Future Directions for
Benchmarking in HE?
Nicki Horseman, Patrick Kennedy
Strategic Planning & Change
May 2011
Overall purpose
To identify some possible future
directions for benchmarking in HE, by…
2 perspectives on ‘what I want from
benchmarking’
And offering some future ‘necessary
conditions’ for high quality benchmarking
2 perspectives
College (aka Faculty or School)
Dean and/or College Manager
Director of Strategy/Planning
College Dean
• Currency
• Context
• Credibility / Confidence
College Dean
PGR/Staff FTE - Physics
5.0
4.0
Durham
Poppleton
3.0
Exeter
King's
Lancaster
2.0
Warwick
York
1.0
0.0
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
Director of Strategy /
Planning
Ratios, groupings + uni
Drill downs to categories for more
understanding
HR, finance, estates data
Secure in same treatment (apples)
Ease of access, strong appetite for
excellence/depth of service
Number of Students FTE and Spend per Student FTE
Central Spend
Number of Students FTE
35,000
30,000
Nottingham
25,000
B'ham
Edinburgh
20,000
Kings
Warwick
Exeter
15,000
L'borough
Bristol
Durham
Bath York
Lancaster
10,000
St Andrews
5,000
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Spend per student FTE (£000s)
Spend per Student FTE 09/10
Linear Fit
4,500
Necessary conditions
for quality benchmarking?
• Data quality strategy/practice & core
systems: HESA/HEIs
• Brainpower beats benchmarking, incessant
questioning
• Inputs the easy bit, what about the outputs
• A shared service development?
• More granular (opt-in club) HESA returns?
• Appetite
...Legal permission...
Wrapping up, final
thoughts
• Good base established
• Data structures and systems (BI)
development well underway
• Plenty of appetite out there; strong
investment case
• What are the primary paths for BM:
HESA data, associated services, bought-in
/ bespoke, BM clusters of HEIs...?