Italian Good Practice Projects Michela Arnaboldi and Giovanni Azzone 1

Agenda The context The Target of GP projects The Model The main “products” The general results for the Italian University system

The context Autonomy means: Impact of central services on differentiation Impact of central services on cost reduction But we need management tools consistent with the characteristics of central services

The target of Good Practice Identify performance indicators; Identify good practices; Understand key driver of good practice, in order to suggest opportunities for improvement.

The universities involved

The Model: GP approach Process volume Activity quality Volume Quality Resources

The measures and area addressed The measurement system have included: Efficiency indicators Effectiveness indicators: Subjective quality Objective quality The areas of the university included are: Student support services Accounting Procurement and Logistics Personnel management (humane resource) Research support services Information system services

The area addressed

The efficiency indicators ACTIVITY Input output The indicator used for measuring efficiency is the cost The model based on activity allows to measure: The total cost of the activities The unit cost per output of the activities For example if we consider the matriculation activity: Total cost for university A = 120,000€ N. of matriculated students of A = 10,000 students The unit cost per output is 120,000€/10,000 = 12 €/matriculated student Cost Output (or driver)

An example of activities and drivers

Effectiveness Indicators Output volume (Efficiency) Input Output characteristics(Effectiveness) The effectiveness may be measured in two ways: Objective quality: Objective indicators (e.g. delivery time; system availability; presence of controls) Subjective quality: User perception

The main “products”

Accounting activities: total costs

Accounting activities: Unit costs of single activities

Acccounting: the unit costs and the scale effect

Variance from the curve

Variance from the curve

The evolution of unit costs between two projects Confronto dati 2001 - 2003 515,01 786,14 547,07 443,52 576,95 293,39 645,42 961,54 454,39 999,75 620,10 391,37 695,08 331,36 614,75 842,08 200 400 600 800 1.000 1.200 A B C E G I L N €uro/preson GP 2001 GP 2003

Student Support Services: drivers of perceived quality Too high investments Strenghts Low importance Weaknesses

Student Suuport services: perceived quality and actual quality

Student Support Services: quality The relation between perceived quality and actual quality

Accounting: actual quality The objective time for two accounting procedures

The integration of Efficiency and Effectiveness

The impact Common language Community on performance measurement Diffusion of practices