Contents

Foreword ................................................................................................................ i
Preface ................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgment .................................................................................................. iii
Executive Summary ................................................................................................ iv

Part I
Introduction

Brief History .............................................................................................................. 1

CSU Mandate ......................................................................................................... 1
Process adopted in crafting the Medium Term Development Plan ................ 2

Part II
State of Education

The Eight Campues .............................................................................................. 3-4

The Organizational Structure of CSU................................................................... 5-6
Extent of Accomplishment in the CSU Medium Term
Development Plan 2008 - 2013 ........................................................................... 7
Accomplishment for Performance Measurement 1......................................... 8
Accomplishment for Performance Measurement 2.......................................... 9
Accomplishment for Performance Measurement 3.......................................... 10
CSU’s Performance Based on SUC Leveling
Instrument (2008 - 2013)......................................................................................... 11
Performance Highlights 2008 - 2013 ................................................................... 12

Part III
Internal and External Environment of CSU

SWOT Analysis of CSU Education ................................................................... 13-17

CSU’s Gaps and Challenges .......................................................................... 18-20

Part IV
CSU MTDP 2014 – 2018, A Road map to excellence

Our Mission ............................................................................................................ 21

Our Vision.............................................................................................................. 21
Our Core Values.................................................................................................. 22
Strategic Pillars................................................................................................... 23-24
Core Strategies.................................................................................................. 25-37

Part V
Plan Implementation and Communication

Communication Plan ............................................................................................40

Communication Plan for Enhancing Academic Excellence.............................41
Communication Plan for Strengthening Research and Development........42-43
Communication Plan for Intensifying Extension Services...................................44
Communication Plan for Optimizing Production and Resource Mobilization.45
Communication Plan for Pursuing Good Governance......................................46
Part VI
Plan Monitoring and evaluation

CSU MTDP Result Matrix.............................................................................................47

Instruction Results Matrix............................................................................................48
Research Results Matrix.............................................................................................49
Extension Results Matrix..............................................................................................50
Production Results Matrix...........................................................................................51
Governance Results Matrix.......................................................................................52
Monitoring & Evaluation Strategies..........................................................................53
Monitoring & Evaluation Deliverables......................................................................53

Appendices
Campus Operational Plan................................................................................ 54-84
List of Acronyms.................................................................................................. 85-86
Participants to the University Strategic Planning Workshop............................... 87

List of Tables

Table 1. Overall Accomplishment of the University in the Three (3) Major

Performance Measures
Table 2. Maximum Versus Actual Points Obtained by CSU
for Performance Measure 1
Table 3. Maximum Versus Actual Points Obtained by CSU for Performance
Measure 2
Table 4. Maximum Versus Actual Points Obtained by CSU for
Performance Measure 3
Table 5. Maximum Versus Actual Points Obtained by CSU for
Performance Measure 2
Table 6. SWOT Analysis of CSU Education
Table 7. Gaps and challenges of CSU Education

List of Figures

Figure 1. The eight campuses of CSU

Figure 2. The organizational chart
Figure 3. Core values
Figure 4. Strategic Pillars of CSU
Figure 5. Strategic Pillar 2 – Academic Excellence
Figure 6. Strategic Pillar 2 – Research, Development and Extension
Figure 7. Strategic Pillar 3 – Production and Resource Mobilization
Figure 8. Strategic Pillar 4 – University good governance
Figure 9. Diagram of the implementing mechanism of the CSU MTDP
Figure 10. CSU MTDP Results Matrix
Figure 11. Instruction Results Matrix
Figure 12. Research Results Matrix
Figure 13. Extension Results Matrix
Figure 14. Production Results Matrix
Figure 15. Governance Results Matrix
 FOREWORD
T he Cagayan State University continues to grow and develop at
a respectable pace in its dynamic and challenging environment.
In the next five years, we must do more to bring CSU to its
grandeur and greatness. Along the Social Contract of President
Aquino, poverty reduction and empowerment of the poor and
vulnerable continues to be our biggest challenge. Education
is a birth right of every Filipino and it is the key to break the
cycle of endless poverty particularly the youth with more
opportunities. Thus, the basic task of our Medium Term
Development Plan (MTDP) for the period 2014-2018 is
to fight poverty and empower the marginalized members
of our society by building more access, quality, relevant,
efficient, and effective public higher education for the greater
number of the Filipino people in this part of the country.

There are numerous problems that prevent us from effectively

confronting our University’s problems and challenges, particularly our
efforts to eradicate poverty and empowerment of the marginalized people.
Knowing that so much is at stake in such task, I have involved myself seriously in the formulation
of the MTDP particularly in the crafting of the basic outline to ensure that the strategic pillars and
actions therein are more focused. I want the solutions and interventions to our university’s problems
to be more strategic and responsive to societal goals. My main consideration for the Plan is that
it must generate positive impact and it must be doable to lead CSU to another level of greatness.

Delivering development in the university requires concerted efforts and commitment

of all its stakeholders. Through this Plan, we are guided in all undertakings needed to develop
the university. The targets have been set and I expect all campuses as the delivery units of
the university to make sure they are attained because the Plan is the university’s roadmap
through which my administration will be measured. The successful implementation of this
Plan can only be achieved through a strong partnership between and among the different
stakeholders of the university. I therefore call on the support of everyone to ensure its realization.

Thank you and God bless us all!

ROMEO R. QUILANG, Ph.D.

University President

i
 PREFACE
T his Medium Term Development Plan is a document setting the direction of
Cagayan State University from 2014-2018. It echoes the shared goals and
state of life that all its stakeholders wish to achieve for the next five years.

The CSU MTDP is composed of six (6) parts:

Part I provides a brief history and mandate of the university as

well as the process adopted in crafting the CSU Medium Term
Development Plan.

Part II presents the state of CSU education in terms of its

number of campuses, organizational structure, and extent of
accomplishment of the targets embodied in the CSU Medium
Term Development Plan 2008-2013. It also discusses the
performance highlights of the university from 2008-2013
relative to CHED major thrusts on quality and excellence,
access and equity, relevance and responsiveness, and
efficiency and effectiveness.

Part III presents the current internal and external environment of CSU from which the MDTP 2014-
2018 has been developed. The internal environment was based on the SWOT analysis for the past
five (5) years. The analysis was made based on eight (8) significant areas namely; (1) teaching; (2)
curriculum; (3) extension; (4) research and development; (5) student development; (6) alumni support;
(7) management/governance; and (8) physical facilities. Gaps and challenges were identified along
these key areas and they were inputted for the crafting of this MTDP.

Part IV lays the CSU MTDP 2014-2018 which is the university’s roadmap towards achieving excellence.
The newly crafted vision, mission and core values of the university are presented. Including the Strategic
pillars to be adopted. The four (4) strategic pillars that outline the strategic actions, programs, projects
and activities in the MTDP are (a) academic excellence; (b) research, development and extension, (c)
good university governance; (d) production and resource mobilization.

Part V illustrates the Plan Implementation and Communication of the MTDP. It articulates the procedures
for the implementation and the manner of communicating the plan to the university stakeholders and
constituency. This part also outlines the specific means of implementing the identified strategic actions
under the strategic areas of concern.

Part VI presents the monitoring and evaluation of the MTDP. It shows the monitoring and evaluation
work plan along the four (4) strategic pillars as well as the CSU MTDP Results Matrix. Semi-annually,
there will be monitoring of the various performance measures and objectives of the Plan. Assessment
of performance involves calculating the variance of measured performance indicators against the
performance targets.

The university management is convinced that through the joint efforts of all its stakeholders during the next
five years will be able to achieve the shared and collective vision, goals and objectives embodied in this plan.

ANTONIO I. TAMAYAO, Ph.D.

Director, University Planning and Development Office

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
T he development of this Plan has been accomplished with
the involvement, cooperation and participation of
different stakeholders. The CSU management would
like to express its deep appreciation to all those
who were involved in the crafting of the Medium
Term Development Plan (MTDP) 2014-2018.

Worth mentioning here are the Vice Presidents,

Campus Executive Officers, Directors, Division
Heads, Sections Chiefs, College Deans,
faculty members, non-teaching staff, and
student leaders who actively participated
and provided the necessary inputs during
the Strategic Planning Workshop and
stakeholders consultation workshop.
Particular mention is given to Dr. Joseph Acorda,
Director Mary Anne Darauay, Director Urdujah
Tejada, Director Lucrecio Alviar, Director
Evelyn Pascua, Director Isabel Taguinod,
Mr. Joven Reyla and Mr. Cesar Mabbagu.

Special gratitude is given to the members

of the CSU Board of Regents for their
valuable inputs in fine tuning the Plan. Their
contributions as consultants and external
evaluators during the strategic planning
workshop was very valuable and enriching.

Appreciation also goes to Dr. Rex Navarro for

his guidance and technical support. His gem of
thoughts in the crafting of this Plan was very
helpful.

Lastly, thanks to all the members of the CSU

University Planning and Development Council
who, in many and varied ways, have contributed
to the formulation of this Plan.

iii
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
T he CSU MTDP 2014 - 2018 is the
CSU over the next five (5) years. It
regional and national goals particularly
blueprint providing the direction and strategies for
defines how CSU pursues and contributes to the
the President Aquino’s Social Contract with the
Filipino people, i.e. poverty reduction as well as empowerment of the poor and vulnerable.

The basic vision of the University as embodied in this MTPDP is “Transforming lives by educating
for the best.” It seeks to make CSU as a catalyst of change in improving the lives of individuals
and communities by educating for the best. The one liner vision succinctly captures the profound
meaning and ultimate purpose of the collective efforts and educational directions of the university.

In pursuit of this vision, CSU is therefore committed to transform the lives of people and
communities through high quality instruction and innovative research, development, production,
and extension.The development enablers of the CSU MTDP 2014-2018 is founded on four-
fold strategic pillars namely (a) enhancing academic excellence; (b) strengthening research,
development and extension; (c) optimizing production and resource mobilization; and (d) good
university governance. The overall objective of these thrusts is to build the foundation of growth
and development in the university. Significantly, the MTDP is ably supported by six (6) core
values which constitute a formidable base to guide and support the CSU administration in the
operation of all its programs and projects. The core values is captured in the “taglish” acronym
PA-CARE (Productivity, Accessibility, Compassion, Accountability, Relevance and Excellence).

To realize the foregoing strategic pillars, CSU will focus on the accomplishment of following goals:

1. Establishment of a culture of excellence in all academic programs by maintaining high academic

standards to become an education hub in the region and later in the national and global arena.
The strategy is to improve quality of its educational services according to international standards
with special attention to programs where it already has comparative advantage;

iv
2. Development of a pervasive research and extension culture, innovation and creativity by
strengthening research and creative capability supported by an expanded graduate program
and geared to addressing the needs and problems of the province, region and the country.
The strategy is to make research programs, projects and activities to generate new knowledge,
technologies and best practices that will create new wealth and enterprises for the country’s
socio-economic development. Congruently, extension services must have high visibility and
effective public service responding to community development needs and helping realize the
aspirations of these communities to be self-reliant;

3. Consolidation and optimization of university resources, expertise and services by ensuring

financial sustainability achieved by resource generation while preserving its public character.
The strategy is to ensure reliable and continuous inflow of financial resources by proactively
and systematically developing land assets, pooling of manpower resources and experts as well
as optimally utilizing university’s funds. CSU shall devise other alternative means of generating
financial resources to finance its educational programs and thus sustain its efficiency and
effectiveness.

4. Development of an efficient, pro-active, transparent and accountable university management

system and governance by meeting the demands for academic excellence, research,
development and extension, production and resource mobilization as well as good university
governance. The strategy is to implement and maintain seamless processes for higher levels of
productivity and sound decision-making based on accurate and real time information. This shall
be done by integrating, interconnecting and harmonizing ICT systems and infrastructure across
all campuses and by streamlining university processes for faster delivery of services.

The various key responses and objectives of the four (4) strategic pillars of the university will be
monitored and evaluated in terms of the implementation of the various programs, activities and
projects. It shall take place at the following levels namely; (a) accomplishment of targets at the
University wide level (MTDP targets); (b) accomplishment of targets at the Campus level (Campus
Operational Plan); (c) accomplishment of targets at the college level (College Action Plan)

To ensure the effective implementation of the Plan, the university’s management shall develop a
culture of partnership. As such, collaboration among divisions, campuses and colleges shall be
strengthened so that they will complement one another and provide students and faculty greater
space to learn and sustain the university’s competitive advantage. To orchestrate the implementation
of the Plan, an institutional mechanism shall be established. This institutional mechanism shall have
a University Planning and Development Council (UPDC) that shall provide the overall direction of
plan implementation. Under the UPDC shall be the eight (8) Improvement Teams (ITs) to cover the
eight strategic areas of concern of CSU and a MTDP Communication Team. Communication plan is
also designed to effectively cascade the plan and properly monitor the progress as well as evaluate
the extent of its accomplishment.

Monitoring shall be done quarterly while the evaluation shall be done on a semi-annual basis. During
the Annual Performance Review, a summative evaluation will be undertaken to determine whether
the Plan targets were met and whether projects will be evaluated in terms of their impact in addressing
specific problems, issues and concerns as well as their contribution towards the attainment of the
objectives of this Plan.

v
 Part I
INTRODUCTION
Brief History Moreover, the function of CSU in the Aquino
Social Contract is to provide quality education
and training through instruction, research and
extension. Along this line, the CSU Priority
T he Cagayan State University, the first
and only state-run higher educational
institution in Cagayan was established by virtue
Result Areas is to contribute to the realization
of two (2) of the five (5) Social Contract of
of Presidential Decree No. 1436 signed by President Benigno Aquino to the Filipino
then President Ferdinand E. Marcos on June people which are poverty reduction and
11, 1978. For the past 36 years of existence, empowerment of the poor and vulnerable.
it has become an educational anchor for
the poor but deserving students in Cagayan
and the whole Cagayan Valley Region.

Three past presidents led the Cagayan State

University, Dr. Manuel T. Corpuz (1979-1989),
Dr. Armando B. Cortes (1989-2001) and Dr.
Roger P. Perez (2004-2012) before Dr. Romeo
R. Quilang assumed as the 4th CSU President
on March 15, 2012. However, due to some
unavoidable circumstances, Dr. Eleuterio C.
De Leon had a brief stint as Officer In Charge
(OIC) of the Office of the University President
from 2001 to March, 2004.

The Cagayan State University has held on

tight to its commitment made 36 years ago. Process Adopted in Crafting
Unprecedented growth in all its programs
has been paying off especially in terms of the CSU Medium Term
educational benefits to countless students Development Plan
and families in the region. It is committed
to offer the best that the students could
possibly get in a truly accessible, relevant, T he planning process adopted in crafting the
MTDP refers to the creation of (a) the Vision,
Mission, and strategic pillars, (b) the analysis
quality, affordable and pro-poor CSUan
education. Hence, the motto: Ad Optimum of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
Educans or “Educating for the Best” threats; (c) the strategic pillars and actions;
(d) the performance measures; and (e) the
monitoring and evaluation work plan which

CSU Mandate
were put together for the purpose of generating
this Plan. In short, it encompasses the whole
range of university activities to generate this
Plan.

U nder its Charter of 1978 (PD 1436), CSU is

mandated to provide advanced instruction
in the arts, agriculture, and natural sciences as
The planning process combines both “top-
down” and “bottom-up” approaches to planning.
It features both multi-level and multi-sector
well as in technological and professional fields. participation.

1
Bottom-up Process. It produced the contents
of the Plan, which the Board of Regents can
consider for approval.

Multi-level Process. Different tiers of CSU’s

leadership and organization were involved in
the process. They included: (1) The Board of
Regents as the highest policy making body in
the university; (2) The Office of the President;
(3) The three divisions namely, Academic
Affairs, Administration, and Research and
Development and Extension and Training
headed by their respective Vice Presidents;
(4) Programs, Colleges, and Units headed by
their respective Directors, Deans, and Unit
Heads; and (5) Departments headed by their
respective Department Chairs.

Multi-sector Participation. Different entities in

CSU community were involved in the process.
They included:

1. The Board of Regents (Dr. Joseph B.

Acorda, Dir. Mary Ann Darauay; Dir.
Urduja Tejada (represented by Engr.
Sancho Mabborang); Dir. Lucrecio Alviar
(represented by Dr. Ernesto Guzman);
Director Isabel Taguinod (represented by
Macario Gumabay, Jr); Mr. Joven Reyla;
and Mr. Cesar Mabbagu)

2. The President;

3. The three Vice Presidents (VP for Academic

Affairs; Administration and Finance; as well
as Research and Development, Extension
and Training);

4. The Directors, Division Heads, College

Deans, and Unit Heads/Section Chiefs;

5. Campus Planning Officers and Department

Chairs.

2
 Part II
State of CSU Education
The Eight Campuses
Land Area: 6.9454 ha

Average student enrollment

for S.Y 2008 - 2013: 3,771

Figure 1

Land Area: 42.2116 ha

Average student enrollment

for S.Y 2008 - 2013: 4,223

Land Area: 675 ha

Average student enrollment

for S.Y 2008 - 2013: 777

Land Area: 3.3 ha

Average student enrollment

for S.Y 2010 - 2013: 12,800

3
Land Area: 649.8 ha

Average student enrollment

for S.Y 2008 - 2013: 4,943

Land Area: 1,577 ha

Average student enrollment

for S.Y 2008 - 2013: 7,994

Land Area: 4 ha

Average student enrollment

for S.Y 2008 - 2013: 753

Land Area: 19.7 ha

Average student enrollment

for S.Y 2010 - 2013: 11,235

4
 The Organizational Chart

Figure 2

5
Since its establishment as a University
system in 1978, CSU has gone through
four (4) revisions of the organizational
structure. The latest revision was made
under the administration of Dr. Romeo
R. Quilang in order to readily serve
the actual needs of the University and
to attune itself to the demands of the
times. This organizational structure
was approved on February 12, 2013
through Board Resolution No.6,s.2013.

6
 Extent of Accomplishment in the CSU Medium Term
Development Plan 2008-2013

U sing the CSU scorecard adopted in

the MTDP 2008-2013, the overall
accomplishment of the university in the
three (3) major Performance Measures is
Satisfactory (Table 1). This is gleaned from
its performance of 88.5 points out of 136
points. The performance measure where the
university is strongest is along support and
contribution to anti-corruption, bureaucratic
reforms and fiscal strengthening and
improving efficiency and effectiveness of
higher education management. On the other
hand, the performance measure where the
university is weakest is along the area of
contribution to poverty reduction through
instruction or human resource development.

Table 1. Overall Accomplishment of the University in the Three (3)

Major Performance Measures
Performance Measures Maximum Points Actual Points Descriptive Value

Improve CSU’s contribution to poverty reduction

74 40 Satisfactory
through instruction or human resource development

Improve CSU’s contribution to mobilizing knowledge

to improve productivity through human resource 48 38 Very Satisfactory
development, research and extension

Support and contribute to anti-corruption, bureaucratic

reforms and fiscal strengthening and improving efficiency 14 10.5 Very Satisfactory
and effectiveness of higher education management

Total 136 88.5 Satisfactory

Legend:

125 and above - Excellent

100 - 124 - VerySatisfactory
65 - 99 - Satisfactory
30 - 64 - Fair
20 - 29 - Poor

7
Accomplishment for Performance Measure 1
(Improve CSU’s contribution to poverty reduction
through instruction or human resource development)

Table 2 shows the indicators for performance

measure 1 that is, improve CSU’s contribution
to poverty reduction through instruction or
human resource development. Out of 74
maximum points for this area, CSU obtained
a total point of 40. The performance indicator
where the university obtained the highest
point is along broadening access to higher
education with eight (8) out of 10 points. This
finding can be accounted to the fact that CSU
has the highest enrolment in Region 02 and
it has the highest share of enrolment among
private and public higher education in the
region. The enrolment share of the university
in the entire enrolment for Region 02 is 13.25%
in 2007, 15.42% in 2008, 18.73% in 2009,
21.01% in 2010, 23.77% in 2011, and 25.17%
in 2012. From 2007-2013, the university has
registered dramatic enrolment increase of This situation is accounted to the unsustained
13,326; 15;717; 19,296; 23,045; 29,160; and status of the University as Center of Excellence
32,087, and 37,842, respectively. in Fisheries and Center of Development in Civil
Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Computer
On the other hand, the performance indicator Engineering and Marine Science. Congruently,
to which the university obtained the lowest there were 34 academic programs accredited
score is along strengthening of Center of as level 2 which were not sustained from
Excellence and Center of Development as 2008-2013. Most of these academic programs
well as strengthening of quality assurance. are offered in Tuguegarao Campus.

Table 2. Maximum Versus Actual Points Obtained by CSU

for Performance Measure 1
Indicators for Performance Maximum Points Actual Points
Measure 1
B. Improves CSU’s contribution to poverty reduction throught
74 40
instruction or human resource development
A. Broaden access to higher education 10 8
B. Expansion of alternative modes of delivery
4 .05
of higher education
C. Address quantitative mismatch 28 17

D. Address qualitative mismatch 16 8.5

E. Strengthening Quality Assurance 6 2

F. Strengthening of Center of Excellence and Center of Development 2 0

G. Upgrading of faculty qualifications 4 1

H. Strengthening international linkages 4 3

8
 Accomplishment for Performance Measure 2
(Improve CSU’s contribution to mobilizing knowledge
to improve productivity through research and extension)

T able 3 presents the points obtained by

the university in the different indicators
in performance measure 2, that is, improve
The perfect scores registered in the foregoing
performance indicators can be attributed to the
university’s ability to obtain externally funded
CSU’s contribution to mobilizing knowledge researches from CVARRD, PCAARRD,
to enhance productivity through research DOST, DA, DAR, LGUs, DA-BAR, and other
and extension. Out of 48 maximum points partner agencies. Extension services also
for this performance measure, the university obtained perfect score in the promotion and
obtained a score of 38 points. Perfect scores development of strong extension services for
have been noted in four (4) performance national and regional development considering
indicators namely; promotion of R & D that the university has given numerous
resource generation; development of research extension services to different barangays and
activities along high impact technologies and various sectors in its service areas.
information; promotion and support of research
and development processes and projects; and
promotion and development of strong extension
services for national and regional development.
Meanwhile, the performance indicators to
which the university is weakest are along
enhancement of research and development
as well as promotion and sustenance of
partnership between the university and
other entities for extension activities.

Table 3. Maximum Versus Actual Points Obtained by CSU for

Performance Measure 2
Indicators for Performance Measure 2 Maximum Points Actual Points

II. Improve CSU’s contribution to mobilizing knowledge to

enhance productivity through human resource development, 74 40
research and extension

A. Promote higher education research in aid for regional and

national development
10 8

B. Promote R & D resource generation 4 .05

C. Enhance the research and development performance of
the university
28 17

D. Develop research activities along high impact technologies and

information
16 8.5

E. Promote and support research and development processes

and projects
6 2

F. Promote and develop strong extension services for national

and regional development
2 0

G. Promote, facilitate and sustain partnership between the

University and other entities for extension activities
4 1

9
Accomplishment for Performance Measure 3
(Support and contribute to anti-corruption, bureaucratic
reforms and fiscal strengthening and improving efficiency
and effectiveness of higher education management)

T he performance of CSU relative to the

attainment of its performance measure
number 3 is reflected in Table 4. Among the
receipted. Prior to 2004, miscellaneous fees,
IGPs, graduation fees were collected by the
different College Deans and its disbursement
three (3) performance measures set by the were not properly accounted. Moreover, the
university, this component obtained the highest past administration has also granted fiscal
score. As revealed by Table 4, perfect scores autonomy to all campuses and student
are posted along two indicators namely; organizations; stopped the illegal collection
improve policy framework and governance of contributions from students; stopped the
of the Income Generating Projects; and anomalies in the IGP of the university and
rationalize structure, programs and fees of the installed gadgets that ensured efficiency
university. and effectiveness in attendance monitoring,
government accounting, and government
The perfect scores obtained by the university budget system.
along improvement of policy framework and
government of the IGPs is reflected in the 27
different types of IGPs of the university. These
include income from rentals of facilities and
stalls, agricultural production, animal raising
projects, softdrink concession, and sale of scrap
materials, among others.On the other hand,
the perfect score obtained by the university
along rationalize structure, programs and fees
are attributed to the instituted fiscal reforms
and discipline in the collection of fees because
all fees regardless of nature where officially

Table 4. Maximum Versus Actual Points Obtained by CSU for

Performance Measure 3
Indicators for Performance Measure 3 Maximum Points Actual Points

III. Support and contribute to anti-corruption, bureaucratic reforms

and fiscal strengthening and improving efficiency and 14 10.5
effectiveness of higher education management

A. Strengthen income generating capacities of the University 4 3

B. Improve policy framework and governance of the IGPs 2 2

C. Rationalize structure, programs and fees of the

2 2
University

D. Implement normative financing formula in allocating budget for

SUCs while capacitating them towards increased implementation 6 3.5
of viable income generating projects

10
 T o further determine the state of CSU
education, an internal evaluation of its
performance was made using the SUC leveling
people and communities in its service areas
through its extension programs and projects.
On the other hand, the high rating along
instrument prescribed by the Commission management of resources is reflected in the
on Higher Education (CHED).This internal efficient and effective utilization of financial and
evaluation was conducted by the Program manpower resources as proven by the massive
Directors through documentary analysis. face-lifting of the infrastructure projects of the
Results reveal that CSU can be classified as a university. The criterion to which the university
Level 3 university as revealed by its total points has the lowest point is along research capability
of 23 out of 35 points. The criteria to which and outputs within the last 3 years. The weak
the university has made good performance performance of the university in this component
are along relationship with and services to is partly due to the meager budget allocation
the community for the last 3 years followed for research and that it was the least among
by management of resources. The high the top priorities of the past administration.
performance of the university with respect to
these criteria conveys that CSU is felt by the

Table 5. Maximum Versus Actual Points Obtained by CSU for

Performance Measure 2
Criteria Maximum Points Institutional Points
A. Quality and Relevance of Instruction 12 8.5

B. Research Capability & Outputs within the last 3 years 12 5

C. Relationship with and services to the community for the last 3

5 4.5
years

D. Management of Resources 6 5

Total 35 23

Legend:

Level 2 – 12 to 19 points
Level 3 – 20 to 29 points
Level 4 – 30 and above points

11
 Part III
Internal and External
Environment of CSU

I n crafting the CSU Medium Term

Development Plan 2014-2018,
analysis of Strengths,Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
was made. The SWOT analysis
was conducted during the Strategic
Planning Workshop where all the
stakeholders were represented.
The university community
considered perceptions of CSU’s
strengths,weaknesses, opportunities
and threats (SWOT) for the past
five (5) years within its existing
and unfolding macro, external,
and internal environments. These
are seen as pertinent to its vision,
mission, and goals. The analysis was
made based on eight (8) significant
areas namely; (1) teaching; (2)
curriculum; (3) extension; (4) research
and development; (5) student
development; (6) alumni support; (7)
management/governance; and (8)
physical facilities.

12
 Table 6. SWOT Analysis of CSU Education

A. Teaching
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Academically qualified Potential linkages to other Displacement of faculty
Faculty loading policy (e.g.,
faculty members with MA agencies for instruction, teaching in the general
maximum overloads up to 9
as the least educational research and extension and professional courses in
units)
attainment activities the K-12 program
Faculty development Presence of other HEIs
Commitment or willingness Non-observance of vertical
opportunities offered by with faculty interested in
to teach their fields of articulation in getting higher
CHED, DOST and foreign scholarship slots offered by
specialization degrees
agencies agencies
Inadequate classroom Presence of award-giving
Availability of faculty with
equipment to facilitate bodies that recognize
multi-talents
instruction teacher achievements
Good performance in board
No policy on in-breeding
examinations
Lack of study of graduates
Diversified curricular programs
employability
Presence of ladderized Lack of Alternative Learning
programs System
Lack of faculty and staff
development program

B. Curriculum
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Widely available IT-based
Full compliance with CHED Frequent revision of K-12 program impact on
instructional materials and
prescribed curriculum curriculum the curricular offerings
equipment
Deep pool of subject matter Graduate studies not Rapid Change in
specialists. research-based(optional) knowledge creation
Recognition given by
Curricula that address local
Absence of an evaluation of CHED and other agencies
and national needs and
a curriculum prior to revision to the achievements of
concerns
students
Adoption of authentic Non-involvement of key Autonomy given to the
learning and assessment in all sectors in the process of university in offering
programs curriculum revision academic programs
Positive support of
Poor attitude of parents
GOs and NGOs to the
and students towards
Compliance to CMOs Frequent revision of curricula provision of Relevant
enrolment in some
Learning Experiences to
academic programs
students

Globally competent Academe-industry

Different syllabi format
medicine program mismatch

Syllabi are not outcomes

based

13
C. Extension
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Presence of other HEIs
Non-implementation of RDET Availability of GO’s and
Availability of pool of faculty doing extension activities
involvement of faculty per NGO’s as partners in
experts competing in the sourcing
NBC 461 extension activities
of funds

DBM mandatory
Supportive University Low priority for budget
allocation from internal Political Interference
Administration allocation
funds

National policies and

Non-utilization of available Availability of external
Approved RDET manual standards in giving
physical resources funding institutes
incentives

RDET budget source Prevailing notion of CSU Piracy of experts by

Political support
identified as a teaching university external agencies.

Availability of physical External recognition of

No clear cut policy of giving
resources for extension extension achievements Negative attitude of clients
faculty loads
activities of faculty
Weak involvement of faculty
in extension

D. Research and Development

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Non-implementation of
Presence of HEIs with the
research and development Presence of GOs and
Availability of faculty experts same mandate in sourcing
involvement of faculty per NGOs for RDE linkages
funds
NBC 461
DBM mandatory RDE
Supportive university Low priority for budget
allocation from University Political affiliation
administration allocation
funds
National policies and
Non-utilization of existing Availability of external
Approval of the RDET manual standards in giving of
physical resources funding institutions
incentives
Availability of internal source Prevailing notion of being a Brain drain of experts by
Political support
of research budget teaching university. external agencies.
No clear-cut policy in the
Availability of internal source Recognition of RDE
loading of faculty per NBC Intellectual theft
of research budget outputs by the IPOP
461.
Changes in political
Weak involvement of faculty
landscape affecting
in research
budget

Multi-disciplinary academic
Lack of research
programs strategically
laboratory
located in Cagayan province

14
 D. Research and Development
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

Ineffective implementation
Presence of RDE partners
of RDE enabling policies

Low capability to undertake

cutting edge science &
innovation research

Lack of capability to publish

in refereed journals

Low engagement of faculty

in research activities
Few faculty having
verticalized degrees in
engineering, agriculture and
fisheries
Few RD linkages and
partnerships established with
foreign universities
Absence of research
positions in the plantilla of
regular employees
Very slow procurement
process for research

E. Alumni Support
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

Openness of alumni to Highly competitive labor

ventilate their grievances, Non-institutionalization of Scholarship grants for market tends to draw
concerns and issues relative the alumni affairs office students away the attention of the
of university affairs college alumni

Lack of motivation of some

Alumni Pride Lack of alumni data base Financial support alumni to join the Alumni
Association
Giving of recognition to
Non-existence of alumni Provision of opportunities Minimal participation of
alumni achievers (testimonial
website for networking alumni in alumni activities
programs and parade)

Lack of continuing program

Sponsorship of job
of encouraging alumni
shadowing or career
groups to join activities with
guidance
the school

Readiness of alumni
Lack of involvement in
associations as partners
University activities
for development

15
F. Student Development
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Inadequate interventions Presence of agencies
External pressures in the
for students’ adjustment to providing faculty
Overwhelming support from operations of student
pressure during the growing competency upgrading
the Administration activities (from parents,
years vis-a vis pressure of to manage students and
politicians, etc)
tertiary education. organizations
Existence of pressure
Best practices sharing in groups (e.g., fraternity)
Access to services Lack of facilities
student leadership. interfering with students’
focus
Award-giving bodies
Faculty involvement with
Lack of student service staff recognizing students’
students
achievement and talents
Opportunities provided
Lack of opportunities
by GOs and NGOs for
Student leadership programs for wholesome student
student development
development
activities
Lack of opportunity to
master life-long skills. Lack of
P.E. specialization offered
community involvement
Immaturity of student leaders
Presence of foreign students Inadequate psychological
in the college of medicine tests
Unideal guidance
counsellors and students
ratio

G. Management/Governance
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Decentralization of Some vital operations are Availability of externally-
Political interventions
Operations not fully decentralized sourced funds
Existence of different manuals Partial compliance and
(Administrative, Academic, or lack of dissemination of
etc.) manuals
Linkages with other
Weak performance Transfers/piracy to other
Qualified and competent agencies and staff
evaluation system (for agencies for better pay/
administrative personnel development/
compliance only) Leaving for jobs abroad
scholarships
Existence of Internal Audit Non-existence of IAS on the
Service (IAS) campus levels
Existence of Bids and Awards Guidelines on RA 9184 not
Committee fully complied with
Weak systems and
procedures in administration
Undefined functional
relationship in structure

Undocumented policies and

operational guidelines

16
 H. Physical Facilities
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Natural calamities causing
Good Infrastructure including Insufficient lab equipment
destruction of the university
facilities and equipment and staff
buildings

Existence of e-classroomin Facilities not regularly Funding/support from

some campuses maintained other agencies

Lack of written policies on

use, maintenance and
disposition of various
facilities.

Existence of GOs and

Un/Under-utilized resources
NGOs to develop income Informal settlers
( e.g. land areas)
generating projects

Lack of feasibility studies

and/or evaluation of
Inferior quality of facilities
previous use prior to
and equipment due to RA
acquisition or renewal of
9184
contracts of very expensive
facilities (e.g. e-library)

17
CSU’s GAPS and CHALLENGES

T he current MTDP
recognizes
existing gaps
the
and
the most pressing
challenges faced by
CSU in the next five
(5) years. These are
summarized as follows:

Table 7. Gaps and challenges of CSU Education

A. INSTRUCTION
GAPS CHALLENGES
No accredited programs Vigorously push for the accreditation

Phase out undersubscribed courses such as nursing, BS

Poor performance of some courses in the licensure
physics, and BS Chemistry
examination
Strengthen the Quality Assurance effort of the university

Lack of interface in instruction, research and extension Institutionalize the interface of instruction, research and
undertakings extension functions of the university

Lack of clear cut policies of the university’s agreements Review MOA with Manila Business College, Kosin
with partner institutions University, and ALTEERE

Retool teachers whose degrees are no longer aligned

Misfit teachers in some academic programs with the priority and mandated programs of the
university
Recruitment of faculty with verticalized degrees and
Few vertically articulated faculty members
with skills certification
Irresponsive curriculum to the structural changes in basic Revise curriculum to conform with K-12 and international
education standards

18
 B. EXTENSION / PUBLIC SERVICE
GAPS CHALLENGES
Partial implementation of the extension provisions of NBC
Administrative will to implement extension policies
461

Inadequate budget for extension activities Higher budget allocation for extension activities

Minimal involvement of faculty in RDET activities Interfacing of instruction, RDET functions of the faculty

Inadequate extension personnel and other support

Creation of plantilla items and acquisition of vehicles
requirements

Minimal utilization of available external funds for extension Provision of technical assistance in packaging of
activities extension programs for external funding

C. STUDENT DEVELOPMENT
GAPS CHALLENGES
No ideal ratio of staff to student advisers Review hiring policies/systems

Review budgetary requirement /allocation per campus/

Insufficient provision of the basic state of the art facilities
college/unit
Lack of preparedness and holistic development of student Provision of strategic seminars/workshops for student
leaders leaders

Lack of holistic development of students Curriculum revision

Lack of community-orientedness of students Opportunities for community immersion

D. ALUMNI SUPPORT
GAPS CHALLENGES

Lack of functional alumni association Sense of commitment and volunteerism

Lack of committed Alumni leaders Tapping university-based alumni as lead groups

Absence of Alumni Association’s Vision-Mission -Goal-

Definition of VMGO
Objectives (VMGO)

Lack of membership strategy Establish Database for the association

Lack of well-structured strategy for members’ enlistment Institutionalization of an alumni affairs office

19
E. MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE
GAPS CHALLENGES
Review of powers and functions to be centralized and
Abuse of discretionary power
decentralized

Lack of decisive implementation of development initiatives Full compliance to and dissemination of various
and programs institutional manuals

Lack of decisiveness in implementation of an objective Strict monitoring/compliance to performance

performance evaluation evaluations

Absence of IAS counterpart in campuses Creation of IAS on the campus level

Observance of the jury-duty functions of the BAC

Multi-tasking of designated BAC members
members.

ISO certification of the different programs of the

Poor and slow administrative services
university

F. PHYSICAL FACILITIES
GAPS CHALLENGES
Rational prioritization of funds for infrastructure projects
Inadequacy of funds
and physical facilities

Establish and maximize linkages with other funding

Minimal prioritization of Infrastructure development agencies or the alumni association for funding of
infrastructure projects

G. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

GAPS CHALLENGES

Partial implementation of NBC 461 Full implementation of NBC 461

Inadequate research budget Higher allocation of RDE budget

Poor involvement of faculty in research

Interfacing of instruction, RDE functions of faculty
activities/undertakings

Creation of plantilla items and establishment of RDE

Lack of research personnel and poor research facilities
centers of development by commodity

Tapping/utilization of available linkages for technical and Provision of technical assistance in packaging proposals
financial assistance and completed researches

20
 Part IV
CSU MTDP 2014 - 2018
A ROADMAP TO EXCELLENCE

T he Medium-Term Development
Plan of Cagayan State University,
2014-2018 is basically anchored on the
Higher Education Roadmap translating
into measurable outputs the Social
Contract of President Aquino to the
Filipino people. It also articulates how
CSU can contribute to the attainment
of national and regional development
goals particularly empowerment
of the poor and vulnerable as well
as poverty reduction through its
main functions, namely, instruction,
research, extension and production.
Our Mission
Our Vision CSU is committed to transform the
lives of people and communities
Transforming Lives by Educating through high quality instruction
for the BEST and innovative research,
development, production and
T he basic vision
of the University
as embodied in the
extension.

CSU-MTPDP is to
make the Cagayan
State University as
T he Cagayan State University (CSU), a
credible and distinguished center of higher
education in Northern Luzon, is committed to
a catalyst of change improve the lives of people and communities
in improving the by providing advanced instruction in the arts,
lives of individuals agriculture, and natural sciences as well as in
and communities technological and professional fields through
by educating for the its strong quality of instruction and innovations
best. The one liner in research,resource mobilization, and
vision succinctly extension. CSU contributes primarily to the
captures the profound Aquino Social Contract by providing quality
meaning and ultimate education and training through instruction,
purpose of the research, extension, and production.
collective efforts and
educational directions
of the university.

21
 Our Core Values • Compassion - Cagayan State University
is committed to alleviating or reducing the
poverty incidence of the communities through
advance higher education, innovative

T he CSU - MTDP Framework, 2014-2018 researches and responsive extension and

is ably supported by six (6) core values training programs.
which constitute a formidable base to guide
and support the CSU administration in the • Accountability - Cagayan State University
operation of all its programs and projects. is committed to building competent
The core values is captured in the “taglish” professionals, leaders, scholars, researchers
acronym PA-CARE. and entrepreneurs responsible in building
just, peaceful, stable and progressive
• Productivity - Cagayan State University is communities.
committed to developing its human and non-
human resources to sustain its operations • Relevance - Cagayan State University is
and realize its mandates. committed to nurturing the youth by providing
meaningful education.
• Accessibility - Cagayan State University is
committed to intellectualizing the youth by • Excellence - Cagayan State University is
allowing them to have greater access to committed to offering quality teaching and
higher education. resources to enable its students to succeed.

Legal Basis of CSU - MTDP

T he CSU - MTDP 2014 - 2018 is

consistent with existing and relevant
law, policies and guidelines, as well as
memoranda of understanding with partner
agencies in the government organizations,
private organizations, and non - government
organizations. Specific considerations
were given to the agenda of Philippine
Development Plan, P.D 1436, RA 8292,
Regional Development Plan, Roadmap Public
Higher Education (CHED), Organizational
Performance Indicators Framework (OPIF) of
the Department of Budget and Management,
performance indicators of Performance
Based Bonus (PBB), and criteria set for State
University and Colleges (SUC) leveling.

Figure 3

22
 Strategic Pillars
STRATEGIC PILLARS

T he MTDP has four (4) basic strategic

pillars and various goals. The strategic
pillars are the conditions that CSU seeks to
bring about from 2014-2018 and the goals
are what the university intends to do in this
period to substantiate and achieve its thrusts.
The CSU’s strategic pillars are focused on
strengthening the university’s academic and
institutional capabilities. It also describes
the strategic actions to be done in the same
period to pursue the thrusts. Significantly, the
strategic pillars and goals are translated into
Campus Operational Plans and Action Plans
of the different colleges, divisions and units.

The four (4) strategic pillars that outline

the strategic goals, programs, projects and Figure 4. Strategic Pillars of CSU
activities in this Plan are reflected in Figure 5.

Academic Excellence:
Establish a culture of excellence
in all academic programs

T he Cagayan State University shall enhance

and maintain high academic standards to
become an education hub in the region, and
later, in the national and global arena. CSU
should thus concentrate on strategies to improve
quality of its educational services according to
international standards with special attention
to programs where it already has comparative
advantage. At the same time, it should
provide stronger, more relevant, balanced
and internationally benchmarked academic
programs in order to improve its marketability.

23
Research, Development &
Extension:
Develop a pervasive research
and extension culture,
innovation and creativity

I n addition to instruction, CSU envisions

to have strong research and creative
capability, supported by an expanded graduate
program and geared to addressing the needs
and problems of the province, region and the
country. Thus, CSU programs must adapt
to changes in the various professions and
respond to the requirements of both domestic
and global markets and a knowledge-based
economy. Research activities of the university
should generate new knowledge, technologies
and best practices that will create new wealth
and enterprises for the country’s socio- Good University Governance:
economic development. Lastly, its extension
services must have high visibility and effective Develop and pursue an efficient,
public service responding to community proactive, transparent and
development needs and helping realize the accountable university
aspirations of these communities to be self-
reliant. management system and
governance
Production and Resource
Mobilization:
Consolidate and optimize
L imited subsidy from the national
government makes it more difficult for CSU
to respond to the foregoing strategic thrusts.
university resources, expertise In order meet the demands for academic
excellence, research, development and
and services extension, production and resource mobilization
as well as good university governance, CSU is

C SU envisions financial sustainability

achieved by resource generation while
preserving its public character. It shall
compelled to implement and maintain seamless
processes for higher levels of productivity and
sound decision-making based on accurate and
also ensure reliable and continuous inflow real time information. This shall be done by
of financial resources by proactively and integrating, interconnecting and harmonizing
systematically developing land assets, pooling ICT systems and infrastructure across all
of manpower resources and experts as well campuses and by streamlining university
as optimally utilizing university’s funds. On processes for faster delivery of services.
top of its existing income generating projects, Moreover, it shall also review existing structures
CSU shall devise other alternative means of on governance, operations, and competition
generating financial resources to finance its as well as rationalize its operations in terms of
educational programs and thus sustain its local operations, program offerings, cost, and
efficiency and effectiveness. tuition structure.

24
 Core Strategies

ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE

Establish a culture of excellence in all

academic programs

• Implement creative, diverse, •Strengthen faculty and staff

competitive and industry - based development
curricular programs
•Upgrade instructional facilities and
•Establish quality assurance through innovate content delivery
accreditation ISA and ISO
certification in the University •Implement performance - based
rewards and incentives systems
•Integrate science and technology,
GAD environmental; and climate •Expand institutional linkages and
change advocacies in the curriculum internationalization

Figure 5. Strategic Pillar 1 - Academic Excellence

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND

EXTENSION
Develop a pervasive research and extension
culture, innovation and creativity

•Strengthen RD&E partnership with •Package fundable RD&E proposals

national, regional and international in line with the banner program
organizations and the priorities regional, of
national and international research/
•Develop, test and implement development agencies
innovative and alternative RD&E
approaches •Identify contemporary issues,
challenges and opportunities for
•Review and assess the outputs, RD&E in the university
outcomes and impact of
RD&E/projects •Develop a new RD&E agenda and
banner programs
•Conduct need assessment in
adopted barangays of the university
•Intensify science publishing in the
•Initiate and intensify technology university
commercialization in the university
•Conduct regular multi - sector
RD&E fora

Figure 6. Strategic Pillar 2 - Research, Development

and Extension
25
 Core Strategies
PRODUCTION AND
RESOURCE MOBILIZATION
Consolidate and optimize university
resources, expertise and services

•Conduct Resource audit and •Formulate a master plan for

establish/maintain an up - to - date optimum land allocation and
database development in the university
•Document university properties and
assets •Optimize income generation
through innovative resource
•Identify various products/ mobilization initiatives in the
projects for production and university
commercialization
Figure 7. Strategic Pillar 3 - Production and
Resource Mobilization

GOOD
GOVERNANCE
Develop and pursue and efficient, proactive,
transparent and accountable university
management system and governance

•Review the university’s organization •Improve transparency in all business

and management (O&M) structure transactions in compliance with ISO
in line with the new strategic plan standards, satisfy accreditation
requirements and strengthen
•Improve institutional visibility accountability of university officials
•Implement and pursue university
•Involvement of key stakeholders in and national government policies
university decision - making and regulation

Figure 8. Strategic Pillar 4 - University

good governance

26
 Strategic Pillar 1: Enhancing
Academic Excellence
Strategic Action 1.1. Implement creative, diverse,
competitive and industry-based curricular programs.

Key Performance
Strategic Objectives
Indicators
Percentage of graduates
employed within 1 year after
graduation

Percentage of graduates
who finished their academic
Develop professional skills of programs according to
globally competitive graduates prescribed time frame
fitting the contemporary needs of
industries Percentage of graduates
surpassing the national
passing rate for all licensure
examinations

Number of national and

regional topnotchers

Number of academic
programs phasedown/
phaseout

Number of new curricular

offerings formulated/
Rationalize academic program
offered/approved
and offer diverse and demand-
driven courses that will cater to
Number of ladderized courses
the needs of industry
offered

Percentage of graduates
employed upon
graduation within their fields of
specialization

Assess and revise existing Number of curricular offerings/

curricular offerings reponsive to programs reviewed and
K - 12 curriculum revised
Number of graduate tracer
Conduct graduate tracer studies studies implemented and
completed

Level of compliance with

minimum competency
Assess resources and standards of the industries/
competencies of faculty and labor market
students to match the needs of
industries/labor market Number of research
conducted along matching of
resources and competencies

Benchmark with other HEIs for Number of model HEIs visited

best practices and best practices adopted

Practice Outcomes – Based Number of OBE compliant

Education (OBE) syllabi prepared

27
Strategic Action 1.2. Establish quality assurance through Accreditation and ISO certification
in the university.

Strategic Objectives Key Performance

Indicators
Identify and evaluate quality gaps in the various services Number of quality assurance programs/schemes
rendered by the university developed and implemented

Percentage of accredited programs in the university at

Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV

Percentage of academic program that has undergone

Upgrade and standardize the quality of university
Institutional Sustainability Assessment (ISA)
programs and services
Number of academic programs recognized as;
- Center of Development (COD)
- Center of Excellence (COE)

Percentage of services/programs certified by ISO

Identify and strengthen flagship academic program per

campus
Number of functional Quality Assurance Teams organized
Organize and institutionalize Quality
and mobilized
Assurance Teams (QATs) in all colleges and campuses
Number of curricular programs/services
visited/evaluated annually

Number of training courses attended by the members of

Enhance capacities of Quality Assurance Team (QATs)
the Quality Assurance Teams

Level of compliance and annual percentage increase

Review documents subjected to internal and external
of curricular programs/services that passed the Quality
evaluation
Assurance Standards in the university

28
 Strategic Action 1.3. Strengthen faculty and staff development.

Strategic Objectives Key Performance

Indicators
Number of HR inventory or audit conducted based on
Conduct HR inventory/audit
policies of CHED, DBM and CSC

Number of FSDP plan developed and

Formulate/develop campus/college FSDPs
implemented

Percentage of faculty/staff who availed of ;

- National Seminar/Training
- Local Scholarship
Encourage and support faculty and staff to pursue
Percentage of faculty/staff who availed of ;
vertically articulated Masters and/or Doctorate degrees
- international Seminar/Training
locally and/or abroad
- international Scholarship

Percentage of faculty members who finished their

masteral/doctoral program in their field of discipline

Number of relevant seminars or trainings completed by

each faculty every school year
Retool faculty and staff to sharpen job competencies
Percentage of faculty/staff trained or retooled

Number of faculty and staff sent for scholarships

Collaborate with scholarship sponsors like SUCs, research
institutions, etc., for faculty development
Percentage of faculty and staff sent for scholarships

29
Strategic Action 1.4. Improve student services for effective delivery of quality education

Strategic Objectives Key Performance

Indicators
Percentage of students availing orientation program

Percentage of students availing of individualized

inventory services and psychological tests
Provide meaningful Guidance Services
Percentage of students availing of testing service

Percentage of students availing counselling service

Percentage of students availing financial assistance

Provide scholarship to students to increase access
Percentage of students availing merit scholarship

Percentage of students availing medical service

Percentage of students availing dental service

Provide health services
Number of medical facilities/equipment procured

Number of dental facilities/equipment procured

Number of sports activities conducted

Number of socio-cultural activities conducted

Number of spiritual activities conducted

Conduct relevant and interesting student activities
Number of student organizations accredited

Number student publications published

Number of students sent to seminars/conferences

30
 Strategic Action 1.5. Provide functional physical plant and facilities that creates a safe and
conducive environment for all and fully compliant with the standards set in Batas Pambansa
Blg. 344 or the Accessibility Law, the National Building Code, environmental laws/standards
and Fire Code

Strategic Objectives Key Performance

Indicators
Number of classrooms constructed

Number of IT laboratory constructed

Number of science laboratory constructed

Construct physical plant Number of skills development laboratory constructed

Number of library constructed

Number of student center constructed

Number of accreditation center constructed

Number of student housing/dormitory constructed

Number of food service/canteen constructed

Number of health facilities/clinic constructed

Construct auxiliary service facilities
Number of sports facilities constructed

Number of student center constructed

Number of pathways (covered walk) constructed

Number of bus procured

Purchase of vehicles
Number of service vehicle procured

31
Strategic Action 1.6. Implement a performance-based rewards and incentives system.

Strategic Objectives Key Performance

Indicators
Number of faculty promoted based on IP or NBC 461
Institutionalize a Performance-Based Rewards and
Incentives System
Number of trainings/meetings on PBB conducted

Encourage/motivate faculty and staff to

Number of IRE outputs of each faculty and staff
produce outputs along instruction, research and
extension (IRE)

Quantify performance of faculty and staff Percent increase in the performance ratings and rewards
according to prescribed evaluation tools and incentives of faculty and staff

Rationalize policies on appointment, designation and Number of new policies on appointment, designation and
promotion promotion crafted

Strategic Action 1.7. Expand institutional and alumni linkages.

Strategic Objectives Key Performance

Indicators

Number of linkages established through MOAs and MOUs

Establish and sustain institutional linkages with regional,
national and international organizations and association
Number of academic programs with memberships in
of colleges and universities
international professional organizations

Number of faculty and staff with membership in reputable

national organizations

Seek and pursue membership of faculty and staff in Number of faculty and staff with membership in reputable
professional organizations international organizations

Percentage of faculty and staff with membership in local

and international organizations

Number of students involved intercounty mobility (On-The-

Internationalize students’ related learning experiences Job Training)

Number of alumni center established

Strengthen alumni association Number of alumni profiled and updated

Presence of alumni web page

32
 Strategic Pillar 2: Strengthening research and development
Strategic Action 2.1: Improve management of research and development program

Strategic Objectives Key Performance

Indicators
Identify contemporary issues, challenges
Number of research and development areas according to the core
and opportunities for research in the
competencies of each campus
university
Interface instruction with research Number of faculty having research engagement as part of their regular
engagement work load
Number of board-approved research and development agenda and
Develop a new research agenda and banner programs
banner program
Identify and strengthen flagship research commodity per campus

Number of research center established

Develop, test and implement innovative
Establishment of research laboratory
and alternative research approaches
Number of support facilities for research and development installed

Strategic Action 2.2: Develop, implement and evaluate a comprehensive, innovative and
problem-oriented research and development.

Key Performance
Strategic Objectives
Indicators
Number of participatory and community-based research projects
Initiate and intensify technology developed and implemented
commercialization in the university
Number of technologies/innovations commercialized per campus
Number of research outputs/published in refereed international journals

Number of research outputs/published in refereed national journals

Number of research outputs/published in refereed institutional journals

Number of research outputs, disseminated or presented in international

fora/conferences
Production of quality research outputs
Number of research outputs, disseminated or presented in national fora/
conferences

Number of research outputs, disseminated or presented in regional fora/

conferences

Number of research outputs, disseminated or presented in local fora/

conferences

Number of researchers with track record

Number of inventions patented

Package research outputs
Number of copyrights registered

Number of faculty and staff researches cited in refereed journal

Number of externally funded research projects

Generate fund for researches
Number of institutionally funded research projects

33
Strategic Pillar 3 - Intensifying Extension Services
Strategic Action 3.1: Develop relevant and effective extension and community services that shall
improve the life of the community members

Strategic Objectives Key Performance

Indicators

Identify challenges, opportunities and priorities for Number of extension flagship programs developed based
extension in the university on disciplinary strength/forte of campuses approved by
the Board of Regents

Number of faculty having extension engagement as part

Interface instruction with extension engagement
of their regular work load

Number of assisted communities with complete needs

assessment
Conduct needs assessment of assisted communities/LGUs
by the university Number of persons trained weighted by length of training

Number of advisory services provided

Number of information/technologies packaged

Number of demonstration projects established

Number of IEC materials produced

Conduct technology transfer and promotion activities
utilizing effective delivery approaches Number of profitable enterprises developed

Number of LGU sponsored festival/exhibit

Number of technology adoptors

34
 Strategic Action 3.2: Enhance extension services for people and community empowerment
through effective extension modalities.

Strategic Objectives Key Performance

Indicators

Number of GAD related extension programs implemented

Mainstream GAD extension activities
Number of women groups organized and registered

Number of programs for implementation with BOR

Develop extension agenda and banner programs
approval

Number of funded projects

Package proposals along priorities of other agencies for
funding/collaborative undertaking
One town one college extension program

Develop/strengthen linkages with local/regional/national/ Number MOUs/MOAs with active partners/organizations

international partners/organizations approved by Board of Regents

35
Strategic Pillar 4: Optimizing
production and resource mobilization
Strategic Action 4.1: Consolidate and optimize
university resources, expertise and services.

Strategic Objectives Key Performance

Indicators

Conduct resource audit and Number of Up-to-date resource

establish/maintain database established per
an up-to-date database campus

Expand income generating

facilities Number of dormitory/cum
training center

Formulate a master plan for

Number of land development
optimum land
masterplan formulated and
allocation and development in
implemented
the university

Identify various products/ Number of products

projects for production and available for production &
commercialization commercialization

Number of IGPs established and

amount of income generated
Optimize income generation
through innovative resource
Establishment of trade skills
mobilization initiatives in the
center in partnership with TESDA
university
Number of landholdings and
other properties leased

36
 Strategic Pillar 5: Pursuing good university
governance
Strategic Action 5.1: Develop and pursue an efficient,
proactive, transparent and accountable university
management system and governance.

Strategic Objectives Key Performance

Indicators
Review the university’s
organization and
Set up new and responsive staffing pattern
management structure in
at the university, campus and college levels
line with the new strategic
plan
Ratio of total obligations to total releases
(Obligations BUR)

Ratio of total disbursements to total

obligations (Disbursement BUR)

Reduced Ageing cash advances

Rationalize and prudence Percentage of income from business

in all types of expeditures in operations/IGPs to total budget
the university
Percentage of other incomes raised from
services to GAA budget (inclusive of tuition
and service fees)

Percentage of externally generated income/

donations and grants to GAA budget (does
not include externally generated research
and extension funds)
On time submission of reports to COA of
Financial Statements
Timely submission of reports
and purchase of goods
On time delivery of goods and services and
and services
infrastructure as per specifications under the
approved Annual Procurement Plan (APP)
Installation of ICT information system through
the Information System and Strategic Plan
(ISSP)

Automation of student registration,

information and
accounting system

Develop and implement Automation of the university procurement

ICT based transactions system

Automation of human resource services

(employee records, time keeping, leave and
benefits system)

Internal communication and document

management automation

Number of fire preventive facilities installed

Establish university-wide
security and safety Number of perimeter fences constructed
measures
Number of CCTV cameras

37
 Part V
Plan Implementation and
Communication
T his section defines the procedures for the
implementation of the MTDP. The manner
of communicating the plan to the university
strategic areas of concern of CSU and a
MTDP Communication Team. The ITs shall
work directly with the UPDC and the UPDC,
stakeholders and constituency is also in turn, shall regularly report to the University
presented here. This part also outlines the President on the progress of the strategic plan
specific means of implementing the identified implementation.
strategic actions under the strategic areas of
concern. The implementing mechanism of the
CSU MTDP including the functions and
Implementing Mechanisms responsibilities of entities involved, is
presented below:
The university’s top management headed
by the President shall take the lead in
implementing the programs, activities and Board of Regents
projects of the MTDP for CSU. It is expected
that actions by the University President relative
to the affairs of the university are anchored on
the strategies and directions as outlined in the
President
MTDP 2014-2018.

To ensure the effective implementation of

the Plan, the university’s management shall
develop a culture of partnership. As such, University Planning and Development
collaboration among divisions, campuses and Council
colleges shall be strengthened so that they
complement one another and provide students
and faculty greater space to learn to sustain
the university’s competitive advantage. For
the implementation of various projects under Improvement Communication
the key result areas (instruction, research, Teams Team
extension and resource management), linking
with the local government units and national
agencies will be pursued and/or strengthened. Figure 9
Diagram of the implementing mechanism
To orchestrate the implementation of the of the CSU MTDP
proposed changes under this plan, an
institutional mechanism shall be established.
This institutional mechanism shall have a The CSU MTDP Implementation Structure is an
University Planning and Development Council informal structure (created out of a Special Order)
(UPDC) that shall provide the overall direction that works alongside the CSU Administration in
of plan implementation. the implementation of the strategic plan. It is meant
to ensure participation of all internal stakeholders
Under the UPDC shall be the eight (8) of CSU in the implementation of the plan, utilizing
Improvement Teams (ITs) to cover the eight both bottom-up and top-down approaches.

38
 I. University Planning and Development Council B. Membership

A. Functions 1. Improvement Team for Teaching

a. Provides the policy direction and support to • Vice President for Academic Affairs – Chair
CSU MTDP; • Two Senior College Deans
• Student Representative from every campus
b. Approves plans, programs, and projects • Student Representative from the graduate
proposed by the IDG based on the strategic school
plan; • Two Faculty Representative

c. Endorses to the BOR through the President, 2. Improvement Team for Curriculum
policies recommended by CSU MTDP;
• Dean of Instruction – Chair
d. Serves as a fora for reconciling differences and • Dean of the Graduate School
conflicts that may arise as a result of the change • Two senior faculty members
process; and • Student representative from every campus
• Student representative from graduate school
e. Conducts regular assessment of CSU MTDP’s • Two industry representative - optional
effectiveness and responsiveness
3. Improvement Team for Research and
B. Membership Development

a. University President - Chair • Vice President for RDET - Chair

b. Vice President for Academic Affairs • Director, Research Division
c. Vice President for Administration and Finance • Campus Research Coordinators
d. Vice President for Research and Development, • Two Senior Faculty representative
Extension and Training
e. Faculty Regent 4. Improvement Team for Extension and Training
f. Student Regent
g. University Planning and Development • Vice President for RDET - Chair
Director • Director, Extension Division
• Campus Extension Coordinators
II. Improvement Teams (ITs) • Two Senior Faculty representative

A. Functions 5. Improvement Team for Student Development

a. Translates the strategic actions under each • Director of Student Services – Chair
strategic area of concern in the MTDP • Student Regent
• University Physician
b. Outline and implement other activities that • University Librarian
would make result to the fulfilment of the • University Guidance Director
strategic actions and objectives stipulated in • Two Faculty Representatives
every strategic area of concern; • Campus Student Government – Governors

c. Promote participation of CSU’s stakeholder in 6. Improvement Team for Alumni Support

the implementation of the plan’s strategies and
activities; • Alumni President - Chair
• Campus Alumni Presidents
d. Perform other functions as mandated or • Administrative Officer
required by UPDC

39
 respective Campus Operational Plans and College
Action Plans.
In terms of plan financing, significant portion of
the planned strategic actions shall be funded from
the regular budget of the university. Hence, these
planned strategic actions should be consciously
considered in the preparation of the annual budget
proposal of the University.

As means of creative resource management,

7. Improvement Team for Management/ the LGUs, Congress and National Government
governance Agencies shall also be tapped to finance some of the
planned strategic actions. Government line agencies
• Vice President for Administration and Finance have roles to play in the realization of the vision and
• Finance Director goals of the strategic plan for CSU, especially in the
• Campus Executive Officers creation, transmission and operation of knowledge
• Human Resource Management Officer and in tracing its graduates.
• Faculty Representative Communicating Mechanisms
• Administrative Staff Representative
Stakeholders of the university shall be involved in
8.Improvement Team for Physical Facilities translating and communicating the plan. Unless
these people are informed that the university is
• Vice President for Administration and Finance doing something, they are unable to take part in
• University Infrastructure Coordinator facing the challenges that go along with change.
• General Services Officer In communicating the plan, a team mainly designed
• Finance Director to spearhead all necessary forms of communication
• Campus Executive Officers shall be institutionalized. This team shall be called
MTDP Communication Team. The team shall be
The success of the MTDP lies in the broad composed of the Campus Planning Officers and
participation of all university stakeholders. This Campus Management Information System Officers
can be done by incorporating the strategic actions under the supervision of the University Planning
and objectives outlined in the strategic plan in their and Development Office.

Communication Plan

Action Target Medium/ Responsible Timing &

Audience Channel Officials Frequency

Dissemination of the •Faculty •Brochure •UPDO •Yearly during

new VGMO and core •Administrative •Tarpaulin/ •Campus Executive opening of school
values Staff Streamer/ Officers year
Billboard

Dissemination of the •Student •University Website •Campus Planning

strategic pillars •Alumni Officers

Dissemination of the •Community •College Meetings •Campus MIS

core strategies •Partner Agencies •Campus Meetings Officers
•Student Paper •College Deans
•Faculty & Staff •Faculty Members
Orientation •Student Writers
•Student
Orientation
•Light Emission
Display

40
 Strategic Pillar 1 Communication Plan
Enhancing Academic Excellence

Action Target Medium/ Responsible Timing &

Audience Channel Officials Frequency

Implementing •College Deans •Campus Meeting •VP for Academic

creative diverse, •Department Chairs •College Meeting Affairs
competative and •Faculty members •Brochures •Dean of Instruction •Yearly
industry-based •Students •College Fact Book •Improvement Team
curricular programs •Community •CSU Website for Teaching
•VP for Academic
Affairs
Establishing quality •College Deans •Special Order of •Dean of Instruction
assurance through •Department Chairs Accreditation •Collge Deans
•Yearly
accreditation and •Faculty Members •Committees •Quality Assurance
ISO certification •Administrative Staff •Committee meeting Unit
•Improvement Team
for Teaching

•HRMO
•Training Officer
Strengthening •College Deans •CSU Website •Chief Executive
faculty and staff •Faculty •Memorandum Order Officers •Yearly
development •Administrative Staff •Special Orders •College Deans
•Improvement Team
for Teaching

•Director
•Orientation Program
•Student Services
Improving student •College Deans •Bulletin Boards
•College Deans
services for effective •Faculty •Public Forums
•Improvement Team •Every Semester
delivery of quality •OSS Coordinators •Brochures
for Teaching
edcation •Students •Calendar of
•Improvement Team
Activities
for Curriculum

Action Target Medium/ Responsible Timing &

Audience Channel Officials Frequency

•VP for Administration

•Infrastructure •Billboards/ •Administrative
Providing functional Coordinators Perspective Officer
physical plant and •OSS Coordinators •Website •Student Service
facilities that creates •Librarians •Label of facilities Directors •Yearly
sale and conductive •College Deans •Inauguration of •Infrastructure
environment •Medical Staff buildings Coordinators
•Dental Staff •Improvement Team
for physical facilities
•Public
•VP for Administration
announcement
•VP for Academics
through website and
Implement a •Directors for RDET
bulletin
performance •Faculty •Finance Director
•Faculty and staff •Quarterly
based rewards and •Administrative Staff •HRMO
meeting
incentive system •Training Officer
•Memorandum
•Improvement Team
Orders
for Management
•Committee Meeting
•Communication
•Campus Executive
letter •VP for Administration
Officer
•Program for signing •VP for Academics
Expand institutional •College Deans
of MOU’s or MOA’s •Director for RDET •Quarterly
and alumni linkages •Faculty Members
•Faculty meeting •Improvement Team
•Administrative Staff
•Alumni Events for Alumni Support
•Alumni
•Website

41
Strategic Pillar 2 Communication Plan
Strengthening Research and Development

Action Target Medium/ Responsible Timing &

Audience Channel Officials Frequency

Identify •Meetings
•CEO’s •VP for RDET
contemporary •Programs on signing
•Campus Research •Improvement Team
issues, challenges of MOA’s and
Coordinators for Research and •Yearly
and opportunities MOU’s
•College Deans Development
for research in the •Brochures
•Faculty
university •Website

•CEO’s •VP for Academics

•Memorandum on
Interface instruction •Campus Research •VP for RDET
ETL
with research Coordinators •Improvement Team •Semester Basis
•Special Orders
engagement •College Deans for Rsearch and
•Meetings
•Faculty Development

•CEO’s •Meetings
•VP for RDET
Develop a new •Campus Research •Brochure
•Improvement Team
research agenda Coordinators •Tarpaulin/Streamer/ •Yearly
for Research and
and banner program •COllege Deans Billboard
Development
•Faculty •University Website

•Campus and
College Meetings
•CEO’s
Develop test and •R&D Convocation •VP for RDET
•Campus Research
implement innovative •Brochure •Improvement Team
Coordinators •Semi - Annual
and alternative •Tarpaulin/Streamer/ for Research and
•College Deans
research approaches Billboard Development
•Faculty
•University Website
•Syllabus

42
 Strategic Pillar 2 Communication Plan
Strengthening Research and Development

Action Target Medium/ Responsible Timing &

Audience Channel Officials Frequency

•Public Forum
•Exhibit
•Community •Brochure •Improvement Team
Initiate and intensify members •Advertisement in for Extension and
technology •Community Leaders radio & Television Training •Semi - Annual
commercialization •Faculty •Tarpaulin/Streamer •Campus Extension
•Student Billboard Coordinators
•University Website
*Syllabus

•Research
Convocation
•Research
•Improvement Team
•Faculty Presentation
for Extension and
Production of quality •Administrative Staff •Journals
Training •Semi - Annual
research outputs •Community HEI’s •Poster Presentation
•Campus Extension
•Partner Agencies •Tarpaulin/Streamer
Coordinators
Billboard
•University Website
•Syllabus

•Research
Convocation
•Research
•Improvement Team
•Faculty Presentaion
for Extension and
Package research •Administrative Staff •Journals
Training •Semi - Annual
outputs •Community HEI’s •Poster Presentation
•Campus Extension
•Partner Agencies •Tarpaulin/Streamer
Coordinators
Billboard
•University Website
•Syllabus

•Special Orders
•Memorandum
•Faculty •Improvement Team
Orders
•Administrative Staff for Extension and
Generate fund for •Program on Signing
•Community HEI’s Training •Semi - Annual
researchers of MOA’s and
•Partner Agencies •Campus Extension
MOU’s
Coordinators
•Poster
Advertisement

43
Strategic Pillar 3 Communication Plan
Intensifying Extension Services

Action Target Medium/ Responsible Timing &

Audience Channel Officials Frequency

•CEO’s
•Meetings
Identify challenges, •Campus Extension •Improvement Team
•Special Orders
opportunities and Coordinators for Extension and •Yearly
•Memorandum
pririties for extension •College Deans Training
Orders
•Faculty

•CEO’s •VP for Academics

•Meetings
Interface instruction •Campus Extension •VP for RDET
•Special Orders
with extension Coordinators •Director of •Every Semester
•Memorandum
engagement •College Deans Instruction
Orders
•Faculty •Director of Extension

•CEO’s
•Campus Extension
Conduct needs •Campus Extension
•Public Forum Coordinators
assessment of assisted Coordinators •Semi - Annual
•Meetings •Faculty and
communities/LGU’s •College Deans
Administrative Staff
•Faculty

Conduct technology •CEO’s

•Exhibit •Campus Extension
transfer and •Campus Extension
•Launching Radio Coordinators
promotion activities Coordinators •Semi - Annual
and TV •Faculty and
utilizing effective •College Deans
advertisement Administrative Staff
approaches •Faculty

Action Target Medium/ Responsible Timing &

Audience Channel Officials Frequency

•Meeting •University GAD Focal

•Campus GAD
•Symposium Person
Mainstream GAD Coordinators
•Bulletin •Improvement Team •Semi - Annual
extension activities •Faculty
•Website for Extension and
•Administrative Staff
•Conferences Training

•CEO’s •Meetings •Improvement Team

Develop extension
•Campus Extension •Memorandum for Extension and
agenda and banner •Yearly
Coordinators Orders Training
program
•College Deans •Board Resolutions •Board Secretary

Package proposal •CEO’s •Signing of MOA’s

along priorities of •Campus Extensio and MOU’s •Improvement Team
other agencies for Coordinators •Letter for Extension and •Semi - Annual
funding/collaborative •College Deans •Meeting Training
undertaking •Faculty •Symposium

•Special Orders
Develop/strengthen •CEO’s •Improvement Team
•Memorandum
linkages with local, •Campus Extension for Extension and
Orders
regional, national and Coordinators Training •Semi - Annual
•Program on signing
international partners •College Deans •Campus Extension
of MOA’s and
or organizations •Faculty Coordinators
MOU’s

44
 Strategic Pillar 4 Communication Plan
Optimizing Production and Resource Mobilization

Action Target Medium/ Responsible Timing &

Audience Channel Officials Frequency

Conduct resource
•CEO’s •Memorandum
audit and establish/ •VP for Administration
•College Deans Orders •Semi-Annual
maintain an up-to- •HRMO
•Faculty •Meetings
date database
•Improvement Team
Document university •Memorandum
•Properly Custodian for Management/ •Yearly
properties and assets Orders
Governance
Formulate a master
•Memorandum •Improvement Team
plan for optimum •Campus Business
Orders for Management/ •Yearly
land allocation and Coordinators
•Meetings Governance
development
Identify various
•Memorandum •Improvement Team
products/projects •Campus Business
Orders for Management/ •Semi-Annual
for production and Coordinators
•Meetings Governance
commercialization
Optimize income
•Memorandum •Improvement Team
generation through •Campus Business
Orders for Management/ •Semi - Annual
innovative resource Coordinators
•Meetings Governance
mobilization initiatives

Strategic Pillar 5 Communication Plan

Pursuing Good Governance
Action Target Medium/ Responsible Timing &
Audience Channel Officials Frequency

•Execom Meeting
Review the university’s •Directors •Academic Council
organization and •Division Chiefs Meeting •University President
management •CEO’s •Administrative •VP for Administrative
•Yearly
structure in line with •College Deans Council Meeting and Finance
the new strategic •Campus Planning •University •UPDO
plan Officers Performance Review
Meeting
Rationalize •Execom Meetings
•CEO’s •Improvement Team
expenditures and •Memorandum
•Accountants for Management/ •Quarterly
prudence in all types Orders
•Budget Officers Governance
of expenditures •Special Orders
•Execom Meeting
Timely submission of *Finance Director •Improvement Team
•Memorandum
reports and purchase •Accountants for Management/ •Quartely
Orders
of goods and services •Budget Officers Govrnance
•Special Orders
•MIS
•College of CICS
•Execom Meeting
Develop and •College of •Improvement Team
•Memorandum
implement ICT based Engineering for Management/ •Yearly
Orders
transaction •Registrar Governance
•Special Orders
•Accountants
•HRMO
•Meeting
•Infrastructure
Establish university- •Memorandum •Improvement Team
Coordinators
wide security and Orders for Management/ •Semi-Annually
•General Service
safety measures •Special Orders Governance
Officers
•Website

45
 Part VI
PLAN MONITORING AND
EVALUATION
M onitoring and evaluation of plans are
required as part of the implementation of
the MTDP. This is important to determine if the
will be done from inputs to outputs: (have funds
been spent on the desired deliverables?) and
from outputs to outcomes: (are we achieving
university is on track and that it is achieving the our desired development results?)
goals it intended.
Annually, there will be monitoring of the various
The University shall start the implementation of performance measures and objectives of the
the MTDP by convening the Technical Working Plan. Towards the end of the planning period,
Group, administrative and academic council a summative evaluation will be undertaken to
responsible for preparing the specific programs, determine whether the Plan targets were met
projects and activities for each strategic thrust. and whether projects will be evaluated in terms
of their impact in addressing specific problems,
The Campus Executive Officers together with issues and concerns as well as their contribution
the Program Directors and College Deans are towards the attainment of the objectives of this
expected to translate the Plan into specific Plan.
action plans responding to their flagship and
priority programs. Furthermore, it is expected Evaluation of the MTDP shall be assessed using
that all officials will respond favorably to the the Performance Indicators and targets set out
recommended measures and interventions in the MTDP and cascaded in the Campus
contained in the Plan. Operational Plan and College/Unit Action Plan
as these are the delivery units of the university.
In order to monitor the achievement of the The assessmentof performance involves the
Plan, there is a need to strengthen the following key steps:
Management Information System (MIS) of the
university. Enhanced collection, processing • Review Performance Indicators as well
and dissemination of data will play an important as the performance target and actual
role in monitoring the progress of Plan accomplishment;
Implementation.
• Calculate the variance of measured
Monitoring and evaluation of the MTDP shall performance of indicators against the
take place at the following levels: performance targets, as shown in Table 8
below.
• Accomplishment of targets at the University
wide level (MTDP targets) • Provide an explanation for variances that
appear excessive, say, 5%.
• Accomplishment of targets at the Campus
level (Campus Operational Plan) • Draw conclusions about the performance of
the campus and university in delivering that
• Accomplishment of targets at the college level goals and objectives.
(College Action Plan)
• Make recommendations for future planning
The various key responses and objectives of the and funding and delivery options in respect
four (4) strategic thrusts of the university will be of the MFO, where analysis will indicate
monitored in terms of the implementation of the a particular course of action that may be
various programs, activities and projects. This appropriate.

46
CSU MTDP Results Matrix
Sectoral
Goal
Sectoral
Outcomes
Organizational
Outcomes
Major Final
Outputs
Strategic
Pillars
PAPS

47
Instruction Results Matrix

48
 Research Results Matrix

49
Extension Results Matrix

50
 Production Results Matrix

51
Governance Results Matrix

52
 Monitoring &
Evaluation
STRATEGIES
• Generation of required information from
other monitoring and evaluation studies

• Evaluation and assessment of data

efficiency of plan implementation may be
through results of studies conducted by
external partners and agencies, such as the
SUC’s Levelling Studies, Performance
Based Bonus (PBB) and Program
Monitoring &
Accreditation Studies
Evaluation
DELIVERABLES
• Inclusion and conduct of required research
studies in the university research agenda

• Adoption and institutionalization of Results

Reports on various evaluation studies as
Based Monitoring and Evaluation
inputs to plan implementation reviews such as
Tracer Studies of Graduates and Stakeholders
• Assessment of IGP Income Generation and
Satisfaction Surveys, among others.
Utilization
Reports on Annual Plan Implementation
• Compliance to the requirements of
Progress Review - The university shall
Institutional Sustainability Assessment (ISA)
undertake plan implementation assessment
and International Standards Organization
yearly to ascertain the plan’s progress and
(ISO)
identify bottlenecks and their corresponding
solutions.
• Institutionalization of fiscal discipline
and operational efficiency
Report on Medium-term Plan Review -
After 5 years of plan implementatio, a plan
review should be undertaken to determine the
likelihood of achieving the long-term goals set
by the end of the plan period. if as a result of
this review, it was found out that achievement
of goals may not be realized on time, a catch
up program has to be formulated to ensure
their attainment.

Report on Terminal Implementation

Review - A comprehensive review of plan
implementation should be made to assess
both its efficiency and effectiveness to serve as
basis for the successor plan to be formulated.

53
 APPENDICES
Campus Operational Plan
Strategic Pillar 1 : Enhancing Academic Excellence

Strategic Action 1.1: Implement creative, diverse, competitive and industry-based

curricular programs.
Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
1. Develop professional skills of globally competitive graduates fitting the contemporary needs of industries

• Percentage of graduates employed within one year after graduation

ANDREWS 66% 69% 72% 75% 78% 81% Director of Instruction/Deans

CARIG 68% 71% 74% 77% 80% 83% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
APARRI 46% 51% 56% 61% 66% 71% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
SANCHEZ MIRA 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA 39% 45% 51% 57% 63% 69% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
PIAT 65% 71% 77% 83% 89% 90% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LALLO 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 85% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LASAM 53% 57% 61% 65% 69% 73% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

AVERAGE 50.25% 55% 60% 66% 71% 75%

• Percentage of graduates who finished their academic programs according to the prescribed timeframe

ANDREWS 56% 60% 64% 68% 72% 76% Director of Instruction/Deans

CARIG 66% 73% 80% 85% 87% 89% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

APARRI 66% 69% 72% 75% 78% 81% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
SANCHEZ MIRA 71% 76% 81% 85% 88% 89% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA 53% 56% 59% 62% 65% 70% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
PIAT 65% 69% 73% 77% 81% 85% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LALLO 86% 87% 88% 89% 90% 90% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LASAM 79% 83% 87% 91% 95% 95% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
AVERAGE 67.75% 71% 75% 79% 82% 84%

• Percentage of graduates surpassing the national passing rate across all board programs

ANDREWS 54% 55% 56% 57% 58% 60% Director of Instruction/Deans

CARIG 70% 73% 76% 79% 82% 85% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
APARRI 32% 33% 34% 35% 36% 37% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
SANCHEZ MIRA 81% 85% 89% 93% 93% 95% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
GONZAGA 21% 36% 51% 66% 70% 73% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
PIAT 36% 42% 45% 48% 51% 55% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LALLO 23% 25% 27% 29% 32% 35% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LASAM 50% 60% 70% 75% 80% 85% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

AVERAGE 45.88% 48% 56% 60% 62% 64%

 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
2. Rationalize academic program and offer diverse and demand-driven courses that will cater to the needs of
industry
• Number of academic programs phase down/phase out
ANDREWS 0 0 0 0 0 0 Director of Instruction/Deans
CARIG 5 3 3 3 3 3 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
APARRI 1 1 0 0 0 0 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
SANCHEZ MIRA 0 1 1 1 1 0 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
GONZAGA 0 0 1 0 0 0 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
PIAT 1 1 0 0 0 0 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LALLO 0 1 0 0 0 0 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LASAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
TOTAL 7 7 5 4 4 3

• Number of new curricular offerings formulated/offered/approved

ANDREWS 1 1 2 2 2 2 Director of Instruction/Deans
CARIG 2 1 0 0 0 0 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
APARRI 0 1 1 0 0 0 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
SANCHEZ MIRA 0 1 1 0 0 0 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
GONZAGA 0 1 1 1 1 0 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
PIAT 0 1 1 1 1 1 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LALLO 0 1 1 1 0 0 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LASAM 0 1 1 0 0 0 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
TOTAL 3 8 8 5 4 3

• Number of ladderized courses offered

ANDREWS 2 3 4 4 4 4 Director of Instruction/Deans
CARIG 2 4 3 5 5 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
APARRI 4 4 4 4 4 4 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
SANCHEZ MIRA 4 4 4 4 4 4 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
GONZAGA 1 0 0 0 0 0 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
PIAT 2 2 3 3 3 3 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LALLO 1 2 3 3 3 3 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LASAM 2 2 2 3 3 2 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
TOTAL 21 22 19 22 22 21

• Percentage of graduates employed upon graduation within their fields of specialization

ANDREWS 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% Director of Instruction/Deans
CARIG 20% 30% 40% 45% 50% 55% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
APARRI 40% 42% 45% 47% 50% 52% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
SANCHEZ MIRA 40% 45% 47% 49% 51% 55% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
GONZAGA 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
PIAT 15% 20% 30% 35% 45% 50% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LALLO 10% 20% 30% 35% 40% 45% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LASAM 15% 18% 20% 25% 30% 35% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
AVERAGE 23.75% 29.36% 35.25% 39.5% 44.5% 49%

55
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
3. Assess and revise existing curricular offerings responsive to K-12 curriculum

• Number of curricular offerings/programs reviewed and revised based on the requirements of k to 12 program

ANDREWS 5 6 7 8 9 10 Director of Instruction/Deans

CARIG 10 15 18 19 20 21 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

APARRI 5 6 6 7 7 8 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA 3 4 5 5 5 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA 3 4 4 4 5 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

PIAT 3 4 4 4 4 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LALLO 2 3 3 4 4 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LASAM 2 2 3 3 4 4 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

TOTAL 33 44 50 54 58 63

4. Conduct graduate tracer studies

• Number of graduate tracer studies implemented and completed

ANDREWS 4 7 8 9 10 11 Director of Instruction/Deans

CARIG 5 8 9 14 14 15 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

APARRI 3 4 6 6 7 7 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA 3 4 5 5 6 6 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA 3 4 4 5 5 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

PIAT 3 3 4 4 5 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LALLO 3 5 5 5 6 6 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LASAM 3 4 4 4 5 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

TOTAL 27 39 45 52 58 60

5. Assess resources and competencies of faculty and students to match the needs of industries/labor market

• Level of compliance with minimum competency standards of CHED industries, labor market

ANDREWS NBD PC PC FC FC FC Director of Instruction/Deans

CARIG NBD PC PC FC FC FC Campus Executive Officers/Deans

APARRI NBD PC PC FC FC FC Campus Executive Officers/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA NBD PC PC FC FC FC Campus Executive Officers/Deans

GONZAGA NBD PC PC FC FC FC Campus Executive Officers/Deans

PIAT NBD PC PC FC FC FC Campus Executive Officers/Deans

LALLO NBD PC PC FC FC FC Campus Executive Officers/Deans

LASAM NBD PC PC FC FC FC Campus Executive Officers/Deans

TOTAL NBD PC PC FC FC FC

NBD = No Baseline Data, PC = Partially Complied, FC= Fully Complied

56
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
• Number of researches conducted along matching of resources and competencies

ANDREWS NBD 2 3 4 5 6 Director of Instruction/Deans

CARIG NBD 2 3 4 5 6 Campus Executive Officers/Deans

APARRI NBD 2 3 3 3 5 Campus Executive Officers/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA NBD 2 3 3 3 5 Campus Executive Officers/Deans

GONZAGA NBD 2 2 2 4 4 Campus Executive Officers/Deans

PIAT NBD 2 2 3 3 3 Campus Executive Officers/Deans

LALLO NBD 2 2 2 3 3 Campus Executive Officers/Deans

LASAM NBD 2 2 2 2 3 Campus Executive Officers/Deans

TOTAL NBD 14 17 19 23 29

NBD = No Baseline Data

6. Benchmark with other HEIs for best practices

• Number of model HEIs visited and best practices adopted

ANDREWS 3 4 8 9 12 13 Director of Instruction/Deans

CARIG 5 10 12 15 15 18 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

APARRI 5 8 10 11 12 13 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA 3 6 8 9 10 11 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA 3 6 9 10 12 13 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

PIAT 4 9 10 11 12 13 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LALLO 0 5 6 8 10 10 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LASAM 3 4 4 5 7 8 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

TOTAL 26 52 67 78 90 99

7. Practice outcomes - based education (OBE)

• Number of OBE compliant syllabi prepared

ANDREWS 0 20 30 40 50 60 Director of Instruction/Deans

CARIG 0 20 30 40 50 60 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

APARRI 0 15 20 25 30 35 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA 0 15 20 25 30 35 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA 0 10 15 20 25 30 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

PIAT 0 10 15 20 25 30 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LALLO 0 10 15 20 25 30 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LASAM 0 10 15 20 25 30 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

TOTAL 0 110 160 210 260 310

57
Strategic Action 1.2: Establish quality assurance through accreditation and ISO
certification in the university
Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
1. Identify and evaluate quality gaps in the various services rendered by the university

• Number of quality assurance programs/schemes developed and implemented

Quality Management
ANDREWS 1 4 6 8 10 15 Representative/Director of
Instruction/Deans
CARIG 0 2 4 6 10 15 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

APARRI 0 3 4 8 10 15 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA 0 3 4 8 10 15 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA 0 3 4 8 10 15 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

PIAT 0 2 3 5 8 10 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LALLO 0 2 3 5 8 10 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LASAM 0 1 2 4 6 8 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

TOTAL 1 20 30 52 72 103

2. Upgrade and standardize the quality of university programs and services

• Number of accredited programs in the university at: Level I, Level II, Level III, Level IV

ANDREWS 2 6 8 10 10 10 Director of Instruction/Deans

CARIG 11 13 15 15 15 15 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

APARRI 1 3 5 5 7 7 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA 0 5 5 7 7 7 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA 0 8 8 8 8 8 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

PIAT 1 5 5 5 5 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LALLO 0 3 5 5 5 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LASAM 0 3 3 3 3 3 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

TOTAL 15 46 54 58 60 60

• Percentage of academic program that has undergone Institutional Sustainability Assessment (ISA)

ANDREWS 0% 10% 15% 16% 18% 20% Director of Instruction/Deans

CARIG 0% 15% 20% 22% 24% 28% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

APARRI 0% 10% 15% 16% 18% 20% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA 0% 0% 10% 15% 16% 18% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA 0% 0% 10% 15% 16% 18% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

PIAT 0% 0% 10% 15% 16% 18% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LALLO 0% 0% 10% 15% 16% 18% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LASAM 0% 0% 10% 12% 14% 15% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

AVERAGE 0% 4% 13% 16% 17% 19%

58
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
• Number of academic programs recognized as: Center of Development & Center of Excellence

ANDREWS 0 0 1 2 2 3 Director of Instruction/Deans

CARIG 0 0 2 4 5 6 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

APARRI 0 0 1 1 1 2 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA 0 0 0 0 1 2 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA 0 0 0 0 1 2 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

PIAT 0 0 0 0 1 2 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LALLO 0 0 0 0 1 2 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LASAM 0 0 0 0 1 1 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

TOTAL 0 0 0 4 7 13

• Percentage of services/programs certified by ISO

Vice President for Administration

ANDREWS 0 0 5 10 15 20 and Finance/Division Chiefs/Section
Heads

CARIG 0 0 5 10 15 20 Campus Executive Officer

APARRI 0 0 3 5 7 10 Campus Executive Officer

SANCHEZ MIRA 0 0 3 5 7 10 Campus Executive Officer

GONZAGA 0 0 2 4 6 8 Campus Executive Officer

PIAT 0 0 2 4 6 8 Campus Executive Officer

LALLO 0 0 1 3 5 6 Campus Executive Officer

LASAM 0 0 1 3 5 6 Campus Executive Officer

TOTAL 0 0 17 34 51 68

3. Organize and institutionalized Quality Assurance Teams (QATs) in all colleges and campuses

• Number of functional Quality Assurance Team organized and mobilized

Vice Presidents/Division Chiefs/

ANDREWS 1 1 2 3 4 5
Section Heads/Deans

CARIG 0 0 1 2 4 5 Campus Executive Officers/Deans

APARRI 0 0 1 2 4 4 Campus Executive Officers/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA 0 0 1 2 4 4 Campus Executive Officers/Deans

GONZAGA 0 0 1 2 4 4 Campus Executive Officers/Deans

PIAT 0 0 1 2 4 4 Campus Executive Officers/Deans

LALLO 0 0 1 2 4 4 Campus Executive Officers/Deans

LASAM 0 0 1 2 4 4 Campus Executive Officers/Deans

TOTAL 1 1 9 17 32 34

59
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
4. Enhance capacities of Quality Assurance Team (QATs)

• Number of training courses attended by the members of the Quality Assurance Teams

Chief Administrative Officer/Training

ANDREWS 0 0 5 6 7 7
Specialist

CARIG 0 0 5 6 7 7 Campus Executive Officer

APARRI 0 0 5 6 7 7 Campus Executive Officer

SANCHEZ MIRA 0 0 5 6 7 7 Campus Executive Officer

GONZAGA 0 0 5 6 7 7 Campus Executive Officer

PIAT 0 0 5 6 7 7 Campus Executive Officer

LALLO 0 0 5 6 7 7 Campus Executive Officer

LASAM 0 0 5 6 7 7 Campus Executive Officer

TOTAL 0 0 40 48 56 56

5. Review documents subjected to internal and external evaluation

• Level of compliance of curricular programs/services that passed the Quality Assurance Team Standards in the
university
Director of Instruction/Chief
ANDREWS NBD PC FC FC FC FC
Administrative Officer/Dean

CARIG NBD PC FC FC FC FC Campus Executive Officer/Deans

APARRI NBD PC FC FC FC FC Campus Executive Officer/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA NBD PC FC FC FC FC Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA NBD PC FC FC FC FC Campus Executive Officer/Deans

PIAT NBD PC FC FC FC FC Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LALLO NBD PC FC FC FC FC Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LASAM NBD PC FC FC FC FC Campus Executive Officer/Deans

TOTAL NBD PC FC FC FC FC

NBD = No Baseline Data, PC = Partially Complied, FC = Fully Complied

60
 Strategic Action 1.3: Strengthen faculty and staff development.
Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
1. Conduct HR inventory/audit
• Number of quality assurance programs/schemes developed and implemented
Chief Administrative Officer/Human
ANDREWS 0 0 1 2 3 5 Resource Management Officer/
Deans
CARIG 0 0 1 2 3 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
APARRI 0 0 1 2 3 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
SANCHEZ MIRA 0 0 1 2 3 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA 0 0 1 2 3 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

PIAT 0 0 1 2 3 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LALLO 0 0 1 2 3 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LASAM 0 0 1 2 3 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

TOTAL 0 0 8 16 24 40

2. Formulate/develop campus/college FSDPs

• Number of FSDP plan developed and implemented
Chief Administrative Officer/Human
ANDREWS 0 1 1 2 3 5 Resource Management Officer/
Training Specialist/Deans
CARIG 0 1 1 2 3 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
APARRI 0 1 1 2 3 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
SANCHEZ MIRA 0 1 1 2 3 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
GONZAGA 0 1 1 2 3 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

PIAT 0 1 1 2 3 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LALLO 0 1 1 2 3 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LASAM 0 1 1 2 3 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans
TOTAL 0 8 8 16 24 40

3. Encourage and support faculty and staff to pursue vertically articulated masters and/or doctorate degrees locally
and/or abroad

• Percentage of faculty/staff who availed of: 1. National Seminar/Training, 2.Local Scholarship

Division Chiefs/Section Heads/
ANDREWS 10% 15% 20% 40% 50% 70%
Training Specialist/Deans
CARIG 10% 15% 20% 40% 50% 70% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

APARRI 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 35% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 35% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

PIAT 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LALLO 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 27% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LASAM 5% 7% 12% 15% 20% 25% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

AVERAGE 6% 10.88% 15.88% 24.38% 30.63% 40.25%

61
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
• Percentage of faculty/staff who availed of: 1. International Seminar/Training, 2. International Scholarship

Division Chiefs/Section Heads/

ANDREWS NBD 5% 10% 15% 17% 20%
Training Specialist/Deans

CARIG NBD 5% 10% 15% 17% 20% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

APARRI NBD 3% 5% 10% 12% 15% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA NBD 3% 5% 10% 12% 15% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA NBD 2% 3% 5% 7% 10% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

PIAT NBD 2% 3% 5% 7% 10% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LALLO NBD 2% 3% 5% 7% 10% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LASAM NBD 2% 3% 5% 7% 10% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

AVERAGE NBD 3% 5% 9% 11% 14%

• Percentage of faculty members who finished their masteral/doctoral program in their field of discipline

Vice President for Academic Affairs/

ANDREWS 70% 75% 90% 95% 98% 100% Human Resource Management
Officer/Training Specialist/Deans

CARIG 70% 75% 90% 95% 98% 100% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

APARRI 70% 75% 90% 95% 98% 100% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA 70% 75% 90% 95% 98% 100% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA 70% 75% 90% 95% 98% 100% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

PIAT 70% 75% 90% 95% 98% 100% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LALLO 70% 75% 90% 95% 98% 100% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LASAM 70% 75% 90% 95% 98% 100% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

AVERAGE 70% 75% 90% 95% 98% 100%

4. Retool faculty and staff to sharpen job competencies

• Number of relevant seminars or trainings completed by each faculty every school year

Director for Instruction/Training

ANDREWS 10 15 20 25 30 50
Specialist/Deans

CARIG 10 15 20 25 30 50 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

APARRI 10 15 20 25 30 50 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA 10 15 20 25 30 50 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA 5 10 15 20 25 40 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

PIAT 5 10 15 20 25 40 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LALLO 5 10 15 20 25 40 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LASAM 5 10 15 20 25 40 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

TOTAL 8 13 18 23 28 45

62
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
• Percentage of faculty/staff trained or retooled

Director for Instruction/Training

ANDREWS 20% 22% 25% 27% 30% 50%
Specialist/Deans
CARIG 33% 35% 37% 40% 43% 50% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
APARRI 21% 25% 27% 30% 33% 50% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
SANCHEZ MIRA 14% 20% 25% 27% 30% 50% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA 40% 45% 47% 50% 53% 55% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

PIAT 15% 20% 23% 25% 27% 30% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LALLO 25% 27% 30% 33% 35% 40% Campus Executive Officer/Deans
LASAM 25% 27% 30% 33% 35% 40% Campus Executive Officer/Deans

AVERAGE 24% 28% 31% 33% 36% 45.63%

5. Collaborate with scholarship sponsors like SUCs, research institutions, etc., for faculty development

• Number of faculty and staff sent for scholarships

Director for Instruction/Training

ANDREWS 12 26 32 38 43 51
Specialist/Deans
CARIG 17 18 22 25 30 50 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

APARRI 0 5 7 8 8 8 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA 2 3 5 5 5 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

GONZAGA 1 3 5 5 5 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

PIAT 2 3 7 8 8 11 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LALLO 1 3 3 4 4 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

LASAM 0 3 4 4 4 5 Campus Executive Officer/Deans

TOTAL 35 64 85 97 107 140

63
Strategic Action 1.4: Improve student services for effective delivery of quality education
Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
1. Provide meaningful guidance services

• Percentage of students availing orientation program

Deans/Director, Guidance and
ANDREWS 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Counseling Services/Director, OSSW
Deans/Guidance Counselor/
CARIG 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Coordinator, OSSW
Deans/Guidance Counselor/
APARRI 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Coordinator, OSSW
Deans/Guidance Counselor/
SANCHEZ MIRA 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Coordinator, OSSW
Deans/Guidance Counselor/
GONZAGA 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Coordinator, OSSW
Deans/Guidance Counselor/
PIAT 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Coordinator, OSSW
Deans/Guidance Counselor/
LALLO 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Coordinator, OSSW
Deans/Guidance Counselor/
LASAM 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Coordinator, OSSW
AVERAGE 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

• Percentage of students availing of individualized inventory services and psychological tests

Director, Guidance and Counseling
ANDREWS 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Services/Guidance Counselors/
Deans
CARIG 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Guidance Counselor/Deans
APARRI 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Guidance Counselor/Deans
SANCHEZ MIRA 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Guidance Counselor/Deans
GONZAGA 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Guidance Counselor/Deans
PIAT 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Guidance Counselor/Deans

LALLO 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Guidance Counselor/Deans

LASAM 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Guidance Counselor/Deans
AVERAGE 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

• Percentage of students availing of testing service

Director, Guidance and Counseling
ANDREWS 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Services/Guidance Counselors/
Deans
CARIG 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Guidance Counselor/Deans
APARRI 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Guidance Counselor/Deans
SANCHEZ MIRA 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Guidance Counselor/Deans
GONZAGA 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Guidance Counselor/Deans
PIAT 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Guidance Counselor/Deans
LALLO 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Guidance Counselor/Deans
LASAM 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Guidance Counselor/Deans

AVERAGE 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

64
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
• Percentage of students availing counseling service

Director, Guidance and Counseling

ANDREWS 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Services/Guidance Counselors/
Deans

CARIG 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Guidance Counselor/Deans

APARRI 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Guidance Counselor/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Guidance Counselor/Deans

GONZAGA 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Guidance Counselor/Deans

PIAT 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Guidance Counselor/Deans

LALLO 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Guidance Counselor/Deans

LASAM 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Guidance Counselor/Deans

AVERAGE 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

2. Provide scholarship to students to increase access

• Percentage of students availing financial assistance

ANDREWS 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% Director, OSSW

CARIG 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% Coordinator, OSSW

APARRI 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% Coordinator, OSSW

SANCHEZ MIRA 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% Coordinator, OSSW

GONZAGA 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% Coordinator, OSSW

PIAT 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% Coordinator, OSSW

LALLO 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% Coordinator, OSSW

LASAM 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% Coordinator, OSSW

AVERAGE 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 40%

• Percentage of students availing merit scholarship

ANDREWS 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Director, OSSW

CARIG 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Coordinator, OSSW

APARRI 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Coordinator, OSSW

SANCHEZ MIRA 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Coordinator, OSSW

GONZAGA 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Coordinator, OSSW

PIAT 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Coordinator, OSSW

LALLO 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Coordinator, OSSW

LASAM 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Coordinator, OSSW

AVERAGE 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

65
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
3. Provide health services
• Percentage of students availing medical service
ANDREWS 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Medical Officer/Nurse
CARIG 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Medical Officer/Nurse
APARRI 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Medical Officer/Nurse
SANCHEZ MIRA 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Medical Officer/Nurse
GONZAGA 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Medical Officer/Nurse
PIAT 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Medical Officer/Nurse
LALLO 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Medical Officer/Nurse
LASAM 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Medical Officer/Nurse
AVERAGE 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50%

• Percentage of students availing dental service

ANDREWS 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Dentist
CARIG 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Dentist
APARRI 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Dentist
SANCHEZ MIRA 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Dentist
GONZAGA 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Dentist
PIAT 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Dentist
LALLO 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Dentist
LASAM 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Dentist
AVERAGE 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50%

• Number of medical facilities/equipment procured

ANDREWS 5 7 10 15 20 25 Medical Officer/Nurse/Supply Officer
CARIG 5 7 10 15 20 25 Medical Officer/Nurse/Supply Officer
APARRI 3 5 7 10 15 20 Medical Officer/Nurse/Supply Officer
SANCHEZ MIRA 3 5 7 10 15 20 Medical Officer/Nurse/Supply Officer
GONZAGA 3 5 7 10 15 20 Medical Officer/Nurse/Supply Officer
PIAT 3 5 7 10 15 20 Medical Officer/Nurse/Supply Officer
LALLO 1 3 5 7 10 15 Medical Officer/Nurse/Supply Officer
LASAM 1 3 5 7 10 15 Medical Officer/Nurse/Supply Officer

TOTAL 24 40 58 84 120 160

• Number of dental facilities/equipment procured

ANDREWS 3 5 6 7 8 9 Dentist/Supply Officer
CARIG 3 5 6 7 8 9 Dentist/Supply Officer
APARRI 0 1 2 3 4 5 Dentist/Supply Officer
SANCHEZ MIRA 0 1 2 3 4 5 Dentist/Supply Officer
GONZAGA 0 1 2 3 4 5 Dentist/Supply Officer
PIAT 0 1 2 3 4 5 Dentist/Supply Officer
LALLO 0 1 2 3 4 5 Dentist/Supply Officer
LASAM 0 1 2 2 3 4 Dentist/Supply Officer
TOTAL 6 16 24 31 39 47

66
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
4. Conduct relevant and interesting student activities
• Number of sports activities conducted
ANDREWS 5 7 9 10 12 12 Sports Director/Coordinator
CARIG 5 7 9 10 12 12 Sports Coordinator
APARRI 4 5 7 8 10 12 Sports Coordinator
SANCHEZ MIRA 4 5 7 8 10 12 Sports Coordinator
GONZAGA 4 5 7 8 10 12 Sports Coordinator
PIAT 4 5 7 8 10 12 Sports Coordinator
LALLO 4 5 7 8 10 12 Sports Coordinator
LASAM 3 4 5 6 10 12 Sports Coordinator
TOTAL 33 43 58 66 84 96

• Number of socio-cultural activities conducted

ANDREWS 2 5 7 8 10 12 Socio-Cultural Director/Coordinator
CARIG 2 5 7 8 10 12 Socio-Cultural Coordinator
APARRI 1 5 7 8 10 12 Socio-Cultural Coordinator
SANCHEZ MIRA 1 5 7 8 10 12 Socio-Cultural Coordinator
GONZAGA 1 5 7 8 10 12 Socio-Cultural Coordinator
PIAT 1 5 7 8 10 12 Socio-Cultural Coordinator
LALLO 1 5 7 8 10 12 Socio-Cultural Coordinator
LASAM 1 5 7 8 10 12 Socio-Cultural Coordinator
TOTAL 10 40 56 64 80 96

• Number of spiritual activities conducted

ANDREWS 10 10 12 14 15 20 Director, OSSW
CARIG 10 10 12 14 15 20 Coordinator, OSSW
APARRI 10 10 12 14 15 20 Coordinator, OSSW
SANCHEZ MIRA 10 10 12 14 15 20 Coordinator, OSSW
GONZAGA 10 10 12 14 15 20 Coordinator, OSSW
PIAT 10 10 12 14 15 20 Coordinator, OSSW
LALLO 10 10 12 14 15 20 Coordinator, OSSW
LASAM 10 10 12 14 15 20 Coordinator, OSSW
TOTAL 80 80 96 112 120 160

• Percentage of student organizations accredited

ANDREWS 80% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% Director, OSSW
CARIG 80% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% Director, OSSW/Coordinator, OSSW
APARRI 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Director, OSSW/Coordinator, OSSW
SANCHEZ MIRA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Director, OSSW/Coordinator, OSSW
GONZAGA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Director, OSSW/Coordinator, OSSW
PIAT 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Director, OSSW/Coordinator, OSSW
LALLO 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Director, OSSW/Coordinator, OSSW
LASAM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Director, OSSW/Coordinator, OSSW
AVERAGE 95% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100%

67
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
• Number of student publications published

ANDREWS 5 7 10 15 18 20 Director, OSSW/Adviser, Publication

Coordinator, OSSW/Adviser,
CARIG 5 7 10 15 18 20
Publication
Coordinator, OSSW/Adviser,
APARRI 2 3 5 7 10 15
Publication
Coordinator, OSSW/Adviser,
SANCHEZ MIRA 2 3 5 7 10 15
Publication
Coordinator, OSSW/Adviser,
GONZAGA 2 3 5 7 10 15
Publication
Coordinator, OSSW/Adviser,
PIAT 2 3 5 7 10 15
Publication
Coordinator, OSSW/Adviser,
LALLO 2 3 5 7 10 15
Publication
Coordinator, OSSW/Adviser,
LASAM 2 3 5 7 10 15
Publication
TOTAL 22 32 50 72 96 110

• Percentage of students sent to seminar/conferences

ANDREWS 3% 5% 15% 20% 25% 30% Director, OSSW/Deans

CARIG 3% 5% 15% 20% 25% 30% Coordinator, OSSW/Deans
APARRI 3% 5% 15% 20% 25% 30% Coordinator, OSSW/Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA 3% 5% 15% 20% 25% 30% Coordinator, OSSW/Deans

GONZAGA 3% 5% 15% 20% 25% 30% Coordinator, OSSW/Deans

PIAT 3% 5% 15% 20% 25% 30% Coordinator, OSSW/Deans

LALLO 3% 5% 15% 20% 25% 30% Coordinator, OSSW/Deans

LASAM 3% 5% 15% 20% 25% 30% Coordinator, OSSW/Deans

AVERAGE 3% 5% 15% 20% 25% 30%

5. Purchase equipment and facilities for student activities

• Number of sports equipment and facilities procured

ANDREWS NBD 20 30 35 40 50 Director, Sports/Supply Officer

CARIG NBD 20 30 35 40 50 Coordinator,Sports/Supply Officer

APARRI NBD 15 20 25 30 40 Coordinator,Sports/Supply Officer

SANCHEZ MIRA NBD 15 20 25 30 40 Coordinator,Sports/Supply Officer

GONZAGA NBD 15 20 25 30 40 Coordinator,Sports/Supply Officer

PIAT NBD 10 15 20 25 30 Coordinator,Sports/Supply Officer
LALLO NBD 10 15 20 25 30 Coordinator,Sports/Supply Officer

LASAM NBD 10 15 20 25 30 Coordinator,Sports/Supply Officer

TOTAL NBD 115 165 205 245 310

NBD = No Baseline Data

68
 Strategic Action 1.5: Upgrade instructional facilities and innovate content delivery.
Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
1.Acquire and install state-of-the-art and environment-friendly instructional facilities

• Number of classrooms installed with ICT-enabled teaching-learning equipment

ANDREWS 33 40 45 52 60 69 Campus Executive Officer

CARIG 33 39 42 33 35 37 Campus Executive Officer

APARRI 4 7 8 10 11 13 Campus Executive Officer

SANCHEZ MIRA 18 20 20 22 22 25 Campus Executive Officer

GONZAGA 3 3 5 5 10 10 Campus Executive Officer

PIAT 5 9 12 15 19 23 Campus Executive Officer

LALLO 2 6 7 10 10 10 Campus Executive Officer

LASAM 3 3 5 5 5 10 Campus Executive Officer

TOTAL 101 127 144 152 172 197

2. Develop/enhance competencies of faculty and students on ICT-enabled teaching-learning

• Percentage of faculty and students who have mastered the operation of ICT-enabled teaching-learning
equipment

ANDREWS 22% 35% 42% 43% 48% 51% Training Officer/Dean

CARIG 76% 83% 87% 91% 93% 95% Training Officer/Dean

APARRI 13% 15% 15% 29% 30% 30% Training Officer/Dean

SANCHEZ MIRA 70% 80% 90% 100% 100% 100% Training Officer/Dean

GONZAGA 67% 84% 86% 90% 100% 100% Training Officer/Dean

PIAT 39% 58% 63% 68% 73% 80% Training Officer/Dean

LALLO 88% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Training Officer/Dean

LASAM 85% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100% Training Officer/Dean

AVERAGE 57.41% 68.31% 72.86% 77.60% 80.29% 82.05%

3. Develop and implement open-distance learning courses

• Number of programs delivered in open-distance learning mode

ANDREWS 0 3 5 7 9 11 Deans

CARIG 1 3 4 5 5 10 Deans

APARRI 0 2 2 4 4 4 Deans

SANCHEZ MIRA 0 3 4 5 5 5 Deans

GONZAGA 0 0 3 3 5 5 Deans

PIAT 0 0 0 1 1 1 Deans

LALLO 0 1 5 5 5 5 Deans

LASAM 0 0 3 1 2 3 Deans

TOTAL 1 12 26 31 36 44

69
Strategic Action 1.6: Implement a performance-based rewards and incentives system.
Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
and Indicators
1. Institutionalize a Performance-Based Rewards and Incentives System

• Number of faculty promoted through IP or NBC 461

ANDREWS 33 41 57 95 91 101 Vice President for Academic affairs

CARIG 40 32 40 75 57 92 Vice President for Academic affairs
APARRI 16 27 29 30 31 31 Vice President for Academic affairs
SANCHEZ MIRA 32 0 0 35 45 45 Vice President for Academic affairs
GONZAGA 12 14 19 22 27 33 Vice President for Academic affairs
PIAT 22 32 32 32 54 54 Vice President for Academic affairs
LALLO 15 15 0 4 20 4 Vice President for Academic affairs
LASAM 6 5 3 3 3 4 Vice President for Academic affairs
TOTAL 176 166 180 296 328 364

• Number of trainings/meetings on PBB conducted

ANDREWS 10 10 15 15 15 20 Director, UPDO
CARIG 10 10 10 15 15 20 Director, UPDO
APARRI 7 14 14 15 15 20 Director, UPDO
SANCHEZ MIRA 1 2 2 2 2 2 Director, UPDO
GONZAGA 4 1 1 1 1 1 Director, UPDO
PIAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 Director, UPDO
LALLO 5 5 5 5 5 5 Director, UPDO
LASAM 6 3 3 3 3 3 Director, UPDO
TOTAL 44 47 53 60 61 77

2.Encourage/motivate faculty and staff to produce outputs along instruction, research and extension (IRE)
• Number of IRE outputs of each faculty and staff
ANDREWS 32 45 60 70 80 91 Deans
CARIG 53 57 58 59 59 60 Deans
APARRI 6 9 10 11 11 11 Deans
SANCHEZ MIRA 7 14 21 28 35 42 Deans
GONZAGA 14 19 24 26 28 29 Deans
PIAT 9 16 22 29 36 43 Deans
LALLO 43 99 99 99 99 99 Deans
LASAM 16 17 17 22 22 22 Deans
TOTAL 180 276 311 344 370 397

3. Quantity performance of faculty and staff according to prescribed evaluation tools

• Percentage increase in the performance ratings of faculty & staff

ANDREWS 4% 13% 19% 22% 29% 36% Deans/Division Chiefs
CARIG 44% 60% 64% 68% 73% 74% Deans/Division Chiefs
APARRI 17% 18% 20% 20% 22% 23% Deans/Division Chiefs
SANCHEZ MIRA 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Deans/Division Chiefs
GONZAGA 28% 33% 34% 35% 36% 51% Deans/Division Chiefs
PIAT 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% Deans/Division Chiefs
LALLO 0% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Deans/Division Chiefs
LASAM 33% 40% 45% 47% 52% 55% Deans/Division Chiefs
AVERAGE 26% 38% 43% 46% 51% 57%

70
 Strategic Action 1.7: Expand institutional linkages.
Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
and Indicators
1. Establish and sustain institutional linkages with regional, national and international organizations and association of
colleges and universities

• Number of linkages established through MOAs and MUs

ANDREWS 33 41 57 95 91 95 University President

CARIG 40 32 40 75 57 92 Campus Executive Officer

APARRI 16 27 29 30 31 31 Campus Executive Officer

SANCHEZ MIRA 32 35 37 40 45 47 Campus Executive Officer

GONZAGA 12 14 19 22 27 33 Campus Executive Officer

PIAT 22 32 32 32 54 54 Campus Executive Officer

LALLO 15 15 17 20 22 25 Campus Executive Officer

LASAM 6 7 10 12 13 15 Campus Executive Officer

TOTAL 176 203 241 326 340 392

2. Seek and pursue membership of faculty and staff in professional organizations

• Number of faculty and staff with membership in local & international organizations

ANDREWS 120 131 138 141 146 149 Deans/Division Chiefs

CARIG 79 86 85 111 97 107 Deans/Division Chiefs

APARRI 23 23 23 23 23 22 Deans/Division Chiefs

SANCHEZ MIRA 15 10 11 10 10 10 Deans/Division Chiefs

GONZAGA 35 58 59 60 61 62 Deans/Division Chiefs

PIAT 31 34 39 39 44 45 Deans/Division Chiefs

LALLO 5 15 21 25 28 31 Deans/Division Chiefs

LASAM 11 14 14 14 14 16 Deans/Division Chiefs

TOTAL 319 371 390 423 423 442

• Percentage of faculty and staff with membership in local and international organizations

ANDREWS 71% 78% 81% 83% 84% 84% Deans/Division Chiefs

CARIG 75% 83% 90% 94% 95% 96% Deans/Division Chiefs

APARRI 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Deans/Division Chiefs

SANCHEZ MIRA 25% 31% 16% 16% 16% 16% Deans/Division Chiefs

GONZAGA 77% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Deans/Division Chiefs

PIAT 37% 41% 49% 50% 56% 58% Deans/Division Chiefs

LALLO 7% 43% 41% 49% 57% 61% Deans/Division Chiefs

LASAM 52% 55% 62% 55% 93% 95% Deans/Division Chiefs

AVERAGE 55% 66% 67% 68% 75% 76%

71
Strategic Action 1.8: Strengthen Student growth and Development
Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
and Indicators
1. Provide holistic student development that assists learners to attain maximum potential

• Number of student activities conducted

ANDREWS 33 38 44 49 52 55 Sports Director/Socio Cultural Director

Sports Coordinator/Socio Cultural

CARIG 6 7 7 8 8 9 Coordinator
Sports Coordinator/Socio Cultural
APARRI 286 310 315 350 365 380 Coordinator

Sports Coordinator/Socio Cultural

SANCHEZ MIRA 20 25 25 30 30 50 Coordinator
Sports Coordinator/Socio Cultural
GONZAGA 74 83 90 97 103 110 Coordinator
Sports Coordinator/Socio Cultural
PIAT 15 17 19 21 23 25 Coordinator
Sports Coordinator/Socio Cultural
LALLO 24 30 0 0 0 0 Coordinator

Sports Coordinator/Socio Cultural

LASAM 1 2 3 4 5 6 Coordinator

TOTAL 426 474 459 510 534 580

• No. of student organizations accredited

ANDREWS 23 24 28 26 27 31 Director, OSSW

CARIG 43 43 43 43 43 43 Coordinator, OSSW/Director, OSSW

APARRI 25 25 26 26 27 28 Coordinator, OSSW/Director, OSSW

SANCHEZ MIRA 25 30 30 30 30 30 Coordinator, OSSW/Director, OSSW

GONZAGA 12 13 13 13 13 13 Coordinator, OSSW/Director, OSSW

PIAT 8 9 10 11 12 13 Coordinator, OSSW/Director, OSSW

LALLO 7 10 10 10 10 10 Coordinator, OSSW/Director, OSSW

LASAM 3 4 5 6 7 8 Coordinator, OSSW/Director, OSSW

TOTAL 146 158 165 165 169 176

• No. of student publications published

ANDREWS 1 2 5 7 9 10 Director, OSSW/Adviser, Publication

CARIG 3 3 3 3 3 3 Coordinator, OSSW/Adviser, Publication

APARRI 2 2 3 3 3 3 Coordinator, OSSW/Adviser, Publication

SANCHEZ MIRA 1 2 4 4 4 4 Coordinator, OSSW/Adviser, Publication

GONZAGA 1 1 1 1 1 1 Coordinator, OSSW/Adviser, Publication

PIAT 2 2 2 2 3 3 Coordinator, OSSW/Adviser, Publication

LALLO 2 2 3 3 4 4 Coordinator, OSSW/Adviser, Publication

LASAM 1 2 3 4 5 6 Coordinator, OSSW/Adviser, Publication

TOTAL 13 16 24 27 32 34

72
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
and Indicators
• No. of students sent to seminars/conferences

ANDREWS 270 290 350 385 395 460 Director, OSSW

CARIG 64 64 64 64 64 64 Coordinator, OSSW
APARRI 20 22 25 28 30 33 Coordinator, OSSW
SANCHEZ MIRA 200 220 250 250 250 250 Coordinator, OSSW
GONZAGA 211 250 273 299 332 373 Coordinator, OSSW
PIAT 10 15 20 25 30 35 Coordinator, OSSW
LALLO 15 20 Coordinator, OSSW
LASAM 30 40 50 60 70 80 Coordinator, OSSW
TOTAL 820 921 1032 1111 1171 1292

• No. of sports facilities purchased

ANDREWS 1 8 28 41 46 65 Director, Sports/Supply Officer
CARIG 39 40 42 44 45 45 Coordinator, Sports/Supply Officer
APARRI 7 15 10 10 9 8 Coordinator, Sports/Supply Officer
SANCHEZ MIRA 110 115 125 150 180 200 Coordinator, Sports/Supply Officer
GONZAGA 149 162 165 167 169 173 Coordinator, Sports/Supply Officer
PIAT 125 140 170 200 230 260 Coordinator, Sports/Supply Officer
LALLO 25 30 Coordinator, Sports/Supply Officer
LASAM 11 12 13 14 15 16 Coordinator, Sports/Supply Officer
TOTAL 467 522 553 626 694 767

2. Provide functional physical plant and facilities in support of instruction, research, extension & production

• Number of physical plant constructed (Classroom)

ANDREWS 19 16 17 18 19 21 Coordinator, Infrastructure
CARIG 76 0 78 0 80 0 Coordinator, Infrastructure
APARRI 43 44 50 50 50 50 Coordinator, Infrastructure
SANCHEZ MIRA 18 22 4 4 6 6 Coordinator, Infrastructure
GONZAGA 37 37 37 37 37 37 Coordinator, Infrastructure
PIAT 23 23 29 29 32 32 Coordinator, Infrastructure
LALLO 1 0 Coordinator, Infrastructure
LASAM 1 1 1 1 1 1 Coordinator, Infrastructure
TOTAL 218 143 219 142 230 152

• Number of physical plant constructed (Science laboratory)

ANDREWS 1 1 2 2 3 3 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure
CARIG 3 3 4 5 5 5 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure
APARRI 2 2 2 2 2 2 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure
SANCHEZ MIRA 1 0 1 1 1 1 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure
GONZAGA 1 1 1 1 1 1 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure
PIAT 2 2 2 2 3 4 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure
LALLO 1 1 1 1 1 1 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure
LASAM 1 1 1 1 1 1 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure
TOTAL 12 11 14 15 17 18

73
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
and Indicators
• Number of physical plant constructed (IT laboratory)

Information System Analyst/

ANDREWS 4 4 5 5 4 4
Laboratory Technician
Information System Analyst/
CARIG 11 0 13 0 15 0
Laboratory Technician
Information System Analyst/
APARRI 3 4 4 4 4 4
Laboratory Technician
Information System Analyst/
SANCHEZ MIRA 1 1 2 1 0 2
Laboratory Technician
Information System Analyst/
GONZAGA 3 4 4 4 5 5
Laboratory Technician
Information System Analyst/
PIAT 2 2 2 2 2 2
Laboratory Technician
Information System Analyst/
LALLO 1 1 0 0 0 0
Laboratory Technician
Information System Analyst/
LASAM 1 1 1 1 1 1
Laboratory Technician

TOTAL 26 17 31 17 31 18

• Number of physical plant constructed (Skills development laboratory)

ANDREWS 2 2 5 6 7 8 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure

CARIG 29 30 32 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure

APARRI 3 4 4 4 4 4 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure

SANCHEZ MIRA 1 1 1 1 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure

GONZAGA 9 10 10 10 11 11 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure

PIAT 7 7 7 7 9 9 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure

LALLO 1 0 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure

LASAM 0 1 1 1 1 1 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure

TOTAL 52 25 57 29 64 34

• Number of physical plant constructed (Accreditation Center)

ANDREWS 1 1 2 1 1 1 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure

CARIG 1 2 10 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure

APARRI 1 1 1 1 1 1 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure

SANCHEZ MIRA 1 1 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure

GONZAGA 1 1 1 1 1 1 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure

PIAT 1 1 1 1 1 1 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure

LALLO 1 0 Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure

LASAM Deans/Coordinator, Infrastructure

TOTAL 7 6 5 4 14 5

74
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
and Indicators
• Number of physical plant constructed (Library)

ANDREWS 1 2 3 3 2 2 Librarian/Coordinator, Infrastructure

CARIG 1 0 0 0 0 0 Librarian/Coordinator, Infrastructure
APARRI 1 1 1 1 1 1 Librarian/Coordinator, Infrastructure
SANCHEZ MIRA 1 0 0 1 0 0 Librarian/Coordinator, Infrastructure
GONZAGA 1 1 1 1 1 1 Librarian/Coordinator, Infrastructure
PIAT 1 1 1 1 1 1 Librarian/Coordinator, Infrastructure
LALLO 1 0 0 0 0 0 Librarian/Coordinator, Infrastructure
LASAM 1 1 1 1 1 1 Librarian/Coordinator, Infrastructure
TOTAL 8 6 7 8 6 6

• Number of Auxiliary Service facilities (student housing, Dormitory) constructed

ANDREWS 0 0 1 1 1 1 Director,OSSW
CARIG 2 0 0 0 3 0 Dorm Master
APARRI 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dorm Master
SANCHEZ MIRA 1 1 0 2 0 0 Dorm Master
GONZAGA 0 0 1 1 1 1 Dorm Master
PIAT 1 1 2 2 2 2 Dorm Master
LALLO 8 1 0 0 0 0 Dorm Master
LASAM 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dorm Master
TOTAL 14 5 6 8 9 6

• Number of Auxiliary Service facilities (food service, Canteen) Constructed

ANDREWS 1 0 1 0 0 1 Director, OSSW

CARIG 1 0 2 0 0 0 Coordinator, OSSW
APARRI 1 1 1 1 1 1 Coordinator, OSSW
SANCHEZ MIRA 2 1 3 0 5 0 Coordinator, OSSW
GONZAGA 2 2 2 2 2 2 Coordinator, OSSW
PIAT 0 0 1 2 2 3 Coordinator, OSSW
LALLO 2 1 0 0 0 0 Coordinator, OSSW
LASAM 1 1 1 1 1 1 Coordinator, OSSW
TOTAL 10 6 11 6 11 8

• Number of Student Center Constructed

ANDREWS 2 0 2 0 2 2 Director, OSSW

CARIG 1 2 0 2 0 3 Coordinator, OSSW

APARRI 1 1 1 1 1 1 Coordinator, OSSW
SANCHEZ MIRA 1 1 0 0 0 0 Coordinator, OSSW
GONZAGA 1 2 2 0 0 2 Coordinator, OSSW
PIAT 1 1 1 1 1 1 Coordinator, OSSW
LALLO 1 1 0 0 0 0 Coordinator, OSSW
LASAM 0 1 1 1 1 1 Coordinator, OSSW
TOTAL 8 9 7 5 5 10 Coordinator, OSSW

75
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
and Indicators
• Number of vehicles purchased (Bus)

ANDREWS 0 0 1 1 1 1 University President/Supply Officer

CARIG 1 2 0 0 3 0 CEO/Supply Officer

APARRI 0 0 1 0 1 1 CEO/Supply Officer
SANCHEZ MIRA 0 0 0 1 0 1 CEO/Supply Officer
GONZAGA 0 0 0 1 0 1 CEO/Supply Officer
PIAT 1 1 1 1 1 1 CEO/Supply Officer
LALLO 0 1 0 0 1 1 CEO/Supply Officer
LASAM 1 1 1 1 1 1 CEO/Supply Officer
TOTAL 3 5 2 5 7 7

• Number of Service Vehicle Purchased

ANDREWS 0 0 1 1 0 0 University President/Supply Officer
CARIG 3 4 0 5 0 0 CEO/Supply Officer
APARRI 1 0 0 0 0 0 CEO/Supply Officer
SANCHEZ MIRA 1 1 0 1 0 1 CEO/Supply Officer
GONZAGA 1 0 0 0 0 0 CEO/Supply Officer
PIAT 2 2 2 3 3 3 CEO/Supply Officer
LALLO 0 1 0 0 0 0 CEO/Supply Officer
LASAM 1 1 1 1 1 1 CEO/Supply Officer
TOTAL 9 9 9 11 4 5

3. Mainstreaming Gender and Development in the University

• Number of syllabus revised indicating gender responsiveness
ANDREWS 13 27 59 70 103 108 Deans
CARIG 24 171 128 212 160 183 Deans
APARRI 1 38 47 61 70 79 Deans
SANCHEZ MIRA 15 39 49 49 61 61 Deans
GONZAGA 31 56 63 77 74 77 Deans
PIAT 0 4 4 5 7 8 Deans
LALLO 23 41 0 0 0 0 Deans
LASAM 3 6 9 12 15 18 Deans
TOTAL 110 382 359 486 490 534

• Number of gender & development trainings/seminars conducted

ANDREWS 5 17 21 27 30 37 GAD Focal Person
CARIG 2 9 11 13 12 13 GAD Focal Person
APARRI 15 18 23 27 32 36 GAD Focal Person
SANCHEZ MIRA 8 16 16 12 14 16 GAD Focal Person
GONZAGA 2 7 7 7 7 7 GAD Focal Person
PIAT 0 4 4 4 4 4 GAD Focal Person
LALLO 0 5 GAD Focal Person
LASAM 3 6 9 12 15 18 GAD Focal Person
TOTAL 35 82 96 107 121 140

76
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
and Indicators
• Number of researches/gender profiling conducted along gender and development

ANDREWS 2 6 12 16 21 26 GAD Focal Person

CARIG 7 15 15 17 20 20 GAD Focal Person
APARRI 0 8 10 10 13 13 GAD Focal Person
SANCHEZ MIRA 4 4 8 0 10 0 GAD Focal Person
GONZAGA 1 7 9 9 11 11 GAD Focal Person
PIAT 0 0 4 4 4 4 GAD Focal Person
LALLO 0 5 0 0 0 0 GAD Focal Person
LASAM 0 3 6 9 12 15 GAD Focal Person

TOTAL 14 48 64 65 91 89

• Number of committees constituted to work on GAD

ANDREWS 0 4 7 9 11 13 GAD Focal Person

CARIG 1 8 6 7 6 7 GAD Focal Person

APARRI 7 12 13 15 18 21 GAD Focal Person

SANCHEZ MIRA 0 8 0 0 0 0 GAD Focal Person

GONZAGA 0 6 6 6 6 6 GAD Focal Person

PIAT 0 4 4 4 4 4 GAD Focal Person
LALLO 0 5 0 0 0 0 GAD Focal Person
LASAM 0 3 6 9 12 15 GAD Focal Person
TOTAL 8 50 42 50 57 66

• Number of GAD related student activities

ANDREWS 8 10 14 17 20 23 GAD Focal Person/Director, OSSW

CARIG 6 15 17 20 19 20 GAD Focal Person/Coordinator, OSSW

APARRI 14 21 26 32 36 41 GAD Focal Person/Coordinator, OSSW

SANCHEZ MIRA 8 14 17 16 16 16 GAD Focal Person/Coordinator, OSSW

GONZAGA 24 38 44 46 47 48 GAD Focal Person/Coordinator, OSSW

PIAT 28 31 36 40 44 48 GAD Focal Person/Coordinator, OSSW

LALLO 10 20 GAD Focal Person/Coordinator, OSSW

LASAM 0 6 12 18 24 30 GAD Focal Person/Coordinator, OSSW

TOTAL 98 155 166 189 206 226

77
Strategic Pillar 1: Implementing capability of the university for effective extension and
community services.

Strategic Action 1: Develop, implement, and evaluate comprehensive, relevant and respon-
sive extension programs.
Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
1. Identify challenges, opportunities and priorities for extension in the university

• Number of Extension flagship program based on disciplinary strength/forte of

campuses

ANDREWS 2 3 4 5 6 7 Director, Extension and Training

CARIG 19 18 18 22 21 22 Coordinator, Extension and Training

APARRI 8 12 14 16 19 21 Coordinator, Extension and Training

SANCHEZ MIRA 14 19 20 22 24 20 Coordinator, Extension and Training

GONZAGA 9 12 16 15 15 18 Coordinator, Extension and Training

PIAT 7 11 15 19 23 27 Coordinator, Extension and Training

LALLO 2 7 0 0 0 0 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LASAM 0 3 6 9 12 15 Coordinator, Extension and Training
TOTAL 58 77 82 100 107 120

2. Conduct needs assessment of assisted communities/LGUs by the university

• Number of assisted communities with complete needs assessment

ANDREWS 7 7 7 7 7 7 Director, Extension and Training

CARIG 11 11 11 18 18 18 Coordinator, Extension and Training
APARRI 3 7 7 7 7 7 Coordinator, Extension and Training
SANCHEZ MIRA 7 7 7 14 14 14 Coordinator, Extension and Training
GONZAGA 8 11 13 14 16 20 Coordinator, Extension and Training
PIAT 8 8 8 12 12 12 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LALLO 1 6 6 6 6 6 Coordinator, Extension and Training

LASAM 0 3 5 5 7 8 Coordinator, Extension and Training

TOTAL 49 73 80 96 105 115

• Number of persons trained weighted by lenght of training

ANDREWS 90 151 166 181 206 214 Director, Extension and Training
CARIG 127 200 235 275 300 310 Coordinator, Extension and Training
APARRI 337 760 760 760 760 760 Coordinator, Extension and Training
SANCHEZ MIRA 1100 1100 1450 1800 2150 2500 Coordinator, Extension and Training
GONZAGA 360 504 634 761 886 911 Coordinator, Extension and Training
PIAT 330 430 530 630 730 830 Coordinator, Extension and Training

LALLO 193 229 275 296 318 349 Coordinator, Extension and Training

LASAM 3 7 10 10 11 13 Coordinator, Extension and Training

TOTAL 2540 3381 4060 4713 5361 5914

78
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
• Number of demonstration established

ANDREWS 12 16 20 24 28 32 Director, Extension and Training

CARIG 20 24 25 28 27 31 Coordinator, Extension and Training
APARRI 5 9 9 9 9 9 Coordinator, Extension and Training
SANCHEZ MIRA 4 4 7 10 11 14 Coordinator, Extension and Training
GONZAGA 2 6 8 8 10 10 Coordinator, Extension and Training
PIAT 6 10 15 19 23 27 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LALLO 2 14 0 0 0 0 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LASAM 0 2 3 6 7 9 Coordinator, Extension and Training
TOTAL 51 85 87 104 115 132

• Number of IEC materials produced

ANDREWS 16 21 26 30 34 39 Director, Extension and Training

CARIG 20 27 29 33 34 34 Coordinator, Extension and Training
APARRI 4 11 12 14 15 15 Coordinator, Extension and Training
SANCHEZ MIRA 25 25 39 60 60 74 Coordinator, Extension and Training
GONZAGA 1 6 7 7 9 10 Coordinator, Extension and Training
PIAT 20 23 26 31 34 39 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LALLO 6 14 0 0 0 0 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LASAM 0 3 3 6 6 9 Coordinator, Extension and Training
TOTAL 92 130 142 181 192 220

• Number of profitable enterprises developed

ANDREWS 3 5 7 10 12 14 Director, Extension and Training
CARIG 6 15 14 15 17 18 Coordinator, Extension and Training
APARRI 3 9 9 10 10 10 Coordinator, Extension and Training
SANCHEZ MIRA 7 7 7 7 14 14 Coordinator, Extension and Training
GONZAGA 1 6 6 8 8 10 Coordinator, Extension and Training
PIAT 2 5 6 9 10 11 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LALLO 4 9 0 0 0 0 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LASAM 0 2 3 5 6 6 Coordinator, Extension and Training
TOTAL 26 58 52 64 77 83

• Number of LGU sponsored festival/exhibit

ANDREWS 0 3 6 10 13 16 Director, Extension and Training

CARIG 5 10 10 10 11 11 Coordinator, Extension and Training
APARRI 1 7 7 7 7 7 Coordinator, Extension and Training
SANCHEZ MIRA 7 7 7 14 14 14 Coordinator, Extension and Training
GONZAGA 0 5 5 5 6 6 Coordinator, Extension and Training
PIAT 4 4 4 4 4 4 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LALLO 1 6 0 0 0 0 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LASAM 0 3 3 3 3 3 Coordinator, Extension and Training
TOTAL 18 45 42 53 58 61

79
 Performance target Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
4. Mainstream GAD Extension Activities
• Number of GAD related extension programs implemented
ANDREWS 4 6 7 10 12 13 Director, Extension and Training
CARIG 4 14 10 15 12 17 Coordinator, Extension and Training
APARRI 1 7 7 7 7 7 Coordinator, Extension and Training
SANCHEZ MIRA 7 7 7 14 14 21 Coordinator, Extension and Training
GONZAGA 5 7 8 17 8 9 Coordinator, Extension and Training
PIAT 6 9 10 12 15 17 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LALLO 0 5 0 0 0 0 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LASAM 0 3 3 6 6 9 Coordinator, Extension and Training
TOTAL 27 58 52 81 74 93

• Number of women groups organized and registered

ANDREWS 2 4 7 9 11 12 Director, Extension and Training
CARIG 2 9 7 9 9 11 Coordinator, Extension and Training
APARRI 0 7 7 7 7 7 Coordinator, Extension and Training
SANCHEZ MIRA 7 7 7 14 14 21 Coordinator, Extension and Training
GONZAGA 0 3 4 4 5 5 Coordinator, Extension and Training
PIAT 0 4 4 8 8 12 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LALLO 0 5 0 0 0 0 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LASAM 0 1 3 3 3 3 Coordinator, Extension and Training
TOTAL 11 40 39 54 57 71

5. Develop Extension agenda and banner programs

• Number of programs for imlementation with BOR approval
ANDREWS 2 3 6 8 9 11 Director, Extension and Training
CARIG 3 9 8 11 9 11 Coordinator, Extension and Training
APARRI 0 7 7 7 7 7 Coordinator, Extension and Training
SANCHEZ MIRA 7 7 7 14 14 14 Coordinator, Extension and Training
GONZAGA 2 5 6 6 6 6 Coordinator, Extension and Training
PIAT 4 4 4 4 4 4 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LALLO 0 5 0 0 0 0 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LASAM 0 3 3 3 3 3 Coordinator, Extension and Training
TOTAL 18 43 41 53 52 56 Coordinator, Extension and Training

• Number of funded projects

ANDREWS 2 4 6 9 11 12 Director, Extension and Training
CARIG 5 11 9 12 10 12 Coordinator, Extension and Training
APARRI 3 9 9 9 9 9 Coordinator, Extension and Training
SANCHEZ MIRA 8 8 15 15 21 22 Coordinator, Extension and Training
GONZAGA 4 6 7 6 6 6 Coordinator, Extension and Training
PIAT 3 11 19 27 35 43 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LALLO 2 7 0 0 0 0 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LASAM 0 3 3 3 3 3 Coordinator, Extension and Training
TOTAL 27 59 68 81 95 107

80
 Strategic Pillar 2 : Strengthening research and development

Strategic Action 1: Develop, implement, and evaluate comprehensive, innovative and

problem-oriented research and development programs.
Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
and Indicators
1. Identify contemporary issues, challenges and opportunities for research in the university

• Number of Research and Development areas according to the core competencies of each campus.

ANDREWS 5 14 22 27 35 40 Director, Research & Development

CARIG 20 21 25 25 27 27 Coordinator, Research & Development

APARRI 12 21 24 24 24 24 Coordinator, Research & Development

SANCHEZ MIRA 2 2 2 2 2 2 Coordinator, Research & Development

GONZAGA 6 11 14 15 16 18 Coordinator, Research & Development

PIAT 10 17 27 37 47 58 Coordinator, Research & Development

LALLO 40 57 67 77 88 99 Coordinator, Research & Development

LASAM 10 10 11 11 11 11 Coordinator, Research & Development

TOTAL 105 153 192 218 250 279

2. Develop a new Research agenda and banner programs

• Number of board-approved Research and Development agenda and banner programs

ANDREWS 2 12 17 25 30 36 Director, Research & Development

CARIG 9 12 14 13 13 15 Coordinator, Research & Development

APARRI 1 7 7 7 7 7 Coordinator, Research & Development

SANCHEZ MIRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coordinator, Research & Development

GONZAGA 3 6 8 8 10 11 Coordinator, Research & Development

PIAT 1 1 2 3 3 3 Coordinator, Research & Development

LALLO 0 13 19 26 33 40 Coordinator, Research & Development

LASAM 8 9 9 9 9 9 Coordinator, Research & Development

TOTAL 24 60 76 91 105 121

3. Develop, test, and implement innovative and alternative Research approaches

• Number of ICT-based Research projects developed and implemented

ANDREWS 1 5 8 11 14 17 Director, Research & Development

CARIG 6 11 13 13 13 13 Coordinator, Research & Development

APARRI 2 7 7 7 7 7 Coordinator, Research & Development

SANCHEZ MIRA 0 1 1 1 1 1 Coordinator, Research & Development

GONZAGA 1 4 8 11 13 14 Coordinator, Research & Development

PIAT 1 4 8 12 17 23 Coordinator, Research & Development

LALLO 0 5 5 5 5 5 Coordinator, Research & Development

LASAM 3 5 5 5 5 5 Coordinator, Research & Development

TOTAL 14 42 55 65 75 85

81
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
• Number of participatory and community-based research projects developed and implemented

ANDREWS 10 18 27 33 42 48 Director, Research & Development

CARIG 19 29 29 34 34 34 Coordinator, Research & Development

APARRI 2 7 7 7 7 7 Coordinator, Research & Development
SANCHEZ MIRA 4 3 3 3 3 3 Coordinator, Research & Development
GONZAGA 3 6 9 11 11 12 Coordinator, Research & Development
PIAT 2 4 7 11 16 20 Coordinator, Research & Development
LALLO 0 5 5 5 5 5 Coordinator, Research & Development

LASAM 4 6 6 6 6 6 Coordinator, Research & Development

TOTAL 44 78 93 110 124 135

4. Initiate and intensify technology commercialization in the university

• Number of technologies/innovations commercialized per campus
ANDREWS 0 4 5 9 10 11 Director, Research & Development
CARIG 1 1 2 2 2 2 Coordinator, Research & Development

APARRI 4 11 11 11 11 11 Coordinator, Research & Development

SANCHEZ MIRA 5 5 5 5 5 5 Coordinator, Research & Development
GONZAGA 0 3 1 1 1 1 Coordinator, Research & Development
PIAT 0 1 5 7 10 12 Coordinator, Research & Development
LALLO 2 4 4 5 5 5 Coordinator, Research & Development
LASAM 1 1 4 4 5 5 Coordinator, Research & Development
TOTAL 13 30 37 44 49 52

• Number of partnerships with the business sector

ANDREWS 11 21 28 38 44 52 Director, Research & Development
CARIG 4 6 4 4 4 4 Coordinator, Research & Development
APARRI 3 10 10 10 10 10 Coordinator, Research & Development
SANCHEZ MIRA 0 1 2 2 2 2 Coordinator, Research & Development
GONZAGA 0 7 7 7 11 16 Coordinator, Research & Development
PIAT 0 1 5 10 10 13 Coordinator, Research & Development
LALLO 0 1 2 5 5 5 Coordinator, Research & Development
LASAM 4 7 7 7 7 7 Coordinator, Research & Development
TOTAL 22 54 65 83 93 109

5. Production of Quality Research Outputs

• Number of research outputs/published in refereed International Journals
ANDREWS 0 6 9 11 15 16 Director, Research & Development
CARIG 0 17 18 18 19 19 Coordinator, Research & Development
APARRI 0 12 12 12 12 12 Coordinator, Research & Development
SANCHEZ MIRA 0 6 7 7 8 8 Coordinator, Research & Development
GONZAGA 0 5 8 11 14 16 Coordinator, Research & Development
PIAT 0 4 4 4 4 4 Coordinator, Research & Development
LALLO 0 0 0 5 5 5 Coordinator, Research & Development
LASAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coordinator, Research & Development

TOTAL 0 50 58 68 77 80

82
 Srategic Pillar 3: Optimizing Production and Resource Mobilization

Strategic Action 1: Consolidate and optimize university resources, expertise, and services.
Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
1. Conduct resource audit and establish/maintain an up-to-date database

• Number of up-to-date resource database established per campus

ANDREWS 1 1 2 4 3 5 MIS Officer
CARIG 1 1 1 1 1 1 MIS Officer
APARRI 1 3 3 3 4 5 MIS Officer
SANCHEZ MIRA 0 1 1 1 1 1 MIS Officer
GONZAGA 0 1 2 2 2 2 MIS Officer
PIAT 1 1 1 1 1 1 MIS Officer
LALLO 0 1 1 2 2 3 MIS Officer
LASAM 1 2 2 2 2 2 MIS Officer
TOTAL 5 14 13 16 16 20

2. Document university properties and assets

• Number of documented tangible and intangible resources and assets of the university
ANDREWS NBD 200 300 400 500 600 Property Custodian/Records Officer
CARIG NBD 250 350 450 550 650 Property Custodian/Records Officer
APARRI 300 380 440 500 570 680 Property Custodian/Records Officer
SANCHEZ MIRA NBD 100 200 300 400 500 Property Custodian/Records Officer
GONZAGA NBD 100 150 200 250 300 Property Custodian/Records Officer
PIAT 336 369 402 435 468 501 Property Custodian/Records Officer
LALLO 310 360 360 420 420 520 Property Custodian/Records Officer
LASAM 50 150 200 200 200 250 Property Custodian/Records Officer
TOTAL 996 1,909 2,402 2,905 3,358 4,001

• Percentage of documented tangible and intangible resources and assets of the university
ANDREWS NBD 20% 25% 30% 40% 50% Property Custodian/Records Officer
CARIG 13% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% Property Custodian/Records Officer
APARRI 10% 13% 15% 17% 20% 22% Property Custodian/Records Officer
SANCHEZ MIRA NBD 15% 20% 30% 40% 45% Property Custodian/Records Officer
GONZAGA NBD 50% 60% 70% 75% 80% Property Custodian/Records Officer
PIAT NBD 10% 15% 25% 30% 40% Property Custodian/Records Officer
LALLO 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% Property Custodian/Records Officer
LASAM NBD 50% 60% 70% 80% 85% Property Custodian/Records Officer
Average 13% 32% 37% 43% 48% 53%

3. Formulate a master plan for optimum land allocation and development in the university

• Number of land development master plan developed

ANDREWS 0 0 1 1 1 1 University President
CARIG 0 1 0 0 0 0 Campus Executive Officer
APARRI 1 1 1 1 1 1 Campus Executive Officer
SANCHEZ MIRA 0 1 1 1 1 1 Campus Executive Officer
GONZAGA 1 1 1 1 1 1 Campus Executive Officer
PIAT 1 1 1 1 1 1 Campus Executive Officer
LALLO 1 1 1 1 1 1 Campus Executive Officer
LASAM 1 1 1 1 1 1 Campus Executive Officer
TOTAL 5 7 7 7 7 7

83
 Performance Targets Responsible Officials
Objectives and
Baseline 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Indicators
4. Identify various products/projects for production and commercialization
• Number of products available for production and commercialization
ANDREWS 0 1 5 10 15 15 Director, Extension and Training
CARIG 6 11 14 15 15 15 Coordinator, Extension and Training
APARRI 5 7 10 13 14 14 Coordinator, Extension and Training
SANCHEZ MIRA 0 10 5 5 5 5 Coordinator, Extension and Training
GONZAGA 0 4 11 16 18 18 Coordinator, Extension and Training
PIAT 5 6 7 8 9 10 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LALLO 4 5 5 6 6 7 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LASAM 1 3 3 3 3 3 Coordinator, Extension and Training

TOTAL 21 47 60 76 85 87

5. Optimize income generation through innovative resource initiatives in the university

• Number of profitable IGPs established
ANDREWS 2 3 5 7 10 12 Director, Business Affairs Office
CARIG 7 11 13 13 13 13 Coordinator, Business Affairs Office
APARRI 3 4 7 9 9 9 Coordinator, Business Affairs Office
SANCHEZ MIRA 7 3 3 2 2 2 Coordinator, Business Affairs Office
GONZAGA 35 42 42 42 42 42 Coordinator, Business Affairs Office
PIAT 6 15 15 15 15 15 Coordinator, Business Affairs Office
LALLO 14 14 15 16 17 18 Coordinator, Business Affairs Office
LASAM 2 4 5 6 7 9 Coordinator, Business Affairs Office
TOTAL 76 96 105 110 115 120

• Number of projects established with the sector

ANDREWS 0 5 10 15 17 20 Director, Extension and Training

CARIG 5 10 12 13 12 13 Coordinator, Extension and Training
APARRI 5 8 11 12 12 12 Coordinator, Extension and Training
SANCHEZ MIRA 6 0 1 1 2 2 Coordinator, Extension and Training
GONZAGA 0 0 7 7 7 7 Coordinator, Extension and Training
PIAT 2 3 4 5 6 7 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LALLO 0 2 2 3 5 5 Coordinator, Extension and Training
LASAM 2 3 5 8 9 9 Coordinator, Extension and Training
TOTAL 14 31 83 64 70 75

6. Compliance to submission of mandated reports to COA, DBM, CHED and other partner agencies
• 100% and timely compliance of submission
ANDREWS 95% 95% Chief AO - Finance
100% 100% 100% 100%

CARIG 60% 61% 61% 63% 63% 63% Campus Accountant

APARRI 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Campus Accountant
SANCHEZ MIRA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Campus Accountant
GONZAGA 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Campus Accountant
PIAT 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Campus Accountant
LALLO 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Campus Accountant
LASAM 78% 85% 88% 92% 95% 100% Campus Accountant

Average 89% 93% 94% 94% 95% 95%

84
 List of Acronyms
MTDP - Medium Term Development Plan

MIS - Management Information System

SWOT - Strengths, Weaknessess, Opportunities and Threats

UPDO - University Planning and Development Office

UPDC - University Planning and Development Council

BOR - Board of Regents

P.D - Presidential Degree

CVARRD - Cagayan Valley Research Resource and Development

PCARRD - Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic and Natural Resources Research
and Development

DOST - Department of Science and Technology

DA - Department of Agriculture

DAR - Department of Agrarian Reform

LGUs - Local Government Units

DABAR - Department of Agriculture Bureau of Research

CHED - Commission on Higher Education

RDET - Research Development and Extension Training

ICT - Information and Communications Technology

SUC - State Universities and College

MFO - Major Final Output

OPIF - Organizational Performance Indicators Framework

PI - Performance Indicator

IGP - Income Generating Project

VMGO - Vision - Mission - Goal - Objectives

BAC - Bids and Awards Committee

85
PBB - Performanced Based Bonus

ISA - Institutional Sustainability Assessment

COD - Center of Development

COE - Center of Excellence

HRMO - Human Resource Management Office

ETL - Equivalent Teaching LOad

GAD - Gender and Development

86
 Participants to the University
Strategic Planning Workshop
1. Internal and External Evaluators 6. Campus Executive Officers and
Campus Planning Office
• Dr. Joseph Acorda - Faculty Regent
• Mr. Joven Reyla - Student Regent Appari Dr. Simeon Rabanal
• Mr. Cesar Mabbagu - Alumni Regent Dr. Theresa Remigio
• Dr. Maryanne Darauay - NEDA Director
• Dr. Sancho Mabborang - DOST Representative Sanchez Mira Dr. Lina Garan
• Dr. Ernesto Guzman - DA Representative Dr. Rodel Alegado
• Dr. Rex Navarro - Facilitator & CSU Consultant
Carig Dr. Arthur Ibanez
Dr. Ian Roger Francisco
2. Office of the University President Dr. Dennis Bacuyag
Prof. Dennis Policar
• Dr. Romeo R. Quilang
• Dr. Adelgundo Agaloos, Jr. Gonzaga Dr. Ferdinand Oli
• Dr. Antonio I. Tamayao Prof. Elmarie Suetos
• Engr. James Cabildo
• Engr. Ma Jackielou Zinampan Lallo Dr. Marcelo Raquepo
• Ms. Joycee Roc Prof. Jessie Malab
• Engr. Roger Rumpon
Lasam Dr. Francisco Ocampo, Jr.
Prof. Dolores Quebral
3. Office of the Vice President for
Acedemic Affairs Piat Dr. Vicente Binasoy
Dr. Shiela dela Cruz
• Dr. Eleuterio de Leon
• Dr. Mariden Ventura 7. College Deans
• Dr. Editha Pagulayan
• Dr. Febe Marl Paat • Dr. Nelia Cauilan
• Prof. Samuel Gaspar • Dr. Julius Capili
• Ms. Catherine Jayme • Dr. Romillo Trinidad
• Dr. Rolando Tugade • Dr. Panfilo Canay
• Dr. Archimedes Articulo
4. Office of the Vice President for • Dr. Lilia Tamayao
• Dr. Chita Ramos
Administrative Affairs • Dr. Leticia Dumlao
• Dr. Emerita Geron
• Dr. Perfecto Vivit • Prof. Judy Luyun
• Atty. Honorato Carag, Jr. • Engr. Ernesto Marallag
• Director Vita Bassig • Prof. Edison Bravo
• Ms. Naomah Lasam • Atty. Placido Sabban
• Ms. Rachel Miguel • Prof. Eunice Layugan
• Ms. Evangeline Taguibao • Dr. Pablo Afidchao
• Mr. Arnold Cagurangan • Dr. Kathlyn Cruz
• Ms. Monaliza Guzman • Dr. Anastacio Saguibo, Jr.
• Ms. Olivia Lasam • Prof. Beverly Addun
• Ms. Celiaflor Babaran
• Ms. Milagros Villas 8. Secretariat
5. Office of the Vice President for • Mr. Jaypee Alegado
Research and Extension Affairs • Mr. Jefferson Unday
• Ms. Jaqueline Orolfo
• Dr. Dominador Tamayao • Mr. Ferdinand Soriano
• Dr. Jose Guzman • Jocelyn Maggay
• Prof. Eladia Salabaoan
• Ms. Lina Antonio

87
University Planning and
Development Office

Dr. Antonio Tamayao

Mr. Jaypee Alegado
Engr. Ma Jackielou Zinampan
Mr. Jefferson Unday
Ms. Jaqueline Orolfo