Institutional restructuring plans for establishing the university as a research-centered institution

Plans for enhancing the research management system
For the complete computerization of the research management system, an integrated database with an administrative management system (human resources, wage, budget, accounting, procurement and asset) is needed. Currently, however, the general/research databases and the academic affairs database are being run separately, and the compatibility between the general database and the research database is relatively low.
Since 2004, KAIST has pushed for an informatization strategy project to build an integrated information system among academic affairs and general and research systems. In line with this, it has also improved the research management system since the beginning of this year.
Faculty performance evaluation system

Introduction of a qualitative evaluation system on instructors
KAIST has made strenuous efforts to achieve remarkable quantitative growth in research, but it still lags behind other distinguished universities abroad when it comes to quality. Against this backdrop, we seek to enhance the personnel management system regarding instructors so that professors can be freed from the burdens of producing qualitative research results (i.e. number of articles/points) in promotion and other personnel management-related evaluations. This will enable them to fully dedicate themselves to their own fields of study and thereby produce world-class research accomplishments.
Breaking away from the existing quantitative evaluation of instructors (centering on rating), a comprehensive evaluation system will be introduced that is structured around qualitative excellence (e.g. qualitative level of representative theses).
Major improvements (based on the promotion deliberation/evaluation)
Rating system lifted from evaluation criteria
* Evaluation on the excellence and potential of each evaluation item

Plans for establishing a competitive system within the Project Group
Plans for running the Project Group in a way that maintains a competitive system among participating professors

Considering the characteristics of specific fields and the performance of benchmarked universities in relevant fields, goals for each of the project teams are set, such as the number of research articles and IFs per participating professor, patents, research funds received, presentations at academic conferences, and international cooperation.

Project teams and professors that exceed such goals (i.e., higher than 100) are rated Grade A, those failing to reach 50% of the goals Grade C, and the others Grade B.

Grade A project teams and professors are given incentives, and this is also reflected on budget allocation and other aspects.

Grade C project teams and professors are given some disadvantages and a one-year grace period for making up for their poor performance.

Incentives and disadvantages are given on the basis of the number of graduate students participating, the number of post-doc researchers, and adjustments in allocated research expenses.

A project-participating professor rated Grade C for more than two consecutive years will be replaced by a more competent newly-hired professor or non-participating professor.

A project team rated Grade C for over two consecutive years may have to reduce the number of participating professors, while one rated Grade A for more than two consecutive years may have its number of participating professors increased.
Plans for managing students under the guidance of non-participating professors

As mentioned above, professors that do not participate in the Project or are hired after the launch of the Project may replace underperforming ones among the participating professors.

Non-participating professors will also engage in normal education and research tasks; in allocating KAIST own research funds, they are given priority over participating professors so that at least the minimum research environment can be ensured.

Non-participating professors may also serve as advisors for master and doctor candidates; joint guidance with project-participating professors is strongly recommended so that all students can have an opportunity to partake in the Project.

Plans for establishing a self-evaluation system for the Project Group

For strict and reasonable evaluation of project performances, the evaluation committee is divided into two areas as follows:

To assess whether the quantitative and objective project objectives are achieved based on statistical figures, an internal evaluation committee is formed with the membership of one project group leader, four project team leaders, three professors from other departments, and one team leader from the Office of Research Affairs.

To guarantee the quality of project performance and comparatively analyze the performance with that of benchmarked universities, an external evaluation committee is created with one project team leader, two senior scholars in Korea, and two scholars abroad. If possible, the two ��international scholar�� members will be invited from among professors at benchmarked universities.

Each project team leader examines the team project performance whenever necessary and encourages the team to achieve the goals given.

Every six months, the internal evaluation committee receives and assesses the overall progress details from each project team; it notifies each of the project teams of the results and its opinions.

Every year, the external evaluation committee receives and assesses data that verify the excellence of various performances from each project team and qualitative evaluation results from the internal evaluation committee; it notifies each of the project teams of its opinions.

The evaluation opinions from the internal/external evaluation committees are prepared and submitted in the form of a report for annual, mid-term, and final evaluation by the Project Group.