A metrics cockpit for higher education administration that points at sources
Which information is outdated, where do two places contradict each other, which programme is incompletely documented. The cockpit brings the state together and names the responsible unit for every finding.
The questions asked before every meeting
And for whose answers someone currently spends half a day pulling spreadsheets together.
One picture instead of twelve spreadsheets
Programmes, sources, deadlines and processing states currently live in separate files and separate heads. The cockpit brings them together in one place.
Find outdated information
It becomes visible which module handbooks, regulations and web pages have been unchanged and for how long. Stale information stands out before someone acts on it.
Contradictions between sources
Where two places state different deadlines or standard periods of study, the contradiction is named instead of quietly carried on.
Completeness per programme
For every programme it is readable which information exists and which is missing. That is the groundwork for any accreditation.
Make the advisory situation measurable
Together with HiWi+ Chat it becomes visible which questions are asked and where no source exists. Gaps turn into tasks.
Reports without collection work
The monthly report for the dean's office or the leadership emerges from the current stock instead of being assembled anew before every meeting.
Development over time
Not only today's state but the trend. Whether things are improving is the question actually asked in the committee.
Responsibilities made visible
Every gap has a unit that can close it. Without that a report stays without consequence.
From the current stock to a task list
Four steps, and the fourth is where it is decided whether a report stays without consequence.
Connect the sources
Web pages, regulations, module handbooks and existing overviews are read in. Without rebuilding your systems for it.
Define the metrics
Together we determine what is measured. Not everything countable is meaningful.
Evaluate continuously
The stock is checked regularly. Changes, gaps and contradictions are carried forward instead of surveyed once.
Report and act
From the current state comes the report and, per finding, a note to the unit that can change something.
How to recognise a cockpit worth having
Metrics are quickly produced. These four points decide whether anyone believes them and acts on them.
What the cockpit shows
Overview
The current state across all programmes and sources, with the values you have defined.
Trend
The course over weeks and semesters. It becomes visible whether a measure worked or was merely discussed.
Findings
Outdated sources, contradictory information and missing mandatory details, each with the responsible unit.
Reports
Monthly and semester report as PDF, generated automatically, on request sent straight to a distribution list.
What the cockpit deliberately does not do
An evaluation tool becomes dangerous when it stays unclear what it actually reports on.
Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences
HiWi+ is in use at Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences and was developed together with the departments there, along real workflows rather than at a desk.
“Our main goal was to reduce administrative processes and workload within the faculty while at the same time offering students a better service, for example with the faculty chatbot they can ask questions about their studies around the clock. The HiWi+ modules were developed for our specific needs at the faculty, but they are certainly just as usable for many other educational institutions.”
What institutions ask before rolling it out
No, and it is deliberately built that way. What is evaluated are documents, sources and advisory situations, not the work of individual people. This question comes up in every conversation with the works council, which is why the answer is already in how it is built: there is no person-related evaluation.
No. The cockpit reads existing sources, that is web pages, regulations, module handbooks and existing overviews. It does not replace a campus management system and requires no migration.
From your own sources. For every value you can expand which documents and pages it came from. What cannot be traced back is not reported as a metric.
That depends on what you want to steer. Proven ones are completeness and currency of the information per programme, the number of contradictory sources and, together with HiWi+ Chat, the share of questions for which no source exists. We define this together in the first conversation instead of rolling out a standard list.
Yes, and that is where the greatest benefit lies. The chat shows what is actually being asked, the cockpit shows where the source situation for it is missing. Together that gives you a task list instead of two evaluations.
You define the roles, on request via your identity management. A read access for the dean's office and leadership and an editing access for the editorial team is common.
Start with one faculty
We read in the sources of one faculty and show you the state you have today. In our experience the first result is uncomfortable, and useful for exactly that reason.