The EBI-II Benchmarking Project

Approach, methods, outcomes

Jeroen Huisman, University of Bath

Benchmarking conference, London, July 2011

1. European context:

Modernisation of HE Increasing competition Increase institutional autonomy Strategic importance: positioning, branding

Why benchmarking:

Benchmarking as strategic improvement tool Providing information for decision-making

Provides comparative information on HEIs Gives understanding of how well HEIs perform

Looks at universities’ processes Can help identify strengths/weaknesses

Provides a baseline for performance Helps to give ex post evidence of change +/-

Benchmarking and performance improvement: Rooted in quality approach

Continually seeking to improve performance Identifying bottlenecks/ weakness in processes

Beyond simple compliance with quality standards Optimising processes in universities

Involves learning/ refining understanding of how particular processes work

Benchmarking …

… is not a well-defined tool-in-the-box … will not (by default) provide institutional benefits … is not a silver bullet for institutional problems … is not only about gathering data … is not to show my university is best

1. Approach: What to benchmark? Four Themes

Governance (Gov) Priority: Risk Management

Curriculum Reform (CR) Priority: Bologna Reforms

University-Enterprise Cooperation (UEC) Priorities: Strategy, knowledge exchange, data

collection Life-Long Learning (LLL)

Priority: continuous professional development

1. Approach: Who participated ?

~ 50 universities, 11 countries Great differences in size Great differences in experience with strategic tools

General format for each topic: preparation, data and benchmarks, action plan

Five meetings in two years 2009-2010

2. Methodology

Preparation Involve leadership/Senior management Identify strategic need and aims for

benchmarking Choose partners Allocate resources Secure commitment

2.Methodology

Data and benchmarks Set priorities

Example: improve risk management Define targets

Example: Improve internal communication, balance long-/short term strategy, develop/refine risk register, etc.

Identify relevant criteria (with help from external experts)

Legitimacy, decisiveness, transparency, ownership Choose indicators

Example: involvement stakeholders, can students/staff speak out? Agree benchmarks

2.Methodology

Data and benchmarks Risk: institutional focus too much on short-term strategy Define targets

Balance long and short-term strategic planning Identify relevant criteria (with help from external experts)

Ownership/accountability Choose indicators

The extent to which it is clear who is responsible for the preparation and execution of the decision on the issue at hand.

The extent to which it is clear who is accountable for the decision-making and execution (and in which matters).

The extent to which it is clear who is responsible for decision-making in this issue Agree benchmarks

Satisfaction of most important stakeholders

2.Methodology

Change through Action plan Report + summary for Senior management Verify targets Agree business plan Allocate responsibilities Set timeline and milestones Monitor change Follow-up

Process score-card

Excellent

Good

Standard

Basic

University R&D spend

Patents applied

Technology transfer policy

Licenses

Reg. patents

Spin-offs

Spin-off employment Enterprise

cooperation

Input Process Output Outcome Overall

3. EBI-II outcomes, experiences

Benchmarking is possible, but it is not easy ...

Participants were enthusiastic Barriers: variety of institutional contexts,

broad topic of governance (versus LLL and university-entreprise cooperation), process versus product approach

4. Further information

www.esmu.be www.education-benchmarking.org/

Internationalisation benchmarking, EAIE,

13 September, Copenhagen