International Benchmarking – Comparing Like with Like– What about

the Future?

Ken Sloan, Director for Universities and Higher EducationHESA International Benchmarking Conference – 20 July 2011

Session Outline

• What drives institutional planning and what could be benchmarked?

• Addressing international benchmarking and against what might institutions be compared?

• Impact of new HE landscape and institutional choices on service delivery and benchmarking?

• Is benchmarking worthwhile given how much is changing?

Delivering essential services around the world

UK & Europe60%

Local Government& Commercial

Civil Government

Defence, Science and Nuclear

1

2

3

Africa, Middle East & Asia18%

Africa, Middle East & Asia

4

The Americas

22%

The Americas

5●Founded in

1929

●50 countries

●700 contracts

●70,000 staff

●£4.5 billion Turnover

Central and Local

Government

Education

Defence Forces

Healthcare Organisations

Blue Chip Companies

Science and Nuclear

Criminal Justice

Transportation Organisations

Our markets

Strategic Drivers for Benchmarki

ng

“We plan to be one of the Top 500 companies in the world”

__________

“We are working to be a Top 10 university in the UK”

__________

“Our strategy will see us positioned as a world Top 50

university”

__________

“We will be one of the world’s most efficient organisations”

__________

“For students and staff, this will be one of the best universities in

the world to join”

Making Sense of It

All…..

• Who do universities have in mind when planning:

- past/ current/ future students?

- staff?

- partners? visitors? Banks? regulatory bodies?

• Students are not the only stakeholders

• Translating masses of data into meaningful change and improvement can be a challenge

• Translating into useful benchmarking systems might look impossible

Consumers, Partners or Investors

Which Relationships

Matter?

The answer may shape and influence the nature

of benchmarking

• If consumers - priorities might be consumption/ outcome focused

• If partners – priorities might be input and output focused

• If investors - might require a balance of input, output and outcome focused measures

What Could be

Benchmarked?

• Front facing services (teaching, research and related activities)

• Direct support services (those services that contribute directly and specifically to teaching, research, student experience)

• Organisational Services (all of the functions required simply as a result of being large, complex organisations)

• Transformational Services (those processes or competencies that lay the ground for future success)

Lost in Translation?

Addressing International

Benchmarking

Key Issues:

• Clear strategic/tactical reason for doing so and questions to address

• Effort, commitment and investment

• Willingness not simply to adopt a ‘self-selecting’ safe group

• Common lexicon and taxonomy (including costs, prices, values)

• Understanding of context

• Willingness to collaborate and share sensitive data (or to trust a 3rd Party)

To What are Institutions

Being Compared?

Academic Inputs, Outputs and Outcomes

- Peer institutions

- Prospective peers

Student Inputs, Outputs and Outcomes

- Peer institutions

- Prospective peers

- Alternative providers

Organisational or Service Inputs, Outputs and Outcomes

- Peer institutions

- Prospective peers

- Related organisations

- Other sectors?

A Serco Example:

NPL

(The National Physical Laboratory)

Strategic Drivers

• Improve scientific performance

• Enhance national/ international competitiveness

• Optimise the cost base and income

• Optimise efficiency and effectiveness

• Deliver on government and company requirements

A Serco Example:

NPL

(The National Physical Laboratory)

Implications for Benchmarking

• Comparison between NPL, UK, International institute scientific performance

• Compare with other institutions, other Serco business areas, and other sectors

• Compare with other Serco business areas, UK government funded organisations and international institutions

Choices for Institutions

-Any implications for benchmarking?

•Develop Individually

•Transform and Sell

•Shared Services

•Strategic Service Broker

Things Are Changing So Context Will

Matter

The Emerging

HE Landscape

• Impact of ‘Students in the Driving Seat’ in the choice and focus of institutional benchmarks (risk of partial views?)

• Diversity of providers will change the nature and type of organisations that sit behind some institutions and impact on their behaviour (and their performance?)

• A period of significant institutional change raises the question of what benchmarks will deliver future value and what institutions/ organisations to track (criteria for selecting?)

Towards 2012 and

beyond………

• Choices and risk will be much more important given limited financial underpinning from government

• Spend on services will change - what will this do to trend-based benchmarks?

• Investments will be driven by strategic drivers – how will these drivers be reflected in benchmarking schemes?

• Staff costs continue to matter - but understanding other spend matters too

If benchmarking appeared difficult before...Should we

bother?

Yes- Performance and future sustainability still matter

Navigating the Future

• Benchmarking makes a valuable contribution to operational and strategic development (if aligned)

• Organisations face choices over what to prioritise as all benchmarking activities cost money (track what matters)

• Organisations should not only benchmark but must be committed to acting upon them (link back to strategic drivers)

• Context matters in understanding benchmark performance

The sector and market you are in should not limit the type of

organisation that you benchmark against

17