A faculty activity reporting solution will change how you leverage your faculty’s accomplishments, promote university successes to key stakeholders and evaluate faculty performance.

Tell us a little bit about your university, and we’ll tell you how many hours Digital Measures by Watermark can save you on common activities.

Enter numbers for your university…

…and watch the hours add up.

Annual Reporting


Imagine a more comprehensive and consistent process.


Promotion & Tenure


What would your faculty do with extra hours in their day?


Ad hoc Requests


Cut the time it takes to respond to requests by 40%.


Total Time Savings


Total hours saved for annual reporting, promotion & tenure and information requests.

Calculations for annual reporting

Hours saved for annual reporting is calculated based on the average amount of time our users save preparing and reviewing annual reports. On average, our research tells us that each faculty member saves 1.5 hours each annual review cycle. This time savings comes from:

  • Suggested activity categories that ensure comprehensive data and eliminate time spent on deciding what data to include
  • Pre-formatted reports, including handling of various citation styles
  • Expedited data entry as administrators import teaching and grant information

We’ve also discovered that each department saves approximately 2 hours each year. This time savings comes from:

  • Templates that standardize data entry thus reducing the time spent by each faculty member and administrator discussing report expectations
  • Eliminating the need for department chairs to create comparison tools for faculty evaluations; with a faculty activity reporting solution, department chairs can build a comparative report that pulls all relevant faculty information from the system
  • Standardized outputs that make it easier for department chairs, deans and the provost to review reports

Calculations for promotion and tenure

Hours saved for promotion and tenure is calculated based on the average amount of time our users save preparing and reviewing the dossier. On average, our research tells us that each promotion and tenure candidate saves 5 hours when preparing their dossier/portfolio. This time savings comes from:

  • Pre-formatted data entry screens for promotion and tenure that reduce questions about what to include and lessen time spent formatting reports
  • Faculty information already existing in the system from previous initiatives

This standard template output also saves each promotion and tenure committee member as well as the vice provost 20-30 minutes of review time per case. With data and format consistency, the system ensures that every promotion and tenure dossier is going to showcase similar accomplishments in a consistent order for all applicants. This makes it easier to find data for preparatory review, in response to a question posed by a fellow committee member or for the sake of comparisons to ensure fairness in review.

Calculations for ad hoc requests

Hours saved for ad hoc requests is calculated based on the average amount of time our users save by leveraging pre-existing data. On average, our research tells us that the reduction in requests for the same information together with process efficiencies saves:

  • the provost’s office 30 minutes per request
  • the dean’s office 1.5 hours per request
  • each department chair and departmental staff member 1 hour per request
  • each faculty member 5 minutes per request

This time savings is achieved by centralizing the information and empowering knowledgeable central authorities (i.e., institutional research, deans’ offices) to locate and extract the information relevant to a given ad hoc request. This eliminates the need to report on the same information again, look through prior annual review reports, spend hours urgently merging together siloed data sets or send mass emails out to the deans, department chairs or the faculty (and wait for responses).

The fine print

To complete our research, we spent several hundred hours in interviews as well as analyzing faculty handbooks and process documents. Sources consulted included materials from Baylor University, Colgate University, Indiana State University, Old Dominion University, Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, St. John’s University and The University of Tampa.