No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
How Benchmarking and Higher Education Came Together
Abstract
This chapter introduces the concept of benchmarking and how higher education institutions began to use benchmarking for a variety of purposes.
... However, since many different inequities exist per topic, it is ultimately the team's responsibility to decide the topic's scope. Teams will first examine their existing knowledge of the subject matter then further investigate the topic through broader contexts to identify existing inequities and ways to improve (Levy & Ronco, 2012). This research will be conducted by talking with fellow practitioners, benchmarking peer institutions, conducting a review of the scholarly literature, facilitating student focus groups, and identifying best practices (Levy & Ronco, 2012). ...
... This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. that are vital to building and sustaining momentum for organizational change (Kotter, 1996;Shubiak, 2021). Meanwhile, long-term recommendations allow groups to address the most challenging aspects of their topic. ...
... This system can include assessment plans, target deadlines, and updates during department meetings. Transparency on progress, including the celebration of short-term wins, will help to build momentum and ensure accountability (Kotter, 1996;Shubiak, 2021). ...
While many student affairs departments are committed to addressing equity issues, they face limited capacity and lack institutionalized frameworks to implement equitable change at all levels on a cyclical and proactive basis. Equity Tank, a four-phase interactive model, allows all members of a department to question its policies, practices, and procedures to consider how they may negatively impact marginalized communities. Grounded in two practice models, the Equity Scorecard (Bensimon, 2012) and an Equity-Minded Inquiry graduate school assignment (Castillo-Montoya, 2015*), this model requires practitioners to develop and implement tangible recommendations to address inequities within their respective departments.
... Besides, factors such as working with concrete data and using scientific methods systematically of higher education employees increase usability of benchmarking technique for higher education institutions when compared to educational levels (Alstete, 1995). Despite of readiness of higher education institutions' employees and possible advantages of benchmarking technique, it can be said that there are not adequate benchmarking implementations at higher institutions (Levy & Ronco, 2012). ...
... However, when literature is examined, it is determined that usage of benchmarking at educational organizations is not so widespread (Thornton, 1998). Studies conducted at educational organizations indicate that benchmarking technique is generally used at higher education institutions (Alstete, 1995;Levy & Ronco, 2012;Thornton, 1998). Reasons of benchmarking usage at higher education lastly are emergence of competition, increase in accountability demands and accumulation of knowledge. ...
... Despite of all the advantages of benchmarking technique, it has not taken expected attention from higher education institutions since each institution assumes itself unique, defining and measuring the outputs of educational organizations are difficult, stakeholders' approach to change with suspicion and so do not encourage benchmarking, implementing benchmarking necessitates an expensive and demanding process (Levy & Ronco, 2012). Besides not getting attention from higher educational institutions, some features of benchmarking makes it difficult to be implemented at these institutions. ...
In this study, benchmarking technique, which is one of the organizational development techniques, and its use in education were reviewed. Firstly, history of benchmarking, benchmarking types, stages of the benchmarking process, advantages and disadvantages of benchmarking technique were examined. Then, it was investigated on which subjects benchmarking technique can be used in educational organizations. As a result of literature review, it was found that benchmarking technique can be used in many different areas such as evaluating the organization, determining the vision, improving administrative processes, developing teaching methods, improving financial management, and using technology more effectively and efficiently in educational organizations. Therefore, it has been concluded that benchmarking is a very useful tool that can provide both practical and theoretical benefits to educational organizations.
... Benchmark scores have become a common data point reviewed and analyzed by college administrators. Levy and Ronco [1] reported that the notion of benchmarking may have originated from the work of ancient Egyptian surveyors or cobblers taking measurements. Modern benchmarking provides organizations with information to measure institutional performance or completion of objectives. ...
... Questions have been raised by government officials and the public about the role of taxpayer subsidies for educational initiatives [18], and the level of public financial support has trended lower [19]. Community college administrators are being asked by accreditation boards, local, state, and federal government agencies and the public to demonstrate institutional effectiveness through data that illustrated standards and cost-effectiveness [1,2]. erefore, the process of collecting, analyzing, and utilizing data for developing effective initiatives that benefit students as they work toward educational and career goals is vital. ...
... Many benchmarking endeavors are characterized by an informal collection and utilization of best practices from internal and external entities [1]. Although benchmarking is a standard practice in business settings, formalized benchmarking processes are not common in higher education. ...
In this investigation, the extent to which differences were present in benchmark scores as a function of community college student honors course enrollment status was investigated using data from the Community College Survey of Student Engagement. Statistically significant differences were revealed for all 5 benchmark scores (i.e., active and collaborative learning, student effort, academic challenge, student-faculty, and support for learners). Students who had been enrolled in an honors course had benchmark scores that were 9 to 16 points higher than their peers who had not been enrolled in an honors course, reflecting higher levels of scholastic engagement, deeper connections with instructors and peers, and greater use of academic and student support services.
... In an effort to create comparable and compatible quality assurance and academic degree standards, universities increasingly employ benchmarking strategies, too (Levy and Ronco 2012). Originated from the DFG and WR, who interpret benchmarking as "evaluating and steering […] research performance", "increasing self-reflection" and "avoiding […] ton technology" (Dorothee Dzwonnek, general secretary DFG 2012), there is a need for adopting business driven benchmarking approaches to research clusters and its differing frameworks. ...
... On this account and with regard to Levy and Valcik (2012) the SCA are dealing with benchmarking in a functional primarily internal and even external way. Functional benchmarking examines similar functions in organization that are not direct competitors (Levy and Ronco 2012). Levy and Valcik's (2012) outline benchmarking in a manner, that it is well transferable to the SCA understanding: "Benchmarking is a strategic and structured approach whereby an organization compares aspects of its processes and/or outcomes to those of another organization or set of organizations to identify opportunities for improvement." ...
... In the context of benchmarking, there is a need for measuring, comparing and judging standards or references (Levy and Ronco 2012). University frameworks and CoE funding objectives are unlike companies. ...
... The literature review shows several types of ABM established, deployed, and executed in business, industrial, and educational institutions (Levy and Ronco, 2012;Bhola, 2018;Marr, 2020). Most early studies, including the present work, concentrate on benchmarking and differentiate between the following types of benchmarking: product, process, strategic, and organisational (Nazarko et al., 2009;Kailong', 2019;Hughes et al., 2020). ...
... According to Bhola (2018), generic ABM (GABM) aims to overhaul ineffective organizational systems by implementing benchmarking strategies and best practices. A popular explanation of GABM in secondary school education is that secondary schools seek innovative practices to improve performance across multiple secondary schools (Al-Khalifa, 2015; Harper, 2019; Levy and Ronco, 2012). In general, it is interesting to note that secondary schools may opt to use one or all of the procedures based on the requirements and aims of the ABM process. ...
The academic benchmarking process is broadly employed by private secondary education providers and educational stakeholders in Tanzania to examine the benefits and drawbacks of service delivery. The study explored the use of academic benchmarking in providing quality education in Tanzanian secondary schools. Employing a cross-sectional research design, data were collected from 188 participants and subsequently analysed both descriptively and thematically. The study found that the academic benchmarking process plays a significant role in ensuring the provision of quality education through internal assessment, comparisons, and the adoption of best practices from benchmarked schools. Further, the findings reveal that six types of academic benchmarking are utilized in Tanzanian secondary schools. According to the study, proper academic benchmarking in secondary schools will improve educational results among secondary school graduates. Furthermore, academic benchmarking in secondary schools affects school rankings, which reflect a school's potential to do well at the end of national examinations. The study concludes that academic benchmarking enhances the provision of quality education by influencing future performance and commitments to work on secondary schools' goals, vision, and mission. Moreover, the study provides both theoretical and practical insight to the understanding of the necessity of academic benchmarking in secondary schools.
... Modern commercial benchmarking usually refers to the process of identifying the best methods, practices and processes. This is justifiable, in that it improve one's own business (Banerjee et al. 2013;Levy and Ronco 2012). Thus, the identification of research priorities and trends is focused. ...
... Thus, the identification of research priorities and trends is focused. In order to benchmark scientific output, there is a demand for measuring, comparing and judging references (Levy and Ronco 2012). If the quality of a research network's performance is to be judged, scientific output, rather than sales revenues should be consulted. ...
As a key driver for innovation in science, economy and society, digitalization affects almost every aspect of our daily working and living environments. The opportunity to track data about processes, persons, and other entities in organizations allows new opportunities for digitalized working scenarios and the creation of new perspectives on matters such as inter-and intra-organizational relationships. The aim of this paper is to elaborate on these perspectives on the basis of studies that are currently a part of our research activities. Firstly, a framework is outlined that combines topic modeling of textual data and machine learning to derive thematic synergies in the data, for example, between organizations or research projects. Secondly, classical benchmarking approaches are extended by developing a suitable text-mining process for interdisciplinary research. Lastly, a brief concept about evolution as a method for further optimizations and its implications for the human-in-the-loop process is outlined. Altogether, the approaches contribute to a comprehensive human-in-the-loop model – defined as a model that combines intelligent data technologies with human interaction – in the culture of innovation amongst modern, highly digitalized organizations.
... Modern benchmarking originated with private industry in the 1950s and was popularized by the Xerox Corporation in the 1970s in the United States in response to what the company saw as a rising competitive threat from Japanese technological firms (Camp, 1989;Levy & Ronco, 2012;Sisson et al., 2003). Benchmarking is grounded in the use of quantifiable performance indicators for analyzing the internal activities of individual organizations, but takes on comparative yardstick characteristics when used to compare performance across organizations as well as across place and time (Pidd, 2012). ...
Critically assessing meanings of the term “public”, this book situates the emergence and expansion of “public services” within market-based forms of production and consumption.
It highlights the potential for making public services more progressive within market societies, but underscores their ongoing capture by private interests and emphasizes the inherent limits of reform within a “bourgeois public sphere”. The author explores opportunities for more expansive forms of non-marketized public services, examining emerging debates on the theory and practice of equitable, participatory and sustainable forms of publicness that go beyond mere ownership. The book then asks how we can build a robust international “pro-public” movement that juggles universal needs with local context.
With a focus on essential public services such as water, electricity and health, the text is global in its scope and written for a broad audience. It will be useful for those interested in social and public policy, public services and public administration, political theory, economic geography, social movements, sustainability and development.
... To meet the market's needs constantly, higher education institutions have to evaluate their programs and methods by assessing their major counterparts in the same sector, as well as in any other sectors that employ the same technique. Benchmarking has been regarded as an essential factor of TQM among HEIs in the world (Al-Zoubi, 2012, Kern Pipan et al., 2014, Levy & Ronco, 2012, Rolstadås, 2012, Sweis et al., 2015. ...
Total Quality Management (TQM) is regarded as a gauge of university management, in order to maintain global standards. This study examined Total Quality-Management (TQM) implementation and the practices of higher education institutions in the Philippines. It utilized a cross-sectional survey-study design to 347 respondents recruited from the total population of 3847 administrators and academic members of nine selected institutions in the Philippines. The measure of TQM adoption and practices was extracted from several sources of previous TQM researches. This study was done for six months. The analyzation and interpretation of the data were done by using descriptive and inferential statistics. The results indicated that participating Filipino HEIs had a high degree of adoption on top-management commitment, Teaching and Learning Delivery Modes, campus amenities, system and process management, customer satisfaction, and linkages. In contrast, the HEIs have a modest degree of acceptance in strategic planning and Data Management. The test of differences indicated that strong confirmation to top management commitment and strategic planning as indicators of TQM is significantly more evident in private-type HEIs; and it was placed at the university level, when compared to those of the provincial and national HEIs. The findings provide some practical implications to further enhance Filipino HEIs in the advent of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
... Market orientation leads to adaptation to student demands, e.g. developing student services (Locke and Guglielmino, 2006) and harmonizing teaching with other HEIs, e.g. based on benchmarking (Levy and Ronco, 2012). A consequence of this market orientation is that students are viewed as consumers (Buckley and Hurley, 2001;Marginson, 2018). ...
Drawing upon earlier studies of reforms and institutional changes in higher education, the purpose of this paper is to trace how the understanding of accountability has changed over the past twenty years and how it is understood to have impacted on higher education institutions. We do so by reviewing more than 350 papers and by asking three questions: Who answers to whom? For what are they answering? And how to assess those accountability arrangements? With these three questions as guides, our results indicate that higher education institutions have been undergoing processes of what we term accountabilization. These results contribute to the scholarship on higher education governance by conceptualizing the processes of accountabilization.
... El benchmarking, vinculado al entorno externo, resulta fundamental para tener una perspectiva clara respecto al ámbito competitivo de la universidad. Se vuelve una herramienta de suma utilidad en cuanto al diseño de estrategias dirigidas a aumentar la calidad y la eficiencia de la institución (Levy y Ronco, 2012), en tanto entrega la posibilidad de, por ejemplo, focalizar la inversión en los ámbitos prioritarios en que la organización obtenga rendimientos más débiles o en aquellos en que cuente con ventajas competitivas. Al mismo tiempo, la visibilización de la posición de la universidad respecto a su competencia trasforma al benchmarking en una buena instancia para ayudar a derribar la resistencia al cambio dentro de esta, además de promover un compromiso mayor con la autoevaluación y la calidad institucional (Alstete, 1995). ...
Durante las últimas décadas, las universidades latinoamericanas han profundizado su integración al sistema universitario mundial, lo que ha implicado transformaciones radicales y tendencias a la complejización. El presente ensayo concibe la universidad como un sistema organizacional complejo, cuya reproducción tiene lugar mediante la toma de decisiones. Desde esta perspectiva, se plantea que, ante un contexto de creciente complejidad e incertidumbre como el latinoamericano, la observación del entorno a través del análisis institucional comprende una herramienta fundamental para neutralizar potenciales procesos de desintegración que amenacen a la universidad. Se considera, en este sentido, que: (1) los modelos de gestión tradicional asumen un entorno estable en el futuro, (2) tales esquemas disminuyen la capacidad de la universidad de reaccionar a cambios externos, pudiendo, además, derivar en la rutinización del proceso de toma de decisiones, (3) ante la incertidumbre, la posibilidad de adaptarse/responder al entorno resulta fundamental para la sustentabilidad institucional, y (4) aquella capacidad sólo existe si se incorpora el análisis del entorno al proceso de toma de decisiones. La argumentación se desarrolla tomando como caso de análisis el subsistema universitario chileno. Se concluye que para operar en el contexto actual, la universidad requiere transitar hacia modelos de gestión basada en evidencia, en cuanto entregan mayor capacidad para reducir la complejidad creciente del entorno general y competitivo de la universidad.
... • Limiting benchmarking to only performance indicators (PIs) ignores the premise that determining improvement requires the identification of the processes that generate the results found (Levy & Ronco, 2012).Benchmarking and PIs are two distinct processes that should operate in parallel (Meek & van der Lee, 2005). • Using findings from a benchmarking exercise merely to imitate what others are doing does not mean improvement as the organisational response may not factor in context specific issues that impact on success (Moriarty, 2011;Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). ...
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.
... New public management (NPM) movement has spread based on the premise that market-oriented and performancedriven management of the public sector will lead to greater cost efficiency for governments (Osborne and Gaebler 1992). Benchmarking became a popular business strategy in higher education as well in response to market demands for quality and global best practice (Levy and Ronco 2012). Previous studies found that conditional on institutional autonomy and resources, performance-driven incentives and accountability were associated with higher faculty productivity (Aghion et al. 2010;McCormack et al. 2014). ...
This study examines international brain race for world-class universities as measured by the QS World University Rankings (QS) and the Academic Ranking of World Universities, particularly in the context of Asian nations’ institutional competition and benchmarking against American counterparts. Applying mixed methods with statistical analysis of time-series data from 59 nations and case study of four selected nations, the study examines the cross-national trends of global university rankings and the roles of government policies during the era of performance-driven accountability in higher education. Tracking the zero-sum game of global university rankings over the past decade, the study accounts for key driving factors that produced divergent trajectories among the nations: how and why the USA as established leader and Japan as early catch-up leader become losers, whereas China and Korea as fast followers become winners? Although the Asian catch-up model of world-class university development, high-stakes institutional competitions and targeted funding with STEM priorities contributed to their rapid growth of research productivity and rankings, it reveals major limitations and problems. Drawing cross-national lessons and implications, we discuss new directions of higher education policies and global university ranking measures.
... This technology took over US higher education during the 1990s to improve organisational productivity and quality. In 1996, the Houston-based American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC) developed studies on benchmarking with State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) and other organisations (Levy and Ronco 2012). Since then, technics of benchmarking have penetrated US higher education, and they were extended to other countries up to the Bologna process (Farquhar 1998;Lund 1998;Lund and Jackson 2000;Massaro 1998;Schreiterer 1998). ...
‘The Multiple Worlds of Expertise’ describes different modalities of expertise the academic work is required to produce through a utilitarian and short-term knowledge for decision-making. From a position of insider–researcher, different modes of policy learning linking experts and policymakers have been studied. Far from being a direct and linear process, expertise provided by academics in different European networks is defined through multiple interactions, while knowledge production is related to different socialising experiences. Types of encounters between expertise and policy have different features, while expert content itself influences more or less decision-making. However, while the worlds of expertise are plural, they produce and legitimise sciences of government which compete with knowledge produced by the academic world, while other institutions like think tanks and agencies become more influent.
... Modern benchmarking originated with private industry in the 1950s and was popularized by the Xerox Corporation in the 1970s in the United States in response to what the company saw as a rising competitive threat from Japanese technological firms (Camp, 1989;Levy and Ronco, 2012;Sisson et al., 2003). It is grounded in the use of quantifiable performance indicators for analyzing the internal activities of individual organizations, but takes on comparative yardstick characteristics when used to compare performance across organizations as well as across place and time (Pidd, 2012). ...
The use of benchmarking and performance indicators to evaluate and compare water operators is a relatively new phenomenon. It has been taking place in the private sector since the 1970s but only migrated to public services over the past two decades. It is now widespread in the water sector, but there are emerging concerns about its commercial bias and relatively undemocratic processes. This paper reviews the history of benchmarking in the water sector, discusses arguments for and against its use, and proposes an alternative performance evaluation framework that may help to better account for universality, sustainability and democratic forms of governance, particularly with public water operators in low-income settings in the global South. I argue that shared forms of performance measurement can be useful but only if they are more explicit about recognizing local difference and if they become better at promoting public awareness and advancing equity. The paper also asks why existing water benchmarking systems do not explicitly differentiate between public and private water operators, and proposes indicators that may help promote non-commercialized forms of public water services. The proposals are necessarily tentative and preliminary – calling for more empirical and theoretical research on the topic – but do offer concrete alternative benchmarking possibilities for further debate and exploration.
... Foreign publications that we can mention include Ruben (2007), Kelly (2001), Levy and Ronco (2012), Hoff man and Holzhuter (2012) and Secolski and Denison (2012); these authors base their work on the general theory of benchmarking and discuss the possibilities of its applications in higher education in the United States and Great Britain. ...
The first part of this article surveys the current experience with the use of benchmarking at Czech universities specializing in economics and management. The results indicate that collaborative benchmarking is not used on this level today, but most actors show some interest in its introduction. The expression of the need for it and the importance of benchmarking as a very suitable performance-management tool in less developed countries are the impetus for the second part of our article. Based on an analysis of the current situation and existing needs in the Czech Republic, as well as on a comparison with international experience, recommendations for public policy are made, which lie in the design of a model of a collaborative benchmarking for Czech economics and management in higher-education programs. Because the fully complex model cannot be implemented immediately – which is also confirmed by structured interviews with academics who have practical experience with benchmarking –, the final model is designed as a multi-stage model. This approach helps eliminate major barriers to the implementation of benchmarking.
... One approach that can be used is benchmarking. This approach can be utilized for continuous improvement (Dattakumar, 2003); a quality enhancement for better service (Nassar, 2012); increase efficiency and productivity (Tucker et al. 1987); improving performance in various areas (Azis, 2011); to remain competitive and for learning new ideas (Balm, 1996); served as a strategic tool for performance assessment and continuous improvement in performance (Elmuti and Kathawala, 1997; Voss et al., 1997); the way to create a sense of urgency (Lee, et al., 2006); a process for self evaluation in higher education (Mackie 2000); and even Dragolea and Cotirlea (2009) conclude benefits of benchmarking in for institution include: a) continuous improvements to achieve better performance into the organizational culture, b) improve knowledge on the performance of products and services, and c) assist in focusing resources to achieve the target. On the other hand among those several advantages in using benchmarking as an improvement technique and tool many studies had pointed up some vulnerability if it is not done correctly. ...
This paper aims to present a principle to the business school institution that have slight familiarity in espousing benchmarking toward better performance. This is done since designing performance management system, espescially in defining key indicators is essential in achieving improvement process and better service. One approach to assist institution -notwithstanding with some pitfalls in it- is benchmarking. Moreover given the fact that industry best practice may never be found as it also relate with organizational culture, the criteria to adopt benchmarking strategy become crucial. The study conducts through a series of descriptive study to top nine Indonesia's business schools. The research stages start with literature surveys of several published article in international journal related with benchmarking criteria and adoption that have been done by previous researchers. Followed by descriptive study through observation, interviews, document reviews, and filling out the questionnaire by the dean or vice dean of academic as well as the quality assurance administrator. By accomplishing analysis, it revealed four factors with internal factors as the most influential factors on benchmarking criteria and adoption, followed by functional; competitive factors; and the last is process, and along with factor analysis came up ten criteria for benchmark strategy implementation. By carrying out such research finding, it will be useful as a basis for decision maker in formulating the business school's strategy for enhancing the global competitiveness for the foreseeable future.
A student’s journey from high school to university begins with the admission department evaluating their credentials. Worldwide school curriculum varies in terms of syllabus, structure, assessment methodology and learning outcomes. This variation in pre-university curricula imposes the challenge of equally benchmarking them in providing university admission. The challenge extends beyond the initial admission process due to existence of improper valuation of quality of students, which co-relates to academic performance and misconducts. So how do universities go about providing admission to students from varied curricula? This study tracks the admission requirements of five local accredited universities in the United Arab Emirates to demonstrate the importance of equity in admission.
Supply Chain Integration is a vast field of study and a Google Scholar search will reveal more than 3.2
million publications in this space. This document captures some of the core concepts when the degree
of integration of a primary industry supply chain, such as the blueberry industry, is evaluated. The
book was developed after final year students in Massey University’s Supply Chain Management
Programme conducted an in-depth review as part of a formal assessment. The content of the book is
of a scholarly nature and caution should be practiced before any guidelines are implemented in
industry. The students studied the literature, reports, newspaper articles and accessed information
on the internet. However, the most valuable source of information was a one-hour interactive
question and answer session with Patrick Malley, director of Maungatapere Berries in Northland, New
Zealand.
Ethics and credence attributes are the humanistic basis for establishing sustainable supply chain
development. It determines brand reputation, ecology and customer experience. Furthermore, good
ethics and credence Attributes promote the progress of industry leadership and increase the
possibility of win-win strategies, especially in terms of negotiation. Negotiation is the basis of supply
chain collaboration. The purpose of collaboration is to establish a synchronized supply chain to
improve the ability of industry coordination. This is also the key to creating value, and the importance
of risk management cannot be ignored. It is not only a guarantee for the smooth operation of the
supply chain, but also an important measure to improve the flexibility of the supply chain. Finally, the
results of supply chain integration need to rely on performance metrics and benchmarking to control
and improve the overall performance of the supply chain. This publication evaluates modern theories
in all these areas and contextualise them with regard to the New Zealand blueberry industry.
It is important that the reader appreciates the scholarly origin of this publication.
Introduction. Since the experience of using benchmarking by domestic higher education institutions is not rich in practical knowledge, in our opinion, the first step towards its use is to justify the advantages and obstacles in its implementation as a tool for managing the marketing potential in higher education institutions, which is why the relevance of the research topic is determined.
Purpose. The purpose of the article is to substantiate and identify the advantages and obstacles of the way of using benchmarking in managing the marketing potential of higher education institutions for further effective implementation of this tool in the activities of higher education institutions.
Results. The article substantiates the feasibility of using benchmarking in managing the marketing potential of higher education institutions by analyzing the advantages and obstacles faced by the organization during its implementation and use. It is revealed that during the implementation of activities in the tools of benchmarking institutions of higher education are experiencing difficulties of psychological, organizational, communication and financial nature. It is proved that all obstacles are equivalent to management based on benchmarking, and ignoring one category of difficulties leads to a decrease in the effectiveness of benchmarking in the management of the marketing potential in general. It is revealed that there are three areas of the existence of the organization that is in the permanent interaction, which is the result of the formation of expectations of consumers and leaders in each sector of the economy. It is substantiated the existence of advantages of using benchmarking in managing the marketing potential for each area of the interaction.
Conclusions. During the implementation of benchmarking in the management of the marketing potential of higher education institutions, organizations may face several obstacles of psychological, organizational, communication and financial nature. Overcoming these difficulties will allow for feeling the benefits of using benchmarking, as well as for making major changes in the marketing potential of higher education institutions in the direction of their increasing and improving, using the best experience of any organization.
El libro recoge los principales aspectos del programa de Formación en Análisis Institucional desarrollado por CINDA en 2015, sus elementos fundamentales y los objetivos de ese primer programa. El texto está organizado en tres partes: la primera, Gestión Estratégica y Análisis Institucional, que entrega un marco conceptual y procedimental al AI, desde la perspectiva de las dos áreas de mayor relevancia en su operación: la Gestión de la Estrategia y la Gestión de la Calidad. La segunda, Gestión de la Información y Análisis Institucional, que busca describir los principales elementos de gestión de la información, en conjunto con las estrategias y herramientas tecnológicas necesarias para la ejecución de una función coherente y adecuada de AI. Y la tercera, referida a Metodologías de Investigación y Análisis Institucional, que se centra en la descripción de los principales elementos metodológicos disponibles para apoyar la función de AI, poniendo especial énfasis en el papel que juegan la comunicación y la organización del AI para fomentar el pleno desarrollo de esta disciplina.
Recently, most of the universities in Korea is doing a lecture evaluation survey every semester. The continuous quality improvement (CQI) report is one of the most popular lecture evaluation service systems, which able to summaries and analysis the mean of evaluation reports. Since 2016, education office allows CQI system to begin uploads and analysis the CQI report in all subjects. To improve the school and support to students, the school has to do a lecture evaluation after midterm and final exam every semester. The problems are the school getting so long to make the report on students lecture evaluation. In this paper, we propose a summary keywords extraction method form CQI and represented as graph tools based on centrality. We expected that this method can be efficiently extracted the most important relation keywords from huge CQI data of each lecture evaluations to summaries for the report.
Industry standards have a significant impact on business. Despite the importance of standards, they are not universally integrated into the college and university curricula. Given the widespread use of standards in business, a study was undertaken by four academic librarians to explore the use and potential integration of standards in undergraduate business management curricula. This was accomplished through curriculum mapping of two top-ranked undergraduate business management programs. This study found that few undergraduate business management courses specifically taught or used standards based on the syllabi, but considerable potential exists for the integration of standards into undergraduate business management courses.
Purpose
Librarians in higher education have adopted curriculum mapping in an effort to determine where effective information literacy instruction can help fill gaps in the curriculum and prepare students for both coursework and future research demands. While curriculum mapping has been used widely across academia, few studies have considered business curriculum and the development of information literacy instruction. This paper aims to provide an overview of the current landscape of curriculum mapping across business courses at two institutions and a replicable methodology for other institutions.
Design/methodology/approach
In this paper, the authors will examine two case studies at large research universities that evaluate curriculum mapping against the BRASS Business Research Competencies at the undergraduate and the graduate business levels.
Findings
This study found that the Business Research Competencies are a valid method to evaluate in both case studies. Curriculum mapping also uncovered various gaps in business education across the curricula at both institutions and led to open discussions with faculty in an effort to improve the success of students both during their degree programs and into their careers.
Originality/value
This study provides a framework and methodology for evaluating business curriculums against robust standards to improve student success. With examples from undergraduate and graduate programs, the results of this project promise to have long-lasting implications on the development of curriculums across business programs, including the value of librarian support in developing Business Research Competencies.
This paper introduces the process of adopting and implementing modern text mining approaches of analysis within the Cluster of Excellence (CoE) Tailor-Made Fuels from Biomass (TMFB) at RWTH Aachen University and presents initial results of the analysis of research output by use of common clustering algorithms, namely Principal Component Analysis and k-means. As one main part of this paper the data driven approach is classified into benchmarking efforts, which are part of the research work of the so called Supplementary Cluster Activities. The SCA, supporting the cluster management, are initiated in order to promote interdisciplinary collaboration of CoE researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds. This cross-linking is aided by means of knowledge engineering and knowledge transfer strategies, such as the exploration of synergies and benchmarking of research results as well as progress. In this course an adoption of current benchmarking efforts to the specific cluster research framework conditions is described. At this, in case of differing data sources according to those used in widespread business organisational benchmarking, possible TMFB data sources are outlined and a selection for analysis is reasoned. While benchmarking is usually differentiated in internal and external benchmarking, in this case focus lies on internal analysis of publications in order to reflect research work. Benchmarking of publications is used and implemented to identify (best) methods, practices and processes of CoE to improve the research organization. Second major part and central question within the scope of this paper is in which way text mining respectively clustering algorithms are sensitive applicable to TMFB publications and are able to be used as benchmark for research clusters. Thus thematically priorities of TMFB researchers will be investigated in order to create an overview according to research topics, keywords and methods. In case of an outlook further steps, e. g. dealing with generated results, data visualisation or further acquisition of data corpora, are formulated.
The development of text mining algorithms is far reaching and thus, new application areas arise, inter alia in the framework of applying modern information technologies (e.g. big data analytics) in order to answer social and economic (research) questions (digital humanities). In this paper existing algorithms to reveal results in the context of benchmarking scientific research clusters are combined. For conducting the analysis, two data corpora are gathered. The first data corpus contains abstracts of publications according to the used application case of the Cluster of Excellence Tailor-Made Fuels from Biomass ‘TMFB’ at RWTH Aachen University. The second data corpus – based on the analysis of the first data corpus – contains content-related abstracts of research belonging to the relevant scientific community. In the framework of processing the gathered data, information extraction, information retrieval and named entity recognition among others are utilized for analyzing the publications in order to derive useful findings. Furthermore association mining findings are introduced. As an excerpt of the results, the identification of thematic alignments and developments over time are presented.
This chapter synthesizes the national discussion on other solutions to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), such as a national student record system, and complications. The authors will briefly examine the pros and cons of IPEDS while primarily focusing on national alternatives, as well providing specific examples for institutional researchers to make a contribution to the field.
This paper introduces the process of adopting and implementing modern text mining approaches of analysis within the Cluster of Excellence (CoE) Tailor-Made Fuels from Biomass (TMFB) at RWTH Aachen University and presents initial results of the analysis of research output by use of common clustering algorithms, namely Principal Component Analysis and k-means. As one main part of this paper the data driven approach is classified into benchmarking efforts, which are part of the research work of the so called Supplementary Cluster Activities.
The SCA, supporting the cluster management, are initiated in order to promote interdisciplinary collaboration of CoE researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds. This cross-linking is aided by means of knowledge engineering and knowledge transfer strategies, such as the exploration of synergies and benchmarking of research results as well as progress. In this course an adoption of current benchmarking efforts to the specific cluster research framework conditions is described. At this, in case of differing data sources according to those used in widespread business organisational benchmarking, possible TMFB data sources are outlined and a selection for analysis is reasoned.
While benchmarking is usually differentiated in internal and external benchmarking, in this case focus lies on internal analysis of publications in order to reflect research work. Benchmarking of publications is used and implemented to identify (best) methods, practices and processes of CoE to improve the research organization. Second major part and central question within the scope of this paper is in which way text mining respectively clustering algorithms are sensitive applicable to TMFB publications and are able to be used as benchmark for research clusters. Thus thematically priorities of TMFB researchers will be investigated in order to create an overview according to research topics, keywords and methods. In case of an outlook further steps, e.g. dealing with generated results, data visualisation or further acquisition of data corpora, are formulated.
Summative and benchmarking surveys to measure the postgraduate student research experience are well reported in the literature. While useful, we argue that local instruments that provide formative resources with an academic development focus are also required. If higher education institutions are to move beyond the identification of issues and benchmarking practices, the scope of survey results and their reporting need to enable and foster appropriate changes in disciplinary practices. Robust, locally developed instruments can provide detailed, programme-specific information and foster timely changes in practice with direct benefits for postgraduate respondents. Unlike benchmarked surveys, local tools can adapt to explore and examine specific concerns of students, supervisors and academic developers. Coupling high-response rates and follow-on engagement with participant feedback, well-designed local instruments provide clear and irrefutable indicators to programme and university administrators of specific disciplinary strengths and weaknesses in postgraduate pathways. In this paper, we discuss the development of a research student survey specifically designed to support academic development purposes in strengthening and enhancing the postgraduate experience.
This article describes the use of benchmarking in universities in the Czech Republic and academics’ experiences with it. It is based on research conducted among academics from economics schools in Czech public and private universities. The results identified several issues regarding the utilisation and understanding of benchmarking in the Czech educational environment. The survey results have also been compared with existing theories regarding the use of benchmarking in higher education as well as with the research results of other authors. Recommendations for public policy are based on an econometric analysis of global benchmarking initiatives.
The authors conducted a survey on the topic of benchmarking as a tool for assessment in cataloging. While assessment is popular in libraries, little research has been done on benchmarking in cataloging, a gap that this study attempts to fill. The authors developed a survey that gauged the respondents' use of benchmarking, their goals for benchmarking, and how they applied what they learned to make improvements. The survey was administered on the AUTOCAT electronic distribution list in May 2013. There were 92 completed surveys, with 20 libraries reporting that they had used benchmarking as an assessment tool.
Purpose
To determine the criteria for internal benchmarking candidate processes. Using those criteria, to develop a decision flowchart to employ internal or external benchmarking. To then propose a framework for implementing internal benchmarking in an organization. Finally, to use a case study to apply both the Decision Flowchart and the proposed implementation framework.
Design/methodology/approach
The method is theoretical framework design supported by a case study.
Findings
The development of a practical flowchart and framework is achieved. This is successfully used in improving a business process thorough an actual case study.
Research limitations/implications
The information is limited to situations where quality programs including benchmarking are used or anticipated. Information is drawn from a single successful case study and existing literature.
Practical implications
Provides a practical prescriptive approach for identifying and applying the quality tool of benchmarking to internal processes.
Originality/value
This provides a new method of evaluating processes for improvement based on the availability of internal knowledge. No such flowchart has been proposed to date. It should be of use to both practitioners and academics by offering a step‐by‐step approach to improving their business processes and profitability.
The title of this document is a deliberate play on the title of the biennial reports on the progress of Bologna produced by the European Students' Union, "Bologna With Student Eyes." It is a way of paying tribute to student involvement in the Bologna reforms, and marking a parallel student working participation in the state system "Tuning" study groups in the U.S. This monograph, an expansion of the previous Bologna Club essay, draws on hundreds of documents in 8 languages, interviews with principal actors in 9 countries, and suggestions from two rounds of European reviewers, to bring to a broad academic audience in the United States an analysis of what European higher education authorities, academic leaders, faculty, and students have learned over the first decade of their considerable efforts, particularly in the challenging matters of: (1) student learning outcomes (set in what are called "qualification frameworks"); (2) the relationship of these frameworks to credits and curriculum reform; (3) the construction of new paths to student participation in higher education, including refinement of "short-cycle" degrees analogous to our Associate's, and combinations of e-learning and part-time status; (4) the reflection of all of this in the documentation of student attainment called "Diploma Supplements," and the expansion of this documentation in a lifelong "Europass' (5) the establishment of a "zone of mutual trust" through an all-encompassing culture of quality assurance, and an international accreditation register; and (6) consolidating and hence clarifying the myriad of academic credentials offered across 46 countries into common "cycles," which, in combination with qualification frameworks, a common credit system, and quality assurance, assures the recognition of degrees across national borders. These highlights help clarify, for North American readers, what Bologna is and what it is not. Some of them are extraordinarily relevant to challenges that face U.S. higher education, and are particularly applicable to accountability and access issues--in ways we simply have not considered. This document urges us to learn something from beyond our own borders that just might help us rethink our higher education enterprise. Thirteen Chapters comprise this report. They are: (1) A Tapestry of Change; (2) The Core of Bologna, Line I: Qualification Frameworks; (3) The Core of Bologna, Line II: Qualification Frameworks from the Ground-Up: the "Tuning" model and its Analogues; (4) The "Bologna-Code:" Learning Outcomes and Competences; (5) The Core of Bologna, Line III: The European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS); (6) The Core of Bologna, Line IV: Closing the Loop with The Diploma Supplement; (7) Coda to the Accountability Loop: Quality Assurance; (8) The Core of Bologna, Line V: A Different Kind of Visit With Degree Cycles; (9) The Social Dimension of Bologna: Providing Multiple Pathways; (10) The External Dimension: Bologna Faces the World; (11) The Larger Language Landscape; (12) Bologna 2020: What is Left to be Done?; and (13) What Should the U.S. Learn?: Epiphanies for Our Eyes. Appended are: (A) Our European Colleagues; Our Translation Assistance; (B) 2007 Status of Core Bologna Features and Enabling Legislation in 46 Countries; and (C) Institutions from Which Diploma Supplements Were Received and Examined. (Contains 14 figures and 4 tables.) [For the document, "Bologna with Student Eyes, 2007," see ED500451.]
In the summer of 1970, Soviet Education published a compilation by Fred Ablin of documents on the history of Soviet higher education. During the summer of 1972, under the guest editorship of Wesley Fisher, a double issue devoted to the training of engineers for the Soviet economy appeared. For the current, June 1973, issue of the journal, we have selected a series of articles to bring the interested reader up to date on recent innovations in the Soviet system of higher education.
The qualitative study on which this article is based examined key individuals’ perceptions, both within a research university community and beyond in its external governing board, of how to improve benchmarking as an accountability method in higher education. Differing understanding of benchmarking revealed practical implications for using it as an accountability tool. A change model is presented for enhancing the effectiveness of benchmarking in higher education communities.
The author defines benchmarking as the approach of establishing operating targets and productivity programs based on industry best practices leads to superior performance. The four basic philosophical steps of benchmarking include: knowing your operation; knowing the industry leaders or competitors; incorporating the best practices; and gaining superiority. Benchmarking has also been divided into two parts: practices and metrics. The author points out that each can be investigated by the benchmarking process. An example demonstrates the process. Both historical and managerial perspectives are discussed.
Purpose
To determine the criteria for internal benchmarking candidate processes. Using those criteria, to develop a decision flowchart to employ internal or external benchmarking. To then propose a framework for implementing internal benchmarking in an organization. Finally, to use a case study to apply both the Decision Flowchart and the proposed implementation framework.
Design/methodology/approach
The method is theoretical framework design supported by a case study.
Findings
The development of a practical flowchart and framework is achieved. This is successfully used in improving a business process thorough an actual case study.
Research limitations/implications
The information is limited to situations where quality programs including benchmarking are used or anticipated. Information is drawn from a single successful case study and existing literature.
Practical implications
Provides a practical prescriptive approach for identifying and applying the quality tool of benchmarking to internal processes.
Originality/value
This provides a new method of evaluating processes for improvement based on the availability of internal knowledge. No such flowchart has been proposed to date. It should be of use to both practitioners and academics by offering a step‐by‐step approach to improving their business processes and profitability.
The literature related to benchmarking practices and theory was reviewed from 1986 to 2000. The earlier stages of benchmarking developments stressed a process and/or activity orientation. Recently, however, the scope of benchmarking appears to have expanded to include strategies and systems. Despite recent advancements, the field of benchmarking still suffers from the lack of theoretical developments which are badly needed to guide its multi-faceted applications.
In recent years, executives have invested heavily in new management tools and techniques with the hope to find a potent formula for performance improvement. However, there has been no objectives evidence on whether increased tool usage is good or bad for companies. Hence, a study was conducted to get the facts and it was found that tool usage is high and growing. It also found that there is absolutely no correlation between the number of tools used, or the specific tools used, and satisfaction with the financial results of a business. However, it was found that there is a strong correlation between satisfaction with financial results and a companies ability to build distinctive capabilities that serve costumer needs. In addition, management tools vary significantly in their ability to improve a company's performance along critical strategic dimensions. Some tools are better at discovering customer opportunities, others at exploiting competitor vulnerabilities.
Benchmarking is an ongoing, systematic process for measuring and comparing work processes of one organization to those of another to identify best practices. Higher education can gain much from this technique, as industry has. The method is objective, reduces resistance to change and can lead to dramatic innovation and rapid development. (MSE)
This chapter presents an overview of benchmarking as well as dashboard indicators for higher education.
Incl. bibl. references, index.
Increasing competition, demands for accountability, and higher volumes of available information are changing the methods of how institutions of higher education operate in the mid-1990s. For higher education to enact substantial and sustainable changes in efficiency and productivity, a new way of thinking or paradigm that builds efficiency and a desire for continual learning must be integrated into institutional structures. Tools are also being developed that measure or benchmark the progress and success of these efforts (Keeton & Mayo-Wells 1994). Among the improvement strategies and techniques such as Total Quality Management (TQM), Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI), and Business Process Reengineering (BPR), benchmarking has emerged as a useful, easily understood, and effective tool for staying competitive.
WHAT IS BENCHMARKING?
Although the use of comparative data has been used for years in some industries, including higher education, benchmarking as defined today was developed in the early 1980s at the Xerox Corporation in response to increased competition and a rapidly declining market (Camp 1989). The strategy of benchmarking is important both conceptually and practically, and is being used for improving administrative processes as well as instructional models at colleges and universities by examining processes and models at other schools and adapting their techniques and approaches (Chaffee & Sherr 1992; Clark 1993). More concisely, benchmarking is an ongoing, systematic process for measuring and comparing the work processes of one organization to those of another, by bringing an external focus to internal activities, functions, or operations (Kempner 1993). The goal of benchmarking is to provide key personnel, in charge of processes, with an external standard for measuring the quality and cost of internal activities, and to help identify where opportunities for improvement may reside. Benchmarking is analogous to the human learning process, and it has been described as a method of teaching an institution how to improve (Leibfried & McNair 1992). As with other quality concepts, benchmarking should be integrated into the fundamental operations throughout the organization and be an ongoing process that analyzes the data collected longitudinally. Benchmarking attempts to answer the following questions:
*How well are we doing compared to others?
*How good do we want to be?
*Who is doing it the best?
*How do they do it?
*How can we adapt what they do to our institution?
*How can we be better than the best? (Kempner 1993)
Previously, questions like these may have not have seemed important to institutions of higher education. However, in the competitive and rapidly changing markets of the 1990s (characterized by declining enrollments and funding in higher education), organizations are learning never to be satisfied with the status-quo, and to continually question their internal operations and relative position in the eyes of prospective customers. To answer these questions, several multi-step benchmarking methods have been developed by leading benchmarking practitioners (Camp 1995; Spendolini 1992; Watson 1992). Benchmarking procedures can be condensed into four steps: planning the study, conducting the research, analyzing the data, and adapting the findings to the home institution that is conducting the study. The first step involves selecting and defining the administrative or teaching process(es) to be studied, identifying how the process will be measured, and deciding which other institutions to measure against. Second, benchmarking process data is collected using primary and/or secondary research about the colleges, universities, or other organizations being studied. The third step consists of analyzing the data gathered to calculate the research findings and to develop recommendations. At this point, the differences or gaps in performance between the institutions being benchmarked help to identify the process enablers that equip the leaders in their high performance. Adaption of these enablers for improvement is the fourth step in the first iteration of a benchmarking cycle, and the primary goal of the project.
A review of the benchmarking literature shows that there are primarily four kinds of benchmarking: internal, competitive, functional/industry, and generic or best-in-class. Internal benchmarking can be conducted at large, decentralized institutions where there are several departments or units that conduct similar processes. The more common competitive benchmarking analyzes processes with peer institutions that are competing in similar markets. Functional or industry benchmarking is similar to competitive benchmarking, except that the group of competitors is larger and more broadly defined (Rush 1994). Generic or best-in-class uses the broadest application of data collection from different industries to find the best operations practices available. The selection of the benchmarking type depends on the process(es) being analyzed, the availability of data, and the available expertise at the institution.
IS BENCHMARKING APPLICABLE TO HIGHER EDUCATION?
Due to its reliance on hard data and research methodology, benchmarking is especially suited for institutions of higher education in which these types of studies are very familiar to faculty and administrators. Practitioners at colleges and universities have found that benchmarking helps overcome resistance to change, provides a structure for external evaluation, and creates new networks of communication between schools where valuable information and experiences can be shared (AACSB 1994). Benchmarking is a positive process, and provides objective measurements for baselining (setting the initial values), goal-setting and improvement tracking, which can lead to dramatic innovations (Shafer & Coate 1992). In addition, quality strategies and reengineering efforts are both enhanced by benchmarking because it can identify areas that could benefit most from TQM and/or BPR, and make it possible to improve operations with often dramatic innovations.
Despite the majority of positive recommendations for using benchmarking and successful examples of its current use, there are critics of its applicability to higher education. The stated objections include the belief that benchmarking is merely a strategy for marginally improving existing processes, that it is applicable only to administrative processes (or only to teaching practices), is a euphemism for copying, is lacking innovation, or that it can expose institutional weaknesses (Brigham 1995; Dale 1995). These concerns are largely unfounded because benchmarking can radically change processes (if warranted), apply to both administration and teaching, adapt not "adopt" best practices, and if the Benchmarking Code of Conduct is followed, confidentiality concerns can be reduced. The Code of Conduct calls for benchmarking practitioners to abide by stated principles of legality, exchange, and confidentiality (APQC 1993). Benchmarking can make it possible for the industry to improve processes in a "leapfrog" fashion by identifying and bringing home best practices, and therefore offering a way of responding to demands for cost containment and enhanced service quality in a cost-effective and quality-oriented manner (APQC 1993; Shafer & Coate 1992).
WHERE IS BENCHMARKING BEING USED IN HIGHER EDUCATION?
Graduate business schools, professional associations such as NACUBO and ACHE, independent data sharing consortia, private consulting companies, and individual institutions are all conducting benchmarking projects today. The broad-based NACUBO benchmarking program was begun in late 1991, and it seeks to provide participants with an objective basis for improved operational performance by offering a "pointer" to the best practices of other organizations. Today, nearly 282 institutions have participated in the study, and the current project analyzes 26 core functions at colleges and universities, such as accounting, admissions, development, payroll, purchasing, student housing, and others (NACUBO 1995). The Association for Continuing Higher Education (ACHE) and graduate business schools have also conducted specialized benchmarking studies that focus on the processes and practices concerning their particular institutional departments (AACSB 1994; Alstete 1996). A review of the literature finds independent benchmarking projects are currently in use, or have recently been conducted, by a wide range of institutions such as the University of the Chicago, Oregon State University, Pennsylvania State University, Babson College, and many others. These independent projects cover undergraduate and graduate teaching processes, as well as academic and business administrative practices.
How Can an Institution Get Started?
Before beginning a benchmarking study, an institution should decide if benchmarking is the correct quality improvement tool for the situation. After processes are selected for analysis, the appropriate personnel, who have a working knowledge of the area undergoing the benchmarking analysis should then be chosen to conduct the study. A college and university can take part in an externally sponsored benchmarking project with predefined objectives, or conduct a project on its own or with the help of consultants. It is recommended that, as a start, an institution new to benchmarking, begin with a more "grassroots" level departmental or administrative project that measures best practices internally, or with local competitors. An institution that is more advanced in quality improvement efforts can seek out world-class competitors better and implement the findings more readily than a benchmarking novice (Marchese 1995b). Information on prospective benchmarking partners can be obtained from libraries, professional associations, personal contacts, and data sharing consortia. Once the benchmarking data is collected and analyzed, it can be distributed in a benchmarking report internally within the institution and externally to benchmarking partners for implementation of improved processes. The overall goal is the adaption of the process enablers at the home institution to achieve effective quality improvement. Benchmarking is more than just gathering data. It involves adapting a new approach of continually questioning how processes are performed, seeking out best practices, and implementing new models of operation.
REFERENCES
Camp, R.C. (1989), Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices That Lead to Superior Performance. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.
Camp, R.C. (1995). Business Process Benchmarking; Finding and Implementing Best Practices. Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press.
Kempner, D.E. (1993). The Pilot Years: The Growth of the NACUBO Benchmarking Project. NACUBO Business Officer, 27(6), 21-31.
Shafer, B.S., & Coate, L.E. (1992). Benchmarking in Higher Education: A Tool for Improving Quality and Reducing Cost. Business Officer, 26(5), 28-35.
This ERIC digest is based on a full-length report in the ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report series 95-5, Benchmarking in Higher Education: Adapting Best Practices to Improve Quality by Jeffrey W. Alstete.
Eyes: Re-learning Higher Education in the Age of Convergence Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2009. Alstete, J. W. Benchmarking in Higher Education: Adapting Best Practices to Improve Quality Benchmarking as an Administrative Tool for Institutional Leaders
- C Adelman
- U S The Bologna Process
- D C Washington
- B E Bender
Adelman, C. The Bologna Process for U.S. Eyes: Re-learning Higher Education in the Age of Convergence. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2009. Alstete, J. W. Benchmarking in Higher Education: Adapting Best Practices to Improve Quality. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, #5, George Washington University, 1995. Bender, B. E. " Benchmarking as an Administrative Tool for Institutional Leaders. " In B. E. Bender and J. H. Schuh (eds.), Using Benchmarking to Inform Practice in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002. Birnbaum, R. Management Fads in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
Higher Education Benchmarking in Canada and the United States of America
- R Farquhar
Farquhar. R. " Higher Education Benchmarking in Canada and the United States of America. " In A. Schofi eld (ed.), Benchmarking in Higher Education: An International Review. London: CHEMS; Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization, 1998.
Benchmarking in Higher Education Benchmarking in UK Higher Education
- N Jackson
- H H Lund
- New Ow Benchmarking And Higher Education Came Together
- H Directions For Institutional Research @bullet Doi Lund
Jackson, N., and Lund, H. Benchmarking in Higher Education. Buckingham, England: Open University Press, 2000. H OW BENCHMARKING AND HIGHER EDUCATION CAME TOGETHER 13 NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH @BULLET DOI: 10.1002/ir Lund, H. " Benchmarking in UK Higher Education. " In A. Schofi eld (ed.), Benchmark-ing in Higher Education: An International Review. London: CHEMS; Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization, 1998.
Benchmarking in Other HE Systems
- H Lund
- N Jackson
Lund, H., and Jackson, N. " Benchmarking in Other HE Systems. " In N. Jackson and H.
Benchmarking in Higher Education. Buckingham, England: Open Uni-versity Press Understanding Benchmarking
- Lund
Lund (eds.), Benchmarking in Higher Education. Buckingham, England: Open Uni-versity Press, 2000. Marchese, T. " Understanding Benchmarking. " AAHE Bulletin, 1995, 47(8), 3–5.
Benchmarking in Australian Higher Education London: CHEMS; Paris: United Nations Educa-tional, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization
- V Massaro
Massaro, V. " Benchmarking in Australian Higher Education. " In A. Schofi eld (ed.), Benchmarking in Higher Education. London: CHEMS; Paris: United Nations Educa-tional, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization, 1998.
National Association of College and University Business Offi cers (NACUBO) Bench-marking for Process Improvement in Higher Education: National Association of College and University Business Offi cers Managing the Management Tools
- G Mouradian
- D K Rigby
Mouradian, G. The Quality Revolution: A History of the Quality Movement. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, Inc., 2002. National Association of College and University Business Offi cers (NACUBO). Bench-marking for Process Improvement in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: National Association of College and University Business Offi cers, 1995. Rigby, D. K. " Managing the Management Tools. " Engineering Management Review. Spring, 1995, 88–92.
Using Benchmarking to Inform Practice in Higher Education New Directions for Higher Education (no. 118, pp. 65–78) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Benchmarking in Higher Education Benchmarking in Higher Education: A Tool for Improv-ing Quality and Reducing Cost
- R Secor
- J A Seybert
- E J Weed
- T H Bers
Secor, R. " Penn State Joins the Big Ten and Learns to Benchmark. " In B. E. Bender and J. H. Schuh (eds.), Using Benchmarking to Inform Practice in Higher Education. New Directions for Higher Education (no. 118, pp. 65–78). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002. Seybert, J. A., Weed, E. J., and Bers, T. H. " Benchmarking in Higher Education. " In E. Secolsky and D. B. Denison (eds.), Handbook on Measurement, Assessment, and Evalu-ation in Higher Education. New York: Routledge, 2012. Seymour, D. On Q: Causing Quality in Higher Education. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1993. Shafer, B. S., and Coate, L. E. " Benchmarking in Higher Education: A Tool for Improv-ing Quality and Reducing Cost. " Business Offi cer, 1992, 26(5), 28–35.
The Benchmarking Book The Benchmarking Book: A How-to-Guide to Best Practice for Managers and Practitioners Collaborating to Compete: Benchmarking Through Regional Partnerships
- M J Spendolini
- Amacom
- T Stapenhurst
- D J Yarrow
- V B Prabhu
Spendolini, M. J. (1992). The Benchmarking Book. New York: AMACOM. Stapenhurst, T. The Benchmarking Book: A How-to-Guide to Best Practice for Managers and Practitioners. Oxford, England: Elsevier Ltd., 2009. Yarrow, D. J., and Prabhu, V. B. " Collaborating to Compete: Benchmarking Through Regional Partnerships. " Total Quality Management, 1999, 10, 793–802.
Using Benchmarking to Inform Practice in Higher Education
- B. E. Bender
Benchmarking in Higher Education: An International Review
- H. Lund
Understanding Benchmarking
- Marchese T.
Interinstitutional Comparison of Instructional Costs and Productivity by Academic Discipline:A National Study
- M F Middaugh
The Quality Revolution: A History of the Quality Movement
- G. Mouradian
Handbook on Measurement, Assessment, and Evaluation in Higher Education
- J. A. Seybert
- E. J. Weed
- T. H. Bers
Effective Benchmarking: Learning from the Best
- M. Zairi