Strategic Plan 2005-2010

 

Breadcrumbs

Main Content

Strategic Plan 2005-2010

Part 1

Part 2

Attachment 1

For a PDF version of this Plan, download the Strategic Plan (PDF 165KB). *

* For PDF documents you must have the free Adobe Acrobat Reader, which can be downloaded from the Adobe Download page.

Part 1

Introduction 

Strategic plans are the means by which higher education institutions demonstrate their purpose, particular characteristics and commitments to the community and government. In a rapidly changing higher education sector it is important to possess a plan that has a degree of inherent flexibility that allows for responses to changing circumstances.

The Strategic Plan is the University’s highest level planning document, along with the Master Plan. The University also has Functional plans, such as the Learning and Teaching Plan, that apply across the University and that pertain to its core business. Each Cost Centre also has an Operational Plan that is driven by the Strategic Plan and the Functional Plans. The Strategic Plan and Functional Plans drive the allocation of resources through the budget process. Operational Plans demonstrate how the allocation of resources to Cost Centres advances the goals in the higher level plans.

A review of the Strategic Plan was initiated in 2004 by University Council, which developed a detailed environmental (SWOT) analysis and identified the directions for the consultative process to follow. At various stages throughout the process, the University’s Senior Management Team provided input and critique, fine tuning each draft until the final version was developed through the Office of the Vice-Chancellor, and subsequent scrutiny and approval by Council.

Part 1 will normally be reviewed every five years and Part 2 monitored and, if necessary, adjusted annually.

I would like to thank all internal and external contributors most sincerely for their invaluable input.

Professor Paul Thomas AM
Vice-Chancellor

Back to top

Mission

The University’s Strategic Plan is driven and shaped by the University’s mission.

To be the major catalyst for the innovative and sustainable economic, cultural and educational advancement of the region, through the pursuit of international standards in teaching, research and engagement.

Values

In the pursuit of its Mission, the University has a commitment to:

  • the advancement, dissemination and preservation of knowledge through innovative and effective teaching and research of the highest quality
  • fostering freedom of inquiry and expression
  • the process of lifelong learning
  • engaging in and responding to the community’s intellectual, cultural and economic needs
  • adopting consultative processes and ethical behaviour in all activities
  • engendering respect among students, staff and Council of the University for their diverse roles and contributions
  • fairness, openness, honesty, trust and effective communication as fundamental expectations of students, staff and all associated with the University
  • developing the University and its surrounds as an environmentally sensitive exemplar
  • the advancement of human rights within a tolerant and inclusive society, in which respect for Indigenous and international peoples is fundamental
Strategic framework

The imperative of a changing policy environment and increasing national and international competition requires that the University energetically pursue its distinctiveness through a long term strategic approach built around the following two major themes:

  • regional engagement, and
  • sustainability
Regional Engagement

The University has already developed an international reputation for implementing the engagement emphasis of its Mission. Engagement has been local, national and international and is manifest across the range of University activities.

The University is intent on developing its symbiotic relationship with the regional community as a springboard for wider national and international engagement.

Sustainability

Concepts of sustainability drove the way in which the University was conceived and developed, including through sustainable master planning, sub tropical architectural design and academic work related to the sustainable development of the Sunshine Coast region.

The concept is becoming much wider now and encompasses every aspect of the way we live – social inclusion, energy for the future, the effective and equitable use of natural resources, preservation of built and natural environments, preservation of cultural and social heritages, and the development of sustainable economic opportunities.

Back to top

Part 2

Goals,strategies, KPIs

The University’s progress in pursuing regional engagement and sustainability will be measured with reference to goals, strategies and key performance indicators for eight areas. Part 2 will be monitored annually.

1. Growth and development of the University

Goal: To promote sustainable growth to enhance quality and efficiency, whilst retaining important benefits of human scale.

Strategies
  • Develop closer integration of policy, planning and budgetary processes within the University’s quality framework to guide sustainable growth
  • Plan for and support sustainable growth to a student population of at least 5000 EFTSL by 2010, comprising:
    • Growth in Commonwealth funded students
    • Growth in fee paying international and domestic students
  • Develop and implement a revenue attraction plan for maximising public and private income streams and resources to support planned sustainable growth
  • Conduct regular performance evaluations to monitor or review progress in achieving plans for sustainable growth and in achieving quality and efficiency, improving plans and actions as required
  • Undertake regular Council self-evaluations and performance reviews of senior staff to promote and assure effective governance and management of the University
Key Performance Indicator 1

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Growth in EFTSL Actual EFTSL each year

Actual EFTSL each year compared with projected 5 year growth		 5000 EFTSL By 2010

Meet projected 5 year growth requirement for each year		 VC, DVC, PVC, Deans
Key Performance Indicator 2

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Achieving DEST/ DEEWR-funded load Actual DEST/DEEWR-funded EFTSL each year Meet DEST/DEEWR-funded load target for each year VC, DVC, Deans

Key Performance Indicator 3

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Revenue from public and private sources Percentage variance (+/-) in revenue from public sources relative to each previous year from 2006 to 2010

Percentage variance (+/-) in revenue from private sources relative to each previous year from 2006 to 2010

Percentage variance (+/-) in revenue from private sources as a proportion of total revenue each year relative to each previous year from 2006 to 2010		 Increase in revenue from public sources each year


Increase in revenue from private sources each year


Increase in revenue from private sources as a proportion of total revenue each year		 VC, DVC, PVC, Deans, Directors, CFO, EO Foundation

Other indicators of success                         Benchmarking: Refer to Attachment 1

  • Findings from performance evaluations, self-reviews and external audits or reviews that indicate progress in achieving plans for sustainable growth and revenue attraction and in achieving quality and efficiency

Back to top

2. Learning and teaching

Goal: To provide an increasingly comprehensive range of sustainable programs that position students for success in the global economy and which are aligned to the University’s priorities.

Strategies
  • Develop a curriculum master plan for staged introduction of new disciplines and any related programs
  • Increase the number of sustainable disciplines available in undergraduate, postgraduate coursework and research programs
  • Promote and facilitate multi-disciplinary and cross-faculty coursework program structures
  • Increase and facilitate the direct involvement of the professions and industry in sustainable program and course development and delivery
  • Increase and promote opportunities for work-integrated learning within programs
  • Provide and promote a range of transition and enabling programs for prospective and new students
  • Develop and promote pathways for progression from TAFE/VET to USC programs and options for dual TAFE/VET-USC award programs
  • Provide appropriate professional development programs and technological support for academic staff in order to increase and improve flexible curriculum delivery, including e-learning, within programs
  • Provide professional development support for academic staff to assist them in approaches to building the teaching-research nexus in courses and programs
  • Monitor, analyse and act on findings from program reviews, formal student and employer surveys and other feedback processes, including satisfaction with teaching and courses
  • Organise teaching and supervision sessions to sustain high levels of interaction between students and their teachers or supervisors
Key Performance Indicator 1

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Graduate satisfaction with educational experience as measured through Australian Graduate Survey (AGS) Annual performance rating in the three core scales of the AGS

Annual ranking in each DEST/DEEWR LTPF discipline grouping in the three core scales of the AGS		 Maintain rating in each scale


Ranking in top quintile of Higher Education Providers in each discipline group		 DVC, PVC, Deans, Directors, Information Services, Information Technology Services, Student Administration, Student Services, Teaching and Research Services
Key Performance Indicator 2

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Graduate outcomes as measured through the Australian Graduate Survey (AGS) Annual employment rate of graduates according to annual AGS data

Annual ranking for employment of graduates in each DEST/DEEWR LTPF discipline grouping according to annual AGS data

Annual rates for further study by graduates according to annual AGS data

Annual ranking for further study by graduates in each DEST/DEEWR LTPF discipline grouping according to annual AGS data		 Improved rate each year 2005 to 2010

Improve ranking relative to other Higher Education Providers in each discipline group

Improved rate each year



Improve position relative to other Higher Education Providers		 DVC, PVC, Deans, Director, Student Services

Key Performance Indicator 3

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Student feedback on courses and teaching For USC as a whole and by Faculty, annual validated and aggregated data from item 16 of SFC “Overall, I was satisfied with the quality of this course” - proportion of courses receiving a rating of 4.5 or more on a 5 point scale- proportion of courses receiving a rating of 2.9 or less on a five point scale

For USC as a whole and by Faculty and School, annual aggregated data from item 10 of SFT “Overall, how would you rate the teaching of the lecturer in this course”- proportion of teaching staff receiving a rating of 4.5 or more on a 5 point scale- proportion of teaching staff receiving a rating of 2.9 or less on a five point scale 		Annual increase in proportion (%) of USC courses receiving a rating of 4.5 or more

Annual decrease in proportion (%) of USC courses receiving a rating of 2.9 or less


Annual increase in proportion (%) of USC staff receiving a rating of 4.5 or more

Annual decrease in proportion (%) of USC staff receiving a rating of 2.9 or less		 DVC, Deans, Directors, TARS, Information Services, Information Technology Services, Student Administration, Student Services

Key Performance Indicator 4

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Utilisation of inter sectoral pathways Number of new enrolments annually in USC-TAFE/VET articulated programs

Number of new students admitted to programs on the basis of prior TAFE/VET study		 Annual increase in number of new enrolments in USC-TAFE/VET articulated programs

Annual increase in number of new students admitted to programs on the basis of prior TAFE/VET study		 DVC, Deans

Key Performance Indicator 5

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Range and uptake of transition programs by students Number of new enrolments annually in Tertiary Preparation Pathway (TPP) Maintain number of new enrolments in TTP annually DVC, Deans

Key Performance Indicator 6

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Proportion of students undertaking courses with regional, national and international work placements Proportion of students as a percentage of total student numbers, undertaking work placements
  • in region
  • in Australia (excluding the region)
  • overseas
 Annual increase in proportion (%) of students undertaking work placements
  • in region
  • in Australia (excluding the region)
  • overseas
 DVC, PVC, Deans, Director, Student Services

Key Performance Indicator 7

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Number and range of sustainable programs offered across Fields of Education and Program Type Annual number of sustainable individual programs offered
  •  in each of the 11 DEST/DEEWR broad levels of Field of Education (FOE) groupings at Bachelor, Bachelor Honours, Graduate Certificate, Graduate Diploma,
    Master by coursework
  • as combined Bachelor degrees
 Increase, by 2010, the number of sustainable programs in separate FOEs offered at both the undergraduate and postgraduate coursework levels DVC, Deans

Key Performance Indicator 8

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Proportion of students enrolled in honours and postgraduate coursework programs Annual percentage of total EFTSL enrolled in honours and postgraduate coursework programs Annual increase in percentage of total EFTSL enrolled in honours and postgraduate coursework programs DVC, Deans
Key Performance Indicator 9
Description Measures Target Responsibility
Proportion of students in generalist programs enrolled in courses outside their program faculty Annual proportion (%) of EFTSL in generalist programs enrolled in courses outside a student’s program faculty Annual increase in proportion (%) of EFTSL in generalist programs enrolled in courses outside a student’s program faculty DVC, Deans
Key Performance Indicator 10
Description Measures Target Responsibility
Student:Staff Ratio Annual student:staff ratio (Universities Australia [AVCC] data) Annual reduction in student:staff ratio (Universities Australia [AVCC] data) VC, DVC, Deans, Director, Human Resources
Key Performance Indicator 11
Description Measures Target Responsibility
Class sizes Annual average size of on-campus tutorials/seminars (number of students) Average size of 15 students in on-campus undergraduate tutorials/seminars annually Deans, Directors, Capital Programs and Operations and Student Administration
Key Performance Indicator 12
Description Measures Target Responsibility
Involvement of professions and industry Annual number of professional or industry bodies involved in curriculum developments within each faculty

Annual number of professional or industry bodies involved in curriculum delivery within each faculty		 Annual increase in number of professional or industry bodies involved in curriculum developments

Annual increase in number of professional or industry bodies involved in curriculum developments		 Deans

Other indicators of success                          Benchmarking: Refer to Attachment 1

  • Progress reports on implementation of curriculum master plan for staged introduction of new disciplines and any related programs
  • Documentary evidence, including feedback, on provision of internal professional development programs conducted on flexible curriculum delivery, including e-learning
  • Documentary evidence, including feedback, on levels and extent of internal technological support provided to academic staff for flexible curriculum delivery, including e-learning
  • Documentary evidence, including feedback, on extent of professional development support provided to academic staff to assist them in approaches to building the teaching-research nexus within courses and programs

Back to top

3. Research

Goal: To concentrate the University’s research effort and achieve national and international distinction in ways that advance University priorities.

Strategies
  • Mobilise research capacity and infrastructure around Regional Engagement and Sustainability themes
  • In performance planning and management of academic staff, increase emphasis on research performance, output, quality and impact especially in the two designated research themes
  • Provide increased support service to researchers in attempting to attract or secure research grants and other research income from external sources
  • Provide increased levels of financial, human and infrastructural research support for research conducted in the two designated research themes and in collaboration with external research partners
  • Increase the number of higher degree by research enrolments
  • Develop and implement comprehensive development and training programs for higher degree by research candidates, supervisors and potential supervisors
  • Provide increased support service to researchers in developing regional, national and international research collaborations
Key Performance Indicator 1

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Research publications per non-adjunct academic staff member Number of individual non-adjunct academic staff members awarded research publication points by DEST/DEEWR in the annual HERDC

Annual average HERDC publication points awarded per non-adjunct USC FTE academic staff member

Annual total research publication points awarded to all non-adjunct USC academic staff by DEST/DEEWR in the HERDC 		Annual increase in the number of individual non-adjunct academic staff members awarded publication points by DEST/DEEWR in the HERDC for each year

Annual increase in average HERDC publication points awarded per non-adjunct USC FTE academic staff

Annual increase in total research publication points awarded to all non-adjunct USC academic staff by DEST/DEEWR in the HERDC 		DVC, Deans, Director, TARS

Key Performance Indicator 2

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Research income per non-adjunct academic staff member Number of individual non-adjunct academic staff members generating research income counted towards the annual DEST/DEEWR HERDC

Annual average research income (HERDC data) generated per non-adjunct USC FTE academic staff member

Annual total research income generated by non-adjunct USC academic staff, and included in HERDC		 Annual increase in the number of individual non-adjunct academic staff generating research income that is included the HERDC each year

Annual increase in average research income generated each year per non-adjunct USC FTE academic staff and included in HERDC

Annual increase in total research income generated by USC non-adjunct academic staff and included in HERDC 		DVC, Deans, Director, TARS

Key Performance Indicator 3

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Number of completing higher degree by research (HDR) students Number of HDR students admitted to a HDR award in each year Increase the number of HDR students admitted to a HDR award each year DVC, Deans, Director, TARS

Key Performance Indicator 4

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Proportion of timely higher degree completions Annual number and proportion (%) of HDR students who submit a thesis or dissertation for examination within no more than four years FT or equivalent PT enrolment in a doctoral HDR or two years FT or equivalent PT enrolment in a Master level HDR Annual increase in number and proportion (%) of HDR students who submit a thesis or dissertation for examination within no more than four years FT or equivalent PT enrolment in a doctoral HDR or two years FT or equivalent PT enrolment in a Master level HDR DVC, Deans, Director, TARS

Key Performance Indicator 5

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Number of research projects with:
  • a regional partner or client
  • a national partner or client (excluding regional)
  • an international partner or client
Annual number of research projects with:
  • a Regional partner or client
  • a National partner or client (excluding regional)
  • an international partner or client
 Annual increase in the number of research projects of each of the three types DVC, Deans, Director, TARS

Other indicators of success                          Benchmarking: Refer to Attachment 1

  • Documentary evidence on progress/achievements in mobilising research capacity and infrastructure around the two designated research themes
  • Documentary evidence showing greater emphasis having been placed on research in performance planning and management, eg revised PPR guidelines

Back to top

4. Regional engagement

Goal: To engage in productive partnerships to further the region’s interests and the University’s strategic priorities.

Strategies
  • Inform decision making about sustainable futures for the region
  • Promote and support research effort, teaching programs, scholarly activities, strategic partnerships, consultancies, educational initiatives and productive relationships with governments and their agencies that contribute to advancing regional sustainability
  • Prepare graduates capable of contributing to the achievement of regional economic, social, cultural and environmental priorities
  • Play a leading role in initiatives and planning designed to foster economic and social development and shared infrastructure within the region

Key Performance Indicator 1

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Number and range of projects with a regional partner or client Number of different categories for projects with a regional partner/client

Annual number of projects with a regional partner or client across all categories		 Increase in number of categories for projects with a regional partner/client

Annual increase in the number of projects with a regional partner or client across all categories		 VC, DVC, Deans, Director, Regional Engagement

Key Performance Indicator 2

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Number and range of regional involvements by staff Number of different categories for regional involvements by staff

Annual number of regional involvements by staff across all categories		 Increase in number of categories for regional involvements by staff

Annual increase in the number of staff regional involvements across all categories 		VC, DVC, Deans, Director, Regional Engagement

Key Performance Indicator 3

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Proportion of undergraduate students from the region who enrol at USC Proportion (%) of new enrolling students who are from the region (QTAC data) Annual increase in proportion (%) of new enrolling students who are from the region (QTAC data) VC, Deans, Director, Marketing and Communications

Key Performance Indicator 4

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Proportion of USC domestic graduates employed or establishing businesses within the region Proportion (%) of recent domestic graduates working in the region (GSA and internal data) Annual increase in proportion (%) of recent domestic graduates working in the region (GSA and internal data) Director, Student Services, Deans

Other indicators of success                        Benchmarking: Refer to Attachment 1

  • Documentary evidence, including external feedback, of contributions made by the University to decision-making about sustainable regional futures
  • Documentary evidence, including external feedback, of University activities that have contributed to advancing regional sustainability
  • Documentary evidence on individual graduates’ contributions to achievement of regional economic, social, cultural and environmental priorities
  • Documentary evidence, including external feedback, on the University’s role in initiatives and planning that have fostered/led to sustainable economic and social development and shared infrastructure in the region

Back to top

5. Internationalisation

Goal: To engage in international activities, including internationalisation of the curriculum, to heighten academic, economic, and cultural benefits for the region.

Strategies
  • Increase the number of domestic students studying part of their program overseas, including through the Global Opportunities Program
  • Increase the proportion of international students in the student body
  • Increase the number of USC staff undertaking projects involving teaching and research in collaboration with international partner universities
  • Internationalise the curriculum
  • Promote appreciation of global and intercultural issues through interaction between international students, other parts of the University community and the broader community
Key Performance Indicator 1
Description Measures Target Responsibility
Number and proportion of students undertaking part of their undergraduate program overseas Number and proportion of students undertaking part of their undergraduate program overseas Annual increase in number and proportion of students undertaking part of their undergraduate program overseas

In 2008 and beyond, at least 5 percent of Bachelor graduates to have undertaken part of their degree overseas 		PVC, Deans

Key Performance Indicator 2

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Proportion of on-campus international students in the on-campus student body Proportion (%) of on-campus international students in the on-campus student body International on-campus EFTSL to comprise 25 percent of all on-campus EFTSL by the end of 2010 PVC, Deans

Key Performance Indicator 3

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Proportion of USC staff pursuing projects involving teaching or research projects with colleagues from international partner universities Proportion (%) of USC academic staff pursuing projects involving teaching or research with colleagues from international partner universities 5% of all USC academic staff to be pursuing projects involving teaching or research with colleagues from international partner universities by the end of 2010 PVC, Deans

Key Performance Indicator 4

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Courses examined through the curriculum internationalisation project by 2009 Number of courses examined through curriculum internationalisation project All courses examined through curriculum internationalisation project by the end of 2009 DVC, PVC, Deans, Director, TARS

Other indicators of success                          Benchmarking: Refer to Attachment 1

  • Positive and constructive feedback from international students and the community
  • Documentary evidence, including feedback, of academic, economic, and cultural benefits contributed to the region by the University’s international activities
  • Documentary evidence, including feedback, showing increased appreciation of global and intercultural issues in the University through interactions between international students, other parts of the University community and the broader community

Back to top

6. Student support

Goal: To set standards in student support which will help attract, support and retain students.

Strategies
  • Establish, in partnership with other parties where appropriate, a range of amenities to attract and support both domestic and international students
  • Provide for the particular needs of equity groups and Indigenous students
  • Provide academic support services to assist students in achieving the best possible academic outcomes
  • Plan for ongoing development of library resources and IT capacity to support students and implement those plans
  • Utilise student input in University decision-making processes
  • Encourage and promote activities by the Alumni that contribute to student support

Key Performance Indicator 1

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Undergraduate student progress and retention rates, including for equity and Indigenous students Annual undergraduate student progress rates

Ranking relative to other Higher Education Providers for undergraduate student progress rates for each DEST/DEEWR LTPF grouping

Annual undergraduate retention rates

Ranking relative to other Higher Education Providers for retention of commencing students for each DEST/DEEWR LTPF grouping


Annual progress rates for equity and Indigenous students

Annual retention rates for equity and Indigenous students		 Improved annual undergraduate student progress rates

Improve ranking relative to other Higher Education Providers for undergraduate student progress rates for each DEST/DEEWR LTPF grouping

Improved annual undergraduate retention rates

Improve ranking relative to other Higher Education Providers for retention of commencing students for each DEST/DEEWR LTPF grouping

Improve annual progress rates for equity and Indigenous students

Improve annual retention rates for equity and Indigenous students		 DVC, Deans, Director, Student Services

Key Performance Indicator 2

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Student feedback on infrastructure and services Annual percentage of Agreement (agree and strongly agree responses) in AGS Student Support Scale (satisfaction with student services and support resources)

Annual ranking relative to other Higher Education Providers for percentage of Agreement in AGS Student Support Scale (GCA data)		 Improve the annual percentage of Agreement responses on the AGS Student Support Scale


 Improve ranking relative to other Higher Education Providers for percentage of Agreement in the AGS Student Support Scale 		DVC, Directors, Information Services, Information Technology Services, Student Administration, Student Services

Key Performance Indicator 3

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Uptake by students of opportunities to become involved in University decision making Number of membership positions reserved for students on Council, Academic Board and its committees that are occupied by students for the whole duration of a term of membership annually 100 percent occupancy of membership positions reserved for students on Council, Academic Board and its committees in each year VC, DVC

Other indicators of success                          Benchmarking: Refer to Attachment 1

  • Documentary evidence, including student feedback, on academic support programs and their impact on student retention and success
  • Monitoring or progress reports on implementation of plans for ongoing development of library resources and IT capacity to support students
  • Evidence of Alumni activities that have contributed to student support

Back to top

7. Staff

Goal: To attract, retain, develop and reward excellent staff.

Strategies
  • Develop and implement a workforce plan informed by the University’s strategic vision and integrated with University-wide plans
  • Regularly monitor data on staff recruitment, development and retention and, where appropriate, review and improve processes
  • Increase the professoriate to enhance academic leadership
  • Develop and implement an annual organisational climate survey by 2008 to obtain staff feedback and measure staff satisfaction levels
  • Identify training and development needs, including performance management and leadership development, and provide appropriate programs
  • Develop and implement procedures for ensuring alignment of staff performance planning, management and review with strategic and operational goals
  • Develop and implement a range of reward systems for staff to advance strategic goals

Key Performance Indicator 1

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Success in recruiting and retaining staff Total annual numbers of T&R and APT positions (other than casual or sessional) at each level subject to recruitment processes and resulting in:
  • an appointment being made
  • no appointment being made or an offer of employment not being accepted

Annual number of departures of T&R and APT staff (other than casual or sessional) with less than two consecutive years of ongoing employment at USC or before expiry of a limited or fixed term appointment		 Annual decrease in total number and proportion (%) of positions not filled through recruitment processes






Annual decrease in total number and proportion (%) of departures by staff with less than two consecutive years of ongoing employment at USC or before expiry of a limited or fixed term appointment		 Director, Human Resources, Cost Centre Managers

Key Performance Indicator 2

Description Measures Target Responsibility
High qualifications profile Annual percentage of T&R staff (FTE) with a Master or higher level degree

Annual percentage of T&R staff (FTE) with a Doctor of Philosophy 		In each year 2005-2010 be in top quintile of Australian Higher Education Providers for percentage of T&R staff (FTE) with a Master or higher level degree

By 2010 be in top third of Australian Higher Education Providers for percentage of T&R staff (FTE) with a Doctor of Philosophy		 Deans,
Director, Human Resources

Other indicators of success                       Benchmarking: Refer to Attachment 1

  • Evidence of progress in realising the workforce plan
  • Findings from monitoring and review of PPR and performance management processes that demonstrate alignment with strategic and operational goals
  • Number, range and usage rates of staff development and leadership programs
  • Documentary and statistical data on rewards systems in place for staff
  • Annual findings from organisational climate surveys 2008 and beyond that demonstrate high levels of staff satisfaction
8. Environmental sustainability

Goal: To continue to lead, by example, in the areas of campus planning and development, sub tropical architecture and all operations that have environmental impact.

Strategies
  • Identify and implement additional means by which the University can exemplify sustainable and environmentally responsible campus development
  • Identify and implement cost effective measures to maintain the security and environmental integrity of the Sippy Downs campus as the surrounding urban fabric becomes more dense
  • Promote and initiate projects and other activities that aid in protecting and sustaining the green campus corridor linking the Sippy Downs campus with Mooloolah National Park
  • Plan and undertake actions to increase the University’s and broader community’s awareness of and respect for the campus as an environmental sanctuary for all native wildlife

Key Performance Indicator 1

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Sustainable and environmentally responsible (SER) campus development Annual performance against TEFMA’s Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Checklist and Benchmarking Survey on each of the elements: Site Planning, Design and Construction, Maintenance and Operation, Refurbishment and Demolition (including energy, water consumption, recycling and waste management data)

Number of external awards and publication citations for SER campus development 		Annual score of at least 80 out of 100 (Good practice benchmark) using the TEFMA ESD Checklist and Benchmarking Survey, and overall TEFMA ESD Benchmarking score of at least 90 (Best practice benchmark) by 2010


At least one external award or citation in external publications for SER campus development		 Director, Capital Programs and Operations

Key Performance Indicator 2

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Assuring the environmental integrity of campus Extent of adherence to Master Plan campus development guidelines


Extent of adherence to timetable for implementation of Landscape Master Plan and adherence to Environmental Management Guidelines		 Minimum of 85 percent adherence to Master Plan development guidelines in each compliance audit to 2010

Meet annual milestones and timetable for implementation of Landscape Master Plan and associated Environmental Management Guidelines		 Director, Capital Programs and Operations

Key Performance Indicator 3

Description Measures Target Responsibility
Cost effective campus security Annual TEFMA Benchmarking data on cost of security per EFTSL compared with other universities In each year of growth in EFTSL, a decrease in the cost of security per EFTSL, aiming to be no more than 10 percent above the average cost for an Australian university in the TEFMA Benchmarking survey for 2008 and beyond. Director, Capital Programs and Operations

Other indicators of success                         Benchmarking: Refer to Attachment 1

  • Documentary evidence of investigations and actions to enhance environmentally responsible approaches in campus architecture, eg, Master Plan review
  • Documentary evidence, including feedback, of effectiveness of actions taken to increase awareness of and respect for the campus as an environmental sanctuary
  • Documentary evidence of projects and other activities that aid in protecting and sustaining the green campus corridor

Back to top

Attachment 1

List of sources for baseline KPI data and names of benchmarking partners/baseline datasets

Goal and KPI Number USC Baseline dataset/source Base Year Benchmarking Base
Year		 Responsibility for data generation/analysis and reporting date
1.1 Annual USC validated EFTSL 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 SIAU: 30 June annually for previous year
1.1 Projected 5 year growth in EFTSL 2005 Internal projection data – no external benchmarking 2005 SIAU: 31 October annually
1.2 Annual USC performance in meeting DEST/DEEWR-funded load targets – from DEST/DEEWR dataset 2005 Performance relative to other Higher Education Providers in meeting funded load targets according to DEST/DEEWR annual comparative dataset 2005 SIAU: 31 December annually
1.3 Annual revenue from public sources and variance relative to previous year 2005 Internal trend data only – no external benchmarking 2005 Finance: 30 June annually for previous year
1.3 Annual revenue from private sources and variance relative to previous year 2005 Internal trend data only – no external benchmarking 2005 Finance: 30 June annually for previous year
1.3 New data set required: Annual revenue from private sources as a proportion of total revenue and variance relative to previous year 2005 Internal trend data only – no external benchmarking 2005 Finance: 30 June annually for previous year
2.1 USC annual performance in each of the three core scales of the Australian Graduate Survey (AGS) – Generic Skills, Good Teaching, Overall Satisfaction 2005 Annual trend data only – no external benchmarking 2005 SIAU: 31 July annually for previous year’s survey
2.1 USC annual ranking in each DEST/DEEWR LTPF discipline grouping in the three core scales of the AGS 2005 Annual ranking relative to other higher education providers in the DEST/DEEWR LTPF discipline groupings for the three cores scales of the AGS 2005 SIAU: 31 December annually for previous year
2.2 USC annual employment rate of graduates according to AGS data 2005 Annual trend data only – no external benchmarking 2005 SIAU: 31 July annually for previous year’s survey
2.2 USC annual ranking for employment of graduates in each DEST/DEEWR LTPF discipline grouping according to AGS data 2005 Annual ranking relative to other higher education providers in the DEST/DEEWR LTPF discipline groupings 2005 SIAU: 31 December annually for previous year
2.2 USC annual rates for further study by graduates according to AGS data 2005 Annual trend data only – no external benchmarking 2005 SIAU: 31 July annually for previous year’s survey
2.2 USC annual ranking for further study by graduates in each DEST/DEEWR LTPF discipline grouping according to AGS data 2005 Ranking relative to other higher education providers in the DEST/DEEWR LTPF discipline groupings 2005 SIAU: 31 December annually for previous year
2.3 New data set required: USC’s SFT aggregated data from item 10 of SFT “Overall, how would you rate the teaching of the lecturer in this course” for USC as a whole and each Faculty and School - % staff with SFT score 4.5 or over 2007 Internal trend data – no external benchmarking at present 2007 TARS then provided to SIAU:
31 July annually for previous year
2.3 New data set required: USC’s SFT aggregated data from item 10 of SFT “Overall, how would you rate the teaching of the lecturer in this course” for USC as a whole and each Faculty and School - % staff with SFT score 2.9 or less 2007 Internal trend data – no external benchmarking at present 2007 TARS then provided to SIAU:
31 July annually for previous year
2.3 New data set required: USC’s SFC aggregated data from item 16 of SFC “Overall, I was satisfied with the quality of this course” for USC as a whole and by Faculty - % courses with SFC score 4.5 or over 2007 Internal trend data – no external benchmarking at present 2007 TARS then provided to SIAU:
31 July annually for previous year
2.3 New data set required: USC’s SFC aggregated data from item 16 of SFC “Overall, I was satisfied with the quality of this course” for USC as a whole and by Faculty - % courses with SFC score 2.9 or less 2007 Internal trend data – no external benchmarking at present 2007 TARS then provided to SIAU:
31 July annually for previous year
2.4 Annual number of new enrolments (validated) in USC-TAFE/VET articulated programs 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 SIAU: 31 July annually
2.4 Annual number of new students admitted to USC programs on basis of prior TAFE/VET study 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 SIAU: 31 July annually
2.5 Annual number of new enrolments (validated) in USC’s Tertiary Preparation Pathway 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 SIAU: 31 July annually
2.6 New data set required: Proportion (%) of total USC student numbers undertaking work placements in region annually 2007 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2007 Deans and Director, Student Services then provided to SIAU: 31 October annually
2.6 New data set required: Proportion (%) of total USC student numbers undertaking work placements in Australia (excluding region) annually 2007 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2007 Deans and Director, Student Services then provided to SIAU: 31 October annually
2.6 New data set required: Proportion (%) of total USC student numbers undertaking work related experience overseas annually 2007 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2007 Deans and PVC (I&D) then provided to SIAU:
31 October annually
2.7 New data set required: Annual number of sustainable individual USC programs offered in each of the 11 DEST/DEEWR broad levels of Field of Education groupings at Bachelor, Bachelor Honours, Graduate Certificate, Graduate Diploma, Master by Coursework 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 TARS then provided to SIAU:31 July annually
2.7 Number of sustainable USC combined Bachelor degree programs offered annually 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 TARS then provided to SIAU:31 July annually
2.8 Annual proportion (%) of total EFTSL enrolled in USC honours and postgraduate coursework programs 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 SIAU: 30 June annually for previous year
2.9 Annual proportion (%) of USC’s EFTSL in generalist programs enrolled in courses outside a student’s program faculty 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 SIAU: 30 June annually for previous year
2.10 Annual USC student to staff ratio according to Universities Australia (AVCC) data 2005 AVCC/AU trend data with longitudinal analysis each year. If available, ratio relative to that of other Higher Education Providers 2005 SIAU: 31 October annually
2.11 Annual average size of on-campus tutorials/seminars (number of students) 2005 Internal trend data each year – no external benchmarking 2005 Student Administration then provide to SIAU: 31 December annually
2.12 New data set required: Annual number of professional or industry bodies involved in curriculum developments within each faculty 2007 Internal trend data each year – no external benchmarking 2007 Deans then provided to SIAU: 31 December annually
2.12 New data set required: Annual number of professional or industry bodies involved in curriculum delivery within each faculty 2007 Internal trend data each year – no external benchmarking 2007 Deans then provided to SIAU: 31 December annually
3.1 Number of individual USC non-adjunct academic staff members awarded research publication points by DEST/DEEWR in annual HERDC 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 TARS then provided to SIAU: 31 October annually for previous year
3.1 Annual average HERDC publication points awarded per USC FTE non-adjunct academic Staff member 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 TARS then provided to SIAU:31 October annually for previous year
3.1 Annual total research publication points awarded to all USC non-adjunct academic staff by DEST/DEEWR in the HERDC 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 TARS then provided to SIAU: 31 October annually for previous year
3.2 Number of individual USC non-adjunct academic staff members generating research income that is counted towards the annual DEST/DEEWR HERDC 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 TARS then provided to SIAU: 31 October annually for previous year
3.2 Annual average research income (HERDC data) generated per USC FTE non-adjunct academic staff member 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 TARS then provided to SIAU: 31 October annually for previous year
3.2 Annual total research income generated by USC non-adjunct academic staff, and included in HERDC 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 TARS then provided to SIAU:
31 October annually for previous year
3.3 Number of USC HDR students admitted to a HDR award in each year 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 TARS then provided to SIAU:
30 June annually for previous year
3.4 New data set required: Annual number of USC doctoral HDR students who submit a thesis or dissertation for examination, and number and proportion of whom submitted within no more than four years FT or equivalent PT enrolment in a HDR 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 TARS then provided to SIAU:
30 June annually for previous year
3.4 New data set required: Annual number of USC Master level HDR students who submit a thesis or dissertation for examination and number and proportion of whom submitted within no more than two years FT or equivalent PT enrolment in a HDR 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 TARS then provided to SIAU:
30 June annually for previous year
3.5 Annual number of research projects with USC and a regional partner or client 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 TARS then provided to SIAU:
30 June annually for previous year
3.5 Annual number of research projects with USC and a national (excluding regional) partner or client 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 TARS then provided to SIAU:
30 June annually for previous year
3.5 Annual number of research projects with USC and an international partner or client 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 TARS then provided to SIAU:
30 June annually for previous year
4.1 New data set required: Listing and number of different categories for USC projects with a regional partner/client 2007 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2007 Director, RE and then to SIAU:
30 June annually for previous year
4.1 New data set required: Annual number of USC projects with a regional partner or client across all categories 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 Director, RE and then to SIAU:
30 June annually for previous year
4.2 New data set required: Listing and number of different categories for regional involvements by USC staff 2007 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2007 Director, RE and then to SIAU:
30 June annually for previous year
4.2 New data set required: Annual number of regional involvements by USC staff across all categories 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 Director, RE and then to SIAU:30 June annually for previous year
4.3 Proportion (%) of new enrolling students at USC who are from the region (QTAC data) 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 SIAU: 31 October annually
4.4 Proportion (%) of recent USC graduates working in the region (USC and GSA data) 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 SIAU: 31 July annually for previous year’s survey
5.1 Number and proportion (%) of USC students undertaking part of their undergraduate program overseas 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year. Comparison with aggregated Queensland and Australian data for each year as in IDP Reports 2005 SIAU: 31 July annually for previous year
5.2 Proportion (%) of on-campus international students in the USC on-campus student body 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year. Comparative Performance Data from International Development Project (IDP) Reports 2005 SIAU: 31 July annually for previous year
5.3 Proportion of USC academic staff pursuing projects involving teaching or research with colleagues from international partner universities 2007 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2007 OPVC and then to SIAU:
31 July annually for previous year
5.4 New dataset required: Cumulative number of USC courses examined through curriculum internationalisation project 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 TARS and then to SIAU:
31 October annually
6.1 Annual USC undergraduate student progress rate (from DEST/DEEWR data) 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year 2005 SIAU: 31 August annually
6.1 USC ranking relative to other Higher Education Providers for undergraduate student progress rates for each DEST/DEEWR LTPF grouping 2006 Ranking relative to other HEPs for undergraduate progress rates for each DEST/DEEWR LTPF grouping 2006 SIAU: 31 December annually
6.1 Annual USC undergraduate retention rate (from DEST/DEEWR data) 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year 2005 SIAU: 31 August annually
6.1 USC ranking relative to other Higher Education Providers for retention of commencing students for each DEST/DEEWR LTPF grouping 2006 Ranking relative to other HEPs for retention of commencing students for each DEST/DEEWR LTPF grouping 2006 SIAU: 31 December annually
6.1 Annual USC progress rates for equity and Indigenous students (from DEST/DEEWR data) 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 SIAU: 31 October annually
6.1 Annual USC retention rates for equity and Indigenous students (from DEST/DEEWR data) 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 SIAU: 31 October annually
6.2 Annual percentage of USC respondents’ “Agreement” (agree and strongly agree responses) in AGS Student Support Scale (satisfaction with student services and support resources) 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year 2005 SIAU: 31 August annually for previous year’s survey
6.2 USC’s annual ranking among Higher Education Providers for percentage of Agreement in AGS Student Support Scale 2005 Annual ranking relative to other Higher Education Providers for percentage of Agreement in AGS Student Support Scale, according to GCA data 2005 SIAU: 31 August annually for previous year’s survey
6.3 New data set required: Annual number of membership positions reserved for USC students on Council, Academic Board and its committees that are occupied by students for the whole period of membership 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 Senior Committees Officer, Committees Officer and then to SIAU: 31 July annually for previous year
7.1 New data set required: Total annual numbers of USC T&R and APT staff positions (other than casual or sessional) at each level subject to recruitment processes and resulting in an appointment being made 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 HR and then to SIAU:
30 June annually for previous year
7.1 New data set required: Total annual numbers of USC T&R and APT staff positions (other than casual or sessional) at each level subject to recruitment processes and resulting in no appointment being made or an offer of employment not being accepted 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 HR and then to SIAU:
30 June annually for previous year
7.1 New data set required: Annual number of departures by T&R and APT level (other than casual or sessional) with less than two consecutive years of ongoing employment at USC or before of expiry of a limited or fixed term appointment 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 HR and then to SIAU:30 June annually for previous year
7.2 Annual percentage of USC T&R staff (FTE) with a Master or higher level degree 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 HR and then to SIAU:
30 June annually
7.2 Annual percentage of USC T&R staff (FTE) with a Master or higher level degree relative to annual DEST/DEEWR data for Higher Education Providers 2005 Position relative to other Higher Education Providers according to annual DEST/DEEWR data on Higher Education Providers 2005 HR and then to SIAU:
30 June annually
7.2 Annual percentage of USC staff (FTE) with a PhD 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 HR and then to SIAU:
30 June annually
7.2 Annual percentage of USC staff (FTE) with a PhD relative to annual data for Higher Education Providers (if data available) 2005 Position relative to other Higher Education Providers 2005 HR and then to SIAU:
30 June annually
8.1 USC’s annual performance against TEFMA’s ESD Checklist and Benchmarking Survey on each of: Site Planning, Design and Construction, Maintenance and Operation, Refurbishment and Demolition 2005 USC performance on each element and overall, relative to all other Higher Education Providers in annual TEFMA Benchmarking 2005 CPO then to SIAU:
31 October annually for previous year
8.1 New data set required: Annual number of external awards to USC for SER campus development 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 CPO then to SIAU:
31 October annually for previous year
8.1 New data set required: Annual number of citations in external publications for USC SER campus development 2005 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2005 CPO then to SIAU:
31 October annually for previous year
8.2 New data set required: Percentage score in each compliance audit for adherence with Master Plan guidelines 2006 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2006 CPO then to SIAU:
31 October annually for previous year
8.2 New data set required: Annual percentage of milestones met on time in implementation of Landscape Master Plan and associated Environmental Management Guidelines 2007 Internal trend data with longitudinal analysis each year – no external benchmarking 2007 CPO then to SIAU:
31 October annually for previous year
8.3 USC’s annual cost of security per EFTSL 2008 USC’s annual cost of security per EFTSL relative to other higher education providers in annual TEFMA benchmarking data 2008 CPO then to SIAU: 31 October annually for previous year
8.3 Annual cost of security at USC per EFTSL 2005 Annual cost relative to growth in total USC EFTSL – internal trend data.Position relative to other Higher Education Providers according to annual TEFMA Benchmarking data 2005 CPO then to SIAU: 31 October annually for previous year

Back to top