← All case studies
Creating one faculty performance system from fragmented measures
Create a practical performance architecture connecting institutional priorities, role outcomes, evidence, review conversations and development.
Evidence classificationObserved improvementInterpret this engagement using the disclosure below.
Client context
The situation behind the brief
A growing institution was using disconnected measures, forms and review expectations across academic teams. Leaders needed consistency without reducing faculty contribution to a narrow score.
Advisory mandate
What Metley was asked to change
Create a practical performance architecture connecting institutional priorities, role outcomes, evidence, review conversations and development.
Method
How the work was approached
- Mapped the current review experience and decision pointsnCo-designed measures with academic and leadership stakeholdersnTested evidence standards against representative rolesnBuilt manager guidance and an implementation rhythm
Work performed
Workstreams and tangible outputs
Workstreams
- Faculty and leadership role outcomesnKRAs, indicators and evidence standardsnReview and moderation routinesnPerformance-linked development actions
Deliverables
- Role-based scorecardsnEvidence and rating guidenReview templates and manager toolkitnImplementation and communication plan
Outcome signals
What changed
- ✓ Clearer expectations across rolesnMore consistent evidence in reviewsnStronger distinction between performance and developmentnA reusable institutional review rhythm
Evidence disclosure
How to interpret this case
Observed improvement
This anonymised case presents approved qualitative engagement evidence. No quantified client result has been inferred or published.