Print 
Member Login
ACU provides additional services to its members.
The Methodology Used by the ACU Benchmarking Programme
The first stage of the benchmarking process is the identification of topics to be addressed. These are agreed each year by the participating universities for the following year.
For each topic a framework of open questions is devised (by the ACU team and invited expert assessors). The usual format is to have each topic divided into five sub-topics, covering aspects such as policy and strategy, implementation (e.g. management structure), monitoring and review, communication, etc.
Each university is then required to supply a (brief) written submission backed up, if necessary, by supporting material from the university's existing documentation, responding to the questions and highlighting anything perceived to be a strength or weakness on their part. The emphasis on existing documentation is considered important, not only to limit the amount of work required from members, but also so that the benchmarking process looks at current practice and not future intentions.
Responses are then distilled to ascertain the appropriateness of the elements of the management processes adopted by each member university in the context of their circumstances. Each university is asked to provide a set of contextual data which aims to describe the nature of the university, as an aid to 'judging fitness for purpose'. It also conveys a sense of the range of institutions participating in the Programme.
During this stage and the assessment stage, there are two key guiding principles:
- Judgements made by the assessors are based on the facts as declared by the University, i.e. the submission is taken at face value
- Any factors known personally to an assessor, but not included in the submission, are disregarded for assessment purposes, in order to preserve fairness and balance.
The assessment process has been refined over the years that the Programme has been in operation. It is based on that used by the European Quality Awards scheme, namely by considering the:
- Approach, defined as the policy or technique adopted, and whether it is right for the task (fitness for purpose)
- Application, defined as the extent to which this policy or technique is applied across the university
- Outcome, defined as how successful the approach is at achieving the objectives, but also encompassing the extent to which the approach is monitored to ascertain whether it continues to be fit for purpose, or whether it requires adaptation to meet changed circumstances.
The table below gives a sense of how the assessment process is applied:
|
Approach |
Application |
Outcome |
Mark |
|
Anecdotal, no system evident. Tending to be reactive. |
Anecdotal, some pilot areas, or one department only. Numerous gaps. |
No data, or some trends in some areas, but not strong. |
1 |
|
Systematic approach, some integration with other processes. |
Covers most areas of the university, no major gaps, but work in some areas still under-developed |
Positive trends in most areas, few adverse trends, good monitoring procedures |
3 |
|
Robust systematic approach with evidence of routine refinement. |
High level integration. All areas of university covered, with negligible gaps. Few variations or weaknesses. |
Strong trends sustained. Strong in all key areas. Leading edge when compared to others. |
5 |
For the annual workshop/conference participants receive a draft report, consisting of the assessors’ reports and marks, and a composite of the elements of good practice gleaned from all the responses, which provides a basis and stimulus for debate. The final report sent to members contains a summary of the workshop discussions highlighting the main issues raised, together with sections setting out the key features of what the members and assessors agreed to be best practice. Each of the features listed for each topic is considered to be a prerequisite if the University is aiming to achieve the benchmark of 'best in group'. Each university is also invited to declare a 'self-assessment mark' (using a simple 1-5 scale) against each 'best practice element'. This is intended primarily for use as a guide to other members, enabling them to make contact and collaborate with a colleague from a university professing particular strength in a topic, if they are seeking to make improvements in their own approach.
It is this process that the club believes encapsulates 'true benchmarking', i.e. in the absence of predetermined benchmarks, the aim is to establish benchmarks through the process. By encouraging debate of the issues, and highlighting problems relating to the variations in context, culture, etc., it has proved possible to derive agreed universal benchmarks, which can themselves be used in future to guide management in the quest for continuous improvement.
1996 - 2012 Benchmarking Activities