Institutional Research, Planning and Effectiveness (IRPE)
Benchmarking
Table of Contents
Definition
of Benchmarking
Benchmarking is defined as an ongoing,
systematic process for measuring and comparing the work processes of one
organization or department to those of another, by bringing an external
focus to internal activities, functions, or operations. 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 doesn't have to be a mysterious
and complicated process. Any person, department or organization can
and should do it. At the core of benchmarking is the concept
of learning and sharing. By comparing work processes and practices
with others, you may gain valuable information that you can adapt to your
own situation. Benchmarking is a useful tool that will help
your department continually improve its processes by learning how others
do it. To benchmark, you must first evaluate your own operation's
processes to identify weaknesses and strengths; then you must identify,
study, and adapt from others who may be doing it better!
People within an organization become used
to operating in certain ways. Even if those ways are harmful, most
people resist change because the old way of doing business is so comfortable.
What benchmarking does is challenge the old way. Regular benchmarking is like cleaning out your closet. You always find some things you
don’t need and a few things you didn't know you had, but could use.
Regular benchmarking of critical functions and programs ensures
that you and your managers and employees remain open to new ideas, evolving
technologies and changing trends.
The benchmarking process attempts to answer
the following key questions:
- How well are we doing compared to
others?
- How good do we want to be?
- Who is doing it best?
- How do they do it?
- How can we adapt what they do to
our institution?
- How can we be better than the best?
Four Steps in Benchmarking Procedures
- Plan the Study – This 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.
- Conduct the Research – Data is collected using primary and/or secondary research about the colleges,
universities, or other organizations being studied.
- Analyze the Data –
Calculate the research findings and develop recommendations. At this
point, the differences or gaps in performance between the institutions
being benchmarked help to identify process enablers that equip the
leaders in their high performance.
- Adapt the Findings to Your Institution/Department>
-- Adaptation of these process enablers for improvement is the primary
goal of the benchmarking process.
Six Types of Benchmarking
- Internal Benchmarking -
Know yourself. Know your internal processes. Look within units
and across units or divisions to benchmark. Looking from within ensures
the easiest management of idea exchange and availability of partners, since
all the information is “under the same roof”. Even though it has
these benefits, internal benchmarking has a lower probability of
achieving significant breakthroughs because comparable departments within
one college system tend to have relatively similar practices and process
compared with external organizations.
- Competitive Benchmarking -
This type of benchmarking process focuses on measuring performance
against peer or competitor organizations. The goal of competitive benchmarking is to study the product designs, process capabilities, and/or administrative
methods used by an organization's competitors or peers. Find out
what the competition is doing and how your processes compare with theirs.
The benefit you get from competitive benchmarking is a chance to
learn how to do something better from an outside perspective. However,
if you only copy the competition instead of adapting the information to
fit your needs, you will only be as good as your competitor, not better.
- Collaborative Benchmarking –
This type of benchmarking involves a limited exchange of information from
a consortium of organizations and usually focuses only on quantitative
statistics rather than qualitative analysis. Most institutions and
their departments within, collect this type of data on a regular basis.
- Shadow Benchmarking – This involves making competitor-to-competitor comparisons without your benchmarking partner knowing you're doing it. Shadowing entails no real partner
so you aren't dependent on competitor cooperation, and information comes
from whatever competitive intelligence you can gather. Shadowing
lets you gather new data that will help you improve your processes or prepare
yourself for market growth without alerting competitors.
- Functional Benchmarking – This involves comparing your processes with similar, but not identical,
processes within the same industry, often with industry leaders.
This analysis seeks new ideas that have already succeeded in a compatible
area. The potential number of partners is much greater, but because
they aren't in direct competition they may be more willing to cooperate
in data exchanges. However, the information is harder to transfer
to your organization because many of the partners are from different industries.
- Best-in-Class Benchmarking –
This benchmarking process involves comparing processes that are the same
regardless of industry with the best-in-class organizations that are outside
of your industry who have truly innovative and exemplary performance.
Information obtained from this kind of benchmark is the hardest
to transfer to your organization, since data often comes from very different
kinds of organizations. The benefits can be the greatest in this
type of benchmarking, however, because you may get ideas that improve
your key processes tremendously.
Regardless of which benchmarking type
is used, the purpose is still the same – to help the organization continually
learn from other organizations. Keep in mind that 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.
*Parts of this are paraphrased from: James
G. Patterson, Benchmarking Basics, 1996, Crisp Publications, Inc. and from
Jeffrey W. Alstete, Benchmarking in Higher Education, 1995, ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Reports.
Troy University's In-State Peers
Troy University
compares itself to seven in-state institutions it considers comparable
in terms of enrollment or mission. The seven comparable institutions
are:
Alabama A&M
University (University Research Institute)
Alabama
State University (Planning
and Institutional Advancement)
Auburn
University - Montgomery (Office
of Institutional Research)
University
of Montevallo (Institutional
Research, Planning, and Assessment)
University
of North Alabama (Office of
Research, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness)
University
of West Alabama (Institutional Effectiveness)
Troy University's National Peers
Troy University compares
itself to 23 national institutions. These institutions include the
following institutions that are similar to Troy University. These institutions
include the following:
Arkansas State
University (Institutional Research
and Planning)
University of Central
Arkansas (Institutional
Research)
University of Southern
Colorado (Office of
Institutional Research and Analysis)
University
of North Florida (Office
of Institutional Research)
Georgia
Southern University (Institutional
Research)
Kennesaw
State University (Institutional
Research, and Information Management)
Valdosta
State University (Office of
Institutional Research and Policy Analysis)
University
of Northern Iowa (Information
Management and Analysis)
Pittsburg
State University , Murray State University (Office
of Institutional Research)
Nicholls
State University (Office
of Research and Sponsored Programs)
University
of Louisiana at Monroe (University
Planning and Analysis)
Towson University (Office of Institutional
Research)
Delta State University (The Office of Institutional Research
and Planning)
Southwest Missouri State
University (Office of Institutional
Research)
Western Carolina University (Office of University Planning)
Millersville University of Pennsylvania (Office of Institutional
Research)
Francis Marion University (Institutional Research)
University of Tennessee at Martin (Research,
Grants, and Contracts)
Angelo State
University (Institutional
Research and Assessment)
Stephen
F. Austin State University (Office
of Research and Sponsored Programs)
James
Madison University (Office of Institutional Research)
The national
peers also include four institutions that we are striving to be more like.
These institutions include the following:
California
State University -Stanislaus (Institutional
Research, Planning, and Accountability)
Appalachian
State University (Institutional
Research, Assessment, & Planning)
Sam
Houston State University (Institutional
Research)
Southwest
Texas State University (Institutional
Research)
Benchmarking Web Sites
The
following websites may provide helpful benchmarking data and information:
National
Center for Educational Statistics
Association
for Institutional Research
Assessing
National Surveys with Electronic Research Sources
Southern
Association for Institutional Research
American
Association for Higher Education
American
Association of University Professors
Society
for College and University Planning
ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education
Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System
NSF
Division of Science Resources Statistics
College
and University Professional Association for Human Resources
Southern
Regional Education Board - SREB, Board
of Regents of the University System of Georgia American
College Testing
Chronicle of Higher
Education
Educational Testing Services
North
Carolina State Internet Resources for Outcomes Assessment
USA
Census Data and Information
National
Association of College and University Business Officers
National
Systems for Higher Education Management Systems
