The experience of all organisations (not just higher education institutions) in conducting board effectiveness reviews is mixed. When done well they can be extremely useful, but all too often they are 'token' activities undertaken because of the need to meet the requirements of governance codes or external funders. Some key issues facing the governing bodies of HEIs in getting the best from effectiveness reviews are:
Is there a shared commitment within the governing body to undertake an effectiveness review? If not what does that say about the motivation of those involved, and their understanding of the importance of effective governance? Where a shared commitment is high, effectiveness reviews are often relatively straightforward to undertake, but where it is low (or where there are major differences of view either within a board or between it and an executive) then reviews can be quite challenging.
Is a governing body clear about what it wants from an effectiveness review? The CUC-LFHE Effectiveness Framework can help here in identifying what aspects of governance a board might wish to concentrate on. Just undertaking a review every five years because it is required by the funding body is probably the least satisfactory motive, and ideally reviews need to be seen as a long term part of continuous improvement.
How is a governing body going to oversee an effectiveness review? There is no 'correct' way, and options include: by establishing a small review group of board members (a common approach although those involved need to have the confidence of the full membership); direct oversight by the chair of the board (an efficient approach but one which may lack sufficient independence); coordination through the board secretariat (another common approach but one where the secretariat needs to have a clear understanding of board requirements).
Who is going to conduct the effectiveness review? This is a crucial issue, and whoever conducts the review must have the confidence of the governing body and be credible to it. The first question is whether the review should be undertaken internally or by someone external. In the past many institutions have taken an internal route, but increasingly they see advantages in using someone external, such as a consultant or a retired university registrar. In England in 2010 HEFCE have indicated that they also see advantages in HEIs using external reviewers in order to obtain the necessary independence of view. A number of options may be considered.
What data sources might be used in undertaking an effectiveness review? The answer to this question clearly relates to what an HEI wants to achieve from a review, but a number of sources can be considered.
Who should see the report of the effectiveness review? Again the answer to this question depends to an extent on some of the issues raised above, and clearly a report which involves very sensitive issues may require a more limited circulation. The principle should probably be that the final report should be as widely available as possible. Certainly the whole governing body should see it and spend time discussing it (often at an 'awayday' or similar), and most institutions would also want a report to be available (at a minimum) to the executive. The funding bodies encourage as much transparency as possible, and encourage HEIs to publish such reports on their web sites.. The key issue is probably that from the outset a governing body should be clear about eventual publication, if for no other reason than that it may influence how a review will be conducted and the data used.
How often should effectiveness reviews be undertaken? There is no magic number, despite the recommendation of the CUC that it should be undertaken at a minimum every five years. The answer is that HEIs should undertake them when it is useful for them to do so, and practice varies with some undertaking reviews every three years or so. In some ways a three year period makes sense in a rapidly changing external environment, in that it may take a couple of years to implement fully the recommendations of a previous effectiveness review. It is also important to remember that in addition to 'full' reviews, many institutions increasingly undertake shorter annual reviews to ensure that the governing body and its committees have implemented their annual work plans, and taken any necessary action on internal audit and other reporting mechanisms.