— 2 The DOUGLAS COLLEGE ARCHIVES June 6, 1983 Mad Hatter "A Douglas College Newsletter Productivity Measures’ As part of our 5 Year Strategic Plan, we are required to describe how, and to what degree, the College can render itself more productive. In order to carry out this task, the Deans and Bursar have required the Directors and Chair- men of all units of the College to consult with the faculty and staff in their Depart- ments regarding appropriate strategies. This has been taken in preference to a "command decision" approach, which would likely be un- realistic, and in any case would not be sen- sitive enough to the realities of the many different programs, disciplines, and service units of the College. As part of this discussion, a certain amount of confusion seems to have arisen regarding what is meant by "productivity". I have requested that productivity be dealt with on the assumption of stable purchasing power - that is, that increased productivity would not be viewed as a means of reducing the number of regular employees of the insti- tution. Within this context, productivity can be viewed properly in different ways, depending on the situation and functions of the unit of analysis: A. Productivity can be viewed as increased "output", given a stable "input". An ex- ample would be an increased proportion of graduates, or people completing a course/ program, given stable intakes of students. It could also be viewed as increased pro- vision of service, based on the same num- ber of employees. . Another approach can be that of both in- creased intake and output. This could be increased enrolment in a class, together with a correspondingly increased number of students completing the course/program. This approach could contain the concept of a marginally increased investment in the activity, providing a larger increase in output occurred. For example, the provi- sion of markers in a course or program at relatively low cost could perhaps allow markedly larger number of students to be dealt with within the program, with little if any loss in apparent quality of the learning situation. Similarly, a capital investment in equipment might enable any employee to handle larger number of cli- ents or units of work. . Another approach can be the maintenance of current output for fewer dollars. An ex- ample of this could be a reduction in sup- ply or equipment costs, while maintaining present levels of activities. All three types of increased productivity can be quanitfied. What about quality? This was one of the com- pelling reasons that led us to follow a con- sultative approach. Clearly, if quality suffers in some definable fashion, this must be taken into account. For this reason, the approaches listed above have both a short-term and a long-term com- ponent, Shorter-term actions can usually be clearly defined, and are likely to involve little change in the system as a whole, and will involve a calculated assumption that quality of service or "product" will not suf- fer in a major way. Longer-term strategies to maximize our productivity may well involve system change, and will involve further dis- cussion regarding long-term impact on the quality of the institution and its activities. The advice received is enabling the adminis- tration and the Board to do a better job. Proposals and suggestions of all types have been received, and are under consideration by the Deans and the Bursar at this time. Com- mitments made in the 5 Year Plan will be such that they can be described, and if necessary defended, to the groups who have given us ad- vice. Bill Day “| eee ee ee eee eee ee