Key Performance Indicators in Measuring Institutional Performance Case Study Use of Board Level KPIs John Lauwerys Secretary & Registrar

Overview Part 1 - John Lauwerys University of Southampton – facts & figures Corporate Strategy, Strategic Planning & Budgeting Early assessments of University performance Approach to Developing KPIs Development of KPIs at Southampton

Overview Part 2 - Dame Valerie Strachan Governing Body’s requirements Observation on the two approaches - KPIs based on strategic themes - KPIs based on critical success factors Part 3 - Questions & Discussion

University of Southampton Over 20,000 students (5000 postgraduates) Over 2,000 international students 5200 staff including 2100 academics £300 million turnover (40% from research) 6 campuses Research links across the world

University of Southampton Top-10 in UK for research income Top-10 in National Student Survey 2006 Top- 5 for enterprise activity Queen’s Anniversary prize for Higher Education awarded to Institute of Sound & Vibration Research But further ambition to be top-10 across the board by 2010

Strategic Planning & Budgeting Corporate Strategy developed ahead of restructuring in August faculties, 50+ departments  3 faculties, 23 Schools & Research Institutes Annual strategic planning and budgeting round designed to meet changing requirements Planning horizon – “5 years” for University but “current year +2” for Schools & Professional Services Role of Council

Early assessments of University performance Abstract of statistics (to 2002) Student numbers (mode and level) Domicile of students (UK/EU, overseas) Residence (catered, self-catered, home, private sector) Degrees awarded Academic staff (numbers and categories) Income & Expenditure

Early assessments of University performance Abstract of statistics (to 2002) Presented core information and trends for student numbers and income Useful indicator of the scale of operations and as a reference tool but no link to corporate aims

Approach to Developing KPIs  Aug University restructuring implemented  Dec Corporate Strategy published. Council asks for KPIs to be developed  Dec KPIs based on strategic aims presented to Council  Sep Revised KPIs based on critical success factors presented to Council  Nov Development of KPIs continues

Development of KPIs KPIs based on Strategic Aims (2004) Strategic aims from Corporate Strategy Objectives derived from strategic aims Performance indicators flow from objectives Status and progress indicators Year-on-year change indicators

Example of KPI based on Strategic Aims

Development of KPIs – new approach Revised KPIs based on Critical Success Factors (2006) Critical success factors – key issues requiring management attention Represent real issues faced “here and now” Performance indicators relate to critical success factors not strategic aims – offers greater flexibility Critical success factors can be mapped to strategic aims

Development of KPIs - CSFs Revised KPIs based on Critical Success Factors (2006) 11 Critical success factors identified covering Student recruitment Staff recruitment Staff and student experience Enterprise Reputation Funding Business processes Research activity

Overview Part 2 - Dame Valerie Strachan Governing body’s requirements Observations on the two approaches KPIs based on strategic themes KPIs based on critical success factors

Governing body’s requirements Monitor the University’s progress in achieving its strategic aims Identify areas of activity that require greater attention Performance indicators that are grounded in data Striking a balance between a comprehensive set of KPIs and information overload

Examples of Strategic Aims Strategic Aim 1 Positioned amongst the top 10 universities in the UK. 2 Recognised as a well managed, autonomous institution demonstrating excellence across our activities. 3 Conducts world-class research and is recognised as an innovative, intellectual leader of international standing. 4 Provides research-led teaching and learning that is informed by leading edge concepts

KPIs based on Strategic Themes Do the KPIs provide Council with a clear indication of progress to date and areas requiring greater attention? Strategic aims do not always lend themselves to measurement and require associated objectives No difficulty with objectives extracted from the Corporate Strategy but derived objectives may have no real ownership

KPIs based on Strategic Themes Metrics may not always provide good evidence of progress and need to be chosen carefully Tendency to use metrics that are readily available rather than collecting data that reflect what needs to be measured

KPIs based on Strategic Themes Strategic Aims do not all easily lend themselves to proof, for example number 4 above ”Provides research-led teaching and learning that is informed by leading edge concepts” Reports against this aim might look fine while the University may not actually be succeeding

Mapping of CSFs to Strategic Aims

Example of Critical Success Factor

Example of metrics used in CSF CSF3 Maintain our premier position as a research intensive University

KPIs based on CSFs CSFs are more tangible and down-to-earth; success or otherwise is more easily seen, and if we are doing well on all of them we can be confident that the University really is in good shape Provide flexibility to adopt or retire new CSFs as circumstances change e.g. Mountbatten fire Can be cascaded to operational levels of management more easily and usefully than strategic aims

In Summary Introduction of KPIs represents a major step forwards Enables governing body to understand where progress is being made towards achieving strategic aims and those areas which need to be addressed Development of KPIs continues in response to Council’s requirements Commend adoption of KPIs by other higher education institutions

Questions & Discussion