Chapter III A.  SUMMARY OF REVISION
	The SELF-EVALUATION REPORT 
	Strengthening the Existing Study Program:
      	ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROGRAM
(See the copy of the Consolidated Reviewer’s Comments in Appendix III.1, page III-Ap-1) 	
	
	Category:  0. General	
0.1.1.	Reviewer's Comments: The effort to make the report was apparent. The report was well written and follows consistently with the guidelines. Data are presented in details.	
	Proponent's Comments: Thank you. Appreciated.	
0.1.2.	Reviewer's Comments: It was unfortunate that external factors were missing	
	Proponent's Comments and Improvement: Actually the reviewer has overlooked the data that were presented in Section 9 Laboratories (see page III.B.1-14) regarding the contributions of the industrial world and the alumni to the laboratories. These - among others - were to show the support from external parties that the Study Program has gathered in the past. Also in Section 11 Curriculum (see page III.B.1-16), for instance, it was clearly mentioned there that the curriculum development was in line with the progress of job-market growth in the area. So, actually the external factors were not entirely missing from the report (see also point 1.1.2. on page III.A-2). But, for the sake of developing a stronger argument in this revised version of the report, especially in Section 2 Environmental Setting (see page III.B.1-8), the proponent has made 3 (three) efforts to collect data for completing the missing external factors: (a) collecting old MOUs, contracts, etc. from the Office of the Associate Rector IV for Co-operation and the Office of the Associate Dean I for Academic Affairs at the Faculty of Engineering that indicated the Study Program's past experiences in co-operating with external parties; (b) dispatching a team to contact several external parties to ask their support for the TPSDP; and (c) conducting a polling on the students' orientation to collect data on several external factors (see Appendix III.10 on page III-Ap-9). The results of these efforts are indicated in the following improvement:  	
	Page	Chapter	Section	Revision	
	III.B.1-8	III.B.1.	2. Environmental Setting	An analysis based on data collected in the polling results was added.	
				Data on external factors (collaboration with external parties) were added.	
	III.B.1-9	III.B.1.	3. Graduates	Data on students’ average monthly spending and the expected first job salary based on the polling results were added. 	
	III.B.1-9	III.B.1	4. Educational Process	Students’ opinion on the educational process based on the polling results was added.	
	III.B.1-10	III.B.1	5. Students	Students’ plan after graduation based on the polling results was added.	

	Category:  0. General (continued)	
0.1.3.	Reviewer's Comments: The method of analysis on current condition and the inception plan was not discussed in a format suggested by the guidelines. 	
	Proponent's Comments: A major rewriting of Part II (now Chapter III.B.1) and Part III (now Chapter III.B.2) of the SE-Report has been made (see point 0.2.2 below). 	
0.1.4.	Reviewer's Comments: The reviewer suggests that the proponent revise the parts that were not in accordance with the guidelines and submit for the next batch. 	
	Proponent's Comments: ...... submit for the next batch???	
0.2.1.	Reviewer's Comments: The sequence of the SWOT analysis data up to the inception plan was conducted as suggested in the guidelines, ........ 	
	Proponent's Comments: Thank you	
0.2.2.	Reviewer's Comments: ........, however, wrong concepts have been put in the discussions in Part II and Part III of the report. SWOT analysis needed to be improved in terms of consistency and cross-referencing is encouraged in order to better link [the] SWOT analysis to the proposed improvement initiatives. 	
	Proponent's Comments and Improvement: To straighten-up the problem mentioned above, the following efforts have been made: 	
	Page	Chapter	Section	Revision	
	III.B.1-3	III.B.1.	Conclusion	The force-field analysis has been added at the end of the section.	
	III.B.1-15	III.B.1.	9. Laboratories	The outcome of a one-day workshop on laboratories was added	
	III.B.2-1	III.B.2.	Strategic Issues	Totally modified and re-written to create a better link between the SE-Report and the Sub-Project Proposal (Chapter II).	
0.3	Reviewer's Comments: The SE report was confusing. 	
	Proponent's Comments: The confusion has been straightened-up as much as possible.  	
		
	Category: 1. Involvement of all relevant elements	
1.1.1.	Reviewer's Comments: In making SE Report it was expected that internal key actors as well as external ones participate actively. In case of internal parties, executive board was expected to give direct advice to set priority and to introduce competitive atmosphere among SP's. 	
	Proponent's Comments: This has been done almost perfectly by the Development Board (Badan Pengembangan) at the university level.  	
1.1.2.	Reviewer's Comments: Participation from external parties was not apparent in this report. Even, there were statements in Section 2, which indicate that the SP actually does not serve nearby industrial needs. Although this frankness was appreciated, it should be addressed in order to set up improvement plans.	
	Proponent's Comments: First of all, there was no comment about external factors when the SE Report was submitted in the TPSDP Batch I, so the proponent did not consider this as an important aspect when preparing the SE Report for the TPSDP Batch II. 	
	Continued in the next page ….	
		
	Category: 1. Involvement of all relevant elements (continued)	
1.1.2.
(cont’d)	Proponent's Comments (cont’d.): In addition to that, traditionally, any cooperation with external parties was not supposed to be conducted at the SP level. All MOUs, contracts, etc., should be signed with external parties at the Faculty or University level. However, within the time constraint, the proponent has made much efforts to correct this problem (see point 0.1.2. on page III.A-1)	
1.2.1.	Reviewer's Comments: As can be seen on the chronological details of self-evaluation (Appendix ii), a task force conducted most of the preparation of the SE report. Involvement of internal parties was adequate ..... 	
	Proponent's Comments: In fact, without the participation and involvement of all elements within the SP, the SE Report would not have ever been completed. The chronological details have been updated accordingly (see Appendix III.2 on page III-Ap-3 ) to include the activities in preparing this Sub Project Proposal.	
1.2.2.	Reviewer's Comments: ......., however, the involvement of external parties is limited. 	
	Proponent's Comments: (see points 0.1.2. on page III.A-1 and 1.1.2. on page III.A-2) .  	
		
	Category: 2. Comprehensiveness	
2.1.1.	Reviewer's Comments: Comprehensiveness of the report was justified by the integrity of data, their analysis, and the plans. Collection of internal data was mostly from internal factors (see comments on data accuracy). There was no effort to develop data from external factors. Consequently, analysis was conducted on internal data only (see comments on depth of analysis), and the solutions were therefore proposed to overcome this aspect. 	
	Proponent's Comments: (see points 0.1.2. on page III.A-1 and 1.1.2. on page III.A-2).  	

2.1.2	Reviewer's Comments: Furthermore, the plans were not presented in a right format (see comments on inception plan) 	
	Proponent's Comments and Improvement: Part III (now Chapter III.B.2.) Inception Plan has been revised. To create a better link with the SWOT analysis, the section on Strategic Issues has been re-written (see points 0.2.2. on page III.A-1). For other comments and  improvement of Part III Inception Plan, see points 6.1 to 6.5 on page III.A-5.	
2.2.-
2.3.	Reviewer's Comments: 
•	A lot have been discussed and explained about environmental setting and process of education in the preceding sections 2 - 13 of the SE Report, however, the SE report illustrates an adequate [sic!] understanding on strategic issues and problem identification through analysis. 
•	Inception plans based on the RAISE++ concept were not fully understood. The facts indicate that some important messages in the guidelines were not understood clearly.	
2.2.-
2.3.	Proponent's Comments: For revisions of Part III (now Chapter III.B.2.) Inception Plan, see point 0.2.2. on page III.A-1,  point 2.1.2. on page III.A-3 and points 6.1. to 6.5 on page III.A-5)  	
		
	Category: 3. Data Accuracy	
3.1.1.	Reviewer's Comments: Almost all internal data are presented, but there is no single data from external parties. So, we consider that all aspects concerning external factors come from the perception of the proponent  	
		
	Category: 3. Data Accuracy (continued)	
3.1.1.
(cont’d)	Proponent's Comments: Yes, the proponent has conducted a polling to support the perception with data (see point 0.1.2. on page III.A-1)  	
3.1.2.	Reviewer's Comments: Some little inconsistency are found in Appendices 4.14., 7.15.-7.8. concerning lecturer's workload.  	
	Proponent's Comments: All Appendices are totally modified and consolidated to comply with the requirement of maximum 100 pages. Data concerning the lecturer's workload are now presented in Appendix III.26 on page III-Ap-15	
	Category: 3. Data Accuracy	
3.1.3.	Reviewer's Comments: However, generally the required data are available  	
	Proponent's Comments: Thank you. Appreciated.	
3.2.	Reviewer's Comments: Coverage of data sources and amount of data in the last 5 years were presented, however, were not sufficient for being analysed thoroughly and interpreted by using SWOT analysis. Conclusions in the SE Report are not quite relevant to support problem identification and alternative solutions.  	
	Proponent's Comments: To support the SWOT analysis, a Force-field analysis has been added to the Conclusion (see point 0.2.2). A polling has been conducted and the results are presented in Appendix III.10 on page III-Ap-9, and most of the analysis of results is presented in Section 2 Environmental Setting on page III.B.1-8	
		
	Category: 4. Depth of Analysis	
4.1.1.	Reviewer's Comments: A good analysis is given in Section 4 which results become the main issue to be addressed in improving the SP.  Analysis is also conducted in other sections, but the identified problems are small.	
	Proponent's Comments: Section 4 Educational Process (page III.B.1-9) is the estuary of all problems faced by the SP. The sources of those problems are actually discussed in other sections, but then the main effect really surfaces in Section 4.  	
4.1.2.	Reviewer's Comments: External factors are analysed in Section 2, which concludes that [the] SP did not do anything about them. Although the weaknesses should be stated, it is expected that previous efforts to overcome the problems be discussed. 	
	Proponent's Comments: Section 2 Environmental Setting (page III.B.1-7) discusses external factors which were thought as beyond the SP's capacity to control. In the SWOT analysis these problems are considered as partly "threats" and partly "strengths", not "weaknesses". However; in order to revise the SE Report, especially on the issue of external factors, the SP has made much efforts as described previously (see point 0.1.2. on page III.A-1). 	
4.1.3.	Reviewer's Comments: This phenomenon is also found in Section 6. 	
	Proponent's Comments: Both "strengths" and "weaknesses" of the SWOT analysis are discussed in Section 6 Management and Organization (page III.B.1-10). Basically, the SP has been doing very well in trying to use its strengths in the case of Management and Organization to overcome its weaknesses. 	
4.2.	Reviewer's Comments: Analysis of the data presented in the appendices is mostly narrative. SWOT analysis needed to be improved in terms of consistency and cross-referencing is encouraged in order to better link SWOT analysis to the proposed improvement initiatives.  	
	Proponent's Comments: See point 0.2.2. in page III-A-2	
		
	Category: 4. Depth of Analysis (continued)	
4.3.	Reviewer's Comments: Wrong concepts of RAISE have been put in the discussions, as a result the strategic issues and problems mentioned in the SE Report are not appropriate.  	
	Proponent's Comments:  This has been corrected and straightened-up (See point 0.2.2. in page III.A-2)	
		
	Category: 5. Innovation or creativity of approach	
5.1.-5.2.	Reviewer's Comments: 
•	There is no innovative method and processes or a creativity approach used by the institution, other than the existing method as suggested in the guidelines
•	The approach to execute the evaluation is appreciated. The structure of the discussion follows the guidelines. Although external data are not presented, the discussion on internal ones is given in detail. Unfortunately, the method of analysis, whether it is Root-cause, SWOT or Force-Field analysis, is not given in detail.  	
	Proponent's Comments: A Force-Field Analysis of the problems is added to the Conclusion (page III.B.1-1) to complete the SWOT analysis (see point 0.2.2. on page III.A-2). 	
		
	Category: 6. Inception plan	
6.1.	Reviewer's Comments: A redline between problems, plans and vision & mission of the SP is apparent. The proposed plans are based on strategic issues suggested by the guideline. However, it is unfortunate that the activities are not elaborated. Although it is not suggested by the guidelines, dissemination by the TPSDP team suggests that the presentation of the planned activities should include background and rationales 	
	Proponent's Comments: The Inception Plan - especially the part on Strategic Issues in page III                     .B.2-1 - has been re-written accordingly (see Chapter III.B.2 Revised Inception Plan), all activities have been elaborated to include background and rationales. 	
6.2.	Reviewer's Comments: The Inception Plan is well elaborated, however, the sequence of the SWOT analysis data up to the inception plan was not well conducted as suggested in the guidelines.	
	Proponent's Comments: To better link the SWOT analysis, data and the inception plan, a Force-Field analysis is added to the Conclusion of the SE-Report and a better cross-referencing has been done.   	
6.3.1.	Reviewer's Comments: Performance indicators measured were not appropriate and were not quite in line with the targeted plans. 	
	Proponent's Comments: There are 3 (three) kinds of performance indicators: (a) the (general) performance indicators of the SP, (b) the additional or auxiliaries performance indicators of the SP and (c) the performance indicators of activities. The targeted plans consist of activities with regular own resources and with additional specific cooperation. Each activity should have its own performance indicators.	

		

	Category: 6. Inception plan (continued)	
6.3.2.	Reviewer's Comments: Inception plans to the RAISE++ concept were not fully understood.	
	Proponent's Comments: The section on Strategic Issues (see page III.B.2-1) has been totally re-written to accommodate a better understanding on RAISE++ concept.    	
6.4.	Reviewer's Comments: Description of Part III is confusing regarding strategic issues, roots of problem identification, alternative solutions and targeted plans for quality improvement.	
	Proponent's Comments: The confusion has been straightened-up by making a  better link and cross-referencing to the Conclusion and SWOT analysis.    	
6.5.	Reviewer's Comments: The discussions are difficult to understand	
	Proponent's Comments: Hope it is much better now.    	
		
	Other major revision:	
	All Appendices are selected and consolidated to comply with the maximum-100-page requirement. Originally the SE Report has no less than 250 pages of Appendices, now it has been reduced to 25 pages only. Only quoted data are presented in the Appendices, all other data are available but not presented.