1. E-learning Benchmarking: Coventry University and the OBHE David Morris March 2007

2. Scope Coventry University at an institutional level Partnership with Warwickshire College via joint partnership document Emphasis on processes (of course!)

3. Original rationale an ongoing methodology for benchmarking to help guide our development plans evidence which can be used to refine our e-learning strategies a more effective way of prioritizing developments given scarce resources better data capture from existing (internal) processes to inform development a better understanding of how learners use the existing provision and what they would like to see the development of a greater degree of shared aspirations and commitment to e-learning within our institutions and between us

4. Emergent rationale Shift from “what” questions to “how” questions Realisation that core of collaboration agenda was student progression The internal debate itself became the rationale

5. Discuss outline methodology Initial meeting with consultants Finalise IRD structure Prepare IRD Review IRDs and prepare digest Workshop to develop Good Practice Statements Self- assessment against GP statements Comparison of self- assessments Workshop to swap GP highlights ? Consultants + group Consultants + institution ConsultantsInstitution The process

6. Who was involved? David Morris Deans Directors PVCs Frances Deepwell Roundtable group Across the university All levels Not the usual suspects Themed discussions

7. Affordances a much better understanding of process benchmarking as a developmental tool an Institutional Review Document (IRD) to guide the implementation of e-learning policy in the future a perception within the university that we are adopting a thorough and professional approach to developing e-learning a better understanding of the possibilities of joint developments with Warwickshire College (and, by extension, other partners) in e- learning a much better understanding of university processes as they apply to e-learning development a clearer view of practice among our benchmarking partners (principally via the very valuable two day workshop) a benchmarking methodology which we can use to develop an internal approach to intra-university benchmarking

8. Would we do anything differently? Allow more time Develop better data collection tools Sell the process harder Write a shorter, tighter Institutional Review Document Greater stress on outcomes (obviously!)

9. What next? A digestible guide to the benchmarking exercise, its results and major conclusions for internal dissemination within the university An internal high level review based on the guide with the IRD and other documents as back-up A cascade of an internal version of the benchmarking tool to faculties and departments Developing an action plan for the e-Learning Unit until 2010

10. Lessons Involvement of external consultants can be very valuable. Benchmarking is time-consuming and resource-intensive; however what you get out if it will very much depend on how much effort you put in. Be aware of the dangers of implementing a very centrally-driven benchmarking approach (intra-institution differences can be just as great as between-institution differences) The two-day workshop was one of the best parts of the exercise and took some of the “pain” away. Although it is tempting to avoid the debate about definitions of “e- learning” they cannot be avoided when it comes to the practical business of collecting and analyzing data to provide useful information on which to base comparisons and, ultimately, decisions. The fashionable emphasis on student(s’) experience(s) forgets that tutors matter too.

11. OBHE strengths A tried and tested methodology Access to a consultancy team Very experienced and credible consultancy team Clear process with deadlines, milestones etc They have stolen others’ watches to tell you the time

12. In summary, it depends… …on where you are in the e-learning cycle (works better if you are throwing the balls back in the air) …on who is doing it in your institution (it is fairly high level stuff and needs high level involvement) …on what you want out of it (no good if you are looking for detailed implementation plans)