Benchmarking and Implications for Universities: In depth Look Inside Universities
What does benchmarking involve? Why use benchmarking? The purpose of benchmarking The benchmarking cycle Challenges of benchmarking A successful benchmarking environment Lebanese American University (LAU) – Overview Benchmarking Activities at LAU
Benchmarking involves first examining and understanding an institutions internal work procedures, then searching for best practices in other institutions that match those identified, and finally, adapting those practices within the institution to improve performance. Benchmarking requires that an institution go through a thorough selfanalysis: • to develop an in depth understanding of its own processes, • to recognize its strengths and its weaknesses, • to identify internal and external reference points, • to look at other institutions for examples of how to do things more efficiently and effectively to better overcome its weaknesses and to ensure the sustainability of its strengths at even higher levels of performance.
Benchmarking is being used to improve administrative processes as well as instructional models of institutions of higher education (Chaffee & Sherr 1992; Alstete 1997). The importance of benchmarking as an improvement strategy lies in that it provides an external focus on internal activities, functions and processes (Kempner 1993). By integrating benchmarking into the fundamental operations of an institution it transforms an institution into a true learning organization. Benchmarking will be most useful to those organizations that have made a commitment to redesign their processes.
Benchmarking is an ongoing systematic process that involves finding, adapting and implementing outstanding practices for the purpose of achieving higher standards of excellence and continuous improvement. Benchmarking • contributes to accountability, • contributes to quality management, • focuses on demonstrated best practices, • provides a tool for learning, • provides a basis for research for improving practices, • allows for better understanding of operational practices, • stimulates the need for change, • provides a roadmap for action, and • provides opportunities of networking through collaborative efforts (Epper, 1999).
Plan the study
Collect data
Adaptation of enablers for improvement
Determine process enablers of high performance
Analyze data Determine gaps in performance
Defining best practices and core competences. Readily applicable to administrative processes, less so to processes related to teaching and learning. Institutional readiness for benchmarking. Level of awareness of internal processes. Level of incentive to commit to the benchmarking exercise or to the implementation of results. Is the institution and its leadership ready to act on results and commit to implement change for the purpose of improvement or does the institution see benchmarking as an exploratory study? Benchmarking requires sufficient resources. It can be time consuming and costly.
Leadership with Vision
Competitive Environment
Innovation and Quality Improvement
Stakeholder Buy In
Strategic and Operational Planning
Guided by Knowledge and Information
Excellence and Sustainability
Founded as a women’s college in 1924, the Lebanese American University is a not-for-profit private institution of higher education in Lebanon rooted in the tradition of exemplary education. LAU has a campus in Beirut, Lebanon’s capital and largest population hub, and another about 35 kilometers to the north, in Byblos. The two campuses together house seven schools. The schools common to both campuses are: Architecture and Design, Arts and Sciences and Business. The Byblos campus is home to the School of Engineering, Medicine, Nursing and Pharmacy. Student enrollments were 8,138 in 2012 with 7,457 undergraduates, 509 graduates and 172 doctoral degree-professional practice. There are 299 full-time faculty, 123 are dual nationals while 49 are nonLebanese. There are 557 full-time staff. LAU was granted accreditation by the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (CIHE– NEASC).
The Doctor of Pharmacy program is fully accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). This status allows LAU Pharm.D. graduates to sit for the North American Pharmacy Licensure Examination (NAPLEX), and practice in most U.S. states. ACPE first accredited the program in 2002. LAU’s Pharm.D. is the only ACPE-accredited program outside the United States. On October 1, 2011 the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) granted accreditation to all five undergraduate degree programs in the School of Engineering - Civil, Computer, Electrical, Industrial, and Mechanical. This accreditation action extends retroactively from October 1, 2009. On October 1, 2011 the Bachelor of Science degree program in computer science was formally accredited by the Computing Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). This accreditation action extends retroactively from October 1, 2010. Accreditation may be considered a form of benchmarking activity.
The National Survey for Student Engagement (NSSE) probes the level of engagement of first year and senior students in several university activities. These activities include academic and intellectual experiences, mental activities, reading and writing, problem sets, examinations, enriching educational experiences, quality relationships, time usage, institutional environment, educational and personal growth, and others (NSSE, 2011). The NSSE also provides benchmark scores based on effective educational best practices in five areas: (1) level of academic Challenge – LAC; (2) active and collaborative learning – ACL; (3) student-faculty interaction – SFI; (4) enriching educational experiences – EEE; and (5) supportive campus environment – SCE. Students’ perceptions of the level of their engagement at LAU are benchmarked against three peer groups.
Level of Academic Challenge (LAC) First Year Students Academic LAU Year Mean
Carnegie Peers Mean
Sig
Senior Students All NSSE Peers
Effect size Mean
Academic LAU Year Mean
Carnegie Peers Mean
Sig
All NSSE Peers
Sig
Effect size
Effect size Mean
Sig
Effect size
53.6
***
-‐0.17
2006
57.0
56.4
-‐0.37
52.8
**
-‐0.18
2007
56.5
57.3
-‐0.06
56.4
0.01
0.15
57.5
0.13
0.24
57.8
0.12
2006
51.4
52.4
2007
50.5
55.1
2008
53.8
52.5
0.09
53.9
-‐0.01
2008
59.3
57.3
2009
54.7
54.3
0.03
54.3
0.03
2009
59.5
56.1
2010
53.6
54.3
-‐0.05
54.6
-‐0.07
2010
59.5
58.3
0.09
58.1
0.10
2011
53.4
54
-‐0.05
53.8
-‐0.03
2011
57.7
58.2
-‐0.04
57.6
0.00
***
Office of Institutional Research and Assessment
57.4
**
A benchmark study on human resources in three institutions in the region; AUB, AUC and LAU. This project was spearheaded by LAU. Reasons for the Benchmarking project • Leadership committed to make LAU a world class employer and an employer of choice. This was translated into action steps in the institutional strategic plan. • Competition among institutions to attract and retain good faculty. Indicators considered were salary, benefits, workloads and others. • Comparison of productivity and efficient use of resources. • Benchmarking with the US seemed futile in this case.
• Kempner, D.E. (1993). The Pilot Years: The growth of the NACUBO Benchmarking Project. NACUBO Business Officer, 27(6), 21-31. • Chaffee, E.E. and Sherr, L.A. (1992). Quality: Transforming Postsecondary Education, George Washington University: Washington. • Alstete, J. (1997). Benchmarking in Higher Education: Adapting Best Practices To Improve Quality. Eric Digest. • Epper, R.M. (1999). Applying Benchmarking to Higher Education: Some Lessons from Experience, Change, 31(6), 24-31. • National Survey of Student Engagement .(2011). Institutional Report. Indiana University Research, Postsecondary Research: Bloomington.