1. Vilnius, EAIR 2009 Benchmarking in European Higher Education : A step beyond current quality models Nadine Burquel ESMU Secretary General

2. Vilnius, EAIR 2009 OVERVIEW  Findings of two-year EU-funded project (2006-2008)  ESMU, CHE, UNESCO-CEPES, University of Aveiro  Literature on benchmarking in higher education  Investigation of 18 collaborative benchmarking groups  Potential to go beyond current quality approaches

3. Vilnius, EAIR 2009 CONTEXT - HIGHER EDUCATION Increasingly competitive environments Need to increase (institutional) performance – Pressures  Policy level (national, European level) Lisbon Agenda, Bologna Process - Lack of sufficient data gathering on institutional performance in European universities - Quality : Accountability/bureaucratisation vs. enhancement

4. Vilnius, EAIR 2009 BENCHMARKING Performance targets  Set by institutions themselves  Ownership of results Systematic comparison of core institutional processes  Leads to innovative practice for improved organisational performance Not ranking (false benchmarking) but inter-organisational learning

5. Vilnius, EAIR 2009 ORIGINS OF BENCHMARKING  Private sector – Xerox Corporation  Public sector – New public management  Higher Education  Implicit benchmarking (peer reviews/site visits)  Explicit formalisation

6. Vilnius, EAIR 2009 BENCHMARKING CONCEPTS & PRACTICES Enormous literature on benchmarking– Focus on practice  Yorke (1999) Wide diversity of HEIs “There can be no single reference point for the purposes of benchmarking”  Schofield (1998) Difficulties of definitions “ Term varies considerably between different approaches & practitioners”  Alstete (1995) - Four types voluntary explicit benchmarking internal benchmarking external competitive benchmarking external collaborative benchmarking comparisons external trans-industry (best-in-class) benchmarking

7. Vilnius, EAIR 2009 BENCHMARKING CONCEPTS & PRACTICES (2) UNESCO-CEPES (2007) – Building on existing literature : Seven types  internal benchmarking  external competitive benchmarking  functional benchmarking  trans institutional benchmarking  implicit benchmarking  generic benchmarking  Process-based benchmarking Term used for very different practices  Mere comparison of statistical data and indicators  Detailed analyses of processes within institutions  Diagnostic instrument, self-improvement tool, collaborative learning  Danger – A ‘catch all’ phrase

8. Vilnius, EAIR 2009 EXAMPLES COLLABORATIVE BENCHMARKING National groups :  NACUBO (US-2), ACODE (AUS), CHE (DE-3), HIS (DE-3), Italy, HESA (2) Transnational groups :  Aarhus network, ECIU (2), ESMU, ACU, IDEA League Fourteen criteria  Institutional nature, group character, mgt, size, membership, level of participation  Goals, performance-basis, methodology, input or output focus,  Geographical scope, timeline, reporting, finances

9. Vilnius, EAIR 2009 EXAMPLES COLLABORATIVE BENCHMARKING (2) Initiating the benchmarking, gathering data and implementing results  Different approaches, focus, size  No common model or clusters of characterics Geographical differences  US-True and false benchmarking (Farquhar, 98)  AUS-Not sufficient systematic use of benchmarking (AUQA, 07)  Europe-So far, small number of institutions involved

10. Vilnius, EAIR 2009 Going a step further “Our” definition Benchmarking is a process inside an organisation with the aim to improve its performance by learning about possible improvements processes by looking at those processes in other, better-performing organizations -- Voluntary Process -- Self-evaluation - Systematic & collaborative comparison of practices

11. Vilnius, EAIR 2009 Beyond quality Quality – Difficulties with definitions Major issue : Is quality part of the product or service OR depends on customer ? In HE : Quality of university education, OR student satisfaction ?  Harvey & Green (1993) distinguished Quality as  Exceptional (‘excellence’)  Perfection or consistency (‘zero errors’, achieving standards)  Fitness for purpose (mission-based ‘do what you promise’)  Value for money  Transformation  ISO9000 definition of ‘quality’ : Totality of features of a product/service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs’  No info about acceptable level of quality (exception – external standards)

12. Vilnius, EAIR 2009 WHAT IS SPECIAL ABOUT BENCHMARKING?  Inter-organisational learning  Improve performance of an institution & identify gaps of performance  Requires methods : Some form of evaluation/measurement BUT Measurement as tool (i.e. where improvements are needed) More focus on learning process than other Quality approaches  Measuring externally visible performance (KPIs’) - only the beginning of benchmarking  Real issue – Achieving high performance  Aim - find out about good practice, not only good performance

13. Vilnius, EAIR 2009 A STEP BY STEP SYSTEMATIC APPROACH  Initial steps of starting the benchmarking exercise  Clarifying background  Experience with benchmarking  Defining purpose  Gaining commitment and selecting partners  Conducting the benchmarking exercise  Resourcing and managing the exercise  Gathering data  Reporting results (internally and externally)  Implementing results

14. Vilnius, EAIR 2009 TO CONCLUDE  Development of benchmarking in higher education  Work in progress  Still limited use in higher education  Belongs to the quality movement  Context increasing competition  Goes further than current quality approaches  Identification of strengths and weakness  Setting relevant targets for increased performance  Continuous improvement, not as an isolated exercise but a core tool to support strategic developments  Requires commitment to change, investment in human and financial resources and a rigourous professional approach

15. Vilnius, EAIR 2009 TO CONCLUDE (2) Benchmarking into practice  Second phase – new EU project (EBI-II)  Four university benchmarking groups : curriculum reforms, university-enterprise cooperation, lifelong learning, governance  A European-wide central place for information and exchange  CHARME project – Benchmarking medical education  Benchmarking e-learning  End 2009/2010 – Benchmarking applied research (for UAS network)

16. Vilnius, EAIR 2009 QUESTIONS & MORE INFORMATION? Nadine Burquel nadine.burquel@esmu.benadine.burquel@esmu.be EBI-II Benchmarking in European Higher Education www.education-benchmarking.org Other benchmarking exercises ESMU www.esmu.bewww.esmu.be