Daily

Performanc
e
Evaluation
Receiving and
analyzing Trainees’
feedback.

New way of doing old things!

 Term project

Corporate information system

Submitted to:

Prof. Ateeq Ahmed

Submitted by:

UCP Students Year 2010

Performance feedback and Evaluation Page 2

 Introduction to the organization:

The Directorate of Staff Development is rendering valuable / meritorious services in the

field of teachers’ training since last 50 years. The institution was established with the
name of Education Extension Centre (EEC) in the year 1959. Since its inception it is
contributing positively in the progression of education in the Province by working as a
change agent. The Government has facilitated teacher development by evolving a
specific role for the Directorate as an organization solely responsible for coordinating
and ensuring teacher development in the province.

The Directorate was linked with University of Education (UOE) for couple of years.
However, it was delinked from the same in the year 2004 and restructured to become
an apex organization for teachers’ professional development. In the year 2006 Punjab
Institute of Teacher Education (PITE) and Government College of Elementary teachers
(GCETs) were also given under the administrative control of DSD. In the year 2009 PITE
was merged with DSD in order to strengthen the institution as one unit and for a
coordinated effort towards attainment of its goals.

Paradigm Shifts in Teacher Development

(2004 to date)

Rationalization of all teacher development agencies in Punjab:

 Major Shift in Conceptual Structure

 Decentralized Delivery Structure

 New Functional Role of DSD

 Revised Organizational Structure

 Trainers-on-call (equitable district wise resource base)

Performance feedback and Evaluation Page 3

  Established Linkages at the District Level (district govt. and field)

 Innovations in DSD Practice

 Coordination with stakeholders

 Public private Partnerships

 Certification of Trainers and Trainees

 Technology assisted training Quality Assurance Mechanism at filed level

The daily evaluation process:

Directorate of Staff Development, Wahdat Road is a well known Govt. institute of teacher
education and training. A venue, where training program is an ongoing affair! Every program
consists of syndicate work, group-activities followed by presentations. Another part is the
training sessions conducted by Resource persons.

For every 90minutes class session the resource person is evaluated through a form called
“Workshop Feedback Form”. These forms are then submitted to the class in charge who are
responsible to make sure that all the marks are summed correctly along with other formalities.
These forms are then submitted to a computer operator who feeds those marks into an excel
sheet. Similarly, feedbacks from all the classes for the same resource person are fed into
computer and finally the percentages are calculated. The obtained percentages are then

Performance feedback and Evaluation Page 4

compared with previous training results and conclusions are formed.

The Process Flow:

The Problem Statement:

The English-medium schools training crash program which is on the go for past one year, has
seen many faces as resource persons. The content of the training by an large remain the same.
When it comes to planning and deciding the list of resource-persons for the training, the only
source of selection is all those INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS between program administrator and
class in charges.

Because…..

Performance feedback and Evaluation Page 5

There is NO efficient way of evaluating a trainer’s performance from others or his own with
previous results. The only way is to look back into all those 20 files and calculate the
consolidated percentage for one trainer and then repeat the process for others which is tiring
enough to refrain the management to do so.

Besides there is no surety about the data validation and authenticity. Even if tried there has
been drastic variations witnessed when results analyzed.

Hence we are left with a big Question mark even if the true method of evaluation applied.

Analysis Basics:

 No of classes per training = 6

 No of participants per class = 35 to 40

 No of training sessions /day for each class = 5

 No of feedback forms filled per class= 5x35= 175

 Total feedback forms per day = 175x6s = 1050

 Total feedback forms in 8-day training = 8400

Loop Holes:

Class A,E, F : Almost all the forms I have to redo!

Class B: “Participant often don’t read carefully so we have to change few things”

Class C: They don’t sum up the marks correctly!

Class D: I have to spend extra two hours in the late evening almost every day.

Pareto Chart:

Performance feedback and Evaluation Page 6

Cause Effect Diagram:
• participants

– lengthy forms

Performance feedback and Evaluation Page 7

 – mistake in forms

– difficult to understand

• Class in charge

– favoritism

– change in forms

– difficult to recheck

• Data entry operator

– hasty work

– mistake in typing

– wrong calculation

• Management

– Not proper evaluation

– Costly process

– Don't get desire result

 Forms point of view  Data entry operator

• Lengthy forms • Hasty work
• Mistake in forms • Mistake in typing
• Difficult to understand • Wrong calculation

 Class in-charge  Management

• Not proper evaluation
• Favoritism • Costly process
• Change in forms • Don't get desire result
• Difficult to recheck

Causes and Effects:

Performance feedback and Evaluation Page 8

Findings:
 The evaluation is may be unfair because class in-charge has personal grudges.

 Since participants do all the five forms the next day morning the evaluation cannot be
just.

 In the hurry of their next day assignments, participants do it in haste.

 Probability of errors is even higher when two persons have to do entries from 8400
forms.

Management Need:
 Management needs Topic-wise performance history of a trainer to make further
decision.

 Since it is difficult to grab a trainer’s performance history from 15 different files, the PA
relies on self assumed percentages.

 Other decisions:

• Which topic is best delivered by which trainer?

• The decisions about course content pacing.

• The remuneration reviews

Need for the new system:

 A trainer’s performance analysis

Performance feedback and Evaluation Page 9

  Class wise

 Topic wise

 Training wise

 Performance history

 Trainers comparison

 Decisions about cost per training

 Reduction in time and money cost of manual forms.

Suggested solution:
 A networked application software to :

 Ensure all the calculations are correct.

 Everyone does evaluation independently.

 No photocopy hassle.

 No chances of personal favors by class in charges.

 No separate data-entry slots and reduces the errors probability.

 Efficient and effective

Advantages of solution:
• A trainer’s performance analysis

• Class wise

• Topic wise

• Training wise

• Performance history

• Trainers comparison

• Decisions about cost per training

Performance feedback and Evaluation Page 10

 • Reduction in time and money cost of manual forms.

All entries done

Performance feedback and Evaluation Page 11

 Participants

Description:

All participants who come to training are given an ID. Through a form they submit their
feedback which is then consolidated for a trainer class wise, topic wise and then training wise. It
will also update the trainer’s performance history for future reference and decision making.

Conclusion: Hence we can start using an efficient and effective IT based solution with the only cost
of Application development.

Performance feedback and Evaluation Page 12