230 likes | 289 Views
Reporting on institutional performance. A workshop for members of Council January 28 2009. Aims of the workshop. To explain how and why performance reports have been developed and what they are intended to show
E N D
Reporting on institutional performance A workshop for members of Council January 28 2009
Aims of the workshop • To explain how and why performance reports have been developed and what they are intended to show • To explore how they could be more meaningful and useful for Council and its sub-committees • To consider how a performance report for the area of ‘Governance, Management, Administration and Systems including Legislative Compliance’ might be developed
Performance reports They are intended to summarise institutional performance by bringing together: • the objectives of the College’s strategic plan 2006-10 • the assessment of strategic risks and opportunities • quantitative and qualitative indicators of performance - to show us where we are now and what we need to do to achieve our strategic plans and priorities
A summary report on performance is provided for Council • More detailed reports are provided for the relevant committees and other groups in the College’s structure of governance and for Principal’s Steering Group • How often? • a full report annually, updated in-year • the scope of the in-year reports depends on the frequency with which qualitative and quantitative indicators and risk assessments change
These are the performance areas Strategy Teaching & learning Research Knowledge transfer Governance, risk management and legislative compliance
These are the committees of Council and other bodies receiving reports
Are all areas of College performance included in the schema? • Is ‘strategy’ the sum of all parts or a distinct entity?
Performance reports • Each report consists of a summary sheet and three annexes • Annex A – strategic plan measures of achievement • Annex B – strategic risks • Annex C – performance indicators from the CUC guide, November 2006
Strategic plan 2006-10 • 5 key objectives • 27 measures of achievement • 130 priorities • Overriding strategic objective for 2006-10: • “To strengthen our position in the very front rank of global, national and regional higher education and to achieve this while maintaining our distinctive institutional vision, values and character.” • The performance report on Research will be used as an example
Key Objective Two: Make Queen Mary the acknowledged leader in our chosen areas of research Measures of achievement from the strategic plan: • Achieve target outcomes in the 2008 RAE and develop a post-RAE research strategy • Increase the volume of income from research grants and contracts • Increase the volume of funding from high-quality peer-reviewed sources • Increase the proportion of research published in major peer-reviewed publications • Increase the income generated from applying our research and expertise through consultancy, collaborative projects with industry, contract research and commercialisation of intellectual property • Improve the levels of recruitment and completion rates of postgraduate research students 7 Introduce a programme of postgraduate skills training for all research students to meet the requirements of Research Councils UK
Annex B: What are the strategic risks to research performance? • The quality and quantity of research submitted to the RAE is inadequate • There is a decline in available research funding • Research funding opportunities are missed
Annex C: Performance indicators for research • Already have some performance indicators in the measures of achievement from the strategic plan • Annex C provides KPIs from the report of the Committee of University Chairs in November 2006
Performance indicators are supplemented by data schedules • Where possible, data schedules • Are provided at school / department level • Show Queen Mary and peer HEIs • Schedules will be updated for Queen Mary and peer HEIs when RAE2008 data has been published by HEFCE
Some questions • What does institutional ‘performance’ mean? • Is a report against targets different from a ‘health-check’? • How should Red, Amber and Green be defined to be meaningful? • Is direction of travel sufficiently clear in the current reports? • Are there too many indicators, or about the right number? (or too few) • How do we enhance risk reporting to identify opportunities? • What else should committees be considering? The CUC guide has some pointers.