Ipcr Final - Dana

Republic of the Philippines
DAVAO ORIENTAL STATE COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

A University of Excellence, Innovation and Inclus
Martinez Drive, Dahican, 8200 Mati City, Davao Oriental
Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS)

OFFICE PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT and REVIEW (OPCR)
I, WILANFRANCO C. TAYONE, Dean of the INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES commits to deliver and agr
the following targets in accordance with the indicated measures for the period November 2015 to October 2016.
Equivalent Weight of Ouput

Functions Strategic Core Support Total
Weight
Date
Approved by :
DR. ROY M. PADILLA

Director for Instruction
Success Indicators (Targets + Division/ individuals
MFO/PAP Measures) Allotted Budget
Accountable
STRATEGIC PRIORITY NO:

MFO 1: HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES
produced 169 graduates (Bio 5,

1.1 Contributed to the college's total target of graduates ES 4, BSAM 50, BAT 100, All Programs of IALS
DevCom 8, BSN 2)
1.2 Prepared all programs scheduled for accreditation visit Scheduled for AACCUP's visit Program heads
one of the board

1.3 Licensure Examination degree programs surpassed the All faculty
national passing rate per year
MFO 2: RESEARCH SERVICES
presented and disseminated 8

1.1 Presented Papers researches All Faculty Researches
in various research fora
published 8 papers in CHED

1.2 Research Outputs Published accredited or international referred All Professors
journals
1.3 Contributed to the college's target for total number of

800 persons trained in a year All faculty
persons trained
CORE FUNCTIONS
1. Instructions
Accountable
Recommended to the DI for the

approval of tentative load
1.1 Supervised, checked and reviewed load assignments assignments, schedule of classes
Program Heads
and schedule of classes submitted by Program heads and utilization of classrooms of all
faculty in the institute on or before
the set deadline
80% of the faculty alloted 10 hours Program Heads, all

1.2 Supervised the due implementation of consultation time
consultaion time per week faculty
80% of the faculty attended the

1.3 Organized meetings, planning, etc. Dean, all faculty
meetings
80% of the graduating students Dean, Program heads,

1.4 Supervised the evaluation of graduating students
were evaluated Academic advisers
80 % of the faculty involved in the

Academic advisers,
1.5 Supervised the enrollment activities in the institute enrollment activities was
Program heads
supervised
1.6 Coordinated with the Program heads the 80 % of the faculty were observed
Program Heads
implementation of class monitoring/observation within the semester.
90 % of the Program heads were

1.7 Supervised performance evaluations of Program heads evaluated on their performance Program Heads
before the semester ends
Accountable
60 % of the faculty submitted the

1.8 Coordinated with Program heads for the submission of Program Heads, all
OBE syllabi 1 week before the
syllabi faculty
classes start
90% of the faculty submitted their Dean, Program Heads,

1.9 Supervised the timely submission of FSR and DTR
FSR/DTR on time all faculty
90% of the faculty submitted

Program Heads, all
1.10 Coordinated the prompt submission of grades grades on or before the set
faculty
deadline
90% of the Program heads
1.11 Coordinated the prompt submission of PPMP submitted their PPMPs on or Program Heads
before the set deadline
90% of the Program heads

1.12 Mentored the crafting and supervised submission of Dean, Program heads,
submitted their O/ICPR on or
O/IPCR of P Heads all faculty
before the deadline
1.13 Supervised and monitored periodic reports of Program 90 % submitted reports before the
Program Heads
heads dealine
1.14 Supervised that all faculty handled subjects within their 80 % of the faculty handled its field Dean, Program heads,
field of specialization of specialization all faculty
90% of the letters/request/others

1.15 Endorsed communications/request/others DOSCST constituents
were end0rsed to higher office
Accountable
2. Research
20% of faculty are involved in

2.1 Engagement of full-time faculty All faculty
research
3. Extension

3.1 Engagement of faculty All faculty
extension
SUPPORT FUNCTIONS / OTHERS

4. Production
one IM/IEC material produced per Program heads, All

4.1 Developed IM or IEC
program/year faculty
5. Special Assignments
Accountable
80 % of the Council members Faculty with Asst. Prof.

5.1 Attendance to Council meetings
attended meetings to Professorial ranks
80 % of the faculty were members

5.2 Membership to any special Committees all faculty
of a special committee
80 % of the faculty concerned

5.3 Attendance to other meetings and school activities all faculty
attended meetings/activities
80 % of the faculty with

faculty with
5.4 Attendance to flag ceremonies designations attended the flag
designations
ceremonies
Comments and Recommendations for Development Purposes: (to be accomplished OFFICE PERFORMANCE
by the immediate superior)
Category
A. Strategic Priorities
B. Core Functions
C. Support Functions
Total Overall Rating
Final Weighted Rating
Adjectival Rating
Accountable
Submitted by: Assessed by:
This is to certify the veracity of the information provided I certify that I have discussed my assesment
herein as the actual commitments and accomplishments of of the performance of the office through its head
the office I represent. and this is deemed as his/her personal
performance.
WILANFRANCO C. TAYONE Date ROY M. PADILLA Date

Dean, IALS Director for Instruction
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TEAM VALIDATION
Validated by: Attested by:
Date Date
LUCIO JABILLES VIVIAN C. LABASANO
Planning Officer HRMO
CHNOLOGY
nd Inclusion
(OPCR)
deliver and agree to be rated on the attainment of
________________________
Dean, IALS
Date
Actual Rating
Accomplishments
Remarks
Q1 E2 T3 A4
Actual Rating
Accomplishments
Remarks
Q1 E2 T3 A4
Actual Rating
Accomplishments
Remarks
Q1 E2 T3 A4
Actual Rating
Accomplishments
Remarks
Q1 E2 T3 A4
RATING SCALE:
4.5 to 5.0 - Outstanding
3.5 to 4.49 - Very Satisfactory
2.5 to 3.49 - Satisfactory
1.5 to 2.49 - Unsatisfactory
0.0 to 1.49 - Poor
Actual Rating
Accomplishments
Remarks
Q1 E2 T3 A4
ERFORMANCE RATING
Rating
Weight (%)
Average Weighted
Actual Rating
Accomplishments
Remarks
Q1 E2 T3 A4
Reviewed by:
ASTERIO G. OLANDRIA Date

VP-Academic Affairs
Final Rating:
Numerical =
Adjectival =
Date
EDITO B. SUMILE, Ph.D.
SUC President III
A University of Excellence, Innovation and Inclusion

OFFICE PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT and REVIEW (OPCR)
I, JOCELYN C. ARLES, Program Head of Diploma in Teaching of the INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND TEACHER TRAINING commits to deliver and a
attainment of the following targets in accordance with the indicated measures for the period November 2015 to October 2016.
Equivalent Weight of Ouput JOCELYN C. ARLE

Functions Strategic Core Support Total Program Head - DIT, I
Weight 30% 60% 10% 100%
Date
Approved by :
Date
ROMEO J. REDULLA
Dean
Success Indicators (Targets +
Measures) Division/ individuals Actual
MFO/PAP Allotted Budget
Accountable Accomplishments
STRATEGIC PRIORITY NO:
MFO 1: HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES
1.1 Contributed to the college's total target of graduates produced 2 DIT Graduates All faculty
1.2 Prepared all programs scheduled for accreditation visit Scheduled for AACCUP's visit All faculty
one of the board

1.3 Licensure Examination degree programs surpassed the All faculty
national passing rate per year
MFO 2: RESEARCH SERVICES presented and disseminated 1

1.1 Presented Papers research All Faculty Researchers
published 1 research
in various fora
paper in CHED
1.2 Research Outputs Published accredited or international referred All Professors
journals
1.3 Contributed to the college's target for total number of
100 persons trained in a year All faculty
persons trained
CORE FUNCTIONS
1. Instructions
Recommended to the DI for the

approval of tentative load
1.1 Checked, reviewed and evaluated load assignments, assignments, schedule of classes
All faculty
schedule of classes of the faculty and classroom utilization and utilization of classrooms of all
faculty in the institute on or before
the set deadline
1.2 Implemented the provision of faculty consultation time 80% of the faculty alloted 10 hours
All faculty
for students consultaion time per week
80% of the faculty attended the
1.3 Organized meetings, planning, etc. All faculty
meetings
1.4 Lead the evaluation of graduating students together 80% of the graduating students
All faculty
with academic advisers and senior faculty were evaluated
1.5 Supervised the academic advisers, enrolment officers, 80 % of the faculty involved in the
encoders and other faculty involved in the enrolment enrollment activities was All faculty
process supervised
80 % of the faculty were observed

1.6 Conducted class monitoring/observations All faculty
within the semester.
90 % of the faculty were evaluated

1.7 Conducted performance evaluations of faculty on their performance before the All faculty
semester ends
60 % of the faculty submitted the

1.8 Implement the prompt submission of syllabi OBE syllabi 1 week before the All faculty
classes start
90% of the faculty submitted their

1.9 Implement the prompt submission of FSR and DTR All faculty
FSR/DTR on time
90% of the faculty submitted

1.10 Implement the prompt submission of grades grades on or before the set All faculty
deadline
90% of the faculty submitted their
1.11 Checked and implemented the prompt submission of
requests on or before the set All faculty
PPMP
deadline
1.12 Mentored the crafting and supervised submission of 90% of the faculty submitted their
All faculty
faculty ICPR ICPR on or before the deadline
1.13 Supervised and monitored periodic reports of 90 % submitted reports before the
All faculty
concerned faculty dealine
1.14 Implemented the handling of faculty load according to 80 % of the faculty handled its field
All faculty
its field of specialization of specialization
90% of the letters/request/others

1.15 Endorsed communications/request/others All faculty
were end0rsed
2. Research
2.1 Engagement of full-time faculty All faculty
research
3. Extension
extension

4. Production
4.1 Developed IM one IM produced per year All faculty
80 % of the Council members Faculty with Asst. Prof. to

5.1 Attendance to Council meetings
attended meetings Professorial ranks
80 % of the faculty were members

5.2 Membership to any special Committees All faculty
of a special committee
80 % of the faculty concerned

5.3 Attendance to other meetings and school activities All faculty
attended meetings/activities
80 % of the faculty with
5.4 Attendance to flag ceremonies designations attended the flag faculty with designations
ceremonies
Comments and Recommendations for Development Purposes: (to be accomplished OFFICE PERFORMANCE RATING
by the immediate superior)
Category Weight (%)
B. Core Functions
Adjectival Rating
Submitted by: Assessed by: Reviewed by:

This is to certify the veracity of the information provided
I certify that I have discussed my assesment of the
herein as the actual commitments and accomplishments of
performance of the office through its head and this is
the office I represent.
deemed as his/her personal performance.
JOCELYN C. ARLES Date ROMEO J. REDULLA Date ROY M. PADILLA

Program Head - DIT, IETT Dean, IETT Director for Instructio
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TEAM VALIDATION Final Rating:
Validated by: Attested by: Numerical =

Adjectival =
Date Date
LUCIO JABILLES VIVIAN C. LABASANO EDITO B. SUMILE, P
Planning Officer HRMO SUC President III
on
s to deliver and agree to be rated on the
JOCELYN C. ARLES
ogram Head - DIT, IETT
Rating
Remarks
Q
1
E2 T 3 A4
TING RATING SCALE:
Rating 3.5 to 4.49 - Very Satisfactory
2.5 to 3.49 - Satisfactory
Average Weighted 1.5 to 2.49 - Unsatisfactory
0.0 to 1.49 - Poor
d by:
ROY M. PADILLA Date

Date
ITO B. SUMILE, Ph.D.
SUC President III
A University of Excellence, Innovation and Inclusion

INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT and REVIEW (IPCR)
I, DANA MAY A. GALIDO, faculty of the INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS TRAINING commits to deliver and agree to be rated on the attainme
the following targets in accordance with the indicated measures for the period November 2015 to October 2016.
Equivalent Weight of Ouput Dr. ROMEO J. REDULLA

Functions Core Support Total Dean, IETT
Weight 80% 20% 100%
Date
Approved by :
Date
DR. ROY M. PADILLA
Success Indicators (Targets +

Measures) Rating
Division/ individuals Actual
MFO/PAP Allotted Budget
Accountable Accomplishments Q1 E2 T3
CORE FUNCTIONS
1. Instructions
Signed the faculty work load

1.1 Accepted/confirmed/conformed to the load assigned Faculty
assignment
alloted 10 hours consultation time

1.2 Conducted the consultation for students Faculty
per week
80% of the meetings were

1.3 Attended meetings, planning, etc. Faculty
attended
80% of the graduating students

1.4 Participated in the evaluation of graduating students Faculty
were evaluated
80 % of the students were

1.5 Involved in the enrollment activities of the institute advised/encoded during the Faculty
enrollment activities
1.6 Prepared the necessary materials for classes 100 % prepared Faculty
90 % of the peers were evaluated

1.7 Conducted performance evaluations of peers Faculty
before the semester ends
60 % of the subjects handled were

1.8 Submitted OBE format syllabi submitted to the Program heads Faculty
before the classes start
1.9 Submitted FSR and DTR 90% submitted on time Faculty

90% of the Report of Grades were
1.10 Submitted grades submitted on or before the set Faculty
deadline
1.11 Submitted the IPCR 100% submitted Faculty
1.12 Handled subjects according to its field of specialization 100 % of the subjects handled Faculty

1. Research
engaged in at least one research
1.1 Engaged in research activities activity (not applicable to all All faculty
faculty)
2. Extension
engaged in at least one extension

activity(not applicable to all faculty)
3. Production
one IM/IEC materials produced per Program heads, All

3.1 Produced IM/IEC Materials
year (not applicable to all faculty) faculty
80 % of the Council meetings
Faculty with Asst. Prof.
4.1 Attended Council meetings attended (not applicable to all
to Professorial ranks
faculty)
actively involved (not applicable to

4.2 Membership to any special Committees all faculty
all faculty)
80 % of the meetings/activities
4.3 Attended other meetings and school activities were attended (not applicable to all all faculty
faculty)
80 % of the scheduled flag
faculty with
4.4 Attended flag ceremonies ceremonies were attended (not
designations
applicable to all faculty)
4.5 Checked grammar of undergraduate thesis or engaged in at least three

faculty
narratives undergraduate thesis
engaged in at least one review in a

4.6 Conducted LET Review faculty
year
engaged in at least one student

4.7 Advised Student Organization faculty
organization
Comments and Recommendations for Development Purposes: (to be accomplished OFFICE PERFORMANCE RATING
by the immediate superior) Rating
Category Weight (%)
Average Weighted
B. Core Functions
Adjectival Rating
Submitted by: Assessed by: Reviewed by:

This is to certify the veracity of the information I certify that I have discussed my assesment
provided herein as the actual commitments and of the performance of the office through its head
accomplishments of the office I represent. and this is deemed as his/her personal
performance.
DANA MAY A. GALIDO Date IVAN L. SALIGUMBA Date ROMEO J. REDULLA

Dean, IETT
Faculty, IETT Program Head, BSED-IETT
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TEAM VALIDATION Final Rating:
Validated by: Attested by: Numerical =

Adjectival =
Date Date
LUCIO JABILLES VIVIAN C. LABASANO EDITO B. SUMILE, Ph.D.
Planning Officer HRMO SUC President III
attainment of
ng
Remarks
A4
RATING SCALE:
ng 3.5 to 4.49 - Very Satisfactory
Weighted 2.5 to 3.49 - Satisfactory
1.5 to 2.49 - Unsatisfactory
0.0 to 1.49 - Poor
A Date
Date
.D.
Output Rating Quantity Standard Rating
5 produced 150 graduates 5
4 produced 120 - 149 graduates 4
graduates produced 3 produced 90 - 119 graduates 3
2 produced 50 - 89 graduates 2
1 produced less than 50 graduates 1
5 all programs submitted for accreditation 5
4 1 program not yet submitted for accreditation 4
Programs accredited 3 2 programs not yet submitted for accreditation 3
2 3 programs not yet submitted for accreditation 2
1 no program submitted for accreditation 1
5 100% of the board programs surpassed the nat'l passing rate 5
4 50% of the board programs surpassed the nat'l passing rate 4
Licensure examination 3 at least 30% of the takers passed the board exams 3
2 at least 10% of the takers passed the board exams 2
1 less than 10% of the takers passed the board exams 1
5 4 or more papers presented 5
4 3 papers presented 4
Presented Papers 3 2 papers presented 3
2 1 paper presented 2
1 no paper presented 1
5 4 or more papers published 5
4 3 papers published 4
published papers 3 2 papers published 3
2 1 paperspublished 2
1 no paper published 1
5 500 persons trained 5
4 251-499 persons trained 4
Number of persons trained 3 150-250 persons trained 3
2 50-149 persons trained 2
1 < 50 persons trained 1
5 90 - 100 % submitted 5
4 80-89.9 % 4
Submitted tentative load assignments, schedule of
classes, grades, reports, FSR/DTR, PPMP, O/IPCR, etc.
Submitted tentative load assignments, schedule of
classes, grades, reports, FSR/DTR, PPMP, O/IPCR, etc. 3 70-79.9 % 3
2 60-69.9 % 2
1 below 60 % 1
5 80 - 100 % of the faculty has consultation time 5
4 60 - 79.9 % of the faculty has consultation time 4
Implemented the consultation time schedule of faculty
for students 3 40 -59.9 % of the faculty has consultation time 3
2 20 - 39.9 % of the faculty has consultation time 2
1 below 20 % of the faculty has consultation time 1
5 80 - 100 % of the faculty attended meeting 5
4 60 - 79.9 % of the faculty attended meeting 4
Organized meetings, planning, etc. 3 40 - 59.9 % of the faculty attended meeting 3
2 20 - 39.9 % of the faculty attended meeting 2
1 below 20 % of the faculty attended meeting 1
5 80 - 100 % of the graduating students were evaluated 5
4 60 - 79.9 % of the graduating students were evaluated 4
Supervised the evaluation of graduating students 3 40 - 59.9 % of the graduating students were evaluated 3
2 20 - 39.9 % of the graduating students were evaluated 2
1 below 20 % of the graduating students were evaluated 1
5 80 - 100 % of the faculty were supervised 5
4 60 - 79.9 % of the faculty were supervised 4
Supervised enrollment activities in the institute 3 40 - 59.9 % of the faculty were supervised 3
2 20 - 39.9 % of the faculty were supervised 2
1 below 20 % of the faculty were supervised 1
5 80 - 100 % of the faculty were monitored 5
4 60 - 79.9 % of the faculty were monitored 4
Coordinated with the Program heads the
implementation of class monitoring of faculty 3 40 - 59.9 % of the faculty were monitored 3
2 20 - 39.9 % of the faculty were monitored 2
1 below 20 % of the faculty were monitored 1
5 80 - 100 % of the faculty were evaluated 5
4 60 - 79.9 % of the faculty were evaluated 4
Evaluated the performance of Program heads/faculty 3 40 - 59.9 % of the faculty were evaluated 3
2 20 - 39.9 % of the faculty were evaluated 2
1 below 20 % of the faculty were evaluated 1
5 at least 60% of the faculty submitted their syllabi 5
Submitted syllabi to the Dean through the Program
heads 3 at least 40% of the faculty submitted their syllabi 3
1 less than 30% of the faculty submitted their syllabi 1
5 at least 60% of the faculty distributed the syllabi to the students 5
Distributed syllabi to the students 3 at least 40% of the faculty distributed the syllabi to the students 3
1 less than 30% of the faculty distributed the syllabi to the students 1
5 at least 80% of the subjects handled was aligned to its field of specialization 5
Handled subjects according to field of specialization 3 at least 40% of the subjects handled was aligned to its field of specialization 3
1 less than 20% of the subjects handled was aligned to its field of specialization 1
5 at least 80% were endorsed 5
Endorsement of communications 3 at least 40%were endorsed 3
1 less than 20% were endorsed 1
5 16% or more of the faculty were engaged in research 5
4 12-15 % of the faculty were engaged in research 4
Faculty were engaged to research 3 9-11 % of the faculty were engaged in research 3
2 5-8 % of the faculty were engaged in research 2
1 < 5 % of the faculty were engaged in research 1
5 16% or more of the faculty were engaged in extension 5
4 12-15 % of the faculty were engaged in extension 4
Faculty were engaged to extension activity 3 9-11 % of the faculty were engaged in extension 3
2 5-8 % of the faculty were engaged in extension 2
1 < 5 % of the faculty were engaged in extension 1
5 at least one IM/IEC produced and utilized 5
4 at least one IM/IEC produced but not yet utilized 4
Developed IM or IEC 3 at least one IM/IEC crafted and not yet completed 3
Developed IM or IEC
2 at least one IM/IEC planned 2
1 if any of the above is not met 1
5 80 - 100 % attended meetings 5
4 60-79.9 % attended meetings 4
Attendance to College's council meetings 3 40-59.9 % attended meetings 3
2 20-39.9 % attended meetings 2
1 below 20 % attended meetings 1
5 80 - 100 % were member of a special committee 5
4 60-79.9 % were member of a special committee 4
Membership to any special Committees 3 40-59.9 % were member of a special committee 3
2 20-39.9 %were member of a special committee 2
1 below 20 % were member of a special committee 1
5 80 - 100 % attended 5
4 60-79.9 % attended 4
Attendance to other meetings and school activities 3 40-59.9 % attended 3
2 20-39.9 % attended 2
1 below 20 % attended 1
5 80 - 100 % attended 5
4 60-79.9 % attended 4
Attendance to flag ceremonies 3 40-59.9 % attended 3
2 20-39.9 % attended 2
1 below 20 % attended 1
Quality/Efficiency Standard Rating
5
4
3
2
1
at least 50% of the programs are level 3 accredited 5
at least 50% of the programs are level 2 accredited 4
100% of the programs are level 1 accredited 3
100% of the programs are PSV level accredited 2
if any of the above is not met 1
20% of the takers got a rating of 80% and above 5
20% of the takers got a rating of 78-79% 4
20% of the takers got a rating of 76-77% 3
20% of the takers got a rating of 75-75.9% 2
at least 1 paper presented in an international fora 5
at least 1 paper presented in national fora 4
3 or more papers presented inregll fora 3
at least 1 paper presented in reglal fora 2
no paper/s presented 1
at least 1 papers are published in ISI journal 5
at least 1 are published in an International non-ISI journal 4
at least 1 are published in CHED accredited journal 3
at least 1 is published in a national or local non ched accred journal 2
at least 30% of the participants rated the activity outstanding 5
at least 30% of the participants rated the activity very satisfactory 4
at least 30% of the participants rated the activity satisfactory 3
at least 30% of the participants rated the activity unsatisfactory 2
w/o error 5
1-5 errors 4
6-10 errors 3
11-15 errors 2
16 or more errors 1
at least 80% of students/clientele were satisfied 5
at least 80% of the agenda were deliberated or discussed 5
w/o error 5
1-5 errors 4
6-10 errors 3
11-15 errors 2
16 or more errors 1
at most 10 errors 5
11-15 errors 4
16-20 errors 3
21-25 errors 2
26 or more errors 1
majority of the faculty was rated Outstanding 5
majority of the faculty was rated Very Satisfactory 4
majority of the faculty was rated Satisfactory 3
majority of the faculty was rated Unsatisfactory 2
majority of the faculty was rated Poor 1
majority of the faculty was rated Outstanding 5
majority of the faculty was rated Very Satisfactory 4
majority of the faculty was rated Satisfactory 3
majority of the faculty was rated Unsatisfactory 2
majority of the faculty was rated Poor 1
w/o error 5
1-5 errors 4
6-10 errors 3
11-15 errors 2
16 or more errors 1
at least 60% of the students received the syllabi 5
less than 30% of the students received the syllabi 1
majority of the faculty who handled the subject was a Doctorate degree holder 5
majority of the faculty who handled the subject has Doctorate units 4
majority of the faculty who handled the subject was a Masteral degree holder 3
majority of the faculty who handled the subject has Masteral units 2
majority of the faculty who handled the subject was a Baccalaureate degree holder 1
at least 50% of the communication was approved as endorsed 5
at least 20% ofthe communication was approved as endorsed 2
less than 20% of the communication was approved as endorsed 1
at least 50% of the researcher had presented or published their research outputs 5
less than 20% of the researcher had presented or published their research outputs 1
majority of the trainees/adoptors rated the activity Outstanding 5
majority of the trainees/adoptors rated the activity Very Satisfactory 4
majority of the trainees/adoptors rated the activity Satisfactory 3
majority of the trainees/adoptors rated the activity Unsatisfactory 2
majority of the trainees/adoptors rated the activity Poor 1
Approved by Higher office for Instruction utilization 5
Approved by TLEAC 4
submitted for TLEAC evaluation 3
Crafted but no yet submitted for evaluation 2
5
4
3
2
1
80 - 100 % of the task assigned were accomplished 5
60-79.9 % of the task assigned were accomplished 4
below 20 % of the task assigned were accomplished 1
at least 5 members were absent 5
more than 20 members were absent 1
5
4
3
2
1
Timeliness
at least 50% graduated on time
below 20% graduated on time
at least 40% of the graduates took the exam within a year after graduation
at least 40% of the graduates took the exam 2 years after graduation
if any of the above is not met
research results presented within a year after completion of the research
research results presented two yeasr after completion of the research
research results presented 3 years after completion of the research
research results presented 4 years after completion of the research
research results published within a year after completion of the research
research results published 2 years after completion of the research
the duration of training or activity was finished earlier or as scheduled
the duration of training or activity was extended for 1 day
the duration of training or activity was extended for 2 days
the duration of training or activity was extended for 3 days
the duration of training or activity was extended for more than 3 days
on or before the deadline
3 working days after the deadline
> 9 working days after the deadline
students' concerns were accomodated within 20 minutes after logging-in
students' concerns were accomodated within 1 hour and 30 minutes after logging-in
students' concerns were accomodated beyond 1 hour and 30 minutes after logging-in
at least 20% of the faculty attended the meeting on time
at least 20% of the faculty was late for 1-15 minutes
at least 20% of the faculty was late for 16-30 minutes
at least 20% of the faculty was late for more than 30 minutes
if absent
on or before the deadline
> 9 working days after the deadline
30% of the total population in the institute was advised within the regular enrolment period
30% of the total population in the institute were advised 4 days after the regular enrolment period
At least 80% of the faculty were monitored within the semester
At least 20% of the faculty weremonitoredd within the semester
Less than 20% of the faculty were monitored within the semester
At least 80% of the faculty were evaluated withinr the semester
At least 60% of the faculty were evaluated within the semester
submitted the syllabi 1 week before classes start
submitted the syllabi 3 days after classes start
submitted the syllabi 12 or more days after classes start
distributed the syllabi to students first week of classes
distributed the syllabi to students second week of classes
distributed the syllabi to students third week of classes
distributed the syllabi to students fourth week of classes
distributed the syllabi beyond one month
acted upon within 1-5 days

acted upon 6-10 days
acted upon beyond 20 days
researches were completed as scheduled
researches were completed 3 months after the proposed schedule
researches were completed more than 9 months after the proposed schedule
extension activities were completed as scheduled
extension activities were completed 1 month after the proposed schedule
extension activities were completed 2 months after the proposed schedule
at least one IM produced and utilized in a year
at least one IM produced but not yet utilized in a year
at least one IM crafted and not yet completed in a year
at least one IM planned in a year
majority of the Council members attended the meeting on time
majority of the Council members was late for 1-15 minutes
majority of the Council members was late beyond 1 hour
accomplished all the assigned task ahead on time
accomplished all the assigned task on time
accomplished 70% of the assigned task on time
accomplished 50% of the assigned task on time
accomplished less than 50% of the assigned task on time
majority of the concerned faculty members was late for 1-15 minutes
majority of the concerned faculty members was late beyond 1 hour
majority of the concerned faculty members attended the flag ceremonies on time
majority of the concerned faculty members was late for 2 minutes
majority of the concerned faculty members was late beyond 6 minutes

Ipcr Final - Dana

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ipcr Final - Dana

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

DAVAO ORIENTAL STATE COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS)

Equivalent Weight of Ouput

DR. ROY M. PADILLA

STRATEGIC PRIORITY NO:

produced 169 graduates (Bio 5,

one of the board

MFO 2: RESEARCH SERVICES

presented and disseminated 8

published 8 papers in CHED

1.3 Contributed to the college's target for total number of

Recommended to the DI for the

80% of the faculty alloted 10 hours Program Heads, all

80% of the faculty attended the

80% of the graduating students Dean, Program heads,

80 % of the faculty involved in the

90 % of the Program heads were

60 % of the faculty submitted the

90% of the faculty submitted their Dean, Program Heads,

90% of the faculty submitted

90% of the Program heads

90% of the letters/request/others

20% of faculty are involved in

20% of faculty are involved in

SUPPORT FUNCTIONS / OTHERS

one IM/IEC material produced per Program heads, All

80 % of the Council members Faculty with Asst. Prof.

80 % of the faculty were members

80 % of the faculty concerned

80 % of the faculty with

Submitted by: Assessed by:

WILANFRANCO C. TAYONE Date ROY M. PADILLA Date

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TEAM VALIDATION

Validated by: Attested by:

deliver and agree to be rated on the attainment of

ASTERIO G. OLANDRIA Date

Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS)

Equivalent Weight of Ouput JOCELYN C. ARLE

one of the board

MFO 2: RESEARCH SERVICES presented and disseminated 1

Recommended to the DI for the

80 % of the faculty were observed

90 % of the faculty were evaluated

60 % of the faculty submitted the

90% of the faculty submitted their

90% of the faculty submitted

90% of the letters/request/others

SUPPORT FUNCTIONS / OTHERS

80 % of the Council members Faculty with Asst. Prof. to

80 % of the faculty were members

80 % of the faculty concerned

Submitted by: Assessed by: Reviewed by:

JOCELYN C. ARLES Date ROMEO J. REDULLA Date ROY M. PADILLA

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TEAM VALIDATION Final Rating:

Validated by: Attested by: Numerical =

s to deliver and agree to be rated on the

ROY M. PADILLA Date

Strategic Performance Management System (SPMS)

Equivalent Weight of Ouput Dr. ROMEO J. REDULLA

Success Indicators (Targets +

Signed the faculty work load