Identifying Good Practice in Benchmarking

1. Identifying Good Practice in Benchmarking 16 May 2011

2. Aims of the day • To update you on the HESA benchmarking project and associated activities • To present some benchmarking case studies/perspectives for discussion • To invite you to discuss a range of issues around good practice in benchmarking, to hear your perspectives and exchange ideas • To generate material that will feed in to new benchmarking resources for the sector

3. Agenda 10.15-10.30 Arrival and coffee 10.30-10.45 Welcome and introduction, and the HESA Benchmarking Project Jonathan Waller, Director of Information and Analysis HESA 10.45-11.10 Warwick’s approach to BI and Benchmarking Giles Carden, Director of MI and Planning, Warwick University 11.10-11.30 International benchmarking: progress on the HESA-commissioned study Mike Boxall and Andrew Webb, PA Consulting 11.30-11.50 The Brunel approach to Financial Benchmarking John Robinson, Finance Director, Brunel University 11.50-12.10 Future directions for benchmarking Patrick Kennedy, Director of Strategic Planning and Change, and Nicki Horseman, Assistant Director, Strategic Planning, Exeter University 12.10-12.30 Questions and discussion on morning sessions Jonathan Waller and Giles Carden 12.30-1.00 Lunch 1.00-2.20 Discussions: two groups led by Anita Wright, Head of Information and Planning, Liverpool University and Mike Kennerley, Strategy and Performance Manager, Leeds University 2.20-3.00 Plenary report back and summary

4. The project – ‘Realising business benefits through use of benchmarking’ • Phase 1 • HESA commissioned by HEFCE to provide an assimilation of current benchmarking activity within the UK HE sector • First phase ran from 24 June 2010 to publication of final report on 4 November 2010 • Project methodology • Survey of academic and other existing studies on benchmarking • Semi-structured interviews with HEIs, sector associations and other relevant organisations • Online survey of HE planning community

5. Phase 1 findings • ‘Making the case’ for benchmarking • Sharing of knowledge and good practice • Development and sharing of methodologies, tools and frameworks • Weaknesses and access barriers in data • Use of the heidi system to support benchmarking • Learning from the experiences of other sectors • The international dimension • Recommendations

6. Phase 2 • Funded primarily from HEFCE University Modernisation Fund • Project running from November 2010 to April 2012 • Objectives • Promote senior ownership and recognition of the value of benchmarking • Establish business requirements for benchmarking • Engage with cognate activities in the sector • Develop a communication and dissemination plan • Web microsite www.benchmarking.hesa.ac.uk • JISC Infonet • Conferences and seminars • Review techniques and tools in use and ensure these are presented in a way that can be accessed and shared

7. Phase 2 • Objectives – continued • Map relevant information sources (within and beyond the sector) • Cluster around business needs • Seek to unlock less known or accessible sources • Provide indication of quality and utility of information sources • Develop heidi to support benchmarking • Seek ideas and input on benchmarking activities from other sectors (public sector and commercial contexts) • Review and develop the capacity and approach to benchmark internationally

8. Forthcoming project events • Strategic planning – use of evidence and benchmarking 7 June, London (GuildHE and AMHEC institutions) • Process benchmarking 24 June, HESA • International benchmarking 20 July, London

9. Warwick’s Approach to BI & Benchmarking Dr Giles Carden Director, Management Information and Planning University of Warwick

10. Outline

11. Business Drivers – Why use BI & Benchmarking?

12. Key Objectives of BI Analysis

13. Evolving BI Landscape Integrated Reporting Publications & Bibliometrics Dashboards Complexity Utility reporting HR Reporting Space Dashboards Pre-award Dashboards PGR Dashboards Research Income Dashboards OFFA agreement monitoring RAE Modelling QR Modelling HESA Benchmarking 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Time

14. Technology - Organisation of the Data

15. Early Stage Projects

16. Warwick’s Design Framework

17. Principles for an Effective Presentation

18. Effective Presentation – Research Dashboards

19. Effective Visual Presentation

20. Effective Presentation –Research Income per FTE benchmark

21. Effective Presentation –RAE 2008 Benchmark

22. Products – Reports

23. Audience - Senior Management How are we doing compared to last year/forecast? How are we doing against the competition?

24. Audience - Heads of Department How are individuals performing in my department? How can performance improvements be correctly targeted?

25. Audience – Individual Academics How is my performance compared against previous years? How is my performance compared against my peers?

26. Key Elements of Success

27. Future Benchmarking Projects

28. INTERNATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION BENCHMARKING IN THE UK Project Overview Mike Boxall and Andrew Webb 16th May 2011

29. Agenda/contents • Project aim • Sources identified so far • Information being sought

30. Project Aim • The Benchmarking to improve efficiency status report, published on November 2010 stated: • ‘UK universities are under increasing pressure to show how they perform relative to universities in the global community and there is growing interest in transnational benchmarking to make reliable international comparisons and learn from other HE systems.’ • PA are therefore tasked with undertaking the following: • Needs assessment – a brief exercise to identify the critical needs and uses of international benchmark information • Review of available resources – a desk exercise to identify and assess the available resources for each of the five interpretations of benchmarking, grading them against the requirements and criteria identified through the initial needs analysis. • Assessment of gaps and unmet needs – we will apply our judgement and sector knowledge to assess the extent to which the available resources meet the sector’s expressed needs for benchmarking information • Proposals for meeting future benchmarking needs – our report from the previous stages of work will summarise the sector’s needs for international benchmarking information, the extent to which these are or could be met from current resources

31. Sources identified so far • Whole University Ranking • Times Higher Education Ranking • QS World Universities Ranking • Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) • CHE Excellence Rankings • RatER Global University Ranking of World Universities • Webometrics Ranking of World Universities • 2010 World University Ranking • SIR World Report • Leiden Ranking • University Ranking by Academic Performance • The Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities • Professional Classification of Higher Education Institutions • International Student Barometer (ISB)

32. Sources identified so far (continued) • Market Data • OBHE (Observatory on Borderless Higher Education) • UNESCO Institute for Statistics Indicators • OECD Higher Education Statistics • OECD/Institutional Management in Higher Education insights (IMHE) • Global Higher Education Rankings Affordability & Accessibility in Comparative Perspective • Institutional process comparisons • Association of Common wealth universities (ACU) Benchmarking Programme • Institutional process comparisons • British Council Education Market Intelligence (EMI) • Academic Analytics business intelligence reports

33. Information being sought • PA are keen to hear views from institutions on: • the key metrics and performance measures you use to test the University's internationalisation strategy and operations • what areas you seek to benchmark and against which classes of institutions:  for example •                 - international ranking tables                 - research results                 - staff standing                 - recruitment                 - processes and approaches                 - market intelligence • what sources do you use for benchmarking, and how useful do you find them • what in-house and bespoke benchmarking methods do you use • are there any important unmet benchmarking needs that you would like to see addressed

34. Benchmarking John Robinson Director of Finance

35. This is what we are going to do today ...

36. Overview What is benchmarking? Compare and contrast Financial Applications Limitations

37. Motivation for benchmarking? To find secrets of business success we need to study successful businesses

38. What is benchmarking? Sometimes easier to see what it is by saying what it isn’t Compare and improve different definitions – all in HESA report.

39. What is benchmarking? “Benchmarking is a valuable tool for HEIs in conducting comparative analyses of institutional and external information in order to identify efficiencies and cost reductions and to target these to best effect” HESA p.3

40. What is benchmarking?HEFCE Definition “ A process through which practices are analysed to provide a standard measurement (“benchmark”) of effective performance within an organisation (such as a university). Benchmarks are also used to compare performance with other organisations and other sectors”.

41. What is benchmarking?HEFCE Definition “ A process through which practices are analysed to provide a standard measurement (“benchmark”) of COST effective performance within an organisation (such as a university). Benchmarks are also used to compare performance with other organisations and other sectors” SO AS TO IMPROVE THE ORGANISATION’S COMPETITIVE PERFROMANCE.

42. What is benchmarking? “Benchmarking … allows the University to get a sense of where it is performing well in relation to others” HESA p8

43. What is Benchmarking? Not just - Compare and contrast Not just analysis of similarity and difference But some sort of first cousin to these? To raise questions? To provide answers? Indicative or conclusive?

44. Financial Information barriers (Recommendation 4) Data is available, public, consistent over time, granular (?), comparable, accurate, timely. Annual Reports and Accounts in standard format with narrative audited and published. HEIDI collates this well. Comparable across sectors and nations

45. HEFCE funding £M 2010-11 by size Rank

46. Current £9k Fee Level Announcements Aston University University of Bath University of Birmingham University of Cambridge University of Central Lancashire City University Coventry University (£7,500 - £9,000) Durham University University of Essex University of Exeter Imperial College London Keel University University of Kent Lancaster University

47. SUMMARY OF SURPLUS PEER GROUP AND OTHERS 2009 – 2010SURPLUS/ ( DEFICIT) FOR THE YEAR

48. KPI Comparisons

49. INCREASING ACADEMIC STAFF IN DIFFICULT TIMES

50. Comparability at different levels External boundaries defined (off balance sheet?) Internal boundaries discretionary and vary Tribal deal with HEI benchmarking of costs Functional definition of costs– ‘like with like’ “We use their data for budgeting purposes” “We say Finance costs are x% of income so that figure (reversing adjustments) becomes Finance department budget”