bench marking framework feb04

8/7/2019 Bench Marking Framework Feb04

1/32

Edith Cowan University

A BENCHMARKING FRAMEWORKGuidelines for Faculties and Centres

Version: Feb 2004


2/32

CONTENTS PAGE

Introduction................................................................................................................................................1Best Practice ..............................................................................................................................................1

2.1 Benchmarking..................................................................................................................................1

2.2 Types of Benchmarking...................................................................................................................2ECU's Approach to Benchmarking............................................................................................................4

Key Steps in Benchmarking - How to Get Started....................................................................................5

1.Benchmarking Related Issues.................................................................................................................85.1 Comparators.....................................................................................................................................8

5.2 Priorities...........................................................................................................................................8

5.3 Resources.........................................................................................................................................8

5.4 Memorandum of Agreement............................................................................................................8Common Mistakes in Benchmarking.........................................................................................................9

Benchmarking Experience at ECU ...........................................................................................................9

Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................10

References ...............................................................................................................................................11Appendix 1: Summary of Key Outcomes from ACU Benchmarking Workshops..................................12

Appendix 2: Current Benchmarking Experience at ECU........................................................................15Appendix 3: List of Universities for Benchmarking................................................................................26

Appendix 4: AQC Benchmarking Code of Conduct...............................................................................29

Appendix 5: Key Performance Indicators................................................................................................30

Version: Feb 2004


3/32

A BENCHMARKING FRAMEWORK - Guidelines for Faculties andCentres (Edith Cowan University)

Introduction

Benchmarking at ECU commenced a number of years ago on an informal basis. A growingappreciation of an increased need for meaningful benchmarked indicators and performanceinformation resulted in the development of A Benchmarking Framework: OngoingDevelopment.

The Benchmarking Framework was presented to the Quality and Audit Committee (November2002), Council (December 2002), and VCP&MG (July 2003). Outcomes from the meetingswere firstly recognition of the need for this document to be disseminated within the Universityas a discussion paper and secondly to engage the University community in benchmarkingactivities. Copies of the document were distributed to senior executive management and

Associate Deans. Information seminars provided to Centre Directors and senior managerssought discussion on, and feedback to, a benchmarking framework.

The resulting document has been developed taking cognisance of input from staff andprovides an overview of the progress made by ECU in its approach to the ongoingdevelopment of a Benchmarking Framework. It has been developed primarily for Facultiesand Centres as a means to: provide benchmarking advice and assistance; guide them indetermining benchmarking priorities and what should be benchmarked; and to provide anoverview of benchmarking activities and comparator institutions within the University.

Best Practice

In 1991 the Federal Government established the Australian Best Practice DemonstrationProgram as a means of encouraging the adoption of international best practice to improveindustrys position against overseas competition. Best Practice was defined as:a comprehensive, integrated and cooperative approach to the continuous improvement of allfacets of an organisations operations. It is the way leading edge companies manage theirorganisations to deliver world class standards of performance. (Prescott 1993 p 2)

As a result of the early work in Best Practice a number of principles emerged, one of whichwas The use of performance measurement systems and benchmarking.

2.1 Benchmarking

Prescott (1993 p6) stated: Benchmarking which is an objective, ongoing search for bestpractices and processes, is an essential tool for organisations committed to achieving worldclass standards of performance. He also states those organisations which mostsuccessfully use benchmarking have a systematic process which is integrated with otherinitiatives to improve competitiveness.

Version: Feb 2004 - 1 -


4/32

Essential features of such a process include:

Involving employees at all levels;

Identifying, understanding and benchmarking key business processes;

Selecting suitable partners not necessarily in the same industry, and

Carefully adapting identified best practices or approaches into the organisation.

The Australian Quality Council (AQC 2001) definition complements this approach: Abusiness excellence tool for finding, adapting and implementing outstanding practices in orderto achieve superior performance.

In relation to the application of Benchmarking in Universities Meade (1998 p1) states:Benchmarking may be seen as especially relevant to higher education, since the notion ofexchanging ideas through collegial contact is integral to academic work.

The crux of benchmarking is choosing what you want to benchmark, and then finding thebest practice against which to compare it. (Macneil et al 1994 p159).

2.2 Types of Benchmarking

Three types of benchmarking are distinguished in the literature:

Internal benchmarkingwhich involves benchmarking between variousdepartments / sections within an organisation;

Competitive benchmarkingwhich involves benchmarking between enterprises inthe same product market. Faculties at ECU have identified the need to benchmarkagainst competitor universities, particularly in regard to the benchmarking offinancials;

Industry benchmarking, in which the benchmarking partner is not a competitor,and is part of the same industry.

The AQC (2001) defines benchmarking as outcome or process focussed. These are furtherdefined as:

Outcome Benchmarking examines high level aggregate measures of

performance. Usually starts with the identification and definition of these measuresand often uses ratios. Compares performance on a specific characteristic or set ofcharacteristics. Provides little or no insight into the reasons for the differences inperformance and does not indicate how to achieve the identified higherperformance further analysis is usually required. (AQC 2001).

Process Benchmarking aims to examine, compare and improve performance ofprocesses used in operations. Usually examines process flow, efficiency,



5/32

effectiveness, adaptability, cycle time, cost etc., and is about how things are doneand measures the effectiveness of the implemented improvements. (AQC 2001).

Version: Feb 2004 3


6/32


7/32

Key Steps in Benchmarking - How to Get Started

The literature on benchmarking varies in terminology and there are a number of how tomodels. The approach below (reinforced in the AUQA Audit Manual principles related toIndicators and Externality) fits in well with ECU's Plan, Do, Review and Improve (PDRI)approach, is representative of the overall approaches and provides useful steps that Facultiesand Centres may consider when preparing and organising a benchmarking exercise:

I. Based onplanningpriorities, it is important that each Faculty and Centre has a goodunderstanding of its own processes, and where feasible, has these documented beforedetermining which areas and/or priorities to benchmark.

II. Identify, define and agree on key processes and/or outcomes to measure based onoperational, functional and strategic objectives. Consider what must be done well inorder to complete those processes or meet outcomes or objectives. These become thecritical success factors and/or performance indicators.

For example if getting students through the enrolment process as quickly as possibleis a critical success factor or performance indicator for student satisfaction, then thekey processes for driving that need to be looked at

III. Identify benchmark partners.

III.1. For ECU it will be necessary to establish benchmarking partner criteria.

For example a Faculty or Centre at ECU may determine other universities tobenchmark with based on:

a. Academic profile similar disciplines taughtb. Teaching emphasis (rather than research emphasis)c. Age of the university (contemporary, not ivy league)d. Multi-campus basede. Public funded, rather than Private fundedf. Similar commitment to quality, innovation or strategic networkingg. Other

III.2. Identify practices for example course structure, academic profile, publications,statistical data in terms of EFTSU, costs/m2 and measure our own performance. Therationale for this is that there must be an understanding of one's own processes first inorder to identify where opportunities for improvement lie.

III.3. Identify practices and measure performance of partners to identify from whomone can learn and specifically what one wishes to learn.

IV. Do up an implementation plan that clearly identifies: inputs to undertake thebenchmarking activity in terms of human and physical resources, and associatedcosts; tasks and activities that need to be accomplished; milestones and key dates;and responsibilities assigned to specific individuals or teams within the Faculty orCentre. Undertake the benchmarking activity.



8/32

V. Reviewthe results of the benchmarking exercise and develop a report(formal/informal) that outlines the findings of the benchmarking exercise as well as asummary of the recommendations for change.

For example consider the outcomes or impact of the exercise and determine if andhow it has benefited processes or outcomes or impacted on the achievement ofobjectives.

VI. Implement potential improvements. After benchmarking a key process (or outcomemeasure), one can go back into the organisation and implement improvements to thatprocess, and monitor whether or not it meets or exceeds customer requirements.(ODell 1993 p 18).

The "Review and Improve" components of the cycle are probably the most critical andshould be incorporated into, and reported on, in ECU's formal review processesincluding Annual Reviews of Faculties and Centres, Areas of Scholarship Reviews,Reviews of Research Centres, Australian University Quality Agency Audits, etc.

VII. Measure results to inform ongoing planning and close the continuous improvementloop.

The following diagram reflects the above steps:

Version: Feb 2004 6


9/32

PlanningPriorities

CustomerNeeds


Measure resultsInform ongoingplanning

Closing the lop

Implement the potentialimprovements

Determine which areas tobenchmark

Identify key processes /outcomes to measurebased on objectives

Reviewthe results

Do an implementationplan

Identify Benchmarkpartners

Identify practices andmeasure our own

performance

Identify practices andmeasure performance of

partners


10/32

1. Benchmarking Related Issues

Benchmarking may support the development and maintenance of quality in priority areas;however, it is one of a number of tools which assist in contributing to the continuousimprovement of ECU's processes and outcomes. The timing and level of benchmarking willvary between the course(s) or area(s) being benchmarked, and benchmarking of academicunits may be more difficult than administrative areas. While there is a need to compare"apples with apples" one has to have an understanding of the context of ECU's benchmarksand of the comparators, otherwise there may be a considerable waste of resources.

5.1 Comparators

ECU and its Faculties and Centres will need to identify suitable comparators who will providea range of selected areas for comparison on an ongoing basis. There may be a need toidentify specialist partners outside of this standard list.

Appendix 3: List of Universities for Benchmarking) provides a list of Australian and NewGeneration Universities against which ECU may wish to benchmark.

5.2 Priorities

Given the cost and time involved to benchmark, it is important that the benchmarking processbe focussed on those areas that are most crucial to the success of the University, at theinstitution level, or Faculty and Centre level. Each area of the University should identifypriorities for benchmarking based on strategic imperatives and an appropriate rate of returnfor the investment. Internal, national and international benchmarks should be consideredwhere appropriate, so that over time trends can be determined.

5.3 Resources

All benchmarking endeavours will need to be justified on the basis of the return from theexercise relevant to the investment committed and should be focussed on high level strategicimperatives, where appropriate returns on the investment in benchmarking are to beexpected.

The general principle will be that the University will centrally fund institution-widebenchmarking and Faculties and Centres will fund their own specific needs. The ViceChancellor may be able to provide assistance through formal approaches to other universities

to assist in the formalising of benchmark partners.

5.4 Memorandum of Agreement

ECU subscribes to the AQC Benchmarking Code of Conduct (Refer to Appendix 4: AQCBenchmarking Code of Conduct). Where potential benchmarking partners do not subscribeto this or a similar Code of Conduct, then it may be necessary to consider a Memorandum ofUnderstanding to ensure confidentiality.



11/32

Common Mistakes in Benchmarking

The literature identifies a number of areas where beginners in benchmarking can get intotrouble.

Biting off more that you can chew. Start simple and get some runs on the board

Getting hung up on the numbers. Camp 1994 argues that in the benchmarkingapproach the danger is that: measures are overemphasised and processes areoverlooked and also that what without how is an empty statement. Camp furtherargues that concentration on the measure is really an empty statement until it istraced back to the practice the best practice in the process that achieved theperformance.

Failing to motivate the team. Team commitment is critical to success. The teamwill need support and encouragement.

Insufficient homework and selecting the wrong partner. Partners must be motivatedto review their processes and to compare meaningful information.

Ignoring comparisons outside our industry. Only a few processes are unique toeach industry.

Benchmarking Experience at ECU

ECUs interest in an organisation-wide framework for benchmarking has been developing

since the early 1990s. An example of early activity was discussions held with the Universityof Western Sydney as a potential benchmarking partner. However the need for an overallUniversity wide benchmarking framework has become more evident in the last couple ofyears. Field (2002), in a report on the success of ECUs restructure of faculties, identified theneed for the University to provide support and assistance to develop benchmarks as a matterrequiring attention. The School of Computing and Information Science Area of ScholarshipReview attracted a recommendation which had University wide implications in that assistancewas required at a University wide level to provide Scholarship areas with the necessarybenchmarking support. The Review Panels involved in reviews of the School of PerformingArts and the School of Visual Arts (now Contemporary Arts) Area of Scholarship Reviewsmade similar comments with regard to the need for a benchmarking position to be developedby the University and made available to Schools.

In July 2002 David Woodhouse, CEO, Australian Universities Quality Agency, whileconducting a workshop on AUQA requirements, stressed the importance of universitiesdemonstrating evidence of their claims through benchmarking and that there needed to be abalance between process and outcome benchmarks.

In early 2002 the Vice Chancellor, in dialogue with the Association of CommonwealthUniversities, expressed an interest on behalf of the University in process benchmarking for



12/32

ECU as an institution, with a number of other international and national universities. The VChas furthered this commitment through her written contribution to and personal participation inthe Benchmarking Workshop in Newfoundland, Canada in August 2002. The focus of thisparticular forum was process benchmarking related to governance, student experience andrisk management. (Refer to Appendix 1: Summary of Key Outcomes from ACUBenchmarking Workshops)

The work of McKinnon, Walker and Davis (2000): Benchmarking: A manual for AustralianUniversities has also been useful, particularly in relation to enhancing University governancearrangements.

There is evidence that a number of Faculties and Centres have been undertakingbenchmarking for some time or are in the process of establishing an overall benchmarkingprocess. Appendix 2: Current Benchmarking Experience at ECU) identifies experience inbenchmarking in specific areas, largely conducted in the absence of an overall, Universitywide, coherent framework.

Conclusion

Benchmarking is not a simple process of comparing performance scores on a State/Territoryor national basis, but a process of identifying best practice and seeking to learn from it(Draper & Hill 1995 p 95).

Version: Feb 2004 10


13/32

References

Australian Quality Council. 2001. Benchmarking Training Workshop Notes

Australian Universities Quality Agency. 2002 Audit Manual Version 1. AustralianUniversities Quality Agency.

Camp, R.C. (1994) Planning to deliver high quality goods and services and improve thebusiness. AQC 7th National TQM Conference.

Draper, M. & Hill, S. (1995). What is Benchmarking? Canberra, ACT: AGPS.

Field, R. (2002). Review of the Impact of Faculty Reconfiguration at Edith CowanUniversity.

Heidbreder, J.C. Looking for the light not the heat. Healthcare Forum Journal. JanuaryFebruary 1993.

Macneil. J.C., Testi. J., Cupples. J. & Rimmer. M. (1994). Benchmarking Australia:linking enterprises to world best practice. Longman. Melbourne.

McKinnon, K.R., Walker, S.H., Davis, D. (2000). Department of Education, Training andYouth Affairs; Higher Education Division. Canberra.

Meade, P.H. 1998. A Guide to Benchmarking. The University of Otago, Dunedin.

ODell, C. (1993). Building on received wisdom. Healthcare Forum Journal. JanuaryFebruary 1993.

Prescott, J. Best Practice A part of the Australian Renewal, Maintaining theMomentum. Key Papers from the Best Practice Week, February 1993.

Woodhouse, D. Developing the Quality Audit Process. HERDSA Annual Conference.Perth. July 2002



14/32

Appendix 1: Summary of Key Outcomes from ACU BenchmarkingWorkshops

ECU has participated in three benchmarking conferences organised by the Association of

Commonwealth Universities. The benchmarking provided an opportunity for the University tocompare its practices and policies with those of other universities, and against a series ofgood practice statements.

The first workshop (in New Zealand) in which the Deputy Vice Chancellor participated inMarch 2002, focused on Internationalisation.

The second conference (in Newfoundland in August 2002), attended by the Vice Chancellorfocused on Governance, Risk Management and Student Experience. This exercise alsoprovided the benefit of an independent rating of the participants performance in these threeareas.

The key outcomes of the conferences were as follows:

ECU is performing well, both in terms of good practice standards and in comparisonwith other universities;

There were no areas of significant weakness;

It is noted that the since the Risk Management material was submitted forassessment, further work has been undertaken on the Enterprise Wide RiskManagement policy;

Some of our practices were assessed as being at the leading edge when comparedwith others. This was particularly apparent in the Student Experience area.

Some actions that can be taken by ECU to improve its position even further include:

InternationalisationKey actions which are being undertaken to develop the international program at ECU include:

Balancing our approach by focusing more on internationalisation as a commitmentto overseas aid and the development of the international citizenship of Australianstudents;

Increasing opportunities for staff and student exchanges;

Establishing programs to promote area and language studies across all schools, topromote the international dimension in the curriculum, to improve theinternationalisation of the teaching and learning process and to raise awarenessamongst academic staff of the importance of these issues.



15/32

GovernanceCouncil has already set a number of actions in place. These include:

Finalising the work on the Governance Statement, to further clarify roles andfunctions;

Furthering the work of the Council on consideration of the composition and size ofCouncil;

Progressing the Councils performance assessment process in order to set goalsand objectives.

Risk ManagementSuggested actions included:

Developing a formal risk management implementation strategy incorporatingmaterial suggested by the benchmarking exercise;

Developing of an annual and strategic risk management plan for risk managementfacilitation on operational areas across the University;

Implementing tools to facilitate quick risk management processes where a rapidresponse is required;

Preparing a risk register for reporting significant risks to Council.

These have been progressed through the Quality and Audit Committee.

Student ExperienceActions progressed through the Director, Student Service Centre include:

Including data from the benchmarking exercise into the actions arising from theStudent Experience Survey;

Considering an increase in the level of student participation on Universitycommittees.

The third conference took place in September 2003 in Otago, New Zealand was attended bythe Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic). It focused on

Change Management;

Leadership Development;

Strategic Alliances.

Work has begun on analysing the outcomes, with responsible managers being provided witha set of the good practice statements. We have also self-assessed our performance againsteach of the good practice statements, which highlighted our strengths and areas forimprovement.



16/32

In 2002 ECU took part, along with ten other Universities, in an Association of CommonwealthUniversities (ACU) international benchmarking exercise which included Governance and RiskManagement.

In 2003 ECU benchmarked Leadership Development (at an institutional level) through theAssociation of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) Benchmarking Program.



17/32

Appendix 2: Current Benchmarking Experience at ECU

FACULTY OF REGIONAL PROFESSIONAL STUDIESItem Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking

eg Process, Outcome etc.Date of lastBenchmark

General Comments

Eg, progress, suitability etc

Teaching and Learning(Academic Profile)

Sunshine CoastUniversity

Process & Outcome Has similarities re geography and growth

Teaching and Learning(Academic Profile)

Central QueenslandUniversity (GladstoneCampus)

Process & Outcome Has similarities re geography and growth

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENTItem Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking


General Comments


Teaching National Norms Attempting to benchmark these areas

Research & Performance National Norms Obtaining more information is proving tobe difficult

Research & Performance ANZAM A survey of research in ManagementSchools. Figures suggest the Schoolperforms well in the national context.

SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMSItem Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking


General Comments

Eg, progress, suitability etcCourses Australia Wide - IS

Schools, Departmentsand Units

Outcomes 2003 Data available early 2004

SCHOOL OF PSYCHOLOGYItem Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking


General Comments


1st year undergraduateprogram

University of WesternAustralia

Program comparison throughcourse document analysis andpersonal discussion with coursecoordinator

2002 ECU found to have denser content

Fees for course-work Masters University of Western Direct comparison of fees 2002 UWA students all have exemptions from



18/32

Australia fees

4th year marking guidelines University of WesternAustralia/ University ofQueensland/ University ofSouthern Queensland

Comparison through coursedocument analysis andpersonal discussion with coursecoordinator

2002



19/32

KURONGKURL KATITJINItem Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking


General Comments


Indigenous Coursedevelopment

Ferris University USA Comparison of courses andprocesses through visit to USA

2001

Assessment Audit Internal cross- coursebenchmarking of criteria

2002

SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL, CUTURAL & COMMUNITY STUDIESItem Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking


General Comments


Childrens Studies National ChildrensServices AccreditedPackage

Course accreditation with theNational Childrens ServicesAgencies establishesbenchmark standards for thecourse

On-going

SCHOOL OF EDUCATIONItem Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking


General Comments


Bachelor of Education (EarlyChildhood Studies) Program

Macquarie University Process & Outcome Tocommencelate 2003

Five common areas to be investigatedare structure, sequence and coursecontent;, field experience, studentassessment, student support

JO K-7 Course (School

Practicum Model)

Visit of partner to ECU and

Study Tour of ECU staff to seesimilar arrangements O/S

Jo K-7Course University of Victoria University of Victoria visit toECU to discuss and shareinformation regarding thesimilar Course run in Victoria

ECU visit to University ofVictoria to benchmark the waythe Course was organised andthe content of the curriculum

Further Benchmarkingregarding course outcomes,pass rates, retention rates and

Commence2001

Oct 2001

March 2002

Dec 2002. Jan 2003



20/32

school/university

Benchmarking with Schoolsregarding moderation of marksand student progress is donethrough School UniversityResearch meetings held on aregular basis, a specificmeeting was held onmoderation

Four meetings held in 2002

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND MATHSItem Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking


General Comments


Teaching and Learning (Coursestructure and contents)

University of Adelaide Process & Outcome Is currently in the process of developingprocedures for benchmarking of itsprograms. The School will exchangecourse information and sample exampapers with the School of Electrical andElectronic Engineering at Adelaide inorder to seekfeedback on the course structures andcontents.

Teaching and Learning (Coursestructure and contents)

Victoria University ofTechnology

Process & Outcome The School will exchange courseinformation and sample exam papers. Thfirst feedback on course structures andunit content is being sought

Teaching and Learning(Aviation and Security)

Nottingham Trent Process & Outcome Associate Professor Smith has strongconnections with this institution, has

details of their course offerings and visitregularly.

Teaching and Learning Data from GraduateCareers Council

Process & Outcome Data provided for internal use (GTS -Good Teaching Score, and OSI - OverallSatisfaction Index).

Teaching and Learning(Undergraduate ExchangeArrangements)

Faculty of EngineeringSciences of UlmUniversity, Germany

Process & Outcome The feedback from Ulm and ECU studentis used informally in coursebenchmarking, but more formal use of thfeedback, both from the exchangestudents and their supervisors at theparent institution will be implementedwithin next 12 months.

SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIAItem Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking Date of last General Comments



21/32

eg Process, Outcome etc. Benchmark


Teaching and Learning University of Adelaide Outcome The Tertiary Entrance Rank providessome benchmarking of SC+M againstother similarprogrammes in Western Australia.Undertake benchmarking using CEQ,GDS, TER, and UTEI analysis.



22/32

INTERNATIONAL AND COMMERCIALItem Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking


General Comments


International Activity Association of CommonwealthUniversities

March 2002 The ORS undertakes benchmarking withcomparator institutions to determinerelative strengths and weaknesses in keyareas of research activity.

International Activity National forum of International OfficeDirectors benchmarking

project

2003 A pilot exercise and outcomes werelimited in scope. The pilot study providedvaluable comparisons on the cost of

recruiting students across a range ofcountries and on the value of articulationarrangements. ECU has made acommitment to participate in the projectand anticipates longer-term benefits.

OFFICE OF RESEARCH SERVICESItem Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking


General Comments


Research Activity Comparator Institutions The ORS undertakes benchmarking withcomparator institutions to determinerelative strengths and weaknesses in keyareas of research activity.

STRATEGIC HR:Item Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking


General Comments


University LevelStaff-all age demographic All Sector Selected Unis Age bands No. of staff May 2002

Staff academic classificationprofiles

All Sector Selected Unis FTE in each classification

Staff academic & generalcontract type

All Sector Selected Unis FTE in each category-ongoing-fixed term-sessional

May 2002

Staff qualification-academic All Sector Selected Unis PhD & Higher Degrees June 2002

$ on salary & salary relatedexp./total exp.

All Sector Selected Unis Annual levels/Trends

Staff gender profile All Sector Selected Unis Representation & Distribution June 2002



23/32

Remuneration/Salaries Other Unis Aim NationalSurvey

Representation & Distribution 2002 On demand, salary relativities

Classifications Other Unis/GovOrganisations

2002

HR Processes

Workforce planning Public Sector Network Process & Outcome Every 6 weekmeeting/Annualoverview

Lost time injuriesIncidence rateFrequency rateAverage lost time rateDays lostWorkers compensation costs$100 of wageroll

WorkSafe WesternAustralia.WorkCover WesternAustralia.Higher EducationWestern Australia.Western AustralianUniversities.GO8. Eastern StatesUniversities

Outcome. August 2002 Collection of data across states variesThese indicators measure past eventsAttempts are being made toencourage other Eastern Statesuniversities.Allow for a standard measurement inline with Australian Standards & thatof all statutory authorities.

Proposed items to bebenchmarked

With Whom

Absenteeism WA GovernmentAgencies

Public Sector/New Gen UnisStandard measures needed

Turnover WA GovernmentAgencies

Public Sector/New Gen UnisStandard measures needed

Staff Survey items Deakin + broadPublic sector satisfaction& positive safe workingenvironment

360 managerial/leadershipbehaviour

QUT, Curtin plus other Unisbehaviour

Lost time injuries of 5 days andmore.

Higher EducationWestern Australia.Western AustralianUniversities.GO8. Eastern StatesUniversities.

Process & Outcome. Collection of data across states varies

Average lost time rateexcluding injuries greater than20 days.

As above. Process & Outcome. Allows the opportunity to remove biasfrom calculations avoiding skewedresults.

Employees returned to full timealternative duties:

Existing organisation; &

Alternative organisation

As above. Process & Outcome. Test the rehabilitation system andprocess.



24/32

STUDENT SERVICES CENTREItem Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking


General Comments


Health Services Student / Staff / Comm Quality Assurance Survey April 02 Follow on to previous students conducteduring 93 / 97 / 00

Health Services AGPAL patient survey Process and procedure July 02 Conducted in accordance with Standardsfor General Practice 2nd Edition

Cashier University of SA Resources Jan 2002 Student Central comparisons only validwith Uni SA similar mix of services acroscounter.

Switchboard Uni Western Sydney Process All other comparisons are valid forindividual functional areas.

Student Central Griffith Service rangeStudent Counselling Deakin Hours

Careers Advisory Service Uni WollongongCurtinUWAMurdoch

Callista Post ImplementationSupport

QUTMurdochMonashQueensland Uni

Student Admin Nil Nil Nil Nil


With Whom

Student record keeping UWAMurdochCurtin

Process

FINANCE & BUSINESS SERVICESItem Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking


General Comments


Operating Expenses beforeAbnormal Items ( $'000)

Post 1987 Universities Outcome 99/2000 Comparative Expenditure by ExpenseCategory

Operating Expenses beforeAbnormal Items ( %)

Post 1987 Universities Outcome 99/2000 Comparative Expenditure by ExpenseCategory



25/32

SECRETARIAT, CORPORATE SUPPORT CENTREItem Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking


General Comments


Leadership and Governance 12 other universities withcomments by assessor

Mainly process oriented; theUniversity responded to aseries of questions. From theresponses and responses madeby other the universities (whichwere drawn from severalcountries) a draft model of

good practice was developedby the assessor

2002 Done through the Association of Commonwealth UniversitiesBenchmarking Programme 2002.The University scored well in thecomparison and expects to learn fromthe good practice model

Records ManagementServices

Australian Standard forRecords Managementprepared by StandardsAustralia

Process oriented, to ensureUniversity practice aligns withthe Standard

ongoing The Standard represents best practiceand is appropriate for the University


With Whom

Records ManagementServices

Operational Review Primarily process oriented Review of operations to be undertaken in2002 by external consultant; aim is toimprove operations and service levels.

RISK MANAGEMENT & AUDIT ASSURANCEItem Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking


General Comments


Risk Management Association of Commonwealth

UniversitiesOutcome March

2002

1. Results received in August 2002.2. Commenced development of action

plan.

Audit Assurance Institute of InternalAuditors (IIA)/ Associationof College and UniversityAuditors (ACUA)

Process

August 2002 1. This is available as a result of ECUsmembership of ACUA.

2. Has segment specific data forUniversities courtesy of theAssociation of College and UniversityAuditors (ACUA).

3. The process (known as GAIN) isinternationally recognised and willallow comparisons with otherUniversities and industries.

4. Data submitted in August 2002.



26/32

Awaiting feedback.



27/32

LEARNING DEVELOPMENT SERVICESItem Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking


General Comments


LDS: University PreparationCourse

Previous Year UEI and TEIFull Unit Average Scoresat ECU

Outcome: UEI Unit Sub-scalescoresOutcome: TEI Unit sub-scaleScores

20012002

Very useful. Unfortunately the 2001 and2002 benchmarks will no longer berelevant due to implementation of newscale in 2003

Online (Blackboard) Units Previous semesters BBunits(internal)

Outcome: NumberOutcome: Type

2002 It is intended that this benchmarkingactivity will provide data for Strategic PlaPIs concerning online and flexible

learning.Learning Management Systems Members of NCODE-FLA

(approx 30 universities)Outcome: Type 2002 Valuable benchmarking across the highe

education e-learning sector

KNOWLEDGE & IT SERVICE CENTREItem Benchmarked With Whom Type of Benchmarking


General Comments


Library Services Members of theAustralian UniversityLibrarians

On-going benchmarks ontopical issues are benchmarkedregularly and reported on theweb siteswww.caul.edu.au

Dec 2001 CAUL benchmarks are most useful. TheLibrary has benchmarked efficiency andexpenditure. These statistics enablebenchmarking of quantitative data withother comparable institutions.

IT Services Members of theCommittee of AustralianUniversity Directors of IT

On-going benchmarks ontopical issues are benchmarkedregularly and reported on theweb siteswww.caudit.edu.au

Dec 2001 CAUDIT need to develop outcomebenchmarks ASAP. ECU is playing acentral role in the benchmarking programto develop a range of input and outputmeasures of IT services.



28/32

Appendix 3: List of Universities for Benchmarking

Australian Catholic University

Central Queensland University

Charles Sturt University

Deakin University

Griffith University

Northern Territory University

Southern Cross University

Swinburne University of Technology

University of Ballarat

University of Canberra

University of South Australia

University of Southern Queensland

University of Western Sydney

Victoria University of Technology

NEW GENERATION UNIVERSITIES

Australian Catholic University;

Central Queensland University;

Southern Cross University;

University of Ballarat;

University of Canberra;

University of South Australia;

University of the Sunshine Coast;

University of Western Sydney;

http://www.acu.edu.au/http://www.cqu.edu.au/http://www.scu.edu.au/http://www.ballarat.edu.au/http://www.ballarat.edu.au/http://www.canberra.edu.au/http://www.unisa.edu.au/http://www.usc.edu.au/http://www.usc.edu.au/http://www.uws.edu.au/http://www.cqu.edu.au/http://www.scu.edu.au/http://www.ballarat.edu.au/http://www.canberra.edu.au/http://www.unisa.edu.au/http://www.usc.edu.au/http://www.uws.edu.au/http://www.acu.edu.au/


29/32

Victoria University of Technology.

http://www.vu.edu.au/http://www.vu.edu.au/


30/32

OTHER UNIVERSITIESThe following Universities possess characteristics similar to ECU for example: haveenrolments of between 15-30,000 students; are multicampus; have a high number of matureage and part time students; similar levels of earnings outside Commonwealth funding; and

smaller numbers ofpostgraduate students generally, and Higher Degree by Researchstudents in particular. These institutions may be suitable to benchmark against particularlywith respect to ECU's Key Performance Indicators (Refer to Appendix 5: Key PerformanceIndicators).

Central Queensland University;

Charles Sturt University;

Deakin University;

University of Western Sydney;

University of South Australia.

Victoria University;



31/32

Appendix 4: AQC Benchmarking Code of Conduct

Keep it legal

Be willing to give what you get

Respect confidentiality

Keep information internal

Use benchmarking contacts

Dont refer without permission

Be prepared from the start

Understand expectations

Be honest

Follow through with commitments



32/32

Appendix 5: Key Performance Indicators

ECUs Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), identify a broad set of 17 KPIs (Core and

Management) for the use of Senior Executive Management, explicitly linked to the StrategicPriorities in the ECU Strategic Plan 2003-2007. These are set out in the table below anddocumented more fully at https://www.ecu.edu.au/GPPS/policy_planning/KPI070703.pdf

KPI Indicator Type KPI Indicator Name

Core Indicators (CIs) 1. Course Satisfaction2. Courses Accredited by Professional Bodies3. Growth in First Preference Share4. Staff Satisfaction Indicator5. Diversification of Income Base

6. International Student LoadManagement Indicators (MIs) 1. Undergraduate Retention2. Quality of Teaching (CEQ)3. Graduate Employment4. A) UTEI (Teaching)

B) UTEI (Unit Content)5. Publications6. Research Funding7. Higher Degree Completions8. Executive Membership of Professional Bodies9. Student Satisfaction Indicator

10.Graduate Distribution across Major Fields ofStudy11.Voluntary Staff Separations

Faculties and Centres may also wish to include other indicators of relevance to their operations.

bench marking framework feb04

Documents