The Challenge of International Benchmarking

Professor Koen Lamberts

Pro-Vice Chancellor (Research) University of Warwick

Overview

International Benchmarking

Value – objectives in benchmarking Challenges – Data and comparability Approaches – Two types of benchmarking Tools Warwick’s current activities Future Developments Summary

Value Benchmarking

Identification of genuine institutional comparators (peers) Exposes strengths and weaknesses Institutional performance Data sets, performance indicators and measures Assist positioning in an increasingly marketised environment Inform strategic planning in specific policy areas (e.g. research, WP, overseas student recruitment)

Improvement

Contextualises institutions’ performance What sort of institution do we want to be?

Challenges

Identifying relevant benchmark group

Scope Methodology

Sourcing good-quality comparative data/information

Approaches

Process Benchmarking

( qualitative, often collaborative )

Pros

• Opportunities for HEIs to increase efficiency and improve particular functions • Forum to explore shared services

Performance Benchmarking

( quantitative, often non-collaborative )

Pros

• Individual measures can highlight strengths and weaknesses and offer insights • Potential to boost international reputation

Cons

• Difficult to identify a benchmark group • Sensitive business information may be difficult to access

Cons

• Metrics may not be most relevant or appropriate • Danger of promoting homogeneity

Selection of Current Tools

(not exhaustive)

Citation • Web of Knowledge/Web of Science • Thomson Reuters Incites • Scopus • Scimago Data Repositories • heidi (HESA) • IPEDS (US Dept. of Education) BI Tools • Warwick use Cognos but there are many others • Academic Analytics Rankings • ARWU • THE-TR • QS • Guardian/Times/CUG • U-Mulitrank • CHE (Germany)

Warwick’s Current Activities

Warwick’s international benchmarking activities do not presently utilise our core BI tool primarily due to data limitations

Present International Activities

Regular

• • • • Professorial salary benchmarking (internal) Citation reporting for academic staff recruitment and selection (internal) International Student Barometer (benchmarking group is national) Global Media Index (internal) [measuring frequency of Warwick’s presence in English-speaking publications across the globe]

Ad hoc

• • • Campus Services benchmarking exercise (conducted in US) EU project on student services provision – participants included Sweden, Spain, France, Russia (non-EU comparator) Engagement with national and continental initiatives (HESA IB Project, U-multirank etc.)

The Future....

Move towards standardisation

Driven by Increasing demand for information Granularity of data will become even smaller enabling deeper analysis Simplicity of rankings will have lingering appeal for decision-makers

Summary

• • • Significant obstacles to overcome before the production of a valuable international framework, not least intercontinental quality data and the identification of genuine comparators Demand for information and a desire to for more sophisticated information (for use by decision-makers) will encourage institutions to engage and thus push forward development Benchmarking can be immensely valuable for institutions in terms of student service and business function improvement

Thank you

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/