projects, as well as key performance

indicators (KPI ) for measuring accomplishment. Each strategic objective is assigned to a Core

Committee and includes annual adjustments as needed. The Core Committees are each co-chaired

by a vice president who is a member of the Strategic Planning and Budget Steering Committee

(SPBSC) and reports progress monthly to the President’s Cabinet.

2.1a(2) The IRSP conducts over 200 analyses in order to review trends in the economy, market conditions,

the workforce, mandates, program development demographics, and community perception. The

office also conducts a SWOT analysis to identify major shifts in technology, educational programs

and services, student and community demographics, markets, preferences, competition, the

economy, and the regulatory environment.



2.1 It is unclear how MATC systematically addresses strategic challenges and leverages strategic

advantages in developing their strategic plan, although early approaches exist through

Conversation Days, reporting mechanisms, research studies, audits, and self-evaluations. Failure to

focus on strategic challenges and capitalize on strategic advantages may affect organizational

sustainability in light of the school’s serious fiscal situation, especially given increased

competition both locally and online.



2.1a(2) It is unclear how the strategic planning process addresses long-term organizational sustainability,

including needed core competencies and projections of future performance relative to competitors

and other comparable organizations. In light of the higher level of competition for students and

their tuition dollars, developing a strategic plan that identifies and addresses the need for additional

core competencies as well as the need to address projected shortfalls in performance relative to

competing schools will help the organization understand its priorities as it develops plans, applies

resources, and reviews progress toward its objectives.

2.1a(1) It is unclear who the key participants are in the strategic planning process, nor how those

determine core competencies during strategic planning process. As indicated in Figure 2-1b (Input

for Strategic Plan), there is a significant amount of data that feeds into the strategic plan, but it is

unclear (beyond the 200 analyses conducted by the IRSP) who collates the data into information

that is meaningful and actionable and represents it during the planning process. Systematically

ensuring that strategic planning includes representation from all stakeholders (suppliers, partners,

faculty, staff, students, etc.) for all aspects of educational processes will help more fully to identify

potential blind spots, understand and fully capitalize on existing core competencies, and ensure

diversity in planning (particularly including community partners as mentioned in the vision and

mission).


Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%


requirements is


anecdotal.


approach to the


the Item is

evident.


approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of





X



evident.



work units,


achieving the


the Item.



units are in early




vary in some






work units.

X



improvement is


to problems.

Early stages of a


problems to a

general improvement

orientation are

evident.

The beginning of


evaluation and


evident.

A fact-based,


improvement


learning,


place for


effectiveness of

key processes.

Fact-based,


improvement and


including


tools; there is


result of


sharing.



organizational


organization-wide




X

Integration No


evident;


operate

independently.

The approach is


units largely


The approach is in


basic


response to the


process Items.

The approach is


organizational


Organizational


The approach is


organizational


Organizational






Profile and other

Process Items.

X



Item 2.1

Overall

Scoring Range

0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

X


2.2 Strategy Implementation


Strengths:


2.2a(1,5) The strategic plan outlines goals that cascade to objectives that further cascade into short-term and

long-term action plans as shown in Figure 2-1c. Goals are aligned with MATC’s values. KPIs are

identified for most action plans, with future goals assigned. Plans are developed via Conversation

Days and other meetings with core committee co-chairs, divisional champions, union presidents,

and the Executive Vice President/Provost in the spring. (Some plans are developed by the

Academic Quality Improvement Program, or AQIP). The SPBSC integrates facilitation,

communication, and alignment of the planning and budgeting process with the committee co-

chairs.

2.2a(2) Action plans are deployed during Convocation Days in the fall, and resources are assigned and

volunteered. Strategy work teams submit findings; Core Committees, Divisional Champions and

Presidents review results. The SPBSC monitors progress monthly, mid-year, and during the third

quarter. Figure 2-2a outlines how action plans are deployed.

2.2a(3) MATC manages financial risks associated with operations and action plans though the planning

and budgeting process, with assistance from the Budget Development Committee. This committee

projects future funding and enrollment and consists of administration, union members, and

students. They make recommendations related to financial viability and contribute to the annual

Activity Plan and Budget.

2.2a(3) In support of its ability to accomplish action plans, MATC uses citizen advisory committees to

assist in planning and evaluation processes for each vocational and technical education program.

More than 90 advisory committees with 886 citizen representatives are involved on a regular and

systematic basis in the planning, development, and review of educational programs. The input and

advice from these committees is fed into the strategic planning and budgeting process.



2.2 It is unclear how the organization identifies appropriate KPIs for its action plans and assesses its

future performance including future performance relative to key comparisons. Although KPIs are

aligned with each strategic goal, it is not evident how some of the identified indicators will help the

organization understand whether it is improving. For example, reduction of calls placed in queue

and average wait times may not directly support the adoption of a mobile technology strategy or

enhance quality student learning. In addition, the organization’s dashboard of KPI Trends (Figure

2-2b) does not include current levels or future performance projections. Without clear, actionable

KPIs, nor projection of performance relative to appropriate comparators, the college may not fully

understand whether its initiatives will allow it to compete effectively in the future for students,

funding, and community support.



2.2a(4) No approach for aligning its workforce plans with strategic objectives and action plans is evident.

Resources appear to be assigned in an ad hoc, reactive manner to teams, and no resource plans are

identified to address future needs for capacity or capability. For example, one action plan involves

creating a mobile technology strategy, but it is not evident that appropriate, knowledgeable

personnel are assigned to the task or that skills are being developed at the faculty level to follow

through on implementation. Insufficient identification of knowledgeable resources may limit the

ability to achieve strategies such as competing in online course offerings or meeting capacity needs

for addressing under-prepared students.

2.2a(6) It is unclear how action plans are modified as needed following frequently changing local, state,

and national regulations; increasing competition and changes in vocational training needs; or

shortfalls in meeting strategic objective targets. It is also not evident whether strategic plan KPIs

offer actionable information to identify opportunities to modify action plans. Failure to

systematically modify action plans through the organization’s PDCA process as needed might

influence the ability to achieve short-term and long-term action plans in the face of shrinking

tuition and grant dollars and other limited resources.


Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%


requirements is


anecdotal.


approach to the


the Item is

evident.


approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of





X



evident.



work units,


achieving the


the Item.



units are in early




vary in some






work units.

X



improvement is


to problems.

Early stages of a


problems to a

general improvement

orientation are

evident.

The beginning of


evaluation and


evident.

A fact-based,


improvement


learning,


place for


effectiveness of

key processes.

Fact-based,


improvement and


including


tools; there is


result of


sharing.



organizational


organization-wide




X

Integration No


evident;


operate

independently.

The approach is


units largely


The approach is in


basic


response to the


process Items.

The approach is


organizational


Organizational


The approach is


organizational


Organizational






Profile and other

Process Items.

X



Item 2.2

Overall

Scoring Range

0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

X


3.0 Customer Focus



3.1 Voice of the Customer


Strengths:


3.1a Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) uses the PDCA and Pathways for Students models

model as tools for ensuring that student and stakeholder needs are captured at various stages of

interactions (Figures 3-1a and 3-1b). There are multiple listening methods used for potential and

current students and stakeholders to obtain actionable information aligned with core values of

student success and customer focus with learning through PDCA cycles. Customer segments,

needs, listening methods, and measures of success are defined in Figures 3-1c and 3-1d, and Figure

3-1a illustrates PDCA cycles of improvement.

3.1b(1) Determination of student satisfaction and engagement occurs through several methods specific to

different student groups in alignment with core values of student success and customer focus with

learning through the PDCA cycle. The Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory is used to assess

student satisfaction and student retention and persistence rates are used as measures of

engagement. Course completion rates are segmented by division and minority status (Figure 2-2b).

Prospective student satisfaction and engagement are tracked through MATC Marketplace, district

resident college preference, and Smart Start Session data.

3.1b(3) Multiple approaches to determine student and stakeholder dissatisfaction to capture actionable

information are used to meet requirements. These approaches include social media and web-based

technologies to connect with students via familiar media such a public website, Facebook, and two

Twitter accounts, as well as methods listed in Figure 3-1c, including the Student Satisfaction

Inventory (SSI), on-line surveys, the complaint process, employer surveys, training evaluations,

and a phone survey for withdrawn students.



3.1a Although the PDCA and Pathways for Students models are depicted and a number of methods are

listed for use in identifying needs of prospective and current students and stakeholders, it is not

clear how these methods are aligned into a replicable process that is consistently deployed, or how

inputs are used in process improvements. Without a clearly defined, and well-deployed process for

gathering actionable input from key constituents (current and prospective students and

stakeholders), the applicant will be challenged to address the competitive factors that it is facing,

including increasing competition, and overcome its strategic challenges.



3.1.b While the applicant identifies a number of tools used to gather information about satisfaction and

engagement and dissatisfaction, it is unclear how these information-gathering systems are

evaluated, maintained, used to make improvements and ensure that needs are being addressed.

Without a systematic approach to learning and innovation of its information-gathering approaches

to understand and meet changing student expectations and requirements in the future, applicant

may be challenged to address its challenges and meet the needs of current and prospective students

in an increasingly competitive environment.

3.1b Although methods exist to gather inputs from the student population, it is not clear how

information related to the satisfaction, engagement and dissatisfaction of other key stakeholders

such as the business community, alumni and donors is attained or used to address strategic

challenges.

3.1b An approach to measure student and stakeholder satisfaction relative to competitors is not evident.

Without an approach to gathering information from key stakeholders who play a role in helping

MATC achieve its mission and vision in an increasingly competitive environment, the organization

may not optimally leverage its advantages to address its strategic challenges.


Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%


requirements is


anecdotal.


approach to the


the Item is

evident.


approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of





X



evident.



work units,


achieving the


the Item.



units are in early




vary in some






work units.

X



improvement is


to problems.

Early stages of a


problems to a

general improvement

orientation are

evident.

The beginning of


evaluation and


evident.

A fact-based,


improvement


learning,


place for


effectiveness of

key processes.

Fact-based,


improvement and


including


tools; there is


result of


sharing.



organizational


organization-wide




X

Integration No


evident;


operate

independently.

The approach is


units largely


The approach is in


basic


response to the


process Items.

The approach is


organizational


Organizational


The approach is


organizational


Organizational






Profile and other

Process Items.

X



Item 3.1

Overall

Scoring Range

0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

X


3.2 Customer Engagement


Strengths:


3.2a(1) MATC exhibits a systematic approach to identify requirements for educational programs, to

innovate programs to meet student and stakeholder needs, and to attract new students and expand

relationships with existing students with improvements and learning through the PTA3 (Plan,

Teach, Assess, Analyze, Adjust) improvement cycle—an adaptation of the PDCA cycle of

improvement used elsewhere in the organization (Figure 3-2a)—and integration with the core

values of customer focus and excellence. This is demonstrated through the use of Economic

Modeling Specialists’ (EMSI) Strategic Advantage suite, Advisory Committees and citizen input,

and the use of curriculum development reports to develop or modify program content. In addition,

program initiation and development with the Board of Directors ensures the analysis,

communication, and consistency of program development throughout the system. PTA3 cycles are

used to continuously improve programs.

3.2a(2) A number of methods are made available to students to receive information and seek support, with

support services targeted to specific student groups based on their needs (Figure 3-2b). Evidence of

improvements based on information attained are provided and aligned with MATC’s mission,

vision and core values, particularly student success and customer focus. Key information and

support vehicles include the MATC website, the Welcome Center, the Advising Center, the

Counseling Center, Program Plans, and Qualifying Plans. Improvements are evident from

identification of internal communication as a key challenge and subsequent development of

Convocation Days and the Online Risk Assessment Tool. Cycles of improvement are identified

from 2007 (a strategy work team to identify barriers to student success), the 2009–2010 school

year (the online at-risk assessment tool) and 2012 (pilot of the Retention Alert system); a new

College Success course has also been implemented.

3.2a(3) Multiple approaches are used to identify student segments for targeted educational programs and

services including SWOT analysis, environmental scans, key performance indicators (KPI), and

recommendations from groups such as the Strategic Enrollment Management Core Committee and

Enrollment Capacity Planning Team. The Student Data Warehouse and Enrollment Funnel reports

track various segments and special student groups, listed in Figure 3-2b.

3.2.b(1) Various approaches to build and manage relationships with prospective and current students are

aligned with the vision to enrich, empower, and transform lives in the community, with learning

occurring through PDCA cycles of improvement. To help keep students who are, in significant

proportion, economically challenged in the classroom, MATC has partnered with local agencies to

provide access to needed services. These include recruitment events, Smart Starts, open houses,

and SmartExperience events for prospective students as well as activities coordinated through the

Office of Student Life, the Partners Advancing Career Employment (PACE) program, advising,

and mentoring for current students (Figure 3-2c). The school also maintains a partnership with the

Muilwaukee County Human Services Department to increase access to supportive services for

students (e.g., child care, food stamps, transportation, and medical insurance)



Item

reference Description

3.2b(2) While a number of decentralized means are in place to gather complaints from students and

stakeholders, the organization acknowledges that “at this time, no systematic way to follow

up with complaints is enforced nor [is complaint information] analyzed to help identify areas

needed for improvement.” Furthermore, it is not evident that complaints are resolved

promptly and effectively. Without a centralized and clearly defined and deployed process to

receive and respond to complaints from students and other stakeholders in a timely manner,

MATC will risk alienating its constituencies and missing opportunities to identify

improvements that could help it achieve its mission and vision and respond to strategic

challenges in an increasingly competitive market. Systematic approaches through

aggregation, analysis, and root cause determination can lead to effective service and process

improvements.

3.1a(3) It is not evident that the organization considers prospective and current students of competing

institutions in its analysis of student needs, nor is it evident how student, stakeholder, and market

segments are identified to pursue for current and future educational programs and services. There

is also no apparent process for gathering these inputs or incorporating them into the strategic

planning process. Without clear and ongoing analysis of these populations it will be difficult for

MATC to identify ways in which it can meet its existing identified strategic challenges in an

increasingly competitive market.

3.1a(4) While some methods exist to improve marketing, it is not evident that there is a clearly defined,

consistently used, and well-deployed approach to use this information to build a more student- and

stakeholder-focused culture and identify opportunities for innovation.

3.2b(1) While some methods exist to market, build, and manage relationships with students and

prospective students (Figure 3-2c), a clearly defined and consistently used approach is not evident.

It is not evident how different approaches might be used with distinctive segments that represent

economically disadvantaged and otherwise hard-to-reach students. MATC offers current students

“numerous ways to build and maintain their relationship” with the organization, but it is not clear

what these methods are or how they are consistently applied or deployed.


Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%


requirements is


anecdotal.


approach to the


the Item is

evident.


approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of





X



evident.



work units,


achieving the


the Item.



units are in early




vary in some






work units.

X



improvement is


to problems.

Early stages of a


problems to a

general improvement

orientation are

evident.

The beginning of


evaluation and


evident.

A fact-based,


improvement


learning,


place for


effectiveness of

key processes.

Fact-based,


improvement and


including


tools; there is


result of


sharing.



organizational


organization-wide




X

Integration No


evident;


operate

independently.

The approach is


units largely


The approach is in


basic


response to the


process Items.

The approach is


organizational


Organizational


The approach is


organizational


Organizational






Profile and other

Process Items.

X



Item 3.2

Overall

Scoring Range

0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

X


4.0 Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management



4.1 Measurement, Analysis, and Improvement of Organizational Performance


Strengths:


4.1a(1) Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) uses PDCA learning cycles to improve

organizational performance. This systematic approach may assist the college in analyzing the data

it identifies as key in powerful ways to improve operations.

4.1a(2) The college has implemented a new Datatel dashboard system to begin transforming,

standardizing, and improving knowledge management throughout all work systems. As this system

develops reports using easily accessible data, it may assist in integrating the use of data throughout

the system. Using data in this manner may assist in addressing the strategic challenge of using data

for decision-making and improvements.

4.1a(3) MATC has identified stakeholders and multiple approaches for information discovery and sharing

with the identified segmented groups. By identifying stakeholder information sources, both

documented and through interpersonal interactions (Figure 4-1b), the college may be able to send

key messages more effectively using specific tools and methods. This, in turn, may engage

stakeholders and improve operational efficiency.



4.1 While the college has provided a few instances of knowledge sharing and best practice sharing, a

standardized methodology utilized across the organization is not evident. The organization has not

indicated how data and information are selected, aligned, and integrated. Failure to have a broadly

communicated, mandatory, and accepted methodology for knowledge sharing and best practice

sharing can make it more challenging to fully leverage knowledge assets.

4.1 It is not clear if the organization equips and incorporates information across the broad and diverse

student population. This is important because strategic challenges include improving

communications and using data more effectively. Students are a key stakeholder group, and if

students are not equipped with internet access or have language deficiencies or other life

challenges, the ability to ensure integrity and measurement agility may be hindered.

4.1a(1,4) It is unclear how MATC addresses the process of data integration and measurement agility of the

multiple data sources such as those listed in Figure 4.1b. Without a systematic and centralized

process, a blend of written data, manually extracted data, and disparate systems can impede

timeliness and accuracy of information.



4.1a(2) A systematic method, focused on organizational goals and challenges, for selecting other colleges

for the use of comparative performance data is not evident. While comparative data from the

institutions referenced in, for example, Figures 7-1g, 7-1k, and 7-1l do provide some context for

MATC’s own performance, those comparisons may not drive improvement priorities as well as

comparisons to direct competitors.


Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%


requirements is


anecdotal.


approach to the


the Item is

evident.


approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of





X



evident.



work units,


achieving the


the Item.



units are in early




vary in some






work units.

X



improvement is


to problems.

Early stages of a


problems to a

general improvement

orientation are

evident.

The beginning of


evaluation and


evident.

A fact-based,


improvement


learning,


place for


effectiveness of

key processes.

Fact-based,


improvement and


including


tools; there is


result of


sharing.



organizational


organization-wide




X

Integration No


evident;


operate

independently.

The approach is


units largely


The approach is in


basic


response to the


process Items.

The approach is


organizational


Organizational


The approach is


organizational


Organizational






Profile and other

Process Items.

X



Item 4.1

Overall

Scoring Range

0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

X


4.2 Management of Information, Knowledge, and Information Technology


Strengths:


4.2a(1) A systematic approach to data integrity and security of the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

system is evidenced by the use of user IDs and passwords with permissions granted after review by

supervisors and IT staff, annual review of access and data quality by the Data Integrity Committee,

nightly back-ups, a back-up system maintained outside of the main data center, and use of an

automated identity management system to control user accounts.

4.2a(2) MATC has a systematic approach and deployment for availability of data and information to the

workforce, students, partners, and suppliers as evidenced by 24-hour accessibility through

INFOnline, the web-based interface to the ERP system for students and employees, a public

website, an intranet, Virtual Desktop Infrastructure and virtual private network access for partners

and suppliers.



4.2a(3) While there are multiple data sources as evidenced in Figure 4-1b, it is not evident that there is an

effective, systematic approach for knowledge management to ensure the transfer of relevant

knowledge, identification, sharing, and implementation of best practices, or assembly and transfer

of relevant knowledge for use in innovation processes. Unsystematically gathered and managed

knowledge assets may not optimally improve organizational efficiency and stimulate innovation to

add value for students, stakeholders, and the organization; a systematic process may help ensure

alignment with the strategic challenges of improving communications and using data more

effectively for improvements.

4.2 No systematic process or work system is evident for managing the significant amount of data

gathered in support of the annual strategic planning process, for monitoring the progress of

strategic action projects and improvement projects, and in support of key work system and work

process improvements through PDCA cycles. Without a systematic process to collect and transfer

workforce knowledge or relevant knowledge from students and other stakeholders, the

organization may be unable to rapidly identify, share, and implement best practices across its

multiple campuses and operations, nor assemble and transfer relevant knowledge to use in

innovating its processes and offerings in an increasingly competitive landscape.

4.2b(1) It is not evident how the college ensures the user-friendliness of hardware and software, possibly

rendering key information systems ineffective, negatively impacting student and workforce

satisfaction, and impeding progress in the improvement of internal communication.

4.2a(1) It is not clear how the organization ensures the accuracy of organizational data and information.

Large amounts of data are rapidly available electronically to students and workforce, and accuracy

of that information is necessary for effective communication and work.


Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%


requirements is


anecdotal.


approach to the


the Item is

evident.


approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of





X



evident.



work units,


achieving the


the Item.



units are in early




vary in some






work units.

X



improvement is


to problems.

Early stages of a


problems to a

general improvement

orientation are

evident.

The beginning of


evaluation and


evident.

A fact-based,


improvement


learning,


place for


effectiveness of

key processes.

Fact-based,


improvement and


including


tools; there is


result of


sharing.



organizational


organization-wide




X

Integration No


evident;


operate

independently.

The approach is


units largely


The approach is in


basic


response to the


process Items.

The approach is


organizational


Organizational


The approach is


organizational


Organizational






Profile and other

Process Items.

X



Item 4.2

Overall

Scoring Range

0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

X


5.0 Workforce Focus



5.1 Workforce Environment


Strengths:


5.1a(2) Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) hires new employees using People Source software

to enable online applications, and action projects have resulted in a paperless application process.

Two orientations are conducted at the beginning of each year: a two-day comprehensive

orientation for full-time employees and an evening session for part-time employees. An

Affirmative Action Plan and the President’s Diversity Council ensure that the diversity of the

workforce reflects that of the community. The deployment of these approaches is supportive of

MATC’s strategic focus and unique market. A PDCA process (Figure 5.1a) allows for learning

cycles in the hiring process.

5.1a(1) The Wisconsin Technical College System (WTCS) office ensures staff capability and licensure by

evaluating the occupational, academic and teaching experience of district employees to determine

their preparedness to work in the system. At the institution level, the MATC Certification reviews

credentials and determines eligibility for initial renewal certifications, maintains files, processes

records, and communicates with customers regarding requirements. As part of a 2010 AQIP

project, the Human Resources Core Committee reviewed and updated hiring processes and

documents, and individual departments updated their credentialing requirements in 2012.

5.1b(2) The college deploys multiple approaches for employee benefits and services to meet the needs of a

diverse workforce and its various segments. Employees are surveyed to determine their level of

satisfaction and engagement with these offerings (Figure 5.1d).



5.1a(1) The PDCA model for managing workforce capability and capacity does not appear to be

systematically deployed in all areas of the organization, particularly non-instructional areas.

Without a fully deployed, systematic method the organization may be challenged to achieve its

strategic goals related to ensuring employee growth.

5.1a(2) Specific improvements to the hiring process based on systematic learning cycles are not evident.

Without a clear hiring process that is well deployed to all areas of the organization, the

organization will be challenged to attract and maintain quality faculty and staff members that

reflect core values of excellence and diversity.

5.1a(3) The college’s shared decision-making model appears to be in the early stages of development, and

it is not clear how the model systematically supports work achievement, core competencies,

student and stakeholder focus, the exceeding of performance expectations, or addressing strategic

challenges and action plans.



5.1b(1) Workplace performance measures and improvement goals related to the health, safety, and security

a diverse workforce in varied workplace environments are not evident. Without clear indicators of

workforce health, safety, and security, unidentified workforce may hinder continuous improvement

goals.


Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%


requirements is


anecdotal.


approach to the


the Item is

evident.


approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of





X



evident.



work units,


achieving the


the Item.



units are in early




vary in some






work units.

X



improvement is


to problems.

Early stages of a


problems to a

general improvement

orientation are

evident.

The beginning of


evaluation and


evident.

A fact-based,


improvement


learning,


place for


effectiveness of

key processes.

Fact-based,


improvement and


including


tools; there is


result of


sharing.



organizational


organization-wide




X

Integration No


evident;


operate

independently.

The approach is


units largely


The approach is in


basic


response to the


process Items.

The approach is


organizational


Organizational


The approach is


organizational


Organizational






Profile and other

Process Items.

X



Item 5.1

Overall

Scoring Range

0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

X


5.2 Workforce Engagement


Strengths:


5.2a(2) MATC uses core committees and a shared governance system of staff and faculty members. AQIP

projects and strategy work teams promote open communication, represent diverse ideas and

cultures of the workplace, and provide alignment to the strategic plan. In the 2011–2012 school

year, 200 employees represented strategy work teams including representation on the President’s

Diversity Council.

5.2a(1) The Personal Assessment of the College Environment (PACE) survey is administered for

employee engagement, and the faculty survey was administered for the first time in 2012.

5.2c(3) In 2010 the college created succession readiness plans for employees, guided by the Human

Resources Department as outlined in Human Resources “Success Readiness” (Figure 5.2-b).



5.2a(3) It is not evident how the college ensures the effectiveness, full deployment, or systematic

improvement of its mechanisms to support high-performance work and workforce engagement,

consider workforce compensation, reward, recognition, and incentive practices, or reinforce a

student and stakeholder focus for achievement of action plans. Without a clearly defined process to

support high performing work and engagement, limited resources may be used inefficiently.

5.2b It is unclear how measures of workforce engagement and satisfaction are used as a component of

process improvement related to strategic objectives. Further, it is not evident that some key

declining and static measures on the PACE survey are being used to drive action plans. Without a

clearly defined process to identify areas of improvement, resources and approaches may not be

prioritized for attainment of the organizations mission and strategic goals.

5.2c(1,2) While the organization has a variety of mechanisms to support its learning and development

systems, such as training programs and opportunities that are linked to mission, vision, values and

strategic goals, it is unclear how this support is accomplished as part of a clearly defined,

systematic, and well developed process or work system. Without a clearly defined process,

learning and development opportunities may not be prioritized to support attainment of the

organizations mission and strategic goals.


Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%


requirements is


anecdotal.


approach to the


the Item is

evident.


approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of





X



evident.



work units,


achieving the


the Item.



units are in early




vary in some






work units.

X



improvement is


to problems.

Early stages of a


problems to a

general improvement

orientation are

evident.

The beginning of


evaluation and


evident.

A fact-based,


improvement


learning,


place for


effectiveness of

key processes.

Fact-based,


improvement and


including


tools; there is


result of


sharing.



organizational


organization-wide




X

Integration No


evident;


operate

independently.

The approach is


units largely


The approach is in


basic


response to the


process Items.

The approach is


organizational


Organizational


The approach is


organizational


Organizational






Profile and other

Process Items.

X



Item 5.2

Overall

Scoring Range

0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

X


6.0 Operations Focus



6.1 Work Systems


Strengths:


6.1a(1) Milwaukee Area Technical College (MATC) uses the PDCA continuous improvement model,

developed to provide student excellence in education to “enrich, empower and transform” their

lives, to design and innovate its work systems. The PDCA process, designed according to

Wisconsin statutes, collective bargaining decisions, college policies and procedures, and

accreditation requirements, utilizes input from both internal and external stakeholders and is

deployed throughout the organization in many key areas as identified in Figures 6-1b through 6.1h.

6.1b(1) MATC has identified six key work systems— college administration, student learning, student

services, general counsel and human resources, financial management and college planning, and

the MATC Foundation (Figures 6-1b thru 6-1h)—that support its mission, vision, and core values

and competencies. Identification of work systems and key underlying processes is foundational in

understanding organizational operations and may assist in improving organizational efficiency and

create a focus on what best leverages continuous improvement.

6.1a(1) A systematic approach is in place to determine if work systems will be internal to the organization

or if they will be outsourced using several clearly identified criteria, including alignment with

mission, vision, values, and core competencies, the existence of internal expertise, and cost

effectiveness. This focus can assist in making strategic financial choices and address financial

strategic challenges.

6.1c The emergency preparedness plan deploys an emergency response plan and teams, a crisis

communication plan, and processes in their early stages ensuring continuity of operations. Cycles

of learning over the past five years are evident in its updating and continuous improvement, and

the college participates in quarterly and annual district-wide training using exercises and in-class

training. By creating a safe work and learning environment, MATC tends to its mission and

demonstrates its values to stakeholders.



6.1a(2) A systematic process for determining work system requirements and incorporating input from

students and stakeholders, suppliers, partners, and collaborators is not evident, although at least

some methods are in place for capturing input from stakeholders. Work system charts (Figures 6-

1b through 6-1h) give process requirements rather than whole-system requirements, and although

improvement methodologies appear to exist, it is not evident that they are systematic and well-

defined. Without a systematic process to improve work systems, MATC may not be addressing the

strategic challenges concerning fiscal sustainability or student goal attainment.



6.1b(2) Approaches to cost control do not appear to be fully deployed, particularly in the instructional

areas of the work system. It is also not evident that there are systematic processes in place to

prevent errors and rework and to minimize the costs of inspections, tests, and process or

performance audits throughout the organization and all work systems. By deploying a systematic

process to prevent errors and rework, the organization may better address its strategic challenge of

utilizing data more effectively for improvement.


Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%


requirements is


anecdotal.


approach to the


the Item is

evident.


approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of





X



evident.



work units,


achieving the


the Item.



units are in early




vary in some






work units.

X



improvement is


to problems.

Early stages of a


problems to a

general improvement

orientation are

evident.

The beginning of


evaluation and


evident.

A fact-based,


improvement


learning,


place for


effectiveness of

key processes.

Fact-based,


improvement and


including


tools; there is


result of


sharing.



organizational


organization-wide




X

Integration No


evident;


operate

independently.

The approach is


units largely


The approach is in


basic


response to the


process Items.

The approach is


organizational


Organizational


The approach is


organizational


Organizational






Profile and other

Process Items.

X



Item 6.1

Overall

Scoring Range

0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

X


6.2 Work Processes


Strengths:


6.2a(2),

b(1)

In support of the core objective of providing high quality teaching and learning, MATC has

identified multiple work processes housed in each work system and has determined key work

process requirements for the identified work processes. Data presented in Figures 6-1b through

6-1h show a clear understanding of work process improvement that may allow for heightened

improvement of how work gets done efficiently and effectively. This may be helpful in leveraging

strategic advantages in offering student options.

6.2a(1) Multiple management approaches are in place to design and innovate work processes to meet

identified key requirements. This is in alignment with the mission, vision and values. Through this

focus on continuous improvement, MATC may better attain its mission and vision.

6.2b(1) The college has established key performance measures and has identified process owners or

processes that support meeting identified key process requirements. Establishing process owners

and utilizing process measures provides a link to data use in the methodology and may drive more

efficient and effective use of data.



6.2a(1) It is not clear how the identified work processes incorporate the need for agility, cycle time,

productivity, and cost control. Without in-process measures focused on work systems, it may be

difficult to determine how individual processes are operating in real time, and without systematic

application of efficiency and effectiveness factors, it may be difficult to determine how processes

are meeting identified key requirements. This may hamper the attainment of vision and negatively

impact sustainability.

6.2a(2) Work process requirements are currently obtained “through listening and learning with customers,

employees stakeholders, partners, advisory committees, accrediting bodies, professional

organizations and through benchmarking other high-performing organizations,” an approach that

may be more reactive than systematic and may also include blind spots. For example, it appears

that college administration systems drive the assessment of student learning while failing to

acknowledge student perception. A systematic approach that is deployed throughout the

organization may inform the college of organizational needs and opportunities for improvement,

thereby helping drive organizational improvement and sustainability, key strategic challenges.

6.2b(3) MATC is in the early stages of deploying a process improvement system. It is unclear how

deployed the identified approaches for process improvement are deployed throughout the

organization, if they have undergone cycles of learning, or how integrated they are in all systems

and throughout the organization. An integrated process management system may allow the

applicant to focus its training and create unity around how to attain the mission, vision, and core

values.


Factor 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%


requirements is


anecdotal.


approach to the


the Item is

evident.


approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of



approach,


requirements of





X



evident.



work units,


achieving the


the Item.



units are in early




vary in some






work units.

X



improvement is


to problems.

Early stages of a


problems to a

general improvement

orientation are

evident.

The beginning of


evaluation and


evident.

A fact-based,


improvement


learning,


place for


effectiveness of

key processes.

Fact-based,


improvement and


including


tools; there is


result of


sharing.



organizational


organization-wide




X

Integration No


evident;


operate

independently.

The approach is


units largely


The approach is in


basic


response to the


process Items.

The approach is


organizational


Organizational


The approach is


organizational


Organizational






Profile and other

Process Items.

X



Item 6.2

Overall

Scoring Range

0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

X


7.0 Results


Guidelines (Results),” on page 50.

7.1 Student Learning and Process Outcomes


Strengths:


7.1a Some measures of student-focused results are trending positively. For example, segmented results

for Prepared Learner Initiative (PLI) course completion show positive trends in four of seven

courses (Figure 7-1a), and the Health Sciences division also demonstrates generally positive trends

(Figures 6-1c and d). Fall-to-fall retention rates have trended positively since 2006. The percent of

part-time graduates surpasses all but one competitor (Figure 7.1k). English assessments reflect a

positive trend from 2010 to 2012 in critical thinking and communication effectiveness (Figure

7-1e).

7.1b Some measures of operational process effectiveness are showing satisfactory performance levels

and positive trends. For example, all eight measures for student satisfaction are showing

improvement from FY2008 to FY2012 (Figure 7-1s). Figure 7-1x also shows positive trends in the

use of electricity and steam since 2007.



7.1 Results for key performance indicators (Figure 2-1c), the process requirements identified in

Figures 6.1b through 6.1h, and strategy implementation are not presented.

7.1 No comparisons to the college’s prime competitor (the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee)

or the 17 identified new local competitors are provided. While the comparative data provided

from other institutions provide do provide some context for MATC’s performance in

retention rates (Figure 7-1g), part-time student graduation rates (Figure 7-1k), and full-time

three-year success rates (Figure 7-1l), comparisons to direct competitors may give MATC a

clearer focus on internal best practices and opportunities for improvement.

7.1a Flat or negative trends are seen in some key performance indicators. Most notably, the number of

program graduates is decreasing (7-1j). Pre-college course completion has also decreased since the

2008–2009 school year.

7.1 Results are not presented for some key measures identified in the application, including measures

related to the strategic plan (e.g., embedded certificates, program viability scores, call wait times,

calls placed in queue, math completion rates, and retention by department), student learning

systems (e.g., compliance requirements, industry standards, appropriateness of curriculum, courses

provided at appropriate level, book store service evaluation, student learning by course and by

program, student transfer, technical skill attainment, and student employability).


Guidelines 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

Performance

Levels (Le)

There are no organizational

performance

results or poor results in areas

reported.

A few organizational

performance

results are reported,

responsive to the

basic requirements of the Item, and

early good

performance levels are evident.

Good organizational

performance levels

are reported, responsive to the

basic requirements

of the Item.

Good organizational

performance levels


overall

requirements of the Item.

Good to excellent organizational

performance levels


multiple


Excellent organizational

performance levels

are reported that are fully

responsive to the

multiple requirements of

the Item.

X

Trends (T) Trend data are

either not reported

or show mainly adverse trends.

Some trend data

are reported, with

some adverse trends evident.

Some trend data

are reported, and a

majority of the trends presented

are beneficial.

Beneficial trends

are evident in

areas of importance to the

accomplishment of

the organization’s mission.

Beneficial trends

have been

sustained over time in most areas

of importance to

the accomplishment of

the organization’s

mission.

Beneficial trends

have been

sustained over time in all areas of

importance to the

accomplishment of the organization’s

mission.

X

Comparisons

and

Benchmarks

(C)

Comparative information is not

reported.

Little or no comparative

information is

reported.

Early stages of obtaining

comparative

information are evident.

Some current performance levels

have been

evaluated against relevant

comparisons

and/or benchmarks and show areas of

good relative

performance.

Many to most trends and current

performance levels

have been evaluated against

relevant

comparisons and/or benchmarks

and show areas of

leadership and very good relative

performance.

Evidence of industry and

benchmark

leadership is demonstrated in

many areas.

X

Integration

(I)

Results are not

reported for any areas of

importance to the


mission.

Results are

reported for a few areas of

importance to the


mission.

Results are

reported for many areas of

importance to the


mission.

Organizational

performance results are

reported for most

key customer/student/

patient,

stakeholder, market, and

process

requirements.

Organizational


reported for most


patient,

stakeholder, market, process,

and action plan

requirements.

Organizational

performance results and

projections are

reported for most customer/student/

patient,


and action plan

requirements.

X



Item 7.1

Overall Scoring

Range

0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

X


7.2 Customer-Focused Outcomes


Strengths:


7.2a(1) MATC compares favorably to urban peers in student satisfaction (Figure 7-2a) and student

preference (Figure 7-2c) and shows increasing student satisfaction in most of the areas measured.

Prospective students assign a high level of importance to affordability and accessibility (Figure

7-2b), two of MATC’s strengths.

7.2a(1) Although employer survey results (Figure 7-1q) are not trended, 2009 data indicates favorable

employer satisfaction with graduates’ education and willingness to rehire graduates.



7.2a(1) There are no trends provided for student satisfaction (Figure 7-2a), key marketplace drivers

(Figure 7-2b) or Welcome Center performance (Figure 7-2e). MATC appears to be in the

early stages of gathering and evaluating data in these areas, with limited or no comparison or

trend data provided in a number of areas (Figures 7-2b through 7-2h). The failure to

demonstrate positive trends in this area will challenge the college’s ability to achieve its

vision and mission, demonstrate continuous improvement, and address an increasingly

competitive environment. Lack of data about performance over time will challenge the

ability to address its identified strategic challenges. Without comparative data, MATC will

not have the information necessary to determine its position relative to competitors and

address increasing competition and significant fiscal challenges.

7.2 No results are provided for levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction among some key stakeholders

(e.g. Milwaukee Public Schools and other local high schools, colleges where students transfer to

and from, book publishers, food service vendors, and office supply and equipment vendors). These

partners and suppliers impact students’ decision to attend the college as well as their experience

during their education.


Guidelines 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

Performance

Levels (Le)


performance


reported.


performance


responsive to the


early good


Good organizational

performance levels


basic requirements

of the Item.

Good organizational

performance levels


overall



performance levels


multiple



performance levels


responsive to the


the Item.

X


either not reported


Some trend data

are reported, with


Some trend data

are reported, and a


are beneficial.

Beneficial trends

are evident in


accomplishment of


Beneficial trends

have been


of importance to



mission.

Beneficial trends

have been


importance to the


mission.

X

Comparisons

and

Benchmarks

(C)


reported.


information is

reported.


comparative



have been


comparisons


good relative

performance.


performance levels


relevant


and show areas of


performance.


benchmark


many areas.

X

Integration

(I)

Results are not


importance to the


mission.

Results are


importance to the


mission.

Results are


importance to the


mission.

Organizational


reported for most


patient,


process

requirements.

Organizational


reported for most


patient,


and action plan

requirements.

Organizational


projections are


patient,


and action plan

requirements.

X



Item 7.2

Overall Scoring

Range

0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

X


7.3 Workforce-Focused Outcomes


Strengths:


7.3a(2) The Personal Assessment of the College Environment (PACE) survey shows many improvements

between 2002 and 2011, and 2011 levels are favorable relative to norms in most categories

(Figures 7-3e through 7-3g).

7.3a(1) Staffing levels appear to have been stable over the past three years for full-time employees across

all categories (Figure 7-3a). Although no trending is evident, the college reports a low employee

turnover rate of 5.9%.



7.3a(3) Some unfavorable levels are evident in PACE survey results for perceptions of institutional

structure (Figure 7-3f) and supervisory relationships (Figure 7-3g) either relative to 2002 results,

current norms, or both. For example, ratings for “I have the opportunity for advancement within

this institution,” “Information is shared with this institution,” and “I have the opportunity to

express my ideas in appropriate forums” have all declined since 2002 and are below the norm.

7.3a(4) Employee participation in training and educational activities has generally been declining since

2009, evidenced in a decreasing budget (Figure 7-3k) and variable or declining enrollment in most

specific areas (7.3-l).

7.3a A general lack of established trends (e.g. in Figures 7-3b, 7-3d, 7-3e, 7-3f, 7-3g, 7-3h, 7-3i, and 7-

3m) suggest that MATC is in the early stages of monitoring outcomes and evaluating workforce-

focused outcomes.

7.3a Limited comparisons are provided in order to put performance metrics into a meaningful,

competitive context.


Guidelines 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

Performance

Levels (Le)


performance


reported.


performance


responsive to the


early good


Good organizational

performance levels


basic requirements

of the Item.

Good organizational

performance levels


overall



performance levels


multiple



performance levels


responsive to the


the Item.

X


either not reported


Some trend data

are reported, with


Some trend data

are reported, and a


are beneficial.

Beneficial trends

are evident in


accomplishment of


Beneficial trends

have been


of importance to



mission.

Beneficial trends

have been


importance to the


mission.

X

Comparisons

and

Benchmarks

(C)


reported.


information is

reported.


comparative



have been


comparisons


good relative

performance.


performance levels


relevant


and show areas of


performance.


benchmark


many areas.

X

Integration

(I)

Results are not


importance to the


mission.

Results are


importance to the


mission.

Results are


importance to the


mission.

Organizational


reported for most


patient,


process

requirements.

Organizational


reported for most


patient,


and action plan

requirements.

Organizational


projections are


patient,


and action plan

requirements.

X



Item 7.3

Overall Scoring

Range

0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

X


7.4 Leadership and Governance Outcomes


Strengths:


7.4a(2) MATC demonstrates strong cash flow management, reduced short term borrowing, and reduced

deficit spending (Figure 7-4a) and is in compliance with its three-year Financial Accountability

Review. The college’s financial standing is trending in a positive direction, which addresses a

major organizational challenge.

7.4a(3) Of 31 claims filed against the college over the past three years, there have been no adverse findings

to date, and only two claims are still pending a decision (Figure 7-4b).



7.4a(1) No results are presented rating senior leaders on their communication and engagement with the

workforce to deploy vision and values, encourage two-way communication and create a focus on

action. The levels of performance on the Personal Assessment of the College Environment (PACE)

survey are generally average with some key questions declining from 2002 to 2011. Given only

two surveys, the organization cannot yet establish trends, and many results are below the norm. In

addition, the nine-year gap in survey results may obscure actual positive, negative, or mixed trends

in all survey results.

7.4(2) No comparisons from competitors or peer organizations are provided relative to financial

performance measures. Furthermore, leading indicators that may be initially driving financial

recovery are not evident.

7.4(2) Although adult basic education is a key strategic challenge, enrollment is trending down (Figure

7-4c).

7.4a(4) No results are presented related to breaches in ethical behavior. 2011 PACE survey results

associated with ethical communication (Figures 7-3f and 7-3g) show slight improvement but are

still slightly below the norm.

7.4a(5) Although MATC’s economic impact is quantified to some extent in Figure 7-4d, a lack of trends

and comparatives places the results in an unclear context relative to effectively fulfilling its

societal responsibilities and supporting its key communities.


Guidelines 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

Performance

Levels (Le)


performance


reported.


performance


responsive to the


early good


Good organizational

performance levels


basic requirements

of the Item.

Good organizational

performance levels


overall



performance levels


multiple



performance levels


responsive to the


the Item.

X


either not reported


Some trend data

are reported, with


Some trend data

are reported, and a


are beneficial.

Beneficial trends

are evident in


accomplishment of


Beneficial trends

have been


of importance to



mission.

Beneficial trends

have been


importance to the


mission.

X

Comparisons

and

Benchmarks

(C)


reported.


information is

reported.


comparative



have been


comparisons


good relative

performance.


performance levels


relevant


and show areas of


performance.


benchmark


many areas.

X

Integration

(I)

Results are not


importance to the


mission.

Results are


importance to the


mission.

Results are


importance to the


mission.

Organizational


reported for most


patient,


process

requirements.

Organizational


reported for most


patient,


and action plan

requirements.

Organizational


projections are


patient,


and action plan

requirements.

X



Item 7.4

Overall Scoring

Range

0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

X


7.5 Budgetary, Financial, and Market Outcomes


Strengths:


7.5a(1) Some key performance indicators for budgetary and financial performance reflect positive

performance levels and trends as evidenced by the trend of decreasing short-term liabilities as a

percentage of assets (Figure 7-5d), general fund expenditures below budget for two of the past

three years (Figure 7-5b), an improved cash position over the past three years (Figure 7-5c), and

improved overall operating results (Figure 7-4a).

7.5a(2) Transfer rates (Figure 7-5f) increased from less than 20% in 2003 to over 30% in 2008.



7.5a Results for key financial requirements and measures outlined in Figure 6.1h are not presented. In

the face of a very competitive market, more comprehensive financial results may enable the

organization to better evaluate its market position.

7.5a There is a lack of comparative measures for most measures in 7.5, particularly from MATC’s chief

competitor (University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee) other local institution, schools of similar size,

and organizations offering online programs.

7.5a(1) There are flat or negative trends in key area of general fund revenue (Figure 7-5a) and college

preference among district residents (Figure 7-2c).


Guidelines 0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

Performance

Levels (Le)


performance


reported.


performance


responsive to the


early good


Good organizational

performance levels


basic requirements

of the Item.

Good organizational

performance levels


overall



performance levels


multiple



performance levels


responsive to the


the Item.

X


either not reported


Some trend data

are reported, with


Some trend data

are reported, and a


are beneficial.

Beneficial trends

are evident in


accomplishment of


Beneficial trends

have been


of importance to



mission.

Beneficial trends

have been


importance to the


mission.

X

Comparisons

and

Benchmarks

(C)


reported.


information is

reported.


comparative



have been


comparisons


good relative

performance.


performance levels


relevant


and show areas of


performance.


benchmark


many areas.

X

Integration

(I)

Results are not


importance to the


mission.

Results are


importance to the


mission.

Results are


importance to the


mission.

Organizational


reported for most


patient,


process

requirements.

Organizational


reported for most


patient,


and action plan

requirements.

Organizational


projections are


patient,


and action plan

requirements.

X



Item 7.5

Overall Scoring

Range

0-5% 10-25% 30-45% 50-65% 70-85% 90-100%

X


Application Review and Evaluation Process

The process used by the Wisconsin Forward Award to review your WFA application involved three stages. Figure

1 on the next page outlines each of these stages plus further review by our Panel of Judges.

The process began with an independent review (Stage 1). During this stage, several members of the Wisconsin

Forward Award Board of Examiners, including a Team Leader and a mix of Examiners, were assigned to each of

the applications under review. Examiner assignments were made to ensure no conflict of interest and the best use

of Examiner expertise and experience. Each application was independently evaluated by the assigned Examiners.

Each application then went through a consensus review (Stage 2). At this stage, a team of Examiners conducted a

series of online correspondence, conference calls and/or face-to-face meetings to jointly review the application

and reach agreement on key review findings. This included developing consensus on each individual Item:

comments detailing strengths and opportunities for improvement and Item scoring. The Team Leader directed the

consensus review to clarify and resolve any differences resulting from the independent review and to ensure that

comments reflected the best possible analysis and thinking of the Examiner team as a whole.

The third stage of review was the site visit review. Current applicants who also applied for WFA

assessment/recognition in the previous two years and were recognized at the Mastery level or above were eligible

for a site visit upon request. New applicants were also eligible for a site visit if the consensus review resulted in a

score indicating achievement at the high Mastery level (Band 5) or Excellence level (Band 6 and above). A site

visit was conducted to clarify information in the application report, to verify that the information in the

application was correct, and to confirm the final standing, including achievement at the Excellence level.

Upon completion of the site visit review and the feedback reports by Examiner teams, the feedback reports were

then given to Wisconsin Forward Award’s Panel of Judges who were assigned to be resources for individual

teams and then reviewed the feedback reports as a group to ensure calibration in scoring and application of the

Criteria across the teams.


Figure 1: Evaluation Process

WFA Receives

Applications

Independent Review

(Stage 1)

Consensus Review

(Stage 2)

NO YES

Site Visit?

Consensus score is at

Commitment or Proficiency,

Examiner team has sufficient

information, or eligible returning

applicant does not want a site

visit

Consensus score is at Mastery

or Excellence level, eligible

returning applicant requests a

site visit, or WFA uses

discretion to more accurately

determine award level

Recognition Level and

Draft Feedback Report

Site Visit

(Stage 3)

Panel of Judges Reviews and

Finalizes Recognition Levels

WFA SENDS FINAL FEEDBACK

REPORT AND RECOGNITION LEVEL

TO APPLICANTS


Wisconsin Forward Award Recognition Levels

The Wisconsin Forward Award program provides a system for recognizing organizations in four categories

representative of progress and growth toward performance excellence. Categories are represented by a scoring

range reflecting the increasing maturity of a performance management system as defined by the Wisconsin

Forward Award Criteria for Performance Excellence.

Commitment is representative of organizations at the earliest stages of implementing quality management

practices. Organizations at this stage of development are beginning to adopt and systematically implement

performance management and improvement practices and principles as defined by the Criteria. (score range: 0–

275)

Proficiency is representative of organizations making significant progress in successful implementation of quality

management practices as defined by the Criteria. Applications scoring at this level demonstrate systematic

approaches to the primary purposes of most Items in the Criteria and show early improvement trends resulting

from their approaches. (score range: 276–475)

Mastery is representative of organizations entering or at an advanced level relative to the Criteria. Applications

scoring at this level use effective and systematic approaches. There are no major gaps in deployment, though it

may be in early stages in some areas. These organizations demonstrate fact-based improvement processes, good

results and improvement trends in most areas of importance. The good results and improvement trends can be

directly attributed to their systematic, well-deployed approaches. (score range: 476–675)

Excellence represents the highest achievement level possible under the Wisconsin Forward Award. This

achievement level is representative of organizations with mature, fully integrated performance management

systems, including improvement systems. Applicants achieving at the Excellence level demonstrate refined

approaches, good-to-excellent deployment, good-to-excellent results linked to their well-deployed approaches,

and outstanding activities in key areas of the Criteria. They are industry leaders and role models for others. (score

range: 676–1000)

Scoring System

The scoring system is designed to differentiate applicants by the degree of progress demonstrated in successfully

implementing performance management practices and principles, to identify the appropriate recognition level for

an applicant, and to facilitate feedback. The scoring guidelines, shown in Figures 2 and 3, are based on (1)

evidence that a performance management system is in place and the management approach; (2) the depth of

deployment; and (3) the results and trends it is achieving.

The applicant receives a percentage range for each Criteria Category (Leadership, Strategic Planning, Customer

Focus, etc.). The percentage range is based on the scoring guidelines, which describe the characteristics typically

associated with specific percentage ranges. When assessing your organization’s results, note that Criteria

Categories 1 through 6 consider process scoring guidelines (Figure 2); Category 7 considers results scoring

guidelines (Figure 3).

The scoring band descriptors, shown in Figures 4, 5 and 6, provide a gauge of the overall score for an applicant.

WFA provides three aggregated scoring bands: one each for all process Items, all results Items, and all Items

overall. There are eight scoring bands in each scale, ranging from the lowest to the highest total score possible

under the Criteria. The bands describe characteristics typically associated with organizations that have an overall

score—which may differ from the disaggregated scores for process and results Items—falling in the specific

range listed in each scoring band. An applicant’s overall score, represented by the scoring band, is derived from

the aggregated percentage range scores determined for each Criteria Item.


Figure 2: Criteria Scoring Guidelines (Process)

SCORE Process (Categories 1-6)

0% or 5%

No systematic approach to Item requirements is evident; information is anecdotal. (A)

Little or no deployment of any systematic approach is evident (D)

An improvement orientation is not evident; improvement is achieved through reacting to problems (L)

No organizational alignment is evident; individual areas or work units operate independently. (I)

10%, 15%,

20%, or 25%

The beginning of a systematic approach to the basic requirements of the Item is evident. (A)

The approach is in the early stages of deployment in most areas or work units, inhibiting progress in achieving the basic requirements of the Item. (D)

Early stages of a transition from reacting to problems to a general improvement orientation are evident. (L)

The approach is aligned with other areas or work units largely through joint problem solving. (I)

30%, 35%,

40%, or 45%

An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the basic requirements of the Item, is evident. (A)

The approach is deployed, although some areas or work units are in early stages of deployment. (D)

The beginning of a systematic approach to evaluation and improvement of key processes is evident. (L)

The approach is in the early stages of alignment with your basic organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other process Items. (I)

50%, 55%,

60%, or 65%

An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the overall requirements of the Item, is evident. (A)

The approach is well deployed, although deployment may vary in some areas or work units. (D)

A fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement process and some organizational learning, including innovation, are in place for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of key processes. (L)

The approach is aligned with your organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other process Items. (I)

70%, 75%,

80%, or 85%

An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the multiple requirements of the item, is evident. (A)

The approach is well deployed, with no significant gaps. (D)

Fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement and organizational learning, including innovation, are key management tools; there is clear evidence of refinement as a result of organizational-level analysis and sharing. (L)

The approach is integrated with your current and future organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other process Items. (I)

90%, 95% or 100%

An effective, systematic approach, fully responsive to the multiple requirements of the Item, is evident. (A)

The approach is fully deployed without significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or work units. (D)

Fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement and organizational learning through innovation are key organization-wide tools; refinement and innovation, backed by analysis and sharing, are evident throughout the organization. (L)

The approach is well integrated with your current and future organizational needs identified in response to the the Organizational Profile and other process Items. (I)


Figure 3: Criteria Scoring Guidelines (Results)

SCORE RESULTS (Category 7)

0% or 5%

There are no organizational performance results or poor results in areas reported.

Trend data are either not reported or show mainly adverse trends.

Comparative information is not reported.

Results are not reported for any areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s mission.

10%, 15%,

20%, or 25%

A few organizational performance results are reported, responsive to the basic requirements of the Item, and early good performance levels are evident.

Some trend data are reported, with some adverse trends evident.

Little or no comparative information is reported.

Results are reported for a few areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s mission.

30%, 35%,

40%, or 45%

Good organizational performance levels are reported, responsive to the basic requirements of the Item.

Some trend data are reported, and a majority of the trends presented are beneficial.

Early stages of obtaining comparative information are evident.

Results are reported for many areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s mission.

50%, 55%,

60%, or 65%

Good organizational performance levels are reported, responsive to the overall requirements of the Item.

Beneficial trends are evident in areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s mission.

Some current performance levels have been evaluated against relevant comparisons and/or benchmarks and show areas of good relative performance.

Organizaional performance results are reported for most key customer, market, and process requirements.

70%, 75%,

80%, or 85%

Good to excellent organizational performance levels are reported, responsive to the multiple requirements of the Item.

Beneficial trends have been sustained over time in most areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s mission.

Many to most trends and current performance levels have been evaluated against relevant comparisons and/or benchmarks and show areas of leadership and very good relative performance.

Organizational performance results are reported for most key customer, market, process, and action plan requirements.

90%, 95% or 100%

Excellent organizational performance levels are reported that are fully responsive to the multiple requirements of the Item.

Beneficial trends have been sustained over time in all areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s mission.

Evidence of industry and benchmark leadership is demonstrated in many areas.

Organizational performance results and projections are reported for most key customer, market, process, and action plan requirements.


Figure 4: Process Scoring Band Descriptors Band Band

Score Number PROCESS Descriptors

0–150 1 The organization demonstrates early stages of

developing and implementing approaches to the basic

Criteria requirements, with deployment lagging and

inhibiting progress. Improvement efforts are a

combination of problem solving and an early general

improvement orientation.

151–200 2 The organization demonstrates effective, systematic

approaches responsive to the basic requirements of the

Criteria, but some areas or work units are in the early

stages of deployment. The organization has developed a

general improvement orientation that is forward-looking.


approaches responsive to the basic requirements of most

Criteria Items, although there are still areas or work units

in the early stages of deployment. Key processes are

beginning to be systematically evaluated and improved.


approaches responsive to the overall requirements of the

Criteria, but deployment may vary in some areas or work

units. Key processes benefit from fact-based evaluation

and improvement, and approaches are being aligned with

overall organizational needs.

321–370 5 The organization demonstrates effective, systematic,

well-deployed approaches responsive to the overall

requirements of most Criteria Items. The organization

demonstrates a fact-based, systematic evaluation and

improvement process and organizational learning,

including innovation, that result in improving the

effectiveness and efficiency of key processes.

371–430 6 The organization demonstrates refined approaches

responsive to the multiple requirements of the Criteria.

These approaches are characterized by the use of key

measures, good deployment, and evidence of innovation

in most areas. Organizational learning, including

innovation and sharing of best practices, is a key

management tool, and integration of approaches with

organizational needs is evident.

431–480 7 The organization demonstrates refined approaches

responsive to the multiple requirements of the Criteria

Items. It also demonstrates innovation, excellent

deployment, and good-to-excellent use of measures in

most areas. Good-to-excellent integration is evident, with

organizational analysis, learning through innovation, and

sharing of best practices as key management strategies.

481–550 8 The organization demonstrates outstanding approaches

focused on innovation. Approaches are fully deployed

and demonstrate excellent, sustained use of measures.

There is excellent integration of approaches with

organizational needs. Organizational analysis, learning

through innovation, and sharing of best practices are

pervasive.

Figure 5: Results Scoring Band Descriptors Band Band

Score Number RESULTS Descriptors

0–125 1 A few results are reported responsive to the basic Criteria

requirements, but they generally lack trend and

comparative data.

126–170 2 Results are reported for several areas responsive to the

basic Criteria requirements and the accomplishment of the

organization’s mission. Some of these results demonstrate

good performance levels. The use of comparative and

trend data is in the early stages.

171–210 3 Results address areas of importance to the basic Criteria

requirements and accomplishment of the organization’s

mission, with good performance being achieved.

Comparative and trend data are available for some of

these important results areas, and some beneficial trends

are evident.

211–255 4 Results address some key customer/stakeholder, market,

and process requirements, and they demonstrate good

relative performance against relevant comparisons. There

are no patterns of adverse trends or poor performance in

areas of importance to the overall Criteria requirements

and the accomplishment of the organization’s mission.

256–300 5 Results address most key customer/stakeholder, market,

and process requirements, and they demonstrate areas of

strength against relevant comparisons and/or benchmarks.

Improvement trends and/or good performance are

reported for most areas of importance to the overall

Criteria requirements and the accomplishment of the

organization’s mission.


and process requirements, as well as many action plan

requirements. Results demonstrate beneficial trends in

most areas of importance to the Criteria requirements and

the accomplishment of the organization’s mission, and the

organization is an industry* leader in some results areas.


process, and action plan requirements. Results

demonstrate excellent organizational performance levels

and some industry* leadership. Results demonstrate

sustained beneficial trends in most areas of importance to

the multiple Criteria requirements and the

accomplishment of the organization’s mission.

391–450 8 Results fully address key customer/stakeholder, market,

process, and action plan requirements and include

projections of future performance. Results demonstrate

excellent organizational performance levels, as well as

national and world leadership. Results demonstrate

sustained beneficial trends in all areas of importance to

the multiple Criteria requirements and the

accomplishment of the organization’s mission.

*Industry refers to other organizations performing substantially the same functions, thereby facilitating direct comparisons.


Figure 6: Scoring Band Descriptors (Overall Score)

Score

Band

# Descriptors WFA Recognition Level

0-275 1 The organization demonstrates the early

stages of developing and implementing

approaches to Item requirements, with

deployment lagging and inhibiting progress.

Improvement efforts focus on problem

solving. A few important results are reported,

but they generally lack trend and comparative

data.

Commitment

Organizations at the earliest stages of

implementing quality management

practices. Organizations at this stage of

development are beginning to adopt

and systematically implement

performance management and

improvement practices and principles

as defined by the Criteria.

276-375 2 The organization demonstrates effective,

systematic approaches responsive to the basic

requirements of the Items, but some areas or

work units are in the early stages of

deployment. The organization has developed a

general improvement orientation that is

forward looking. The organization obtains

results stemming from its approaches, with

some improvements and good performance.

The use of comparative and trend data is in

the early stages.

Proficiency

Organizations making significant

progress in successful implementation

of quality management practices as

defined by the Criteria. Applications

scoring at this level demonstrate

systematic approaches to the primary

purposes of most Items in the Criteria

and show early improvement trends

resulting from their approaches.


systematic approaches responsive to the basic

requirements of most Items, although there are

still areas or work units in the early stages of

deployment. Key processes are beginning to

be systematically evaluated and improved.

Results address many areas of importance to

the organization’s key requirements, with

improvements and/or good performance being

achieved. Comparative and trend data are

available for some of these important results

areas.

Continued on next page.


Figure 6: Scoring Band Descriptors (Overall Score, Continued)

Score

Band



systematic approaches responsive to the

overall requirements of the Items, but

deployment may vary in some areas or work

units. Key processes benefit from fact-based

evaluation and improvement, and approaches

are being aligned with organizational needs.

Results address key customer/stakeholder,

market, and process requirements, and they

demonstrate some areas of strength and/or

good performance against relevant

comparisons. There are no patterns of adverse

trends or poor performance in areas of

importance to the organization’s key

requirements.

Mastery

Organizations entering or at an

advanced level relative to the Criteria.

Applications scoring at this level use

effective and systematic approaches.

There are no major gaps in deployment,

though it may be in early stages in

some Areas. These organizations

demonstrate fact-based improvement

processes, good results and

improvement trends in most Areas of

importance. The good results and

improvement trends can be directly

attributed to their systematic, well

deployed approaches.


systematic, well-deployed approaches

responsive to the overall requirements of the

Items. The organization demonstrates a fact-

based, systematic evaluation and improvement

process and organizational learning that result

in improving the effectiveness and efficiency

of key processes. Results address most key

customer/stakeholder, market, and process

requirements, and they demonstrate areas of

strength against relevant comparisons and/or

benchmarks. Improvement trends and/or good

performance are reported for most areas of

importance to the organization’s key

requirements.

Continued on next page.


Figure 6: Scoring Band Descriptors (Overall Score, Continued)

Score

Band


676-775 6 The organization demonstrates refined

approaches responsive to the multiple

requirements of the Items. These approaches

are characterized by the use of key measures,

good deployment, evidence of innovation, and

very good results in most areas.

Organizational integration, learning, and

sharing are key management tools. Results

address many customer/stakeholder, market,

process, and action plan requirements. The

organization is an industry* leader in some

results areas.

Excellence

Represents the highest achievement

level possible under the Wisconsin

Forward Award. This achievement

level is representative of organizations

with mature, fully integrated

performance management systems,

including improvement systems.

Applicants achieving at the Excellence

level demonstrate refined approaches,

good to excellent deployment, good to

excellent results linked to their well-

deployed approaches, and outstanding

activities in key areas of the Criteria.

They are industry leaders and role

models for others. No major red flags

exist.

776-875 7 The organization demonstrates refined

approaches responsive to the multiple

requirements of the Items. It also

demonstrates innovation, excellent

deployment, and good-to-excellent

performance levels in most areas. Good-to-

excellent integration is evident, with

organizational analysis, learning, and sharing

of best practices as key management

strategies. Industry* leadership and some

benchmark leadership are demonstrated in

results that address most key

customer/stakeholder, market, process, and

action plan requirements.

876-1000 8 The organization demonstrates outstanding

approaches focused on innovation, full

deployment, and excellent, sustained

performance results. There is excellent

integration of approaches with organizational

needs. Organizational analysis, learning, and

sharing of best practices are pervasive.

National and world leadership is demonstrated

in results that fully address key

customer/stakeholder, market, process, and

action plan requirements.

† “Industry” refers to other organizations performing substantially the same functions, thereby facilitating direct

comparison.

MILWAUKEE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE 2012 FEEDBACK REPORTecampus.matc.edu/accreditation/pdf/2012...

Documents

Transcript of MILWAUKEE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE 2012 FEEDBACK REPORTecampus.matc.edu/accreditation/pdf/2012...