performance measurement and strategic goals

Performance Measurement and Strategic Goals

25 Jun 08


Sean WellingtonActing Head of Research and Information Unit

[email protected]+44 (0)23 8031 9826

mailto:[email protected]


25 Jun 08

Overview of presentation

Key issues and challengesPerformance measurement: HEFCE and CUC perspectivesExisting practice: UK higher education institutionsImplications for policy and practiceConcluding remarksQuestions and discussion


25 Jun 08

‘I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be.’

Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thomson), 1883


25 Jun 08

Key issues

The sector continues to experience considerable turbulence and change

Mission differentiation – no single definition of ‘success’Measures are hard to define and often quantify past or current

performance, rather than give an insight into the futureGoals and indicators of success should be externally referencedMonitoring information is needed by:

University leaders and managersThe governing body (often in the form of Key Performance

Indicators)Goodhart’s law - ‘When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to

be a good measure’


25 Jun 08

‘higher education’s most critical goals are difficult, if not impossible, to measure’

(Birnbaum, 2001, p.84)


25 Jun 08

‘If you want to fatten a pig, you don't keep weighing it.’


25 Jun 08

Funding council guidance (1)

Strategic planning in higher educations: A guide for heads of institutions, senior managers and members of governing bodies (HEFCE, 2000)

Advocated a three stage planning process:Planning – environmental scanning and assessment of internal

resources, leading to the generation of ideas and decisions, typically to undertake new activities, make improvements or discontinue selected activities;

Documentation – document the plans;Implementation and monitoring – action must be taken

to achieve the agreed goals, monitor progress or non-achievement in order to adapt the future strategy.


25 Jun 08


Outputs from the planning process include:A long-term plan (the Strategic or Corporate plan) which includes

the overall vision and strategy, long-term objectives and how these are to be achieved;

An operating plan (or statement) which distils the actions required in the year ahead;

Actions necessary to effect implementation;Monitoring reports and information to indicate progress or

non-achievement.


25 Jun 08


Monitoring should take place at various levels within the organisation, with the nature and frequency of reporting determined in advance

Monitoring should include an overview of progress towards meeting the strategic goals, it is suggested at least annually, reporting to the senior management team and governing body

Monitoring information should provide the appropriate level of detail and avoid unnecessary duplication. Information may be provided in a variety of ways, for example verbal or written reports from the senior manager responsible

The monitoring system itself should be subject to periodic (and perhaps independent) review

The role of governing body will depend on the instrument and articles of government


25 Jun 08

CUC guidance

CUC Report on the Monitoring of Institutional Performance and the Use of Key Performance Indicators (CUC, 2006)

Top-level summary indicators (“super KPIs”)1. Institutional sustainability2. Academic profile and market position

Top-level indicators of institutional health3. The student experience and teaching and learning4. Research5. Knowledge Transfer and relationships6. Financial health7. Estates and infrastructure8. Staff and Human Resource Development9. Governance, leadership and management10. Institutional projects


25 Jun 08

HEFCE performance indicators

Published for all UK higher education institutions and cover four main areas of importance to the funding councils:

widening participationprogression and retentionresearch outputemployment outcomes

External performance indicators are unlikely to align fully with institutional goals and ‘tend to be disconnected from the internal life of institutions’ (Watson and Maddison, 2005, p. 57)


25 Jun 08

Review of existing practice (1)

Based on a sample of UK university corporate plans:Emphasis on league tables, for example:‘The University has a clear and simple objective; to move by 2010 from being in the top thirty in the UK to being in the top twenty.’

Some poor alignment between strategic goals and measures or indicators of success, for example:

‘To enhance our relationship with employers with which we are already in partnership focussing on building the reputation of the university’

Large numbers of high level objectives (HEFCE recommends between 8 and 12, each with 3 or 4 operating tasks)


25 Jun 08

Review of existing practice (2)

Assigned responsibility (individual or group) for delivery of component strategy objectives

Objectives have success indicators Interim indicators of success stated and used to monitor progress

towards the strategic goalsEmbedded arrangements for monitoring progressEmbedded arrangements for review and update of the corporate

plan


25 Jun 08

Good practice

Establishing a relatively small number of strategic goals;Employ interim milestones to help monitor progress and provide

impetus for change;Monitoring takes place at various levels and measures pervade

the organisation;The nature and frequency of reporting is determined in advance,

while the monitoring system itself is subject to periodic review;The information collected is used to enhance institutional

performance and inform decision-making;Information about progress against strategic goals is routinely

and regularly shared with stakeholders.


25 Jun 08

Concluding remarks

Strategic goals in higher education are difficult to define and measure, however each institution should identify its own key indicators of strategic success, relative to its competitors and comparator institutions

League tables based on (arbitrarily) weighted combinations of performance indicator scores do not provide a sufficient or adequate basis on which to assess university performance

Any measurement system will be imperfect, with continued care needed to guard against unintended consequences


25 Jun 08

References

Birnbaum, R. (2001), Management Fads in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

CUC. (2006), Report on the Monitoring of Institutional Performance and the Use of Key Performance Indicators. Sheffield: Committee of University Chairmen.

HEFCE. (2000), Strategic planning in higher education (2000/24). Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

Watson, D. and Maddison, E. (2005), Managing Institutional Self-Study. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

performance measurement and strategic goals

Business

hefce performance indicators

institutional goals

strategic planning

future goals

monitoring system

advance monitoring

monitoring action

current performance