Key Performance Indicators in Measuring Institutional Performance Case Study Use of Board Level KPIs

1. Key Performance Indicators in Measuring Institutional PerformanceCase StudyUse of Board Level KPIs John Lauwerys Secretary & Registrar

2. Overview • Part 1 - John Lauwerys • University of Southampton – facts & figures • Corporate Strategy, Strategic Planning & Budgeting • Early assessments of University performance • Approach to Developing KPIs • Development of KPIs at Southampton

3. Overview • Part 2 - Dame Valerie Strachan • Governing Body’s requirements • Observation on the two approaches • - KPIs based on strategic themes • -KPIs based on critical success factors • Part 3 - Questions & Discussion

4. University of Southampton • Over 20,000 students (5000 postgraduates) • Over 2,000 international students • 5200 staff including 2100 academics • £300 million turnover (40% from research) • 6 campuses • Research links across the world

5. University of Southampton • Top-10 in UK for research income • Top-10 in National Student Survey 2006 • Top- 5 for enterprise activity • Queen’s Anniversary prize for Higher Education awarded to Institute of Sound & Vibration Research • But further ambition to be top-10 across the board by 2010

6. Strategic Planning & Budgeting • Corporate Strategy developed ahead of restructuring in August 2003 • 7 faculties, 50+ departments  3 faculties, 23 Schools & Research Institutes • Annual strategic planning and budgeting round designed to meet changing requirements • Planning horizon – “5 years” for University but “current year +2” for Schools & Professional Services • Role of Council

7. Early assessments of University performance • Abstract of statistics (to 2002) • Student numbers (mode and level) • Domicile of students (UK/EU, overseas) • Residence (catered, self-catered, home, private sector) • Degrees awarded • Academic staff (numbers and categories) • Income & Expenditure

8. Early assessments of University performance • Abstract of statistics (to 2002) • Presented core information and trends for student numbers and income • Useful indicator of the scale of operations and as a reference tool but no link to corporate aims

9. Approach to Developing KPIs • Aug 2003 - University restructuring implemented • Dec 2003 - Corporate Strategy published. Council asks for KPIs to be developed • Dec 2004 - KPIs based on strategic aims presented to Council • Sep 2006 - Revised KPIs based on critical success factors presented to Council • Nov 2006 - Development of KPIs continues

10. Development of KPIs • KPIs based on Strategic Aims (2004) • Strategic aims from Corporate Strategy • Objectives derived from strategic aims • Performance indicators flow from objectives • Status and progress indicators • Year-on-year change indicators

11. Example of KPI based on Strategic Aims

12. Development of KPIs – new approach • Revised KPIs based on Critical Success Factors (2006) • Critical success factors – key issues requiring management attention • Represent real issues faced “here and now” • Performance indicators relate to critical success factors not strategic aims – offers greater flexibility • Critical success factors can be mapped to strategic aims

13. Development of KPIs - CSFs • Revised KPIs based on Critical Success Factors (2006) • 11 Critical success factors identified covering • Student recruitment • Staff recruitment • Staff and student experience • Enterprise • Reputation • Funding • Business processes • Research activity

14. Overview • Part 2 - Dame Valerie Strachan • Governing body’s requirements • Observations on the two approaches • KPIs based on strategic themes • KPIs based on critical success factors

15. Governing body’s requirements • Monitor the University’s progress in achieving its strategic aims • Identify areas of activity that require greater attention • Performance indicators that are grounded in data • Striking a balance between a comprehensive set of KPIs and information overload

16. Examples of Strategic Aims

17. KPIs based on Strategic Themes • Do the KPIs provide Council with a clear indication of progress to date and areas requiring greater attention? • Strategic aims do not always lend themselves to measurement and require associated objectives • No difficulty with objectives extracted from the Corporate Strategy but derived objectives may have no real ownership

18. KPIs based on Strategic Themes • Metrics may not always provide good evidence of progress and need to be chosen carefully • Tendency to use metrics that are readily available rather than collecting data that reflect what needs to be measured

19. KPIs based on Strategic Themes • Strategic Aims do not all easily lend themselves to proof, for example number 4 above ”Provides research-led teaching and learning that is informed by leading edge concepts” • Reports against this aim might look fine while the University may not actually be succeeding

20. Mapping of CSFs to Strategic Aims

21. Example of Critical Success Factor

22. Example of metrics used in CSF CSF3 Maintain our premier position as a research intensive University

23. KPIs based on CSFs • CSFs are more tangible and down-to-earth; success or otherwise is more easily seen, and if we are doing well on all of them we can be confident that the University really is in good shape • Provide flexibility to adopt or retire new CSFs as circumstances change e.g. Mountbatten fire • Can be cascaded to operational levels of management more easily and usefully than strategic aims

24. In Summary • Introduction of KPIs represents a major step forwards • Enables governing body to understand where progress is being made towards achieving strategic aims and those areas which need to be addressed • Development of KPIs continues in response to Council’s requirements • Commend adoption of KPIs by other higher education institutions

25. Questions & Discussion