1. International Benchmarking in UK Higher Education HESA International Benchmarking Conference 20 th July 2011

2. © PA Knowledge Limited 2011. Page 2 Business drivers for international benchmarking Benchmarking is not an end in itself. It is worth doing to:  Support universities’ internationalisation strategies and plans  Understand relative strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats  Inform decisions about objectives, priorities and targets  Manage international performance, through relevant KPIs: ThemeIndicators STUDENTSOverseas as % total UG Overseas as % total PGT Overseas as % total PGR No. of countries of origin (all students) Overseas student perceptions/experiences STAFF International as % total academic staff International as % professors/chairs % UK staff with overseas experience No. of countries of origin (all acad. staff) International staff perceptions/experiences RESEARCH % research awards from non-UK sponsors % research projects with overseas partners % research undertaken overseas No./value of projects for multinational corporations. PARTNERSHIPS No. of MoUs with overseas HEIs Membership of international HE networks No. of countries in which university is present

3. © PA Knowledge Limited 2011. Page 3 Available resources for international benchmarking There is a plethora of public and proprietary resources available for international HE benchmarking:  Global league tables and institutional rankings  Cross-country institutional process comparisons  Proprietary analyses of institutional performance  Reviews of international and national market trends and intelligence  Sources of national market data  New initiatives and developments –IMPI –U-Map and U-multirank –EUMIDA

4. © PA Knowledge Limited 2011. Page 4 Caveat emptor! There are real dangers from taking international data sources at face value, re:  Comparability  Comprehensiveness  Timeliness  Methodologies

5. © PA Knowledge Limited 2011. Page 5 Experiences from UK institutions UK universities vary greatly in their use of international benchmarking. Feedback from institutions highlighted:  Widely differing levels of maturity in internationalisation  Intra-national rather than international comparators  Ambivalence over international league tables  Benefits from mission-specific ‘drill down’  Value of collaborations and partnerships  Information gaps, e.g. employability

6. © PA Knowledge Limited 2011. Page 6 Conclusions International benchmarking is an evolving science and art for UK higher education. Priorities for institutions should include:  Adopting a genuinely international perspective  Tailoring approaches to business priorities  Identifying relevant, reliable information sources  Collaborative development of better resources and shared learning