1. ESMU Benchmarking programme on university management Nadine Nadine Burquel, Secretary General, ESMU www.esmu.be

2. Brussels, 27 November 2007 2 Presentation About Benchmarking The ESMU Benchmarking Programme and its characteristics Topics benchmarked How the programme works Work at institutional level Examples of good practices Implementation Use of the final report respecting confidentiality

3. Brussels, 27 November 2007 3 Benchmarking The search for best practices To lead to superior performance

4. Brussels, 27 November 2007 4 Benchmarking – Improvement Benchmarking - Method of improving operations  Looking and learning from others  Comparing yourself with them Performance and behaviour are not static Benchmarking is a long-term process Involves the whole organization in searching for the best practice: not just for what is done best, but how it is done.

5. Brussels, 27 November 2007 5 ESMU Benchmarking – Definition Self-development tool – good practices of university management Systematic comparison of HEIs to identify :  Strengths/weaknesses  Areas for improvement Tool combining quality assurance and quality enhancement through  Self-evaluation  Exchange of experiences  Learning from others

6. Brussels, 27 November 2007 6 Characteristics – Approach Goes beyond comparison of data and performance indicators Looks at processes Not a one-off procedure Non-prescriptive Confidentiality

7. Brussels, 27 November 2007 7 Benefits/added value A cost effective method Access to progressive universities Opportunity to harvest the experience and expertise of fellow peers and experts Participation in a network Involvement in a constructive and progressive review of your own university’s working practices

8. Brussels, 27 November 2007 8 Topics benchmarked Year 2000  Human Resources & Staff Development  Managing Information and Communications Technology  Research Management  Commercialisation of Academic Activities Year 2001  Strategic Planning  Financial Management  Management of Teaching & Learning  Marketing the University

9. Brussels, 27 November 2007 9 Topics benchmarked Year 2002  Management Information Systems  Internal Quality Assurance  Students’ services  Estate Management Year 2003  E-learning  External funding  Institutional research  The European ”dynamics” in Higher Education The Bologna Process The European Research Area

10. Brussels, 27 November 2007 10 Topics benchmarked Year 2004  Human Resource Management (R)  Research Management (R)  Change Management  The University creating a Regional base Year 2005  Internationalisation  Strategic Partnerships (University-Enterprise Cooperation)  Governance & structures  Designing new Masters & Doctorates

11. Brussels, 27 November 2007 11 Topics benchmarked Year 2006/07  Internal quality assurance in a context of external quality (R)  Marketing HEIs – Positioning your institution in a growing competitive higher education market (R)  Students’ services (R)  Supporting innovation in Teaching & Learning

12. Brussels, 27 November 2007 12 The ESMU Benchmarking ‘Club’ Less frequent participants Frequent participants Less frequent participants Participating institutions of that particular year

13. Brussels, 27 November 2007 13 Benchmarking – Annual cycle : The various stages (1) Selection of 4 topics Selection of experts Marketing for participating universities Questionnaires for the four topics  Mission/strategy  Operation/management/staffing  Monitoring

14. Brussels, 27 November 2007 14 Example : Key conclusions (Expert: Strategic partnerships) 1. European Universities should seriously consider taking an active role in the innovation process 2. Most of the benefits of knowledge transfer will come from the exploitation of the immersed portion through collaborative research. Principles of Responsible Partnering 3. There is a direct correlation between knowledge transfer and excellence 4. The new paradigm of « Open Innovation » applied by Industry is a unique opportunity for universities to develop long term collaborative research partnerships with Industry 5. For collaboration to be sustainable = compensated at full costs. Full costs accounting as the basic principle for compensation 6. Knowledge transfer should become « core business » or an integral part of the objectives of excellent research departments.

15. Brussels, 27 November 2007 15 Benchmarking – Annual cycle : The various stages (2) Handbook (questionnaires) – 3 months responses Comparison, analysis and identification of good pratices presented in a preliminary report with scores on the overall level and the sub levels mentioned before on a scale from 1 to 5 (5 highest). The assessment criteria are made public in beforehand in the handbook Annual workshop (2½ days) Institutional self-assessment on a scale from 1 to 5 based on further identified good practices Final report to all participating institutions

16. Brussels, 27 November 2007 16 The workshop Presentation of the result of each subject made by the expert in question Presentations of good practices chosen by the experts and made by the participating institutions In-depth group discussions in smaller groups Wrap-up by the expert in question Steps:

17. Brussels, 27 November 2007 17 Work at institutional level for the ESMU Benchmarking Programme Compose working groups with key person for each subject + context Introduction to the handbook + questionnaires The responses (10-15 pages) sent to ESMU before deadline Participation in a workshop with presentations and group discussions Self-assessment based on a set of good practice statements Dissemination of the results in the final report and follow-up at the institution

18. Brussels, 27 November 2007 18 Contextual Information and Data Mission and goals Autonomy Student numbers Staff numbers Awards Financial data Academic programmes Property and facilities

19. Brussels, 27 November 2007 19 Example Good practices: New Masters and Doctorates (final self-assessment- based on the level of identification) Doctoral training  The university is setting up a Research school to promote and develop structured doctoral courses within the departments, so that doctoral candidates are provided with academic training and advice specifically tailored to this phase of qualification.  (Enthusiastic) application of national rules by a university led to well- structured PhD-trajectories, although the fixed course component was not emphasized strongly in the documentation. More stress was on individual study plans, which may not be a bad balance at the advanced level and small-number ‘cohorts’ involved in doctoral training. 531X4 4124X

20. Brussels, 27 November 2007 20 Example Good practices: New Masters and Doctorates (final self-assessment based on the level of identification) International programmes/joint degrees/ Erasmus Mundus  “In the case of recent international co-operative PhD- degrees there was sufficient expertise in the faculty and international office to resolve legal, academic or procedural difficulties”. “Where a PhD- degree has an international aspect, there are a series of specific requirements which must be met, relating among other things to: No. of Centres of Higher Learning and Member States Integrated mechanisms Joint degree regulations Administration policies Quality requirements 3X245 31355

21. Brussels, 27 November 2007 21 Implementation/How to use your learning? ESMU Final Report (documentation: The ESMU Handbook, the comparison, analysis and the scores given by the experts, all contributions from the workshop and the final institutional self- assesment with scores Internal discussion of the report at the institutions Personal contact to HEIs with ”best practices” Set-up of an action plan for improvement at institutional level

22. Brussels, 27 November 2007 22 The Learning feature Benchmarking The analysis is based on the following six characteristics: 1.Learning organisations have mechanisms that enable them, as organic entities, to learn:  from their own experiences;  from the experience of others. i)to enable them to contend with external factors or adapt to their environment ii)to be more efficient at producing outputs iii)to be more effective in producing other or better outputs 2.Learning organisations learn for a purpose, including:

23. Brussels, 27 November 2007 23 The Learning feature Benchmarking (2) 3. Organisational learning is a continuous process of systematic proactive continuous improvement, involving a cycle of enquiry, action, feedback and organisational memory. 4. Organisational learning involves a culture of facilitating/enabling the capacity of employees to increase their learning. 5.A learning organisation develops radical ideas, thinks the unthinkable, experiments and takes risks. 6.There are processes in learning organisations to enable reflection on, or evaluation of, the learning. [1] Kristensen, B: ”Benchmarking in the perspective of a ”learning institution” and as a means to search for best practices”. ENQA Workshop Reports 2: Benchmarking in the Improvement of Higher Education”, Helsinki 2003. www.enqa.net

24. Brussels, 27 November 2007 24 ESMU Benchmarking – Key issues Different national contexts Different size of universities Different cultures within universities The strategic approach Quality assurance and quality enhancement Capacity for change