home / governance / key governance functions / strategy and measuring performance / measuring institutional performance

Measuring Institutional Performance

The explicit recognition of the role of the governing body in measuring the performance of universities and colleges is relatively new. However, in practice many institutions have undertaken monitoring for some time (not least in order to meet the requirements of the funding bodies and other stakeholders), and it could be argued that such a responsibility is in any case part of the widely recognised role of a governing body for ensuring effective institutional management.

The statement of the primary responsibilities of governing bodies produced by CUC now clearly defines the responsibility of the governors to ensure processes are in place to monitor and evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the institution against plan and approved KPIs which should be, where possible and appropriate, benchmarked against other comparable institutions. (Annex A1 CUC Guide) The work of the CUC in this area mirrors interest elsewhere, for example the Combined Code is explicit in noting that non-executive directors should scrutinise the performance of management in meeting agreed goals and objectives, and monitor the reporting of performance.

There are several factors driving these developments:

In an increasingly competitive higher education marketplace, governors increasingly want information to measure institutional performance. Even though the levers of governance in higher education are less clearly linked to outcomes than in the private sector, the model of accountability still holds.
For many institutions the importance of ensuring successful funding outcomes in relation to competitive issues such as the research assessment exercise, income generation, etc.
In many institutions senior managers welcome active performance monitoring because of the need to maximise value from increasingly scarce resources, and to invest in high performing areas.
The funding bodies are encouraging it both for reasons of accountability and also to maximise value for money.

Nonetheless there are some potential tensions in the role of governing bodies in this area. These include potential disagreement with the executive about both the criteria for assessing institutional performance and the actual judgements made. For this reason, close cooperation is required between the board, the executive, and the officers responsible for planning. Potential disagreement is also possible with the senate/ academic board about judgements on the performance of academic issues. This is an area of considerable sensitivity, for example the reactions to the possible closure of academic departments.

In some cases it may also bring the governing body into potential conflict with its funding body, particularly where the targets and policies of the funding bodies are not institutional priorities. From the governors' point of view this means that some of the institution’s goals and targets are externally generated, while others are internal.

Powerpoint presentation:

'Developments in Measuring Institutional Performance including League Tables', Patrick Kennedy, Director of Planning Services, University of Exeter

<<Return to previous page To next page>>