Measuring institutional performance Key Performance Indicators for governors CUC Implementation project
Jim Port J M Consulting January 2008
The CUC KPIs implementation project
CUC Code of Governance (2004) identifies responsibility of governors to monitor institutional performance against plans and approved KPIs…
CUC surveys show some institutions are using KPIs, others are working towards this. Many would welcome guidance CUC review of use of KPIs and guide to KPIs published November 2006 Present implementation project (2007/08) is about: – Evaluating usefulness of the guide – Case-studies of how universities are implementing KPIs – Identifying barriers, good practice etc Report and dissemination in June 2008
Challenges for governors
1. 2. 3. Governors are (rightly) not close to the details, and have limited time for university business There is much paper and pressing operational matters at meetings The most critical issues are often qualitative, long-term, and difficult to measure (but there is lots of data on short-term operational issues estates, finance etc) – – – – – what questions should they ask? how can they add value? how will they know if there is a problem? how can they be confident they are fulfilling their responsibility for monitoring university performance? how can they provide useful challenge to the Executive without duplicating or interfering with university management processes?
The CUC 2006 Guide to KPIs
– Reviewed international experience (US use of dashboards etc) – Proposed a Framework for Monitoring
• 2 “super KPIs and 8 High-level KPIs – Contextual briefing for governors – Challenge questions – Supporting PIs • Overall assessment with traffic-light presentation • One-page summary for governors
This was presented as “illustrative” and a “menu”. No institution is expected to use exactly this model – but they do have to do something
How can KPIs help?
1. Focus attention onto a small number of key strategic issues
2.
3.
Give governors confidence to ask questions about these
Prompt a more sophisticated debate about: • What are we really trying to achieve in this area? • How do we measure progress? • How are we doing compared with our own aims and our peers? Indicate areas of concern Avoid large volumes of paper, and governors becoming involved with operational detail
4. 5.
So, how does it work in practice?
Case study universities
East Anglia Essex Leeds Metropolitan Newcastle Winchester Aberdeen Glasgow Caledonian Strathclyde Newport
Work programme
Governance context
– – Size and role of GB Relationship to executive
Process for using KPIs
– – – How many? (Can the CUC list be streamlined?) Relationship to strategic plan, risk register etc Who owns them – who makes the judgements?
Operational aspects
– – – Data Benchmarking Burden
KPIs for regional/community engagement
Some early findings
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The context is important (role of GB, engagement of governors, TRUST etc) KPIs little use if not clear about strategic aims Engage governors in the issues (be honest) – but not in operational detail Keep the KPIs simple (streamlined) Integrate them with other processes (strategic planning, risk assessment etc) It’s not a quick-fix (will take a few cycles, and will evolve)
Outputs from the project
•
•
Evaluation report
Case study reports
•
•
Revisions to 2006 Guide
Dissemination conference 26 June 2008
What do governors need to monitor? The high level KPIs in the 2006 guide
Top-level summary indicators (“super KPIs”)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Institutional sustainability Academic profile and market position
Top-level indicators of institutional health
The student experience and teaching and learning Research Knowledge Transfer and relationships Financial health Estates and infrastructure Staff and Human Resource Development Governance, leadership and management Institutional projects