UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

2005

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FORMS

Note:

• Lecturing staff (C1) select the applicable paragraph:

• Junior Lecturer: Par 2.1

• Lecturer: Par 2.2

• Senior Lecturer: Par 2.3

• Associate Professor: Par 2.4

• Professor: Par 2.5

• UP-Behavioural values Par 2.7

• Non Lecturing staff (C2 and C3, all levels) within faculties and support services:

• Support Services Par 2.6

• UP-Behavioural values Par 2.7

SECTION 1: COMMUNICATION IN PREPARATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN OUTPUT AGREEMENT

Questions to be completed by the member of staff BEFORE the DISCUSSION with the direct head.

1. What do I think are the most important behavioral and working criteria that are necessary for the work I do?

Ek het nie kriteria nodig om my werk te doen nie. Wat ek nodig het om my werk effektief te kan doen is die

volgende:

• Intellektuele vaardighede

• Inligtingverwerkingsvaardighede

• Komminikasie vaardighede

• Instruksionele ontwerpvaardighede

• Rekenaarprogrammeringsvaardighede

• Streshanteringstrategieë

• Emosionele hanteringstrategieë

2. Which aspects of my job do I like best?

Ek hou van die volgende aspekte:

• Ontwikkeling van modules

• Ontwikkeling van elektroniese wyses van onderrig

• Eksplorering van nuwe tegnologieë met die doel om moontlike toepassings in die onderwys (onderrig, administrasie, evaluering) te identifiseer en te ontwikkel

• Fasilitering van studente

• Ontwikkeling van studente se loopbane

3. Which aspects of my job do I like least?

Die volgende is aspekte waarvan ek nie hou nie:

• Ondeursigtigheid deur lyn- en ander bestuurders mbt aanwending van finansiële hulpbronne. Die enigste terugvoer is kostes mbt fotostate en telefoonoproepe. Besteding van fondse mbt die aanstelling van deeltydse personeel, vervoer na die buiteland en ander onkostes word verswyg.

• Ondeursigtigheid van lyn-, ander bestuurders en kollegas mbt die aanwendig van fondse wat dmv buitelandse ooreenkomste bekom is.

• Onregverdigheid van lyn- en ander bestuuders tov die regverdige verdeling van hulpbronne (bv. deeltydse personeel). Somming programme (bv MEd (CIE)) word hoofsaaklik mbv deeltydse personeel bedryf.

• Oneffektiwiteit van lynbestuurders en voorsitters van komitees.

• Swak kommunikasie met studente. Daar bestaan geen of baie min effektiewe prosedures mbt sake wat studente raak (bv Prosedure tov verdediging van navorsingsvoorstelle, prosedure tov estiese klarings)

• Swak kommunikasie met personeel deur lynbestuurders, voorsitters van komitees, Dekaan en hoof van administrasie.

• Die verkleinering van personeel en studente deur die Dekaan mbt godsiens en kultuur.

• Ondeursigtige onderhandelinge deur kollegas en bestuurders met die doel om simbiotiese voordele te trek.

• Die oneffektiewe manier waarop die verdediging van studente se navorsingsvoorstelle hanteer word. Ek kry die idée dat dit maar net ‘n formaliteit geword het en dat die ontwikkeling van die student as navorser nie die primêre doel is nie.

• Om sogenaamde navorsing te doen om ‘n aan ‘n kwota te voldoen. Dit gee aanleiding tot korrupte praktyke. Opleiding van studente word afgeskeep om sogenaamd navorsing te doen.

4. How can my direct head and my colleagues support me in my work?

My lynbestuurder en kollegas kan:

• Meer deursigtig wees tov die aanwending van finansiële hulpbronne.

• Meer regverdig wees teov die verdeling van deeltydse personeel.

• Meer effektief optree.

• Beter konnunikeer.

• Meer opbouende kritiek lewer en godsdiens en kultuur ter syde stel.

Bogenoemde aspekte gaan nie ‘n direkte ondersteunende rol in my werk speel nie maar dit gaan wel bydra tot my my “well-being” op emosionele en gesondheidsvlak wat my werksomgewing meer aangenaam en meer draagbaar gaan maak.

5. In which aspects of my job do I think I need more training and experience?

Ek het meer opleiding nodig tov die diplomatiese hantering van probleme op kollegiale vlak. Ek is van nature iemand wat woedend raak oor onregverdigheid, oneffektiwiteit en onproduktiwiteit en ook nie skroom om my afkeer te wys nie.

6. What do I think were the most important successes during the past 12 months?

Op departementele vlak dink ek nie daar was iets wat ek as ‘n sukses kan uitlig nie. Ook op Fakulteitsvlak dink ek nie seker dat daar vir my enige hoogtepunte uitstaan nie. Moontlik is dit agv swak komminukasie of eensydige kommunikasie.

Wat my persoonlik betref dink ek dat die volgende vir my suksesse was:

• Programmering van “mobile devices” soos selfone en PDAs en die aanwending van my kennis en vaardigheid op BEd Hons vlak. Studente opdragte was geskoei op hierdie tegnologie en hulle was beïndruk met hulself nadat hulle hierdie toestelle “grprogrammeer” het. Hulle was ook baie dankbaar vir die feit dat hulle op hoogte gehou word met nuwe tegnologieë.

• Aanstelling as outeur (op konsultasie) vir ‘n e-leer maatskappy wat e-leer kursusse ontwikkel. As deel van die groep is ek betrokke by die ontwikkeling van ‘n ACE vir Wiskunde en Wetenskaponderwysers wat deur die Noordwes Universiteit aangebied word.

• Aanstelling as consultant deur bogenoemde maatskappy om kort kursusse vir verder opleiding op die gebied van rekenaargebaseerde onderwys. Daar word beplan om hierdie kursusse deur CE@UP vir afgestudeerde ACE (CIE). BEd Hons (CIE), MEd (CIE) en PhD (CIE) studente aan te bied.

7. Are any changes needed in my work that could help to increase my effectiveness? (Aspects such as duties, procedures, reports etc).

Sien vraag 1.3. As daar voldoende aan hierdie probleme aandag gegee sal word, sal dit beslis my emosionele welstand positief beïnvloed en dus ook my effektiwiteit as dit nie na wense is nie.

8. Do I think all my capabilities are fully utilized in my current job assignments? What can I suggest to put them to better use?

My vermoëns word beslis nie ten volle benut nie. Ek dink dat ek ‘n baie goeie analitiese vermoë het om oneffektiewe prosedures te kan identifiseer en te verbeter. Dit beteken nie dat ek my nou bereidwillig verklaar om vir die Departement en/of Fakulteit prosedures op te stel nie. Dit kan deur administratiewe personeel gedoen word. Sodra ek egter sulke oneffektiewe prosedures uitwys dan word ek beskuldig van ondiplomatiese optrede en onkonstruktiwiteit. Op hierdie stadium het ek verlief geneem met oneffektiewe prosedures en probeer om my nie daaraan te steur nie.

My rekenaarvaardighede word ook beslis nie benut nie. Ek is in staat om stelsels te ontwikkel om die administrasie van die department en Fakulteit meer effektief te maak. Ek kan dit egter nie doen met die ACE, BEd Hons, MEd, PhD en PGCHE studente wat ek hanteer nie. Ek kan dit ook nie doen sonder addisionele assistensie nie. Dit bring my weer by die onregverdige verdeling van hulbronne (bv deeltydse personeel).

Ek het maar besluit om my vermoëns op ander terreine, maar wel tot voordeel van Suid-Afrikaners, aan te wend (Sien vraag 1.6).

9. What specifically have I done for my personal and/or self-development over the past 12 months?

Ek het uitgewers gekontak en komplimetêre kopiëe van ‘n verskeidenheid van boeke op die gebied van rekenaargesteunde onderwys aangevra. Op hierdie manier bly ek op hoogte van nuwe tendense. Ek het my ook self bereid verklaar om deel te wees van die loostgroep wat WebCT VISTA volgende jaar implementeer. Ek woon gereeld opleiding- en besprekingsessies by. Verder neem e kook deel aan die opleiding van TLO-personeel mbt bepaalde aspekte van WebCT.

As lid van die redaksionele komitee van die internasionale elektroniese tydskrif, Spreadsheets in Education, evalueer en tussen 2-3 artikel per jaar. Op die manier weet ek wie die kenners in die buiteland is en wat internasionaal gebeur op die gebied van sigblaaie in onderwys.

1.10 What does my self-development programme look like? What am I going to do in respect of self-development over the next year or two?

Ek sal voortgaan met die strategieë uiteengesit in vraag 1.9.

11. How do I think the University could help me to develop for higher responsibilities?

Ek dink nie dat die Universiteit direk iets kan doen nie. Ek dink daar is geleenthede in die Universiteit wat ek kan ontgin (bv WebCT en TLO). Die geleentheid om projekte in die privaarsektor (sien vraag 1.6) te identifiseer en daarby betrokke te raak moet aangemoedig word. Finansiële ondersteuning (as deel van studieverlof) moet gegee word vir die bywoning van gevorderde rekenaarverwante kursusse. In die verlede is opleiding wat ek nodig geag het, deur die Dekaan afgekeur – moontlik omdat ek nie my kwota navorsing gedoen het nie. Sou hierdie praktyk voorbestaan dan sal en my tot die privaatsektor (maatskappye vir wie ek konsultasie werk doen) wend vir opleiding tot voordeel van hul projekte.

11. Which aspects do I consider to be important to achieve in the following 12 months?

Ek beskou die aspekte genoem onder 1.3, 1.4 en 1.8 as die belangrikste waaraan aandag gegee moet word.

Ek is egter nie optimisties dat daar nog voor my aftrede (2013) enige noeminswaardige veranderinge gaan plaasvind nie. Politiekery binne die Department en Fakulteit gaan swaarder weeg as my eie emosionele “well-being”.

1.13 What are my plans for the long term? What type of job do I hope to do approximately three to five years’ ahead?

Voltyds in diens van die privaatsektor as ontwikkelaar van rekenaargesteunde toepassing in die onderwys.

14. How do I prepare for these job assignments?

Sien 1.6.

14. Having considered the above, list what you consider to be your main responsibilities.

Responsibility	Comment/remarks
Ontwerper van modules.
Ontwerper van e-leer toepassings.
Ontwerper van rekenaartoepassings vir die onderteuning van administratiewe take.
Ontwerper van rekenaarstelsels vir die ondersteuning van onderwysers tov lesbeplanning volgens departementele voorskrifte.
Opleiding en ontwikkeling van studente op die terein van rekenaargesteunde onderwys
Begeleiding van studente (BEd Hons) mbt rekenaargebaseerde projekte.
Beleiding van MEd studente tov rekenaargesteunde projekte en navorsing.
Beleiding van PhD studente tov rekenaargesteunde projekte en navorsing.
Selfontwikkeling op die gebied van rekenaargesteunde onderwys.
Ontwikkeling van rekenaargesteunde oplossings vir bepaalde probleme in die onderwys (RSA) in samewerking met die privaatsektor.	Suid-Afrikaanse probleme moet primêr aandag kry. Die RSA het bygedra tot my ontwikkeling vanaf voorgraadse tot op nagraadse vlak en ek beskou dit as my plig om hierdie land en sy mense te dien. Ek het nie die begeerte om die onderys probleme van die internasionale gemeenskap aan te spreek nie. Dit is dalk makliker en finansieel meer voordelig maar ek voel dat dit nie my plig is nie.

SECTION 2: PERSONAL OUTPUT AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORMS

2.1 PERFORMANCE IN RESPECT OF OUTPUTS: JUNIOR LECTURER

Name		Personnel No		Faculty
Department		Division		Evaluator
Evaluation period

A	B	C	D	E
Core work process	Outputs	Quality requirements per output	Weight	Score: Evaluation of performance. Circle the relevant score					Score x weight
				Poor	Below expectation	According to expectation	Above expectation	Excellent
Academic qualifications See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par. 2.1.1 p3				1	2	3	4	5
2. Academic record See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.1.2 p3				1	2	3	4	5
3. Teaching and research capabilities See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.1.3 p3				1	2	3	4	5
4. Administration Experience of and training in departemental administration, as well as willingness to participate.				1	2	3	4	5
FINAL PERFORMANCE SCORE: OUTPUTS			TOTAL: 100	PERFORMANCE SCORE = Sum of score x weight divided by 100

_________________________________ ___________________________

Signature of direct supervisor Signature of employee

2.2 PERFORMANCE IN RESPECT OF OUTPUTS: LECTURER

Name		Personnel No		Faculty
Department		Division		Evaluator
Evaluation period

A	B	C	D	E
Core work process	Outputs	Quality requirements per output	Weight	Score: Evaluation of performance. Circle the relevant score					Score x weight
				Poor	Below expectation	According to expectation	Above expectation	Excellent
Academic qualifications See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par. 2.2.1 p4
2. Academic record See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.2.2 p4
3. Teaching innovation See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.2.3 p4	Evidence of at least two innovative teaching activities		20	1	2	3	4	5
Research outputs See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.2.4 p4	Evidence of at least two publications in accredited journals		50	1	2	3	4	5
5. Subject associations, national and international networking See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.2.5 p4	Evidence of involvement in at least two national/international networks		10	1	2	3	4	5
6. Student support	Evidence of involvement in one student support activity		10	1	2	3	4	5
7. Administration and management	Evidence of involvement in one departmental/faculty administrative activity		10	1	2	3	4	5
FINAL PERFORMANCE SCORE: OUTPUTS			TOTAL: 100	PERFORMANCE SCORE = Sum of score x weight divided by 100

_________________________________ ___________________________

Signature of direct supervisor Signature of employee

2.3 PERFORMANCE IN RESPECT OF OUTPUTS: SENIOR LECTURER

Name		Personnel No		Faculty
Department		Division		Evaluator
Evaluation period

A	B	C	D	E
Core work process	Outputs	Quality requirements per output	Weight	Score: Evaluation of performance. Circle the relevant score					Score x weight
				Poor	Below expectation	According to expectation	Above expectation	Excellent
Academic qualifications See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par. 2.3.1 p5
Academic record See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.3.2 p5
Teaching innovation See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.3.3 p5		Evidence of at least two innovative teaching activities	20	1	2	3	4	5
Research and publications See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.3.4 p5		Evidence of at least two publications in accredited journals	50	1	2	3	4	5
Subject associations, national and international networking See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par. 2.3.5 p6		Evidence of involvement in at least two national/international networks	10	1	2	3	4	5
Student support		Evidence of involvement in one student support activity	10	1	2	3	4	5
Administration and management Experience of and training in departmental and faculty administration and management activities		Evidence of involvement in one departmental/faculty administrative activity	10	1	2	3	4	5
FINAL PERFORMANCE SCORE: OUTPUTS			TOTAL: 100	PERFORMANCE SCORE = Sum of score x weight divided by 100

_________________________________ ___________________________

Signature of direct supervisor Signature of employee

2.4 PERFORMANCE IN RESPECT OF OUTPUTS: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

Name		Personnel No		Faculty
Department		Division		Evaluator
Evaluation period

A	B	C	D	E
Core work process	Outputs	Quality requirements per output	Weight	Score: Evaluation of performance. Circle the relevant score					Score x weight
				Poor	Below expectation	According to expectation	Above expectation	Excellent
Academic qualifications See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par. 2.4.1 p6				1	2	3	4	5
Academic record See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.4.2 p6				1	2	3	4	5
Awards See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par. 2.4.7 p7				1	2	3	4	5
Evaluation of status as academic See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.4.8 p7				1	2	3	4	5
Teaching Innovation See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.4.3 p6		Evidence of at least two innovative teaching activities	20	1	2	3	4	5
Research outputs and publications See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.4.4 p6		Evidence of at least two publications in accredited journals	50	1	2	3	4	5
Subject associations, conferences, national and international networking See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par. 2.4.5 p7		Evidence of involvement in at least two national/international networks	10	1	2	3	4	5
9. Student support		Evidence of involvement in one student support activity	10
Management and Administrative ability See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par. 2.4.6 p7		Evidence of involvement in one departmental/faculty administrative activity	10	1	2	3	4	5
FINAL PERFORMANCE SCORE: OUTPUTS			TOTAL: 100	PERFORMANCE SCORE = Sum of score x weight divided by 100

_________________________________ ___________________________

Signature of direct supervisor Signature of employee

5. PERFORMANCE IN RESPECT OF OUTPUTS: PROFESSOR

Name		Personnel No		Faculty
Department		Division		Evaluator
Evaluation period

A	B	C	D	E
Core work process	Outputs	Quality requirements per output	Weight	Score: Evaluation of performance. Circle the relevant score					Score x weight
				Poor	Below expectation	According to expectation	Above expectation	Excellent
Academic qualifications See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par. 2.5.1 p8				1	2	3	4	5
2. Academic record See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.5.2 p8				1	2	3	4	5
3. Awards See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par. 2.4.7 p7				1	2	3	4	5
Evaluation of status as academic See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.4.8 p7				1	2	3	4	5
5. Teaching Innovation See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.5.3 p8				1	2	3	4	5
6 Research outputs and publications See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.5.4 p8				1	2	3	4	5
Subject associations, national and international networking See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.5.6 p9				1	2	3	4	5
Administrative and managerial ability See Rt 100/95 (Revised – 09/05/2000) par 2.5.7 p9				1	2	3	4	5
Student support				1	2	3	4	5
FINAL PERFORMANCE SCORE: OUTPUTS			TOTAL: 100	PERFORMANCE SCORE = Sum of score x weight divided by 100

_________________________________ ___________________________

Signature of direct supervisor Signature of employee

2.6 PERFORMANCE IN RESPECT OF OUTPUTS: SUPPORT SERVICES

Name		Personnel No		Faculty
Department		Division		Evaluator
Evaluation period

A		B	C	D	E
	Core work process	Outputs	Quality requirements per output	Weight	Score: Evaluation of performance. Circle the relevant score					Score x weight
					Poor	Below expectation	According to expectation	Above expectation	Excellent
1					1	2	3	4	5
2					1	2	3	4	5
3*					1	2	3	4	5
FINAL PERFORMANCE SCORE: OUTPUTS				TOTAL: 100	PERFORMANCE SCORE = Sum of score x weight divided by 100

_________________________________ ___________________________

Signature of direct supervisor Signature of employee

UP value system

The value system of the University of Pretoria can be obtained from the 2002 – 2005 Strategic Plan, Inspiring the Innovation Generation, p53, paragraph 5.3.

The behavioural values are amongst others the following:

• Pro-active

• Consultative

• Transparant

• Delegate

• Empower

• Mutual trust

• Academic freedom

• Persuit of knowledge and scholarship

• Innovate

• Change

Faculties and support services can incorporate the values according to their unique application therof. The values can also flexibly be applied as either critical performance areas, outputs, or part of the set of quality criteria of other relevant outputs.

SECTION 3: REMARKS/COMMENT/OBJECTIVES (CONTINUOUS)

Remarks/comment/objectives. Copy and use in all operational as well as performance management talks and file in the personal file and development file.

1. Direct head: Remarks/comment/action taken by the direct head, and objectives for the direct head.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Employee: Remarks/comment/action taken by the employee, and objectives for the employee.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

^*

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

SECTION 4:

4.1 SCORE FOR THE YEAR (DECEMBER EVALUATION)

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MANAGEMENT AND MENTOR

______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________________

Signature of the direct head Signature of the employee Signature of the head one level up from the

direct supervisor