Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Student Affairs Assessment Council Wednesday, October 28, 2015.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Student Affairs Assessment Council Wednesday, October 28, 2015."— Presentation transcript:

1 Student Affairs Assessment Council Wednesday, October 28, 2015

2 Benchmarking is the “continuous systematic process for evaluating products, services, and work processes of organizations that are recognized as representing best practices for the purposes of organizational improvement.” -Spendolini, 1992

3  Justify programs/services within student affairs  Improve quality  Demonstrate affordability  Develop strategic plans  Formulate policy  Aid in making decisions

4  Internal: making comparisons within an organization  Competitive: examines performance against peer or competitor organizations  Functional: looking at high performing processes across the industry  Generic: looks at organizations outside of one’s field/industry

5 Best practices are typically the finest examples of process, program delivery, or methods in a given area that produce the highest known quality outcomes. -Palomba & Banta, 1999

6  Usually determined by those meeting and exceeding a list of criteria  Can also be referred to as performance indicators  Can also be referred to as benchmarks  Can also be referred to as standards  Whatever you choose for the benchmarking project you undertake—define your term and be transparent.

7  An indicator is “a relevant, easily calculable statistic that reflects the overall condition of an enterprise.” –Ewell, 1997  Easily calculable = easily calculable across institutions  Note that learning/developmental outcomes generally cannot be evaluated by performance indicators such as retention rates, graduation rates, and faculty-to-student ratio.  Indicators do not inform anyone as to the cause of the value found in the program—nor do they indicate how to improve.  USE indicators as measures, but we must incorporate student learning/development outcomes

8  Comparative  Data intended to be public (for better or worse)  Intended to learn about what you can improve

9  Are you going to share the information publicly? If so, with whom?  Are you benchmarking services and processes or student learning and development?  Is there national data that can help benchmarking data be more legitimate? Examples include:  NSSE  College & University Counseling Center Directors Data Bank  EBI surveys  American College Health Association Survey  National Association of Colleges & Employers Career Services surveys  Which institutions allow you to compare yourself in a meaningful manner?

10  University of Connecticut  University of Pittsburgh  Syracuse University  Temple University  University of Illinois @ Chicago  George Mason University  University of Alabama @ Birmingham  University of South Florida  University of Houston

11  Define the problem  Make sure benchmarking is appropriate  Determine what to benchmark  Choose who should be involved in the benchmarking project  Select comparable organizations  Determine what information will be collected  Determine how the information will be collected  Analyze the data  Take action  Assess the action taken

12  In student affairs, problems can be identified through:  Student use studies  Student satisfaction studies  Student needs studies  Reviews  Change in resources  Realignments/reorganizations  Change in law, policy, procedure  Crisis or emergency situations  Feedback from various constituents

13  Ask yourself: Can information from other organizations help my organization and help me achieve my outcome?  Must do preliminary investigation; you’ll need to find out if other organizations have been successful in whatever you are researching.

14  Remember:  Product, service or process  Product = educational program

15  People directly affected by process should be involved from the very beginning  Process should involve staff (or students) who deal directly with the problem  If staff (or students) are involved from the beginning, there will be greater ownership of the results and a greater likelihood that solutions will be implemented.

16  In general, use peer institutions  Can also use:  Programs, services, processes which are similar to your own  Reputations for quality programs, services, or products  Valid information to offer  Hearsay v. Evidence  Reliable information to offer  Can’t always just look at websites; need to ask for data/assessment results  Leadership which values benchmarking  Don’t forget…help other institutions out! You may be calling them in a year for info.  It is important to note that despite comparable characteristics (institution size, academic functions) student affairs divisions may be VERY different. Try, as much as possible, to compare oranges to oranges.

17  Determine what information is needed to improve the program, service or process  Develop a format/protocol which provides a framework within which information can be gathered

18  Telephone interviews  Personal meetings/site visits  Surveys  Document/publication review  Archival information

19  Code = look for themes  Be sure to ask yourself....  “what didn’t they tell us…and why?”  Be sure to address the problem identified initially  Include specific recommendations AND solutions

20  Easiest action = those that save resources, or require little to no additional resources  More difficult action = when significant resources are required to solve the problem  Discuss this with leadership PRIOR to benchmarking process. If no resources are available, then what?

21  Did the action taken actually solve the problem?

22  Needs to be done correctly, or not at all  Process should involve those who are directly affected  Process should have support and commitment of the leadership of the organization  Use organizations that are comparable, willing to participate, and can offer reliable/valid information

23  http://www.case.org/Samples_Research_and_Tools/Benchmarking_and_Research/ Benchmarking_Resources/CASE_Benchmarking_Toolkit/Alumni_Relations_Bench marking_Template.html http://www.case.org/Samples_Research_and_Tools/Benchmarking_and_Research/ Benchmarking_Resources/CASE_Benchmarking_Toolkit/Alumni_Relations_Bench marking_Template.html  http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/docs/case-studies/uk-and-international- case-studies-of-practice-in-student-support.pdf?sfvrsn=18 http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/docs/case-studies/uk-and-international- case-studies-of-practice-in-student-support.pdf?sfvrsn=18  http://www.planning.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/20657/Examples- of-Benchmarking-Reports-in-Higher-Education-Membership.pdf http://www.planning.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/20657/Examples- of-Benchmarking-Reports-in-Higher-Education-Membership.pdf

24  Alstete, J. W. (1995). Benchmarking in higher education: Adapting best practices to improve quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  Ewell, P. T. (1997b). Identifying indicators of curricular quality. In G. J. Gaff, L. J. Ratfcliff and Associates, Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum: A comprehensive guide to purposes, structures, practices, and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  Palomba, C. A., and Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  Spendolini, M. J. (1992). The benchmarking book. New York: Amacom.  Upcraft, M. L., & Schuh, J. H. (1996). Assessment in student affairs: A guide for practitioners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Download ppt "Student Affairs Assessment Council Wednesday, October 28, 2015."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google