2009 Student Satisfaction Survey: Key Findings

Presented at the Management Committee

19 May 2009Professor George SubotzkyExecutive Director: Information & Strategic Analysis

2009 Student Satisfaction Survey

• Key indicator of management and operational service delivery & priorities for improvement

• 5th annual survey: allows tracking institutional performance & service delivery over time – particularly significant around 5-year reviews

• 5 Indices and composite USSI:– General Unisa Student Satisfaction Index (GUSI) – Unisa Registration Efficiency Index (UREI)– Unisa Student Support Service Index (USSSI)– Unisa Academic Performance Index (UAPI)– Unisa Administrative and Professional Services Index

(UAPSI)– Combine to form the composite Unisa Student

Satisfaction Index (USSI)

Scores of 5 Indices & Composite USSI, 2005-9

GUSI (General)

UREI (Regist-ra-

tion)

USSSI (Student Support)

UAPI (A-cademic)

UAPSI (Admin & Profes-sional)

USSI (Compos-

ite)

2005 76.31 75.91 67.91 71.13 74.96 73.24

2006 62.37 73.3 66.77 69.47 71.79 68.74

2007 73.09 73.9 64.63 69.07 70.23 70.18

2008 71.68 64.07 63.13 67.53 75.14 68.31

2009 63.84 62.44 59.11 62.79 67.56 63.15

2008-9 -7.84 -1.63 -4.02 -4.74 -7.58 -5.16

2005-9 -12.47 -13.47 -8.8 -8.34 -7.39999999999999

-10.09

-10

10

30

50

70

90

Overview of Main 1-year Trends: 2008-9All indices down• Composite Unisa Student Satisfaction Index (USSI):

down 5,16 points to an unprecedented low of 63,15• General Unisa Student Satisfaction Index (GUSI):

down 7,84 points to 63,84 • Unisa Admin & Professional Services Index (UAPSI):

down 7,58 points to 67,56• Unisa Academic Performance Index (UAPI):

down 4,74 points to 62,79 • Unisa Student Support Service Index (USSSI):

down 4,02 points to 59,11 – 1st time below 60 for any index • Unisa Registration Efficiency Index (UREI):

down 1,63 points to 62,44 (following 9-point drop last year)

Overview of Main 5-year Trends: 2005-9All indices down• Composite Unisa Student Satisfaction Index (USSI):

down 10,09 points to an unprecedented low of 63,15

• Unisa Registration Efficiency Index (UREI):down 13,47 points to 62,44

• General Unisa Student Satisfaction Index (GUSI): down 12,47 points to 63,84

• Unisa Student Support Service Index (USSSI): down 8,80 points to 59,11

• Unisa Academic Performance Index (UAPI):down 8,34 points to 62,79

• Unisa Admin & Professional Services Index (UAPSI): down 7,40 points to 67,56

Top 10 Satisfaction Items, 2009

Items2009

Index score Rating

Change of examination centre 76.55 1Clarity on examination centre location where you will write your examinations in 2009 76.48 2Unisa Internet Website 75.33 3Change of address 74.93 4myUnisa e-learning environment 74.55 5Account/balance enquiries 74.27 6Clarity on method and process of payment 73.46 7Information and availability of examination timetables 73.29 8Statements of courses (modules) passed 72.37 9Usefulness of assignments 71.92 10

Bottom 10 Satisfaction Items, 2009

Items

2009

Index score

Rating

Contact Centre (Call Centre) 49.76 1

Parking 51.70 2

Assistance and guidance from Help Desk/Ask Me’s 52.04 3

Curricula advice 52.27 4

Efficiency of student advisors 53.54 5

General organisation of the registration process 53.95 6

Efficiency of ‘Check Point’ 54.00 7

Unisa Regional Office 54.12 8Office of Experiential Learning (Work Integrated Learning – WIL) 54.33 9

Student Representative Council (SRC): National Executive Council 54.68 10

Items reflecting largest declines in satisfaction between 2005 and 2009

Implications for Planning

• Along with other review & reflective sources, the annual student satisfaction survey identifies areas for serious attention in order to improve service delivery, success, excellence, quality & relevance

• It therefore represents a key set of indicators of institutional performance and improvement initiatives

• The 5-year longitudinal trends indicate a disturbing steady decline in student satisfaction across all indices

• Clearly, the University has not responded adequately to these indications over the years and has not been able to effect the required changes in the operational areas concerned in a coordinated and integrated way

Conclusion

• A hallmark of an effective learning organisation is its ability to learn from its intelligence sources and to rapidly effect the strategic or operational changes required – this is the role of actionable intelligence

• The shorter the feedback loop, the more effective is the learning and change/improvement process

• Within the integrated strategic management framework, these insights must generate effective, concerted, integrated and coordinated change/improvement efforts

Main Recommendation

To achieve an effective, integrated solution, the following 2 steps are recommended:

1. The primary responsibility and process for managing the improvement process must be confirmed• Clearly, primary responsibility for this belongs to the

DSPQA• The process must integrate related initiatives, including:

– Quality Improvement Plans– Ongoing monitoring & evaluation/organisational

performance management in relation to the IOP and 2015 SP

– Strategic project reviews– Service excellence– Risk management & internal audit initiatives– It will also have to draw from other performance

indicators and sources of intelligence, such as the monitoring of student complaints

Main Recommendation (2)

2. Utilising these various sources, an annual Improvement Action Plan is drawn up, comprising:– Clear identification of the problem areas/issues– Clear identification of the responsible operational units– A clearly defined process of formally referring the problem

areas/issues to the operational units concerned– This would include requesting the operational units to draw up

detailed improvement plans, with clearly specified internal responsibilities, targets, performance measures and timelines

– These would be submitted to the DSPQA by a specified date (prior to the finalisation of the IOP) for approval in terms of planning consistency and practicability (adequate resources, time and identified dependencies)

– Once approved, these would be integrated into the IOP which would then be monitored and evaluated as part of the IOP reviews