1. The Challenge of International Benchmarking Professor Koen Lamberts Pro-Vice Chancellor (Research) University of Warwick

2. Overview International BenchmarkingValue – objectives in benchmarkingChallenges – Data and comparabilityApproaches – Two types of benchmarkingToolsWarwick’s current activitiesFuture DevelopmentsSummary

3. Value Contextualises institutions’ performance Inform strategic planning in specific policy areas (e.g. research, WP, overseas student recruitment) Exposes strengths and weaknesses Institutional performance Data sets, performance indicators and measures Identification of genuine institutional comparators (peers) Assist positioning in an increasingly marketised environment What sort of institution do we want to be? Benchmarking Improvement

4. Challenges Sourcing good-quality comparative data/information Identifying relevant benchmark group Scope Methodology Scope Methodology

5. Approaches Process Benchmarking ( qualitative, often collaborative ) Process Benchmarking ( qualitative, often collaborative ) Opportunities for HEIs to increase efficiency and improve particular functions Forum to explore shared services Pros Difficult to identify a benchmark group Sensitive business information may be difficult to access Cons Performance Benchmarking ( quantitative, often non-collaborative ) Performance Benchmarking ( quantitative, often non-collaborative ) Individual measures can highlight strengths and weaknesses and offer insights Potential to boost international reputation Pros Metrics may not be most relevant or appropriate Danger of promoting homogeneity Cons

6. Selection of Current Tools (not exhaustive) Web of Knowledge/Web of Science Thomson Reuters Incites Scopus Scimago Citation heidi (HESA) IPEDS (US Dept. of Education) Data Repositories Warwick use Cognos but there are many others Academic Analytics BI Tools ARWU THE-TR QS Guardian/Times/CUG U-Mulitrank CHE (Germany) Rankings

7. 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.)

8. 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

9. 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

10. Thank you http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/