Transcript No Slide Title

The Monitoring of Institutional
Performance and KPIs
30 November 2006
Dr Andrew Cubie CBE
Chair-elect, CUC
Steering group
Andrew Cubie (chair)
Sir Andrew Burns
Prof Sir Ivor Crewe (for UUK)
David Fletcher
Eddie Newcomb (project manager)
Ewart Wooldridge (Leadership Foundation)
Tom Ingram (ex CEO of AGB in USA)
Sally Neocosmos (for AHUA)
Dick Coldwell (HEFCE Board member)
Greg Wade (UUK)
Jim Port (J M Consulting)
THE KPIs PROJECT
The Governance Code of Practice includes the
proposition that each Institution should adopt a
Statement of Primary Responsibilities which
directs the Governing Body:1. To approve the mission and strategic vision
of the institution, long term academic and
business plans and KPIs, and to ensure these
meet the interests of stakeholders.
THE KPIs PROJECT
2.
To ensure processes are in place to
monitor and evaluate the performance
and effectiveness of the Institution,
against the plans and approved KPIs,
which should be, where possible and
appropriate, benchmarked against other
comparable institutions.
The KPIs Project
CUC survey in 2006 – some governing bodies
using KPIs, many would like guidance
Steering group, HEFCE funding obtained and J M
Consulting commissioned
Remit to develop and issue guidance that will help
Governing Bodies to fulfil this responsibility
– Not prescriptive
– A menu of KPIs
– Based on international comparison
Approach in the Guide
1.
Governors have responsibility at a strategic level for all activities
2.
They cannot and should not
–
–
–
Monitor large volumes of paper
Engage in operational detail
Usurp the role of senior management
3.
Governors need high-level KPIs that cover all strategic areas;
may not come from existing operational systems or data; and
can be assimilated and reviewed with minimal volumes of paper.
4.
They also need a monitoring framework that permits them to:
–
–
–
Quickly gain an overview of performance
Interrogate and drill down where appropriate
Highlight areas that need more attention
The Monitoring Framework
1.
10 high-level KPIs cover all areas of institutional performance
2.
Each is represented by a traffic-light assessment and this is shown on one
page
3.
Each of the ten is built up using a range of supporting assessment materials:
– Self-assessment questions
– Supporting KPIs
– Other sources as appropriate
4.
Governors only need to see one page, but can have back-up schedules
covering some or all of the ten areas as appropriate
5.
They also need a monitoring framework that permits them to:
– Quickly gain an overview of performance
– Interrogate and drill down where appropriate
– Highlight areas that need more attention
The High Level KPIs
Top-level summary indicators (“super KPIs”)
1
2
Institutional sustainability
Academic profile and market position
Top-level indicators of institutional health
3
4
The student experience and teaching and learning
Research
5 Knowledge Transfer and relationships
6
Financial health
7
8
9
Estates and infrastructure
Staff and Human Resource Development
Governance, leadership and management
10 Institutional projects
The Monitoring of Institutional
Performance and KPIs
The CUC Guide
30 November 2006
Jim Port
JM Consulting
Philosophy and approach
1. Each governing body has to decide its own
arrangements
2. Governors work in partnership with the ViceChancellor and senior management
3. The guide illustrates good practice, but each
institution may choose different methods,
provided they achieve the aims in the Code
Contents of the guide
1.
Summary
describes the logic of the process and the suggested
monitoring framework at a high level
2.
Review of practice in the sector and elsewhere
Balanced scorecard, EFQM, Dashboards etc
Results of CUC survey of use of KPIs
PIs in use in higher education
3.
The supporting materials for each high level KPI
Context
Self-assessment questions
Supporting KPIs and other sources of information
4.
(Appendix) Full list of supporting KPIs with definitions etc
Challenges for the project
1.
2.
3.
4.
Governors often face too much paper and too many pressing matters
at meetings
So, operational detail can take over and inhibit consideration of the
critical strategic issues
Some of the most critical issues are qualitative and difficult to
measure, but there are lots of data and KPIs in other areas (estates,
finance etc)
So, the attention given to different areas becomes unbalanced
The management team are usually very competent and close to the
details
– how can governors add value?
– what questions should they ask?
– how will they know if there is a problem?
What can the guide do to help?
What can the guide do to help?
NOT prescribe a standard set of KPIs, for all HEIs
Instead, the guide answers 4 questions:
1.
What do governors need to monitor?
(the ten high-level KPIs – or similar designed for each institution)
2.
What are the key issues in each high-level KPI?
(the self-assessment questions)
3.
How can progress/status be assessed for each KPI?
(through the supporting KPIs, and answers to the questions)
4.
How can this be presented to governors?
(on one page, using the traffic-light system)
HEIs can choose different answers – but they do need to address the questions
What do governors need to monitor?
The high level KPIs
Top-level summary indicators (“super KPIs”)
1
Institutional sustainability
2
Academic profile and market position
Top-level indicators of institutional health
3
The student experience and teaching and learning
4
Research
5
Knowledge Transfer and relationships
6
Financial health
7
Estates and infrastructure
8
Staff and Human Resource Development
9
Governance, leadership and management
10
Institutional projects
What are the issues in each KPI?
Self assessment questions
(e.g High-level KPI 1: Sustainability)
1.1
Does the mission and academic positioning of the institution make sense
as a business and academic proposition?
1.2
Are we performing as well as we should in the main academic and studentrelated activities which are important to our mission and our markets?
1.3
Are we generating enough cash to allow strategic investments and to
manage risk and uncertainty?
1.4
Is our infrastructure fit for purpose and generating a realistic return on
past investment?
………
5.4
Which are our ten most important relationships in our region and what are we
doing to develop and maintain them?
( High-level KPI 5: Knowledge transfer and relationships)
8.2
Are we satisfied with the quality of appointments made to senior positions
and the way these posts are managed and appraised? (High-level KPI 8:
Staff and HRD)
How can progress be measured?
The supporting or lower-level KPIs
e.g. for High-level KPI 1: Sustainability
1.
2.
3.
4.
Return on assets (CE/CP ratio)
Annual spend on infrastructure compared to agreed annual requirement
Income growth, diversity and security
Student demand, achievement and satisfaction
…….
10.
22.
39.
60.
Evidence of academic distinctiveness (supports academic profile)
Staff scholarly activity (supports student experience)
Cash generated (supports financial health)
Remuneration committee reports (support leadership etc)
Note these are all illustrative – full definitions and suggested
ways to use these are provided in the guide
How can this be presented?
The traffic light definitions
Green
Good: this is on track, low risk
Amber-Green
Satisfactory: this is broadly on track with some
concerns which need to be addressed
Amber
Mixed: some significant concerns which could be
damaging if not addressed, medium risk
Red
Problematic: serious concerns threaten this area,
high risk to the institution’s overall performance
The one-page summary
A. “Super-KPI” indicators of mediumterm institutional performance
1.
Institutional Sustainability
2.
Academic profile and
positioning
Reference
*
AR
G
B. Top level KPIs – strategic indicators of institutional health
3.
The student experience
AG
4.
Research
AR
5.
Knowledge Transfer and relationships
6.
Financial health
AG
7.
Estates and Infrastructure
AR
8.
Staff & HRD
AR
9.
Governance, Leadership and
Management
10.
Institutional projects
G
G
* reference to relevant back-up schedules attached or available on request
Implementation by universities
• Each governing body is free to decide how best to monitor
institutional performance – but any institution not wishing
to use this approach would need to find and implement an
alternative
• The guide illustrates good practice, but is not prescriptive
or mandatory
• Some members responding to the CUC survey are already
using broadly equivalent processes, many are not
• So what should governing bodies do next?
What to do next?
a.
Answer the four questions on slide 5
– What to monitor?
– What are the issues in each area?
– How to assess progress/status?
– How to present it to governors?
b.
Each governing body should consider:
– A timetable and process for monitoring- and resulting
action
– How the assessment capability can be provided
– How this can fit with existing processes in the institution