No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
BENCHMARKING IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A FRAMEWORK FOR BENCHMARKING FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PURPOSES
Abstract
ABSTRACT
... standards (Bridgland & Goodacre, 2005;Massaro, 1998). According to Schofield (1998), Almost all such approaches to quality management emphasise evaluation, and broadly this can only be undertaken in four main ways: against defined objectives or standards (whether set internally or by external funding bodies); against measures of customer satisfaction; against expert and professional judgement; and against comparator organisations; with analysis in all four approaches being undertaken over a defined time scale. ...
... It is process-driven (attainment of improvement) and variance-driven (need for improvement) (Moriarty, 2011). A scan of the literature indicates that formal benchmarking is a continuous, formal and structured systematic evaluative tool to search, identify and understand practices leading to self-improvement and the setting of institutional goals through the measurements and analysis of products, services, and practices' of one organisation with competitors or acknowledged sector leaders (Anand & Kodali, 2008;Bridgland & Goodacre, 2005;Boxwell, 1994;Camp & De Toro, 1999;Ettorchi-Tardy et al., 2012;Kumar et al., 2006;Meade, 2007;Zairi, 1994). It is a quality-based technique that provides a roadmap that links and aligns organisational action and planning to mission, vision and values (Bridgland & Goodacre, 2005). ...
... A scan of the literature indicates that formal benchmarking is a continuous, formal and structured systematic evaluative tool to search, identify and understand practices leading to self-improvement and the setting of institutional goals through the measurements and analysis of products, services, and practices' of one organisation with competitors or acknowledged sector leaders (Anand & Kodali, 2008;Bridgland & Goodacre, 2005;Boxwell, 1994;Camp & De Toro, 1999;Ettorchi-Tardy et al., 2012;Kumar et al., 2006;Meade, 2007;Zairi, 1994). It is a quality-based technique that provides a roadmap that links and aligns organisational action and planning to mission, vision and values (Bridgland & Goodacre, 2005). Further, according to Tertiary Education Quality & Standards Agency [TEQSA], 2017: ...
Benchmarking by higher education institutions (HEIs) has been evolving for some time in Australia and New Zealand. Earlier efforts were focused on improving reputation, but now benchmarking has become a required component of higher education quality assurance, or regulatory compliance schemes. ACODE's benchmarking framework and the ACODE Benchmarks provide Australasian HEIs with the ability to review their technology enhanced learning (TEL) practices and decision-making against what is considered “good” practice. The ACODE benchmarking framework and its benchmarks also allow HEIs to inform quality audit, or regulatory compliance reporting by HEIs to maintain institutional recognition and demonstrate performance against threshold or other specific performance standards. ACODE's benchmarking framework and benchmarks are recognized as influencers in benchmarking practice. However, there is a need to generate empirical data to demonstrate its leadership role and review the benchmarks for present purposes and to determine how they are used by HEIs. Thus, in effect, this case study represents a view of the increasing importance of benchmarking in higher education quality assurance schemes—at least in some national sectors—through the lens of benchmarking the benchmarks. The case presents the ongoing efforts, providing available data from one completed round and a still to be completed second round of what has become a biennial exercise. Findings so far suggest increasing interest in using the ACODE benchmarks to assist in determining performance within HEI TEL-related issues and in HEI participation in the benchmarking the benchmarks exercise as a means of learning from each other's practice.
... The emergence of internationally minded schools and the birth of public and private schools offering superior facilities, attractive learning programs, even at a reasonable cost, can add to the increased educational competition (Kustian et al., 2018) Educational institutions need to benchmark against similar businesses, university benchmarking results can also serve to improve processes in all divisions, improve university level, contribute to promotion for determining university strategy, and can contribute to the physical assessment of infrastructure. This is done to provide a better quality of education that will also affect the sustainability of the education industry (Bridgland & Goodacre, 2005;Caeiro et al., 2020;Gheorghe & Nicolae, 2015;Khalil et al., 2015;Oliveira & Figueira, 2017;Robertson & Trahn, 1997;Tijssen et al., 2009). ...
... Reaching this benchmark will reduce energy costs across the system by twenty-five percent 30 (Kimura et al., 2017) Hong Kong Process The proposed benchmark recognizes the complexity of the use of English in the classroom, thus using four types of scales to accommodate the linguistic features of teacher language proficiency. 31 (Pham & (Bridgland & Goodacre, 2005) shows that when implementing the expected benchmarking, documentation, and validation program, this is useful as input for the planning process to create the expected quality assurance. Benchmarking is an important part of educational institutions, therefore (Henderson-Smart et al., 2006) offer a model that can be applied to all levels of education from primary to tertiary education. ...
Benchmarking is a systematic and continuous process by
comparing the products, processes, and results of an
organization with other similar organizations.
Benchmarking is generally done by comparing it to an
organization that has a better level because it aims to
provide input for internal improvement in the organization
so that it becomes better than the position before the
benchmarking was done. Educational institutions also need
to carry out a benchmarking process as this can contribute
to determining learning and promotion strategies,
improving the learning process and curriculum
development, improving physical infrastructure facilities,
improving operations, performance. In this study, the
method used is a literature review of 35 journals, then the
classification is done based on the country and the type of
benchmark performed. The results show that until 2020 the
benchmarking process is still being carried out and
continues to be carried out in various countries, both in
developed countries to developing countries. However,
from the literature that has been reviewed, there are still
gaps to examine the strengths and weaknesses of higher
education in terms of implementing the digitalization of
educational systems, the quality of graduates with a digital
education system, and implementing digital libraries in
universities. Types of benchmarking processes and
benchmarking strategies can be carried out to research the
implementation of digital education, this is because it is a
type of benchmarking process and strategy that can
determine global competition
... Benchmarking Benchmarking in HE has been evolving for some time across many levels of practice, at both the discipline level and the business or practice level (for example, the application of TEL). Earlier efforts focused on reputation, but now, benchmarking has become a required component of HE quality assurance, or regulatory compliance schemes (Bridgland & Goodacre, 2005). This is seen quite starkly in Australia, where the quality agency TEQSA (the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency) has developed the Guidance Note: External Referencing (including benchmarking), which provides the sector with clear directions about what is expected of institutions in their "monitoring, review and improvement processes" (TEQSA, 2019). ...
... Early forms of benchmarking in the HE sector were seen first in North America in the early 1990s, then in Australia, the UK and continental Europe by about 2000 (Jackson, 2001). This early use was mostly as a continuous improvement tool in response to the introduction of quality standards (Bridgland & Goodacre, 2005;Massaro, 1998). ...
This chapter analyses global, national and local policy and practice discourses in
open educational resources (OER) and open educational practices (OEP) through
equity and social justice lenses. It also situates these analyses in pre-COVID-19
and emerging COVID-19 pandemic conditions. At the time of writing, the
escalating coronavirus pandemic had ushered in a “new normal” for education
systems worldwide. Near-universal school closures affecting 192 countries and
impacting more than 60% of the world’s student population (UNESCO, 2020d)
heightened concerns about the vulnerability of many countries to significant
long-term learning losses. Increasing cases of teenage pregnancy, higher
school dropout rates, and students falling behind in curriculum learning as a
consequence of school closures have led some to anticipate losses of 1–1.5 years of
formal education, and have elicited projections of deepening education inequality
(Kaffenberger, 2020; World Bank, 2020). It takes stock of the way OER and related OEP policy and practice were historically conceptualised to meet the access, quality, equity and
inclusion imperatives of SDG4, particularly in Commonwealth countries. These
policies and practices are also viewed through a COVID-19 lens by examining
the way they are positioned in global and local responses to COVID-19
pandemic conditions. Its guiding questions are:
4. How have OER and related OEP policies, in their various forms, been
conceptualised historically to meet the education access, quality, equity
and inclusion imperatives of SDG4?
5. How are OER and related OEP policies positioned in global and local
education responses to COVID-19 emergency conditions?
6. What are the implications for the present-day and future imagining of
OER and OEP in a COVID-19 world and beyond?
In answering these questions, critical reflection is undertaken based on a
purposive sample of OER and OEP policy instruments and practices, compared
with a sample of OER- and OEP-linked education responses to the COVID-19
reality.
... Benchmarking Benchmarking in HE has been evolving for some time across many levels of practice, at both the discipline level and the business or practice level (for example, the application of TEL). Earlier efforts focused on reputation, but now, benchmarking has become a required component of HE quality assurance, or regulatory compliance schemes (Bridgland & Goodacre, 2005). This is seen quite starkly in Australia, where the quality agency TEQSA (the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency) has developed the Guidance Note: External Referencing (including benchmarking), which provides the sector with clear directions about what is expected of institutions in their "monitoring, review and improvement processes" (TEQSA, 2019). ...
... Early forms of benchmarking in the HE sector were seen first in North America in the early 1990s, then in Australia, the UK and continental Europe by about 2000 (Jackson, 2001). This early use was mostly as a continuous improvement tool in response to the introduction of quality standards (Bridgland & Goodacre, 2005;Massaro, 1998). ...
This chapter analyses global, national and local policy and practice discourses in
open educational resources (OER) and open educational practices (OEP) through
equity and social justice lenses. It takes stock of the way OER and related OEP policy and practice were historically conceptualised to meet the access, quality, equity and
inclusion imperatives of SDG4, particularly in Commonwealth countries. These
policies and practices are also viewed through a COVID-19 lens by examining
the way they are positioned in global and local responses to COVID-19
pandemic conditions. Its guiding questions are:
4. How have OER and related OEP policies, in their various forms, been
conceptualised historically to meet the education access, quality, equity
and inclusion imperatives of SDG4?
5. How are OER and related OEP policies positioned in global and local
education responses to COVID-19 emergency conditions?
6. What are the implications for the present-day and future imagining of
OER and OEP in a COVID-19 world and beyond?
In answering these questions, critical reflection is undertaken based on a
purposive sample of OER and OEP policy instruments and practices, compared with a sample of OER- and OEP-linked education responses to the COVID-19
reality. It found that in all the policies examined, there were links to their
aspirational intent and attempts to integrate the policies as practice — and in
some cases, also as agency. The latter was more evident in the OER approaches
from below. It also found interconnections between global, national and local
policy and practices before and during COVID-19. Moreover, it found that there
is growing opportunity for OER during COVID-19, and a burgeoning interest
in OEP, particularly in the quest for a new imagining of learning, teaching and
education delivery under increasingly unequal condition. It recommends a research agenda that monitors OER and OEP policies as social practices during and beyond a COVID-19 world, focused mainly on ways in which growing education inequality and exclusion can be disrupted.
... Benchmarking Benchmarking in HE has been evolving for some time across many levels of practice, at both the discipline level and the business or practice level (for example, the application of TEL). Earlier efforts focused on reputation, but now, benchmarking has become a required component of HE quality assurance, or regulatory compliance schemes (Bridgland & Goodacre, 2005). This is seen quite starkly in Australia, where the quality agency TEQSA (the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency) has developed the Guidance Note: External Referencing (including benchmarking), which provides the sector with clear directions about what is expected of institutions in their "monitoring, review and improvement processes" (TEQSA, 2019). ...
... Early forms of benchmarking in the HE sector were seen first in North America in the early 1990s, then in Australia, the UK and continental Europe by about 2000 (Jackson, 2001). This early use was mostly as a continuous improvement tool in response to the introduction of quality standards (Bridgland & Goodacre, 2005;Massaro, 1998). ...
The practice of institutions adopting technology-enabled learning (TEL) has been steadily increasing in momentum for a good two decades now. Although there are many similarities in the way institutions implement TEL, there are also many inconsistencies (Anthony, 2012). In many cases, these inconsistencies are brought to an institution’s attention when students comment on the irregularities they experience in the varied approaches taken to teaching with TEL. A number of institutions, professional bodies and associations have recognised this and have begun to establish a range of quality assurance mechanisms to assist higher
education (HE) institutions in aspiring to a greater level of consistency in their TEL practice, at both the macro level (across the whole institution) and the micro level (at the individual course/unit level)
... Across Europe, benchmarking has been done through the EU Bologna Process, which seeks to promote curriculum reform, quality assurance, qualifications frameworks & recognition, mobility and social equity in the European Higher Education (Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), 2008). In the USA, the practice has elicited a number of publications (Farquhar, 1998) while in the 1990's, benchmarking HE was visible in Australia in pursuit of quality assurance (Bridgland and Goodacre, 2003) and the promotion of efficiency and effectiveness in operations. ...
This study investigated the quality of undergraduate computing curricula at Kenyan universities, how they compare locally and regionally with equivalent programs and how closely they meet the ICT sector needs. It was guided by four objectives i.e. to undertake an ontological mapping of computing curricula, to identify appropriate benchmarking criteria, to develop and test a benchmarking tool, and to investigate the alignment of these curricula to computing skills requirement. The study was deemed important by the plethora of academic computing programs of varying degrees of utility and credibility, which are a product of the escalating demand for computing education in Kenya given the development of Vision 2030 and the rapid growth of the ICT industry. To achieve its objectives, the study adopted a quantitative and qualitative cross-sectional descriptive survey of computing curricula offered locally (in Kenya) and regionally (from best practicing countries, USA and India). A sample of 70.3% was drawn from the target population for ontological mapping. Two research instruments, i.e. a questionnaire and a document analysis framework that were administered to a cross-section of 11 public/private universities. The study established that there are 24 undergraduate computing programs under 6 titles, viz. BSc., BCom., BTech., BB., BEd. and BEng. The two most populous programs are BSc. Computer Science (CS) and BSc. Information Technology (IT), which were selected to help identify two benchmarking criteria: Percent weight allocation of core hours within ACM knowledge areas and Relative performance capabilities of computing graduates. Using these criteria a benchmarking tool was developed and tested, which depicted disparities among the respondents in the percent weight allocation of core hours in CS programs. Similarly, it portrayed overlaps in the relative performance capabilities of CS and IT graduates, an outcome that queried the uniqueness of these programs. As such, its results indicate that the quality of the two computing programs is relatively insufficient. However, it further establishes that the computing curricula are aligned to meet the top 3 highly demanded computing skills i.e. Networking, Software development and Internet skills albeit insufficient percent weight allocation of core hours in Software development. It therefore recommends further testing and refining of the established benchmarking tool, the need to re-focus the computing programs and supports the call to institute a regulatory body and qualifications framework for computing education and skills.Â
... @BULLET Establish baseline standards (Thomas, 1995) by " setting goals by using objective, external standards and learning from others – learning how much and […] learning how " (Boxwell, 1994, p. 17) and integration within a comprehensive and participatory policy of continuous quality improvement (Ettorchi-Tardy et al., 2012). @BULLET Identify and fill gaps in performance by looking at measurements (the what) and practices (the how) leading to superior performance through implementation of best practice, definition of a practical vision and provision of a roadmap linked to mission, vision and values (Kanji and Asher, 1996; Benc, 2003, as cited in Bridgland and Goodacre, 2005). McKinnon et al. (2000, p. 4) laid out the benefit of benchmarking to Australian universities. ...
Purpose
This paper aims to present findings from a benchmarking exercise by 24 higher education institutions (HEIs) about the use of the Australasian Council on Open, Distance and e-learning (ACODE) Benchmarks and its benchmarking process to provide data about technology-enhanced learning (TEL) environments.
Design/methodology/approach
Results of the first instalment of a major benchmarking activity of the robustness of the benchmarks and of the benchmarking process itself based on two surveys provided participants, one during the collaborative session between participants from the 24 HEIs and nine months later.
Findings
The most important conclusion was the interest and usefulness of the benchmarks for participating HEIs, especially the sharing of information between HEIs. Six recommendations from the data indicated the desire to formally endorse the benchmarks, facilitate a formal benchmarking activity every two years, postpone the merger of four benchmarks into two and create more online tools to share practice.
Research limitations/implications
Data were collected and analysed through non-validated surveys based on ACODE’s need-to-know to develop baselines specific to the usefulness of the benchmarks themselves, the benchmarking process itself and next steps.
Practical implications
This paper provides a comparative view of how 24 universities approach online education and their use of the ACODE Benchmarks and how they facilitate HEI regulatory compliance.
Social implications
ACODE Benchmarks are one of few institution-wide quality improvement tools or frameworks for TEL available for universities to use. The benchmarking exercise provides a process through which HEIs can learn from each other how to improve their approaches to e-learning activities to better serve student learning needs.
Originality/value
Reporting of how universities seen as leading practitioners in TEL pursue good/best practice, decision-making and reporting.
... The ACODE benchmarks were originally developed as part of an ACODE funded project initiated in 2004 (Bridgland & Goodacre, 2005). They were developed collaboratively by a group of ACODE nominees from Monash University, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), Melbourne University, University of Queensland (UQ), University of Southern Queensland (USQ), University of Tasmania (UTas) and Victoria University (VU). ...
Benchmarking in the areas of technology enhanced learning (TEL) has become an important part of how many institutions are able to mediate a level of quality in their learning and teaching practice. Many tools and methodologies have emerged over the last 10+ years to help our institutions undertake this important task. A recent major benchmarking activity (June 2014) took this to a whole new level; with 24 institutions meeting together to benchmark their capacity in TEL. This was based around using the newly refreshed ACODE Benchmarks and involved each institution performing a self-assessment of their practices and then sharing this with the other participants. This paper will report on this activity and, importantly, provide evidence of the value of this activity for those involved. It will conclude with a series of recommendations on how this may be applied by other institutions, as they contend with the rapidly changing TEL space. Setting the scene Benchmarking in the areas of technology enhanced learning (TEL) has become an important part of how many institutions are able to mediate a level of quality in their practices. This has become increasingly important with the advent of government quality agencies, such as TEQSA and NZQA, that are now starting to take a keen interest in how institutions can provide a level of equivalence in the quality of their online courses, as compared to their face-to-face offering (TEQSA, 2013). Further, Freeman (2014) states that, 'TEQSA will explicitly require evidence of active benchmarking (and) formalised benchmarking relationships' (p. 76). Aligning with this, a number of tools and methodologies have emerged over the last 10+ years to help institutions undertake this important task. These tools typically look at either the institutional-wide processes sitting around governance processes and support mechanisms. Also, they look at the processes established for individual courses (subjects/units) of study, to ensure alignment with things like learning outcomes and the attainment of skills. This paper is more concerned with the former and by way of example provides the following list (not definitive) of notable institution-wide quality improvement tools for e-learning.
... au). Beginning with a survey in 2002-03, the initiative followed up with a collaborative pilot project between the Universities of Melbourne and Tasmania to develop a trial framework with the following components: institutional context, purpose, scope, principles of service delivery, benchmarking priorities, indicators for priority areas, self-assessment/ ranking, comparative matrix of strengths and weaknesses against indicators, and finally, an action plan for self-improvement (Bridgland & Goodacre, 2005). The full articulation of benchmarks includes scoping statements, a good-practice statement, performance indicators, and performance measures (ratings) in eight areas: 1) Institutional policy and governance for technology supported learning and teaching; 2) Planning for, and quality improvement of the integration of technologies for learning and teaching; 3) Information technology infrastructure to support learning and teaching; 4) Pedagogical application of information and communication technology; 5) Professional/staff development for the effective use of technologies for learning and teaching; 6) Staff support for the use of technologies for learning and teaching; 7) Student training for the effective use of technologies for learning; 8) Student support for the use of technologies for learning. ...
... Other educational institutions are adopting approaches that entail checklists (for example, of best practices and standards), self-assessment kits, matrices, and benchmarks to evaluate the quality of courses offered in an online mode and the state of e-learning in higher education (for example, ACODE Benchmarking Project in Australia). So, to explore such approaches (as well as emerging ones) and in response to the current wide use of " benchmarking " as a way of assessing quality in higher education (Bridgland & Goodacre, 2005; Ellis & Moore, 2006), we begin by probing into what might constitute benchmarking and describe some recent institutional applications of these variations on benchmarking for making judgments about the quality of e-learning in higher education. ...
Higher education institutions undertake a range of approaches to evaluating and making judgments about the quality of their e-learning provision. This paper begins by exploring benchmarking as one current strategy in common use in universities to identify and implement quality practices: from the use of checklists (for example, of best practices and standards) to a more contemporary dynamic systems approach involving continuous cycles of feedback and improvement centred around the learners' experiences of e- learning. These practices are influenced by the teachers' design of e-learning and emerging technologies as well as by the institutional and societal contexts in which both learners and teachers operate. We give an account of two major evaluation studies at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), utilising a systems approach to investigate the consequences of e-learning, and we inquire into the value of this particular institutional approach for deriving e-learning quality. We use selections from the large dataset to describe and analyse students' and teaching staff's experiences of an e-learning system (LMS) over a two-year period. Our findings reveal that learners' experiences warrant consideration in shaping future e-learning developments at UTS, and that students value e-learning in facilitating their access to education for making choices about their learning and for enabling engagement in collaborative and interactive learning activities, while they also recognise the current constraints on e-learning imposed by the developers of LMS technologies.
Education in multiple forms and diverse geographical contexts delivers quality in all aspects of learning in which stakeholders such as students, instructors, and educational institutions play an important role. Quality assurance in higher education ensures the smooth functioning of the teaching and learning process by supporting the attainment of the desired quality levels of learning outcomes. This further leads to educational sustainability, as education has been acknowledged as a strategic constituent of sustainability-focused strategies in many educational contexts. Hence, it has become very important for educational institutions to maintain quality standards through the implementation of appropriate strategies, as quality is the lifeline of both Traditional Learning and E-Learning, and a lack of a suitable assessment standard affects the quality of learning. This research study attempts to address the existing gaps observed following a review of the related literature. This study collected qualitative data using an observation method through the observations and review of online software used at the Saudi Electronic University, namely Blackboard Learning Management System (LMS), Tawkeed Quality Management E-System, and Blue Survey software. In addition to this, the expertise of the research team members was also utilized for this research study in designing E-Learning quality dimensions. The purpose of this study was to propose an E-Learning Quality Assessment Standard that will help third-level educational institutions to assess their current teaching and learning practices of E-Learning and support them in enhancing the overall students’ experiences toward E-Learning within their institutions. As a research outcome, a conceptual quality assessment standard titled “SPECIFIERS” was proposed to offer a helping hand during the E-Learning quality assessment process to ensure sustainable education development of global educational institutions.
Globally, there has been a shift in Higher Education. The rise in the number of nontraditional students and the educational inclusiveness obligations of universities has seen the development of differentiated doctoral pedagogies to meet the demand for flexible enrolments. The shift in university thinking that occurred due to student demand and political interference into higher education financially and socially has necessitated a change in traditional doctoral pedagogy to provide for the educational motivations of these students. This chapter will explore these factors relative to the doctoral degree models that have evolved in various countries in response to student, industrial, and political requirements.
Globally, there has been a shift in Higher Education. The rise in the number of nontraditional students and the educational inclusiveness obligations of universities has seen the development of differentiated doctoral pedagogies to meet the demand for flexible enrolments. The shift in university thinking that occurred due to student demand and political interference into higher education financially and socially has necessitated a change in traditional doctoral pedagogy to provide for the educational motivations of these students. This chapter will explore these factors relative to the doctoral degree models that have evolved in various countries in response to student, industrial, and political requirements.
The ACODE Benchmarks were developed to assist higher education institutions in their practice of delivering a quality technology enhanced learning (TEL) experience for their students and staff (recognising that some institutions refer to their practice with terms such as e-learning, online or flexible learning, blended, etc.). The original ACODE benchmarks were developed as part of an ACODE funded project in 2007. In 2014 the Benchmarks underwent a major review to ensure they are now both current and forward looking. These revised benchmarks were then applied by 24 intuitions in the first ACODE Inter-institutional Benchmarking Summit held in Sydney.
As part of ACODE’s ongoing commitment to both this tool and the sector, it ran a second major Inter-Institutional Benchmarking Summit in June of 2016 in Canberra, again using the Benchmarks (http://www.acode.edu.au/mod/resource/view.php?id=193). A total of 27 universities from Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific, South Africa and the United Kingdom attended and engaged in a richly collaborative workshop that explored their individual capabilities across the ACODE benchmarks, working to identify shared issues, potential solutions and opportunities for ongoing improvements in the use of technology to enhance student outcomes and organisational systems.
Incl. bibl. references, index.
Incl. bibl., index, glossary
Business Excellence Australia: Managing Benchmarking Expectations. Presentation given at the University of Melbourne
- Anton Benc
Benc, Anton. Managing Partner, Benchmarking Partnerships, Business Excellence Australia:
Managing Benchmarking Expectations. Presentation given at the University of Melbourne, Nov.
18, 2003.
External Quality Assurance for the Virtual Institution
- S Butterfield
Butterfield, S. et al. (1999) External Quality Assurance for the Virtual Institution. AAU Series on
Quality: Number 4.
Benchmarking the university: learning for improvement
- S Garlick
- G Prior
Garlick, S., Prior, G. (2004). Benchmarking the university: learning for improvement. Canberra, DEST.
ISODIS 11620 Information and Documentation
International Standards Organisation (1998). ISODIS 11620 Information and Documentation. Geneva,
ISO.
Benchmarking: A manual for Australian universities, [PDF Document]. Higher Education Division, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs
- K R Mckinnon
- S H Walker
- D Davis
McKinnon, K. R., Walker, S. H., & Davis, D. (2000). Benchmarking: A manual for Australian
universities, [PDF Document]. Higher Education Division, Department of Education, Training
and Youth Affairs. Available: http://www.deet.gov.au/archive/highered/otherpub/bench.pdf
[2001, 12 November].
Higher Education Division, Department of Education
Higher Education Division, Department of Education, Training
and Youth Affairs. Available: http://www.deet.gov.au/archive/highered/otherpub/bench.pdf
[2001, 12 November].