Transcript Business Intelligence: Measuring Institutional Performance
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/