University of Missouri System

Office of the President

Performance Award Program for Gary D. Forsee, President

I. University Performance Objectives

1a. Establish overall performance measures for system, campuses and UMHC, including appropriate new peer assessment measures:

• Determine current base and desired “future state” and necessary investments to achieve same. Metric = Completion of program – 1/3 complete by September 2008; 100% complete by September 2009.
• An evaluation program will be used to assess degree of effectiveness in governmental relationships and personally meet with leadership to determine effectiveness. Metric = Base line relative to change. Assumption = evaluation can occur.

1b. Effectively communicate value of education, higher education, and University of Missouri in supporting Missouri citizens and the state’s economic and service infrastructure:

• Metric = Assessment of base line relative to change. Assumption = evaluation can occur.

1c. To strengthen University governance, and carry out the Board’s and president’s expectations for increased accountability and performance, establish comprehensive performance and pay program for General Officers, with planning to eventually extend program to deans and above:

• Metric = Initiation of program for Chancellors and Vice Presidents by September 2008; first year cycle completed by September 2009.

1d. Initiate comprehensive system-wide strategic planning retreat:

• Commence with strategic planning retreat in mid-June.
• Initiate in parallel a strategic planning review of Columbia campus health affairs – UMHC system; Schools of Medicine, Nursing, Health Professions; University Physicians. Commence that activity by April 1, 2008.
• Complete recommendations by October 1, 2008
• Total plan to Curators by December 2008

1e. Work on improving faculty compensation ratios to market:

• Progress measures TBD. (3-year plan adopted by Curators in 2007)

1f. Deliver comprehensive plan to improve University of Missouri’s distance learning capabilities to support the needs of the State of Missouri.

• Complete by December 1, 2008 (Gordon Lamb)

1g. By December 1, 2008, set long-term targets for key measures:

• Retention rate
• Graduation rate
• Incoming freshmen ACT and class rank
• Emphasis on new funding sources:
• percent increase in alumni participation
• projects funded outside traditional state/federal support
• research grants per faculty FTE
• revenue derived from Research & Economic Development
• Annual—performance against budget

1h. Analyze existing UM System resources that are supporting pre-K-12 initiatives and look for best practices and leverage that can be applied.

1i. Evolve and develop The Missouri 100 as an advisory group for the president and a strong advocate for the University.

II. Campus Performance Objectives (To be developed in 2008 for 2009 and beyond)

III. Vice President/Divisional Performance Objectives (To be developed in 2008 for 2009 and beyond)

IV. President's Individual Performance Objectives

4a. Articulate the President’s overall vision for the central administration, campuses and units to constituencies of the University and to the citizens of Missouri. The vision will draw upon a powerful set of values and principles to guide the actions and direction of all members of the UM System.

4b. Exert presidential leadership at every level of the institution by championing, negotiating, directing, and facilitating substantive progress toward the achievement of system-wide goals.

4c. Promote cooperation and dialogue among leaders at all levels of the UM System, campuses and units to accomplish the goals of the system and its component parts.

4d. Facilitate an atmosphere of partnership and entrepreneurship between and among all organizational elements of the University and between the University and other entities in such critical areas as education, business, and government.

4e. Be accountable:

• Consistently deliver expected results
• Keep members of the UM Board of Curators informed about critical issues, conditions and factors that could influence the UM System’s ability to achieve its goals.