Page 532 - Area X - G
P. 532

OPCRform
           Reviled February 2016

                   Perceniape of beneficiaries who rete ihe training courtei*
                 4 end advisory servicet as satisfactory or higher in terms   98%  96%              100%         100%                  s
                   oiaualitv and relevance......................................
                   No  of TNAI crafted and implemented with analysis  1 per                                   i
                 5                                                priority                                    l                        5
                                                                  oroaram                                     l
                 6 Number of persons treired (extension services) on
                   a  GAD end GAD-releted SWTs                        300                                         400                  S
                   b  Other SWTs                                      300                                         400                  5
                 T No  of IEC packaged                                 e                                           12                  5
                 • No  of collaborate attention proposal* prepared &
                   submitted  ................ ......... ....................  0                                   30                  8
                 9 No  of collaborative extension proposals implemented  «                                         12                  S
                   e  No  ol demo projects with IRR                    1                                           3                   8
                   b  Number of adopters engaged rn viable profdable
                       I
                   fflUKM _______                                      6                                           12                  8
                     f
                     l
                   e  % ol request lot technical advice that ara responded to                                                          S
                   within 3 aavt of request_______________________   98*                                         100%
                   GASS: Common Functions
                   No  of planning  monitoring and related activities
                  1 proposed/eonducted/implemented in the area of   1  1  1  1                   1     1     1     1
                   operation       _
                   Budget Utilization Rate  obligation            80-9015                               80*90%
                                                                                                                                        ,
                 2                                                of alloted                            o* alloted                     i •a
                                                                  budoet
                   Budget Utilization Rate- disbursement          A m                                   80-90%
                                                                  of                                    of                             4T
                 3
                                                                  obligated                             obligated                      3

                                             r

                   No  of feeulty/stetf who attended SWT onGAOGAD  80 90%                               8C-90%                        j
                 4 related and/or any SWT related to fund of speciatlzation   of faculty                of faculty                     Vs
                   of facultu/staff............... ......................  and staff                                                  '
                                                                                                                     ”...  :L„:zE:.y^.._.
                Quarterly Report Submieeron:                                      |Retina Scale for the Fine! Scores
                       First Quarter        Second Quarter                         4 .5 1 -   5,00Outstanding
                                                                                            •

                                        Submitted by                                                                  iirbmdtttf by
                Submitted by;                                                      3 .51-   4,50 Very Setisfectory
                                                                                            -
                                                                                   2 .5 1 -   3.50Satisfactory                                  tifck.
                                                                                   1.51- 2.50   -  fair
                                                                                                                                                        t
                    (Head of Delivery Unit)                                                                                                          Pi vV  r'tvitvr
                                          (Head of Delivery Unit)                  1,00-1.50  -  Poor
                                                                i
                                                              r
                Approved:               Approved:           Appov                 Assessment                          Assessed by
                                                                                  I  Strategic Priorities                            PMT              y  .Ivwt  i r
                                                                                  It  Compunctions                                                    t      fla
                                                             EVA MARK C. DUGVON, PhD  It)  Support Functions                                           -'npji   CCti
                                                                                                                      Final Rating by:
                                                                                  Total Score
                                                                                                                                                              wo,
                     University President  University President  Unlveriity President  Average (Total Scote/No  of Pis)  4«*  3.vs#  EVA MARIE C  DUG VON, PhO  ftar

                                                                                  Adjective! Rating          VS                                               » r,
                                                                                                                                                       M<0> tlv
   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537