https://www.adelaide.edu.

au/learning/reviews/benchmarking/

Overview
What is Benchmarking?
Benchmarking is a means of comparing the University's performance or standards, or both, with those of its peers. It is
a means by which the University can monitor its relative performance, identify gaps, seek fresh approaches to bring
about improvements, set goals, establish priorities for change and resource allocation, and follow through with change
processes based on empirical evidence. It can be about broad University-wide issues or specific matters affecting only
one area; it can be strategic (addressing priority issues) or cyclical (addressing a number of areas on a regular basis)
or ad hoc (taking advantage of an opportunity). Benchmarking projects can be as simple as doing a desktop survey of
relevant websites or may involve a formal request for information and/or an agreement with another institution.
Whatever its scope or subject matter, benchmarking is an important element of the University's quality assurance
cycle.
Essentially, benchmarking attempts to answer the following questions:
 How do the standards we have set ourselves compare to our peers?
 How does our performance measure against the outcomes of national and comparator institutions?
 How can we adapt good practice examples from other institutions to our own organisation?

Why Benchmark?
Benchmarking allows the University to:
 identify and monitor standards and performance in order to improve University outcomes, processes and
practices
 discover new ideas for achieving the University's 'core objectives' as outlined in its Strategic Plan
 provide an evidence-based framework for change and improvement.
 inform planning and goal setting
 improve decision-making through referencing comparative data
 bring an external focus to internal activities

Priority Topics
The University's Learning Committee has endorsed the following priority topics for University-wide benchmarking:
 Cohort reporting
 Assessment monitoring
 Graduate attributes

Managing Benchmarking
The University encourages benchmarking with comparator institutions within Australia and overseas as a method of
improving performance and assuring standards. While there is no prescribed methodology for conducting
benchmarking exercises, the University expects staff to comply with the following benchmarking principles and code of
conduct.

Core Principles
Benchmarking projects undertaken by Faculties and Divisions of the University will:
 support the University's mission, values and strategic priorities
 be characterised by a commitment to: learning from best practice; implementation of potential improvements
arising from the findings of benchmarking projects; and sharing of good practices once projects are completed
 be balanced in terms of the value received compared to costs involved in undertaking the projects
 have the approval of the relevant manager or unit head.

Code of Conduct
The following should be taken into account when undertaking benchmarking projects where a request for information
is involved:
 Confidentiality: All benchmarking exchanges should be treated as confidential. Publication and external
communication of findings should not proceed without the permission of all partners involved in the project.
 Use: Benchmarking information should not be used for other than the express purpose for which it was obtained
without prior consent of all participating partners.
 Exchange: The type or level of information exchanged should be comparable between the benchmarking
partners.
 Agreement: If a benchmarking agreement is entered into, issues about confidentiality, use and the type and level
of information to be exchanged should be included in the agreement.

Authorities and Responsibilities

Approvals and management responsibilities should be assigned in accordance with the normal University organisation
structure and reporting relationships, and routine management practices must apply to any significant project
undertaken.

Project Initiation
 The Benchmarking Reports Repository (staff only access) must be checked prior to commencing a project to
ascertain whether similar projects have or are already being undertaken.
 Benchmarking projects involving a formal request for information from another institution must be approved by the
relevant manager or unit head. This can be a Head of School, a General Manager/Director, an Executive Dean, a
Deputy Vice-Chancellor or Vice-President, or, in the case of any large-scale University-wide benchmarking, may
be the Vice-Chancellor.
 If the scope of the project affects more than one area, then consultation and agreement between the areas
impacted are essential prior to the project’s commencement.
 Special care must be undertaken when projects require that the University's corporate data be shared with other
institutions: in this case the relevant data custodian must be contacted and it will be his/her responsibility to
ensure that appropriate approvals for the data transfer are obtained from senior management.

Project Management
 The responsibility for running the project will be with the unit manager under whose authority the project was
approved or his/her delegate.
 Contact with partner organisations will normally be through the unit manager taking responsibility for the project,
unless delegated by him/her. When institutional support is needed for a project to proceed with particular partners,
then the responsible manager must contact the relevant Deputy Vice-Chancellor or Vice-President.
 Written agreements with other institutions and organisations with which projects are undertaken must be entered
into in line with the Contract Management framework and signed in accordance with the formal delegations of the
University.
 The University expects that benchmarking projects will be funded by the area that initiates, manages and accepts
responsibility for the project. If central funds are required such as might be the case for large projects, then a
submission must be made through the planning and budgeting process. If a case for special funding is
appropriate and the timeframe does not permit submissions through the planning and budgeting process, then the
unit manager must approach the relevant Deputy Vice-Chancellor or Vice-President in the first instance.
 When confidentiality considerations allow, benchmarking project reports should be lodged with the Learning and
Quality Support Unit as soon as possible after the completion of the project so that they can be recorded in
the Benchmarking Reports Repository (staff only access). The repository has Adelaide-only access.
 Each year, a summary report on the benchmarking projects undertaken by the Faculties must be submitted to the
Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Academic) as part of the Faculty Performance Report.

Integration with QA Systems

Benchmarking projects are most successful when they are integrated with other initiatives and processes designed to
improve outcomes within the University. To this end, the University expects that projects, findings and implementation
plans will be embedded into Divisional and Faculty operational and business plans.

Framework Oversight
Overall authority for the maintenance of the Benchmarking Framework rests with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and
Vice-President (Academic). However management accountability for the framework is with the Pro-Vice Chancellor
(Student Learning). Responsibility for all operational tasks related to the framework rests with Learning and Quality
Support.

International Benchmarking
The University encourages benchmarking not only with comparator institutions within Australia but also with
institutions overseas.

Selection Criteria for International Benchmarking Partners

The current criteria for selection of the University's international benchmarking partners are as follows:
 Universities with which the University of Adelaide has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or other
agreement, preferably including a reference to benchmarking
 Universities which have English as a primary language
 Universities which are research intensive
 Universities which are comprehensive, preferably including medicine
 Universities which are of comparable size to the University of Adelaide

International Benchmarking Partners

In July 2008, the University of Adelaide and the University of Canterbury (New Zealand) entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding to facilitate collaboration between the two universities. This included agreement to engage in an
ongoing benchmarking relationship and an initial series of benchmarking projects were agreed.
The University sees the relationship that has been developed with the University of Canterbury as a pilot of an
international benchmarking approach for the University, with the emphasis being a qualitative one. A series of projects
have been initiated around:
 student experience,
 performance reporting,
 sustainability, and
 Faculty of Sciences assessment practices.
Regular management meetings are held via videoconferencing. The Vice-Chancellor, the then Pro Vice-Chancellor
(Learning & Quality) and Director, Strategy and Planning visited the University of Canterbury from 6-10 July 2009 to
further progress benchmarking activities. This was followed by a site visit to Adelaide in November.
These projects are seen as pilots, providing a template for application to collaborations with other disciplines and other
universities and are all ongoing, with continuing communications between relevant staff.
During 2011, the Quality Enhancement Committee agreed to a broad approach which includes active initiation of
informal benchmarking opportunities and reporting best practice, and the development of specific benchmarking
guidelines to facilitate an increase in Faculty and School benchmarking initiatives. It was also agreed that a second
benchmarking partnership be initiated with one of the Universities identified by the Quality Enhancement Committee
for this purpose.

International Benchmarking Measures

The tables below show the indicators, measures and associated data definitions for research, learning and teaching,
and financial performance.
Research
Indicator Measure Data Definition

Research Refereed journal articles
per Academic Staff FTE
per broad discipline
The number of refereed journal articles per Academic Staff full-time
equivalent, broken down by the following fields (these fields are used in
the Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) rankings):
 Natural Sciences and Mathematics;
 Engineering/Technology and Computer Sciences;
 Life and Agricultural Sciences;
 Clinical Medicine and Pharmacy;
 Social Sciences.

Research Ratio of research Income from research activities as a % of total activities (excluding
Activity revenue to total controlled entities).

Research Ratio of the number of Number of higher degree by research (PhD and Masters) enrolments
Training higher degree by as a % of total higher education level student enrolment numbers.
Activity research students to total
Learning and Teaching
Indicator Measure Data Definition

Graduate % of graduates satisfied Percentage of graduates satisfied with their course experience
Satisfaction with their course overall (equivalent for each partner of the Graduate Careers
experience Australia Course Experience Questionnaire).

Employer % of graduates employed Percentage of graduates employed of those available for work in the
Satisfaction year after graduation (equivalent for each partner of the Graduate
Careers Australia Graduate Destination Survey).

Learning Undergraduate retention The number of undergraduate students retained as a % of the total
Performance rates from the previous year less the students that have completed.

Learning Undergraduate progress The number of undergraduate course enrolments with a grade of
Performance rates pass or more as a % of the total undergraduate course enrolment.

Financial Performance
Indicator Measure Data Definition

Research and % of expenditure on the Expenditure on the library collection (excluding salaries and
Teaching Support library collection infrastructure) as a percentage of total expenditure, excluding
controlled entities.

Salary Expenditure % of expenditure on all Expenditure on all salaries as a percentage of total expenditure,
salaries excluding controlled entities.

Government % of revenue from Income from all Government sources as a percentage of total
Support Government sources expenditure, excluding controlled entities.

Financial Health Operating Margin Operating result as a percentage of total operating revenue,
excluding controlled entities.

Financial Health Current ratio Ratio of the value of current assets to current liabilities, excluding
controlled entities.

Knowledge Transfer % of revenue from The value of revenue generated from IP (including licences and
Intellectual Property (IP) patents), including controlled entities.

Benchmarking Guidelines
Although the University does not prescribe any particular approach to benchmarking, Faculties and Divisions must be
aware of the management arrangements that apply as described in Managing Benchmarking.
The benchmarking process suggested by the University follows the University's Quality Assurance Planning and
Budgeting, Implementation, Review and Improvement (PIRI) system.
Types of Benchmarking
The University employs a number of different types of benchmarking to support its goal of continuous improvement:
 Strategic Benchmarking
Used to improve overall performance by examining the long-term strategies and general approaches of
institutions that have succeeded in areas of strategic priority for the University.
 Performance Benchmarking
Used to compare and monitor the performance of the University with its peers using a range of metrics including
financial, research, and learning and teaching performance indicators.
 Functional Benchmarking
Used to compare and improve functional areas in the organisation such as Human Resources or Finance.
 Process Benchmarking
Used when the focus is on improving specific critical processes and operations. Benchmarking partners are
sought from best practice organisations that perform similar work or deliver similar service.
 Internal Benchmarking
Involves comparing practices and processes with other units in the University. The advantage of internal
benchmarking is that access to sensitive data and information is easier; standardised data is often readily
available; and usually less time and resources are needed. There may be relatively few barriers to implementation
as practices may be relatively easy to transfer across the same organisation.
 International Benchmarking
Involves strategic, performance, functional and process benchmarking with comparator institutions
overseas. International benchmarking widens the University's focus and helps to ensure international
competitiveness.
 Quantitative Benchmarking
Looks at quantifiable outputs of an operation. The benchmarks are hard measures. Measurement is critical to help
the University monitor its current performance relative to that of best practice institutions.
 Qualitative Benchmarking
Looks at the systems and processes that deliver the results. The qualitative benchmarks are generally attributes
of best practices in a functional area and these benchmarks could be simply a checklist of essential attributes
constituting best practice.

Selecting Benchmarking Partners

Selecting appropriate benchmarking partners is essential for successful strategic and performance benchmarking. The
University usually undertakes this type of benchmarking with other Go8 universities. A benchmarking partner should:
 have a compatible mission, values and objectives
 be of comparable size
 be a research intensive university
 have a similar discipline mix
 have superior performance in the areas to be benchmarked, and
 have a commitment to quality management and a 'willingness to share'.
In addition to the above, international benchmarking partners should:
 have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the University or other agreement, which includes reference
to benchmarking, and
 have English as the primary language.
For functional and process benchmarking, choose partners with best practice in the areas or processes to be
compared.
Membership of benchmarking consortia is another avenue for comparing performance and outcomes with other
institutions.

Benchmarking Resources
The area that initiates and manages the project will be responsible for providing the resources for the project. The
following resources are normally needed for a benchmarking project:
 Staff time
An investment of staff time is required in collecting, analysing and reporting benchmarking data.
 Logistical Costs
Some benchmarking projects may require site visits or participation in benchmarking partners’ forums.
 Implementation Costs
The implementation of recommendations arising in the final stage of the benchmarking project may incur costs.

Communicating Findings
The value of benchmarking is considerably enhanced if the findings are shared with similar or related units within the
University. The University encourages the production of benchmarking reports that can be included in
the Benchmarking Reports Repository (staff only access) for the benefit of other sections of the University. This
includes externally produced consortia reports.
Benchmarking reports will vary depending on the size and complexity of the exercise. They may include:
 a gap analysis
 a discussion of best practice examples
 recommendations for the adaptation of initiatives to the University of Adelaide context
 a cost/benefit analysis.
Progress towards implementing improvements based on benchmarking projects, and their effect on outcomes, should
also be shared and areas are encouraged to submit and discuss progress with similar units, and with University
committees and bodies, such as the University Research Committee, the University Learning Committee and
the Internationalisation Strategy Committee.
Ideally, implementation plans should be prepared to operationalise recommendations arising from benchmarking
reports. Progress against these plans should be regularly monitored.
Benchmarking reports should be lodged with Learning and Quality Support by the areas undertaking benchmarking
projects.

Benchmarking Checklist
The Checklist covers the key activities of benchmarking:
Tasks
Key Activities
Completed (✓)

Project Selection (Identify what is to be benchmarked)

Form an Internal Benchmarking Team

Select the Benchmarking Partners (Consider the necessary protocols required such as
confidentiality arrangement, agreements, code of practice, etc.)

Finalise Benchmarks (Measures & indicators)

Collect Data

Analyse Data (Determine performance gaps, reasons for gaps, cost/adaptation benefit
analysis)
Communicate Findings (Gain acceptance from management and area staff)

Set Functional Targets (Implement specific improvement actions)

Prepare a Monitor Progress Plan (Include responsibilities and deadlines)

Useful Data Sources & References

Benchmarking Data
Type of Data Source

Group of Eight

Statistics Go8 Executive Dashboard

 Student Load
 Load Funding
 Finance
 Staff
 Course Experience Questionnaire
 Learning and Teaching Performance Fund
 Research (Income, Publication, HDR Student Load, HDR
Award Completions)

Department of Education

Statistics Selected Higher Education Statistics Series

 Finance
 Research Expenditure
 Staff
 Students
 Time Series - Students

Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL)

Statistics CAUL statistics

 Library Organisation
 Library Staff
 Library Services
 Library Expenditures
 Information Resources

Benchmarking References
Online Resources and University of Adelaide Library Collection:
 Alstete, JW 1996, Benchmarking in higher education: adapting best practices to improve quality, ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report, No 1995.5, Washington, USA.
 American Productivity and Quality Centre 2014, The Benchmarking Code of Conduct, viewed 4 July 2014,
<http://www.apqc.org/knowledge-base/documents/benchmarking-code-conduct>
 Australasian Council on Open Distance and E-Learning 2014, ACODE - Leading in Technology Enhanced
Learning and Teaching - Benchmarks for Technology Enhanced Learning, viewed 4 July 2014,
<http://www.acode.edu.au/pluginfile.php/550/mod_resource/content/8/TEL_Benchmarks.pdf>
 Bender, BE & Schuh JH c2002, ‘Using benchmarking to inform practice in higher education’, New Directions for
Higher Education, No 118, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
 CHEMS 1998, Benchmarking in Higher Education: An International Review, The Association of Commonwealth
Universities, United Kingdom viewed 4 July 2014, <https://www.acu.ac.uk/publications/?pageID=48>
 Department of Education Science & Training 2002, Best Practice Processes for University Research
Commercialisation Final Report, viewed 4 July 2014, <http://www.howardpartners.com.au/publications/best-
practice-processes.pdf>
 Dudden, RF c2007, Using benchmarking, needs assessment, quality improvement, outcome measurement, and
library standards: a how-to-do-it manual with CD-ROM, Neal-Schuman Publishers, New York, NY.
 Evans, A c1994, Benchmarking: taking your organisation towards best practice, Business Library, Melbourne.
 Fielden, J 1997, Benchmarking University Performance, CHEMS Paper No 19, The Association of
Commonwealth Universities, United Kingdom, viewed 4 July 2014,
<https://www.acu.ac.uk/publications/?pageID=48>
 Jackson, N & Lund, HS 2000, Benchmarking for Higher Education, Society for Research into Higher Education &
Open University Press, Buckingham.
 Lidbury, C 1997, Benchmarking, Evaluation and Strategic Management in the Public Sector, OECD Working
Papers No 5:67, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.
 Matters, M & Evans, A 1996, The Nuts and Bolts of Benchmarking, Benchmarking Link-Up Australia.
 McGuire, L 2002, ‘Counting performance or performance that counts?: benchmarking government services in
Australia’, Working Paper Series (Monash University, Department of Management 5/02), Monash University,
Caulfield East, Victoria, viewed 4 July
2014 <http://arrow.monash.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/monash:62915?sort=bs_metadata.peerrevie
wed%2F>
 McKinnon, KR 2000, Benchmarking: a manual for Australian universities, Department of Education, Training and
Youth Affairs, Higher Education Division, Canberra.
 Meade, PH 1997, A Guide to Benchmarking, University of Otago, Dunedin.
 NIES 1995, Benchmarking self help manual: your organisation’s guide to achieving best practices (2nd Ed),
Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
 Raa, TT 2009, The Economics of Benchmarking: measuring performance for competitive advantage, Palgrave
Macmillan, New York.
 Schofield, A 1998, Benchmarking in higher education: an international review, Commonwealth Higher Education
Management Service, UNESCO, London.
 Secolsky, C & Denison, DB 2012, Handbook on measurement, assessment, and evaluation in higher education,
Routledge, New York.
 Stella, A & Woodhouse, D 2007, Benchmarking in Australian Higher Education: a thematic analysis of AUQA
Audit Reports, Australian Universities Quality Agency.
 Zairi, M 1996, Benchmarking for Best Practice: continuous learning through sustainable innovation, Butterworth
Heinemann, Oxford, Boston.