The EBI-II Benchmarking Project

1. The EBI-II Benchmarking Project Approach, methods, outcomes Jeroen Huisman, University of Bath Benchmarking conference, London, July 2011

2. 1. European context: • Modernisation of HE • Increasing competition • Increase institutional autonomy • Strategic importance: positioning, branding

3. 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 +/-

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 2. Methodology • Preparation • Involve leadership/Senior management • Identify strategic need and aims for benchmarking • Choose partners • Allocate resources • Secure commitment

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. Patents applied Technology transfer policy Spin-off employment Enterprise cooperation University R&D spend Licenses Reg. patents Spin-offs Process score-card Excellent Good Standard Basic Input Process Output Outcome Overall

13. 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

14. 4. Further information • www.esmu.be • www.education-benchmarking.org/ Internationalisation benchmarking, EAIE, 13 September, Copenhagen