Benchmarking in European Higher Education Dr. Christiane Gaehtgens ESMU Senior Expert
Jan 19, 2016
Benchmarking in European Higher Education
Dr. Christiane Gaehtgens ESMU Senior Expert
ESMU: European Centre for Strategic Management of Universities
International non-profit organisation promoting Good Practice: Networks: HUMANE, DEAN, MODERN, EDUPROF Seminars and Training Programmes Benchmarking
Past activity -Technical assistance to EC (management of major HE
programmes : COMETT, 1987-1995 & SOCRATES, LEONARDO,
YOUTH for Europe III, 1995-2006)
President: Professor Frans van Vught, University of Twente, NL Secretary General: Nadine Burquel, Headoffice in Brussels
Benchmarking Introduction
EBI-I:2006-2008
Objectives: understanding the concepts & practices of benchmarking improving and increasing its use in higher education
Methodology Desk research: analysis of 18 collaborative benchmarking
projects in higher education Three specialised practical workshops on benchmarking
research, internationalisation and internal quality Symposium, presenting preliminary project findings
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
Outputs First Phase:
An online tool with examples, advice and an online bibliography
A practical handbook with a review of the literature and a step by step approach to benchmarking
A report of extensive desk research carried out on benchmarking in higher education
Guidelines of good practices for effective benchmarking
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
EBI-II: 2008-2010
Four benchmarking groups: Governance University-enterprise cooperation Curriculum reforms Lifelong learning
A broad online collaborative learning community Benchmarking tools (questionnaires, reports,
handbooks of GPs) Conferences – Dissemination of results
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
2. Recent Challenges for European HEIs Internationalisation/Globalisation
Cost and specialisation of research (human resources) Reputation Race Size matters (increasingly)
Supranational European integration policy Teaching and learning: EHEI Research structures, funding mechanisms: ERA,EIT, FPs
Modernisation Agenda: Acknowledgement for diversity of mission Institutional autonomy (responsibility) Accountability Stakeholder involvement
Growing Diversity of Profile and Mission Accountability to stakeholders
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
4. What is Benchmarking?
Not invented here” : The Quality movement started in the private sector, namely in Japan after WW II.
Reluctantly, then enthusiastically excepted in the West. Two major types:
Continuous monitoring (TQM) Products and Processes (ISO 9000 etc.)
Benchmarking provides qualified, targeted
information for strategic decisions through
comparison of key performance indicators
with strategically relevant partner institutions.
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
4. What is Benchmarking (2) Benchmarking provides standards for institutional quality
management/enhancement. Benchmarking is a means for inter-organisational
learning. Benchmarking can be carried out within a peer-group, on
a one-to-one basis or against a database. Benchmarking brings together the
benefits of cooperation and competition. Benchmarking is a internal governance tool, not an
external assessment or ranking.
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
In other words: Benchmarking empowers HEIs to-
Measure and compare performance to the competition Self-assess their performance in selected areas Better understand processes Support strategy formulation and implementation Strengthen institutional identity Set targets for improvement Obtain data for decision making Share good practice, learn from others how to improve Respond to national and international performance standards Be accountable to stakeholders Set new standards for the sector.
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
Ranking
mono-dimensional, „one size fits all“ approach
comparing „apples and oranges“
externally owned, public rigid competition main impact on reputation
Benchmarking
recognises institutional diversity
„Golden Delicious and Granny Smith“
university-owned flexible (customising) competition and
cooperation governance tool
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
5.1.Benchmarking Methodology: Approaches
Benchmarking approaches differ considerably:
Inter-/ Intra-organisational learning Benchmarking Partnerships (several universities) One-to-One Benchmarking Benchmarking against database Qualitative or quantitative
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
5.2. Benchmarking Methodology: Cornerstones to start with
Ensure validity Choose research based method Subscribe to rigid standards Agree on chiefly quantitative
Be flexible and realistic Decide on method and modules
for individualised approaches Pragmatic step-by-step approach
Ensure autonomy and confidentiality Data and outcomes university/partnership-owned
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
6. Benchmarking Terminology
Priority (Domain):Strategically relevant area in which benchmarking takes place e.g. the learning experience, research performance,
administration, staff develoment Indicators: Aspects/areas within the priority for which data
can/should be gathered: Input – processes – output – impact
Benchmark: level of performance per indicator Standards can be categories (high/middle/low) or absolute
numbers/percentages to be defined by group during the benchmarking exercise
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
More Benchmarking Terminology…
Benchmark: measurable level of performance per indicator an institution aims to achieve, relates on targets Will be envisaged before benchmarking starts Intended wo be revised or confirmed after the benchmarking
exercise has been completed Criteria: relevant aspect of indicators in which data are to be gathered
and compared To be determined on the basis of expertise and good-practice
exchange External experts should be involved for maximum relevance Availability of data is crucial
Action plan: operational strategy for implementation of performance level based on findings of benchmarking exercise
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
First and foremost: As Benchmarking is chiefly a governance tool, the
choice of benchmarking approach should be determined by the overall strategic goals of each individual HEI.
Ownership of and responsibility for the benchmarking exercise lies solely with the management of participating university.
Be realistic for credibility: check feasibility, e.g. availability of data and resources, ensure stakeholder support.
7. Benchmarking Step-by-Step
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
Step I: Developing a Strategy
Take responsibility at Senior Management level Identify purpose, goals and perspectives for the benchmarking
exercise, taking into account institutional mission Clearly define area(s) of benchmarking (priorities, domains) Identify benchmarking method / partners (here: through ESMU) Choose approach (based on strategic goals and feasibility, e.g.
availability of data, timeframe) Communicate to internal and external stakeholders, gain
commitment Provide resources (staff, funding) Create benchmarking team, allocate responsibilities Formal agreement with benchmarking partners
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
Step II: Gathering Information
Confirm availibility of data Choose indicators (balance strategic goals and
feasibility) Define criteria (with help from external experts) Set benchmarks (absolute or steps) Gather data Compare outcomes Confirm/review targets
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
priorities indicators IndicatorPriority
input process output impact
Learning experience
Level of Funding, sources/fees…
Feedback, assessment …
Number of graduates, employment rate…
Regional labour market, start-ups …
Research performance
Level of research funding, sources …
Research strategy, incentives …
Publications, doctorates, patents …
Income from research and patents …
Staff development
Number of staff, level of salaries …
Recruitment policy, training …
Level of provision, satisfaction …
reputation, networks, red. Income …
Management/ Administration
Time, resources …
Full cost, facility management …
Accountability, adequate provision
Efficiency, effectivity , room for investment …
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
indicators criteria benchmarks
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
priority indicator criterium Benchmark (options)
Learning experience
input scholarships for % of students
50%-excellent30%-avarage10%-basic
output Graduate employment
90%
impact Graduate employment in the region
50%
Management process Facility management
100%
Research involvement
output Reviewed publications per professor
> 4 excellent< 4 avarage< 2 basic
Step III: Introducing Change Action Plan: Role of Senior Management
Define goals and targets, based on benchmarks, immediate, mid- and long-term Communicate, gain committment Provide appropriate resources for the change process
to take place effectively (Task Force, infrastructure) Supervise process/set milestones Ensure implementation of actions Monitor change in performance
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
Step III Action Plan: Role of Task Force
Design framework and precise, step-by-step action plan to convert the results of benchmarking into institutional change
Design structured process with milestones and deadline
Report progress and obstacles to Senior Management
Improve database for future monioring
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
Step IV: Assessment
Optional:Evaluation of benchmarking experienceEvaluation of action/change processGood practice exchange with benchmarking
partners
…start all over again!
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
… for Quality Enhancement is a never-ending challenge, and so is Benchmarking…
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
Save the Date(s):
Benchmarking Workshop
Brussels 10 June, 2010
EBI-II Dissemination Conference
Brussels 11 June, 2010
Brno 12.2.2010 Benchmarking
www.impact-consulting.eu