Sean Wellington

1
Performance Measurement and Strategic Goals

• Sean Wellington
• Acting Head of Research and Information Unit
• sean.wellington_at_solent.ac.uk
• 44 (0)23 8031 9826

2
Overview of presentation

• Key issues and challenges
• Performance measurement HEFCE and CUC
  perspectives
• Existing practice UK higher education
  institutions
• Implications for policy and practice
• Concluding remarks
• Questions and discussion

3
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
4
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 future
• Goals and indicators of success should be
  externally referenced
• Monitoring information is needed by
• University leaders and managers
• The governing body (often in the form of Key
  Performance Indicators)
• Goodharts law - When a measure becomes a
  target, it ceases to be a good measure

5
higher educations most critical goals are
difficult, if not impossible, to
measure (Birnbaum, 2001, p.84)
6
If you want to fatten a pig, you don't keep
weighing it.
7
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.

8
Funding council guidance (2)

• 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.

9
Funding council guidance (3)

• 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

10
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 sustainability
• 2. Academic profile and market position
• Top-level indicators of institutional health
• 3. The student experience and teaching and
  learning
• 4. Research
• 5. Knowledge Transfer and relationships
• 6. Financial health
• 7. Estates and infrastructure
• 8. Staff and Human Resource Development
• 9. Governance, leadership and management
• 10. Institutional projects

11
HEFCE performance indicators

• Published for all UK higher education
  institutions and cover four main areas of
  importance to the funding councils
• widening participation
• progression and retention
• research output
• employment 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)

12
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)

13
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 goals
• Embedded arrangements for monitoring progress
• Embedded arrangements for review and update of
  the corporate plan

14
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.

15
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

16
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.