MIS Project MIS Project Hala Salah Salah Hala Hany El- -Sawah - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Evaluating Impact: Evaluating Impact: Evaluating Impact: Evaluating Impact: Turning Promises into Evidence Turning Promises into Evidence Turning Promises into Evidence Turning Promises into Evidence

Hala Hala Salah Salah Hany El Hany El-

• Sawah

Sawah Hany El Hany El-

• Sayed

Sayed Madkour Madkour Heba Heba Bahaa Bahaa El El-

• Din

Din Mohamed Mohamed Marzouk Marzouk Mohamed Mohamed Sharawy Sharawy Samir Samir El El-

• Sherief

Sherief Tarek Tarek Tobely Tobely Yasser Gad Allah Yasser Gad Allah January 2008 January 2008

MIS Project MIS Project

2

• 1. Background

Higher Education Enhancement Project HEEP

FOEP

Faculty of Education Project

ETCP

Egyptian Technical Colleges Project

FLDP

Faculty-Leadership Development Project

QAAP

Quality Assurance and Accreditation Project

HEEPF Higher Education Enhancement Project

Fund

ICTP

Information & Communication Technology Project

3

• 1. Background

Information & Communication Technology

Project ICTP

Infrastructure of information Networks Management Information System (MIS) e-learning Digital Libraries ICT training

4

• 1. Background

Objectives of the MIS project

Establish MIS centers in 15 universities Develop MIS application for all the Egyptian

universities

Develop MIS/DSS for the SCU

5

• 2. Results Chain

Inputs Inputs Activities Activities Outputs Outputs Outcomes Outcomes Impact Impact

• Funds
• Data &

information

• Human

resources

• Technical

Expertise

• Establishing

MIS Centers

• Data Entry
• Purchasing

Equipment

• Preparing MIS

applications

• Training staff
• System testing

& rollup

• Improved quality,

relevance, and efficiency of higher education

• Enhanced

administrative procedures

• Efficiency &

effectiveness of the Management Performance

• Efficient decisions
• Effective strategic

planning on micro and macro level

• MIS Centers
• Reliable

databases

• Trained staff
• MIS

applications

• Reports

6

• 3. Primary Research Questions

Does the MIS project enhance the

administration & management efficiency?

Does the MIS project enhance the Quality

• f higher education?

7

• 4. Outcome Indicators

Time taken to issue students’ certificates, IDs, …

etc.

Time taken for a student to enroll

• No. of documents (certificate, ID, … etc.) produced

per unit of time

Time needed to finish students’ results Time needed to get a student information The adequacy and accuracy of the databases &

reports

Availability of data for decision making Staff, student, and top-management satisfaction for

administrative operations

Cost effectiveness of the MIS project

8

• 4. Impact Indicators

The students’ average Cumulative Marks (no

standardized test)

The average No. of years to finish an

academic programs

The average time between graduation and

employment

The right matching between the

specialization and the job

The average income for the graduates The satisfaction of the job market with the

quality of the graduates

9

• 5. Identification Strategy/Method

Efficiency of Administrative system

Randomized roll out - 174 faculties

Quality of Education

Matched difference in differences - between

200 treated faculties and 100 faculties that chose not to participate in the program (non- treated)

10

• 5. Identification Strategy/Method

Faculties chose not to participate in the MIS project 174 roll out Phase 1: 87 faculties Phase 2: 87 faculties 300 faculties 200 treated 100 not treated 26 pilot faculties Matching/ DiD Randomization t = 0 t = 3 t = 9

11

• 5. Identification Strategy/Method

26 pilot faculties Phase 1: 87 faculties Phase 2: 87 faculties 3 6 9 months Randomization

12

• 6. Sample and data

Efficiency of Administrative system

Sample

Treatment: 87 randomly selected faculties Control:

the rest of the 87 faculties

Data

Quantitative: administrative data Qualitative data: use and satisfaction of MIS

13

• 6. Sample and data

Quality of Education

Matched samples

Treatment: from 200 treated faculties Control:

from non-treated 100 faculties

Data

Quantitative: administrative data Quantitative: tracer studies of graduates

14

• 7. Time Frame/Work Plan

Matching based on available data: Feb.

2008

Baseline data collection (tracer study) Randomization Intervention Follow-up data collection: 2-3 rounds

26 pilot faculties Phase 1: 87 faculties Phase 2: 87 faculties 3 6 9 months Tracer study Baseline data Intervention Randomization Follow up data collection

15

• 8. Sources of Financing

MIS project Universities (Co-finance)

16

Thank You