Publication Details
Abstract
Higher education systems increasingly rely on performance indicators to connect institutional strategy, academic work, and accountability. However, indicator-based evaluation can also distort academic priorities when a limited number of measurable outputs dominate assessment. This paper presents a two-tier Key Performance Indicator (KPI) framework designed for higher education reform in Uzbekistan. The study adopts a design science research strategy supported by qualitative case study, document analysis, comparative policy analysis, and expert consultation. The framework consists of an institutional tier for evaluating university leadership through strategy-linked KPIs and an individual tier for evaluating professor-teachers through a 100-point scorecard. The individual model assigns equal maximum weights to teaching and research (40 points each), with mentoring and institutional contribution accounting for the remaining 20 points. A digital evaluation lifecycle is proposed to automate data collection, calculation, verification, feedback, and periodic recalibration. The design is discussed in relation to international approaches in the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Finland. The paper contributes a theory-informed and potentially transferable design that addresses three recurring problems in performance evaluation: indicator deformation, weak links between evaluation and development, and excessive administrative burden. As the framework is at an early-pilot and draft stage, the paper presents a design contribution and evaluation agenda rather than causal evidence of impact.