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...?