Quality Management at Murdoch University

Benchmarking

Benchmarking is a process for comparing performance and can focus on strategies, activities, programs, and outcomes. It provides a reference point about where we stand in relation to others, and helps to identifying gaps and ways to respond. The information gained can help to drive continuous improvement. Benchmarking helps to ascertain to what extent an area or organisation is achieving it aims. John Owen describes the key questions for benchmarking as follows.

Who is doing best?
How are they doing it?
How well are we doing relative to the best?
How good do we want to be, relative to the best? (Owen, 1999,180).

Benchmarking can take at least three forms including internal, competitive and generic as identified by Upcraft and Schuh (in Doerfel and Ruben 2002). “Internal benchmarking refers to making comparisons between units within the institutions. Competitive and generic benchmarking refers to identifying best practices of other organizations. Competitive benchmarking involves comparisons with direct competitors, whereas generic benchmarking involves organisations that are not direct competitors but share similar organisational practices and procedures” (Doerfel and Ruben 2002, 6-7). The type of benchmarking adopted depends on the purpose, process, resources and available data. The data collected can be quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of the two.

Schools and departments could use a variety of strategies for internal benchmarking. One option is a form of reflective self-assessment such as the approach suggested by McKinnon, Walker and Davis (2000). [see http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/indexes/publications_title.htm ] This involves determining what constitutes ‘good practice’, and then to what extent ‘good practice’ has been achieved. Figure 1 below is one example. It shows five levels of performance by which a university or school could rate themselves.

Figure 1 (reproduced from McKinnon, Walker and Davis, 2000, p. 79).

Benchmark: 6.3
Area: Teaching Quality

The institution has very little or no peer or student review of teaching

50 per cent of the staff demonstrate a scholarly approach.

Promotion and reward practices have no obvious link to effective teaching

The institution has peer and/or student review of teaching in at least 50 per cent of academic units.

70 per cent of the staff demonstrate a scholarly approach.

Promotion and reward practices have some link to effective, scholarly teaching

The institution has regular peer and/or student review of teaching in 90 per cent of academic units.

More than 90 per cent of the staff demonstrate a scholarly approach

Promotion and reward practices are linked to the most effective, scholarly teaching.

Another strategy that can be used for internal institutional, or programme benchmarking consists of time series comparisons (first to second year retention rates for example) to determine trends over time (eg 5-year series). Such a comparison could show improvement, stability or regression. The trends could then be explained, and appropriate actions or responses determined.

Benchmarking can also involve comparisons with institutions or programs considered to be examples of best practice, or leaders in the field. Strategies for improvement could subsequently be developed based on the findings. The University of Sydney and Monash University, for example, embarked on a benchmarking exercise to compare the teaching and research nexus. It involved a formalised agreement, with data gathered within each institution. The report can be accessed at http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/cheq/academic/.

However, benchmarking can also be undertaken using widely available secondary data sources such as the national Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) and Graduate Destination Survey (GDS. The data is particularly useful when comparing similar institutions for example Murdoch University with other Innovative Research Institutions (IRU)(see http://www.irua.edu.au/ ). However, the Australian Vice-Chancellor’s Committee (AV-CC) and GCCA Code of Practice (2001) points out that when using CEQ and GDS data for comparative purposes “the most effective level is between like fields of study amongst institutions with similar survey response rates, with like student demographics, and in like labour markets” [http://www.avcc.edu.au/archive/policies/statistics_survey_management/avcc_gcca_surveys_code_practice/gdsceqcp.htm] and as Paul Ramsden pointed out “it is generally meaningless to make comparisons except within fields of study (Ramsden, 2003).

References

Australian Vice-Chancellor’s Committee and Graduate Careers Council of Australia. (2001). ‘Code of Practice for the public disclosure of data from the Graduate Careers Council of Australia’s Graduate Destination Survey, Course Experience Questionnaire and Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire’. Canberra.

Doerfel M. and Ruben, B. (2002). ‘Developing More Adaptive, Innovative, and Interactive Organisation’, in Bender, B and Schuh, H. (eds.). Using Benchmarking to Inform Practice in Higher Education, New Directions for Higher Education, No. 118, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

McKinnon, K., Walker, S. and Davis, D. (2000). Benchmarking; A Manual for Australian Universities, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra. [Available on-line at:
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/indexes/publications_title.htm ]

Owen, J. (1999). Program Evaluation 2nd Edition, Allen &Unwin, Crows Nest.

Ramsden, P. (2003). ‘Student Surveys and Quality Assurance’, Australian Universities Quality Forum, Melbourne, 13 June. [Available on-line at:
http://www.auqa.edu.au./auqf/2003/program/papers/Ramsden.pdf ]