1. Insert Title Tribal Education Benchmarking FE Total Financial Benchmarking financial benchmarking curriculum efficiency curriculum benchmarking learner mapping curriculum modelling

2. Insert Title Financial Benchmarking for the Higher Education sector Presentation to the 1994 Group Registrars’ Group 7 December 2006 Glyn Saul and Jenny Rudd

3. Agenda  The Tribal Group  Principles of Benchmarking  The Tribal Benchmarking Methodology  Current HE Clients  Strengths and Weaknesses  Case Study – University of Sussex  Proposal and Indicative Costs

4. About The Tribal Group  Listed plc, six years old  Consultancy, support services and delivery  Markets: education, health and social care, local government, housing and regeneration, central government  Services: consultancy, technology, resourcing, property, communications and delivery  Group turnover of £275m  60 offices, over 2,000 staff

5. Company Background Benchmarking Education and Technology Consulting Communications Property Resourcing

6.  Based in Nottingham (formerly Ben Johnson-Hill Associates)  Market leader for provision of benchmarking services within both Higher and Further Education  Products & services include;  Quantitative (incl. financial benchmarking)  Qualitative (incl. student experience benchmarking)  Curriculum planning and development  Value added Benchmarking

7. Principles of Benchmarking “ Benchmarking is the process of identifying, understanding and adapting outstanding practices and processes from organisations anywhere in the world in order to help your own organisation improve its performance” (English Universities Benchmarking Club)  Continuous improvement  Competitive advantage - evaluate products or services against competitors  Compare existing structures and processes against “best practice”  Inform planning process  Continuous Systematic Implementation Best Practice

8. The Tribal Benchmarking Methodology  Flexible and scalable – benchmark single department up to whole institution  Analyse ALL activity in every department  Analysis of income, pay costs, staff numbers, pay levels, non-pay costs  Function driven model - identify full costs to deliver a function, regardless of delivery model

9. Databank Structure Overall Institution Non Core Activity Catering Residences Others Non Operational Items Core Activity (Detailed Analysis) Academic Departments Teaching Activity Research & Commercial Activity Support Areas Library Services Information Technology Student ServicesRegistry Finance & Human Resources Marketing, Recruitment & Public Relations Institution Administration Estates

10. Databank Structure All Activities Income Analysis (eg; per Weighted Student) Income Mix Cost Analysis (eg; per Weighted Student) Number of Staff Mix of Staff Salary Levels Non-Pay Costs Activity indicators (eg; SSR’s)

11. The Tribal Benchmarking Methodology (cont.)  Project Initiation  Data collection & analysis  Financial  Staffing  Student Numbers  Estates Data  Library and Computing Statistics  Consultation  Report and Feedback Project usually completed in around 2 to 3 months

12. Example output

16. Current HE Clients 1994 Group members; Goldsmiths Leicester Sussex Other institutions completing recent benchmarks; Aston, Canterbury Christ Church, Central England in Birmingham, Chester, City London, East London, Glamorgan, Lincoln, London Metropolitan, London South Bank, Napier, Nottingham Trent, Oxford Brookes, Queen Margaret, Edinburgh, Robert Gordon, Salford, Sheffield Hallam, Southampton Solent, Sunderland, West of England, Worcester

17. Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths  Comparators - over 35% of HE Sector within the databank, and growing  Flexibility – bespoke output to reflect individual institution needs, within a standard framework  Consistent and accurate – experienced, objective team applying proven methodology to provide robust comparisons  Multiple benchmarks – chosen with institution to provide maximum value for each area of activity

18. Strengths and Weaknesses (cont.)  Comprehensive - uses 750 comparative measures  Timely – benchmarking data available in c. 10 weeks  Data – available from core systems and existing returns  Support & Admin Functions – robust benchmarks of each function that overcome degree of centralisation or devolvement

19. Strengths and Weaknesses (cont.)  Management involvement – consultation ensures data accuracy, detailed knowledge of institution and buy-in to process  Product development – relationship with clients informs changes to methodology and outputs, to reflect current issues and developments in the sector  Compatibility – with other sector datasets, eg; TRAC, Sconul, EMS

20. Strengths and Weaknesses (cont.) Weaknesses  Impact on university staff – although this is kept to a minimum by using data which is available from core systems  Retrospective – although benchmarking can be undertaken using forecast or planning data  Availability of certain comparators – although databank is growing rapidly

21. Case Study – University of Sussex

22. Proposal To establish a 1994 Group Benchmarking Club  Enables members to accurately benchmark their activities / resources against the peer group average  Benchmark against other named members (subject to agreement on data sharing)  Facilitates the sharing of best practice amongst the Club  Tribal to provide regular benchmark updates to members

23. Indicative Costs Pricing Arrangements  Price determined by size of institution, measured by total income, student numbers and total staff costs  Project price unique to each institution Indicative Prices (all + VAT)  £60m income£25,000  £100m income£35,000  £150m income£50,000  £250m income£80,000

24. Indicative Costs (cont.)  Discount available for purchasing 2 or more benchmarking projects  Prices available for benchmarking specific functional areas, eg support services

25. Indicative Costs (cont.) 1994 Group Benchmarking Club – Proposed Discounts  5 th member joining – triggers a 10% discount for all members on future financial benchmarking projects  10 th member joining – triggers a 15% discount for all members on future financial benchmarking projects  15 th member joining – triggers a 20% discount for all members on future financial benchmarking projects PLUS a discount on all other Tribal benchmarking products

26. Why use Tribal Benchmarking?  Our role is not to tell you whether you are right or wrong :– Our role is to tell you where you are different!

27. Questions and Way Forward