By Christelle Garrouste. Towards a Benchmark on the Contribution of Education and Training to Employability: Methodological Note.
INTRODUCTION
“Given the importance of enhancing employability through education and training in order to meet current and future labour market challenges, the Commission is invited to submit to the Council a proposal for a possible European benchmark in this area by the end of 2010” (Council Conclusions of 12 May 2009 on “Education and Training 2020”, 2009/C 119/06).
Following this request, the Directorate-General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) commissioned to the Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning (CRELL) a series of analyses of the contribution of Education and Training systems (E&T) to employability.
The first CRELL report proposed an analytical framework and indicators to measure E&T systems provision of essential skills, facilitation of the school-to-work transition and support of lifelong learning (LLL), (Arjona Perez, Garrouste and Kozovska, 2010a). Based on this study, the Member States Expert Group on Employability Benchmarks concluded on March 3, 2010 that i) Vocational Education and Training (VET) plays a key role in supplying skills that are valued in the labour market; ii) the duration of the transition from education to work and the (mis)match between education and occupation are both topics of policy interest; iii) participation in LLL of older and low qualified workers and returns to education at a later age were also two possible areas for educational benchmarks supporting employability. The Expert Group requested an in-depth analysis of each of the above topics, with information on data availability and a list of indicators from which a benchmark could be chosen. The resulting work was compiled in a second CRELL report (Arjona Perez, Garrouste and Kozovska, 2010b). CRELL prepared a preliminary statistical report presenting different methods to conduct forecast estimations on transition phase indicators which was presented to DG EAC, EUROSTAT, DG EMPL and CEDEFOP at an inter-service consultation meeting on Septembre 13, 2010.
Based upon the comments from the Standing Group on Indicators and Benchmarks (SGIB) and suggestions from EUROSTAT, DG EMPL and CEDEFOP, DG EAC decided to focus the benchmark proposal on one sole indicator of transition from education to employment that would target a percentage increase of the employment rate of 20-34 years old graduates. The present report describes the methodological framework applied to define the proposed benchmark. Section 1 briefly discusses the relevance of an indicator on the transition from education to work as a proxy of the contribution of education to employability. In turn, section 2 presents in details the nominator and denominator of the retained benchmark indicator and section 3 displays the corresponding 2004-2010 historical trend data computed by EUROSTAT. Moreover, in section 4 we report results from preliminary robustness checks, confirming the validity of that data to measure employability. Further, section 5 explains the method applied to define the target value at the horizon 2020. Results from the three deterministic forecasting methods retained are presented in section 6 along side with the results from Monte Carlo simulations. Finally, section 7 concludes with a benchmark proposal on education for employability.
The analysis presented in this report is based upon the September 14, 2011 extractions from EUROSTAT’s EU-LFS annual data from 2004 to 2010.
7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In section 4.2., we showed that two deterministic forecasting methods out of three estimate an overall increase between 2010 and 2020 by almost 5 percentage points, with significant variations across individuals with different educational attainment levels. For instance, we observed a 3 percentage points decrease for the medium educated (when considering the conditional trend model). The only educational group for which a positive increase is predicted by all three methods is the high educated (with an increase comprised between 2 and 3 percentage points).
In view of the variability of these results, we relaxed the assumption that each scenario predicts the overall employability rate at an equal weight. We conducted Monte Carlo simulations for each method to estimate the impact of a random change of weight in one scenario at a time (section 4.3). This final adjustment revealed that in the case of method 1, the assumption of equal weight could be validated; while in the case of methods 2 and 3, scenario 4 was less likely to occur than the other three scenarios, and in the case of method 2 only, scenario 3 was more likely to occur than the other three (see Table A.4 and Figures A.6-A.8).
In turn, the Monte Carlo simulations yield a lowest possible value of 75.91% (based on method 3) and a highest possible value of 83.96%. (based on method 1) (see Table A.4). In terms of plausible percentage point changes between 2010 and 2020, this means that the benchmark target should be defined within a range of [-0.6; +7.5]. A negative benchmark target being of course excluded, we need to choose a value within the range [0; 7.5].
The choice of the actual target value within that range becomes at this stage more political than statistical. Still, one last statistical option in support of the final political decision is to look back at the overall mean value estimated by the deterministic forecasting methods (Table 1), namely +3.79, which enables us to finally reduce the plausible range of values to [3.79;7.5].
Finally, considering the full analysis presented in this report, DG EAC decided to formulate the following benchmark proposal as defined in Box 3 below (European Commission, 2011).
As demonstrated above, this choice of a minimum of 5 percentage points increase is motivated by the fact that such a target would guarantee a plausible (and thereby, realistic) improvement of the employability of all educational groups (supported by all forecasting methods and controlling for uncertainty). As shown by Figure A.9, such a target would lead the majority of the MS above 75% of employability for their 20-34 year-olds graduates. The main outliers are IT, GR, LV and EE, who are expected to remain below 70% of employability. When looking at the higher educated sample, only countries below 80% by 2020 are GR and IT. For the medium educated sample, six countries are expected to be below 70% by 2020, namely EE, IT, LV, LT, IE and GR.
Of course, such an overall target would require specific sub-targets by gender, by type of educational programme (vocational vs. mainstream), by field of education, and, in some countries, by immigration status.
Overall, “the purpose of a benchmark on Education for Employability is to enhance policy exchange on what constitutes good education policies to stimulate employability. Relevant policy steps have already been outlined in "the Framework for Youth Employment" in "Youth on the Move" and within the "Agenda for New Skills and Jobs". These would suggest that education systems shall engage in systematic monitoring of the labour market situation of young people and develop better and more responsive educational policies which reflect labour market realities, including the provision of the mix of skills or key competences that are relevant to the labour market; combating early school leaving; enhancing school-business links; providing transparent information on learning outcomes; aligning the orientation of graduates to future labour market demands; and providing guidance and counselling” (European Commission, 2011). Download Towards a Benchmark on the Contribution of Education and Training to Employability: Methodological Note.

This report is based on the annual ENQA Internal Quality Assurance seminar on the theme of Learning from each other – using benchmarking to develop IQA that was held on 16-17 June 2011 in Helsinki, Finland.
It presents a general overview of the benchmarking theme and discusses common features and differences of the benchmarked agencies’ IQA activities in terms of the selected three themes: performance indicators, follow-up on feedback and staff competence/development. The report also puts forward the benchmarking partners’ views on strengths, weaknesses and recommendations for development of each other’s activities, as well as the good practice they have identified on the selected theme. Download the Report.
Internal Quality Assurance and Benchmarking
DOUGLAS BLACKSTOCK, NADINE BURQUEL, NÚRIA COMET, MATTI KAJASTE, SÉRGIO MACHADO DOS SANTOS, SANDRA MARCOS, MARION MOSER, HENRI PONDS, HARALD SCHEUTHLE, LUIS CARLOS VELÓN SIXTO
Introduction
The Internal Quality Assurance group of ENQA (IQA Group) has been organising a yearly seminar for its members since 2007. Staff members involved in IQA of all ENQA members can join the activities of the Group. The main objective is to share experiences concerning the internal quality assurance of work processes in the participating agencies.
The Group is coordinated by a Steering group (SG), consisting of five members. The composition of the Steering group changes gradually by election of one or two members every year.
The overarching theme of the 2011 seminar was how to use benchmarking as a tool for developing an agency’s internal quality assurance system. The seminar gathered around 45 participants in the premises of the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) in Helsinki on 16-17 June 2011.
“Benchmarking involves comparing different aspects of the work of a group of organisations. It can be a very flexible approach. You can compare services, products or processes; you can look at a wide range of issues or focus on areas of concern; and you can benchmark with similar organisations or take a cross-sector approach on common issues such as customer care. Benchmarking may take place as a one-off exercise or be an ongoing relationship. The benchmarking exercise should be a mutually beneficial relationship, with every organisation in the benchmarking group being able to learn and develop from the experience of others.”
The Steering group based the preparation of the benchmarking activity on this definition. Agencies which are similar to each other, i.e. in size or scope, were grouped in pairs or triplets. Each group included an agency member of the Steering group. They compared their own practice with others on a certain focus area before the seminar, between January and May 2011. In addition to good practices, the participating agencies were encouraged to openly share which processes they find challenging or ineffective in their agencies. The findings were presented in the IQA Seminar in June 2011.
The benchmarking exercise focused on the following areas:
• Benchmarking of performance indicators (with FINHEEC)
• Benchmarking of on the follow-up of feedback (with ACSUCYL)
• Benchmarking of staff competence/development (with NVAO)
The present report gathers good practise and expertise related to these three themes: follow up on feedback (chapter 2), staff development (chapter 3) and performance indicators (chapter 4). The first chapter of the report provides a general overview of the benchmarking theme and is based on the keynote speech given by Dr Nadine Burquel... Download the Report.
Conclusions
Following the comparison exercise of the two Agencies, these conclusions may be drawn: Is it possible to compare Agencies?
• The agencies work in very different contexts, using different processes although some have comparable procedures;
• The indicators used for this benchmarking exercise may seem, at first sight, to be of little value and have little meaning if considered alone. They are context sensitive;
• More data from different agencies would be needed to choose the best and most representative indicators.
Could indicators be a tool to compare the performance of the agencies?
• It is difficult and lengthy to compare agencies with this type of indicators;
• They are a good internal tools to monitor and improve the effectiveness of the quality management system;
• It is useful to know which indicators other agencies use (qualitative comparison).
FINAL THOUGHTS
Some areas to work on in the future were identified:
• The group considered that it could be more important to proceed with the exchange of practices on the use of different procedures;
• Nevertheless, when exchanging and comparing practices, agencies should also look at the way(s) in which they measure the impact of such practices (internal: resources; and external: results)
• It would be important to develop meaningful indicators to assess the impact of the agency’s work on HEIs and on the HE system as a whole. Download the Report.

This benchmark will be the reference level of European average performance on the share of employed graduates from education and training and will help monitoring progress towards the targets set by the Europe 2020 strategy.
Based on the proposal presented by the Commission in May 2011, the Council agreed that by 2020, the share of employed among the graduates 34 year olds having left education and training no more than three years before the reference year should be at least 82 as compared to 76.5 in 2010. This target level refers to an EU average and does not constitute a national target for individual Member States.
Employability - that is, the combination of factors which enable individuals to progress towards or enter employment, to stay in employment and to progress during their career - is a complex concept, involving not only each individual's characteristics, skills, attitudes and motivation, but also other external factors which lie beyond the scope of education and training policy, such as labour market regulations, demography, the structure of the economy and the overall economic situation.
Since 2010 researchers of the JRC's Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning CRELL have developed the conceptual and methodological frameworks defining the present benchmark. They have also been evaluating the role played by specific education and training policies in explaining within country and cross country variations in its value.
The European benchmark for education and training for employability complements those already adopted in May 2009 and the one on learning mobility adopted in November 2011 and will be examined by Member States and the Commission in 2014 as part of the Education and Training 2020 ET 2020 the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training in order to decide whether a revision of the indicators is needed. Press release: Council conclusions on the employability of graduates from education and training
CRELL methodological note: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/.

International Benchmarking-Conference  Seminar III/7 ----- 13. bis 14.09.2012. Contact: Dr. Harald Gilch.
Conference venue: Industrial trade union Mining, chemistry, energy (IG BCE - Industriegewerkschaft Bergbau, Chemie, Energie) Königsworther Platz 6 30159 Hannover Conference room C103
Target group: Members of the executive board of universities (president, chancellor, vice-chancellor)
Management staff office and administrative staff in the field of strategic higher education management
Topics: On the topic of Benchmarking in Higher Education
Benchmarking is an on-going, systematic process for measuring and comparing work processes of one organization to those of another to identify best practices. Higher education can gain much from this technique, as industry has. For several years now this method has become a substantial aspect of modernization and development activities in higher education in Europe.
Recent experience with benchmarking in higher education indicates that benchmarking is a method covering a wider range of process elements and instruments.
Yet the dependency on contextual and organizational conditions often implies a need to adapting the conventional benchmarking process and instruments. The contributed presentations will report on various European benchmarking projects that successfully combine different elements of a benchmarking concept – quantitative indicator oriented aspects as well as qualitative process oriented aspects.
Further the presentations will cover the learning effects of benchmarking, reflecting on actors inside the organizations as well as external supporters of a benchmarking process such as consulting organizations. As the application of benchmarking holds both conceptual and practical difficulties, the contributed presentations will focus on practical guidelines for successful and effective benchmarking processes.
Program and additional information.
http://www.his.de/hochschulmanagement.
http://www.his.de/benchmarking.
HIS Higher Education Management.
Register here (open until 10th August 2012).

By Iman Sherif. Shaikh Nahyan Bin Mubarak Al Nahyan said the importance of higher education has given prominence to commissions and associations of academic licensing and accreditation.
Abu Dhabi: Establishing clear principles and benchmarks for quality education was the focus of the Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, held in the capital.
"Determining the scope of our operations now and in the future requires the adoption of international best practices, benchmarks, assessment methods, strategies and effective systems for accreditation," said Shaikh Nahyan Bin Mubarak Al Nahyan, Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, addressing the meeting.
He added that the importance of higher education had raised the prominence of commissions and associations of academic licensing and accreditation.
"The increasing role of knowledge as an engine of social and economic activities in our region and the world has led to the increased importance of higher education in society, not only in supporting efforts of development and growth but also in preparing students for rich and productive lives," he said.
Several specialists and professors deliberated on ways of ensuring how institutions in the UAE can offer a world-class higher education.
"We are looking at finding benchmarks to ensure that the outcome achieved by UAE students is equal in quality to those of their worldwide peers," Sue Parner, senior manager in charge of qualifications framework at the National Qualification Authority, told Gulf News.
"The higher education here in the UAE does not provide students with sufficient on-the-job training opportunities to practice what they are learning while studying," she added.
Nick Harris, international adviser shared his view with Gulf News. "A qualification framework provides a direct and understandable link between the needs and expectations of the society and its individuals and all forms of education and training and their quality assurance."
The feasibility of adopting models of successful enterprises and how they leverage integration of students in their professional workforce was among the topics discussed.
Dr Victoria Lindsay, deputy director of validation services at UK Open University, explained to Gulf News about the partnership with the Arab Open University. "Some 22,000 students are currently benefiting from this partnership that will allow them to receive two degrees so that they meet both the European and Arab requirements in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Jordan," he said.

Our "Benchmarking in European Higher Education activities are designed to improve the use of benchmarking in higher education. Benchmarking is a powerful management tool designed to help modernise higher education management and to promote the attractiveness of European Higher Education. It supports HEIs and policy makers to better realise the Lisbon goals and the Bologna Process. New Benchmarking group on internationalisation, January 2012.

Benchmarking to enhance performance in internationalisation
WHAT IS BENCHMARKING?
Benchmarking is increasingly widespread in both the private and public sector as a means to measure the performance of products, services or processes through comparison with best practice. It requires the organisations to review their performance, identify strengths and weaknesses and take action for improvement against an agreed set of standards. Benchmarking can be carried out by a single organisation but collaborative benchmarking with compatible partners has gained in popularity.
Although it is not yet extensively used in European higher education, there is an increasing interest in both quality and performance measurement, as a number of different initiatives and projects testify. ESMU has carried out several projects for benchmarking in higher education and produced a range of publications (http://www.education-benchmarking.org/).
WHY BENCHMARK?
There are many benefits for participants in a collaborative benchmarking group. They will be able to:
- self-assess their institution, identifying their strengths and weaknesses
- better understand the processes which support strategy formulation and implementation in increasingly competitive environments
- gain knowledge of good processes and learn about practices to make organisational improvements
- obtain data to support decision-making for new strategic developments
- assess the competitiveness of their institution
- set reachable targets for improvement.
Benchmarking also has the potential to stimulate and support processes of change. A shared set of standards and targets enables universities to visualise a pathway for improvement and if the outcomes are successful, benchmarking will create new ways of working that encourage continuous learning for strategic institutional developments through the comparison of practices with other institutions.
WHY BENCHMARK INTERNATIONALISATION?
While formal benchmarking tools are still relatively unusual in higher education, many institutions are already using some form of informal benchmarking either internally or through comparison with partners or competitors identified as peer institutions.
As internationalisation is increasingly integrated into strategic processes, it is becoming essential for universities to be able make informed decisions on institutional direction, as well as assess and enhance performance according to different objectives over a wide range of international activities. The task is a complex one since it is not only an issue of academic programmes and partnerships, but also involves key organisational aspects such as governance, operations, human resources and finance.
Beyond the sharing of best practice amongst the group members, benchmarking, when used appropriately, can make a significant contribution to strategic goals and the quality of internationalisation. It provides significant information for senior management that can not only lead to improved understanding and awareness but also enhance stakeholder engagement. It provides valuable support to decision-making processes, raises visibility and reputation and strengthens competitive advantage.
WHY JOIN THE PROJECT?
This project is ideal for universities that are currently engaged in, or planning to embark upon, a strategic review of their internationalisation activities with a view to enhancing their role and contribution to overall institutional performance. Universities that commit to this one-year project will:
- review activities in the field of internationalisation and assess current level of performance
- understand better the processes that support the formulation of an internationalisation strategy
- gain knowledge on best practices to make organisational improvements and mainstream internationalisation strategy
- obtain data to support decision-making for the further development of the internationalisation strategy by setting realistic targets for improvement.
See also on the blog: EU education benchmarks – good progress, but not enough, Benchmarking Conference, 2010 Benchmarking Workshops.

A new European Commission report, on Progress towards the common European objectives in education and training – Indicators and benchmarks 2010/2011, highlights that out of the five EU education benchmarks set for 2010– on early school leavers, low achievement in reading, upper secondary completion, maths science and technology (MST) graduates, and on adult lifelong learning – only the MST benchmark has been attained. The number of MST graduates in Europe increased by 37% since 2000, i.e. well above the set target of 15%. In the other areas, despite steady progress, performance remains below expectations at the aggregate European level. Apart from the average figures, the report also provides individual country records, showing which countries score below or above the EU average, as well as which European states are frontrunners or lagging behind in a comparative perspective.
The findings of the report are equally informative for the newly-set education targets, within the Europe 2020 strategy. The two headline targets – of raising the share of the young adult population with tertiary level education attainment to 40% and of reducing early-school leaving to less than 10% – are achievable, assesses the report. Nevertheless, the authors underline that the ‘conservative’ targets, set at the national level in some EU member states, might undermine this European-level objective. The report further emphasises that increased investments into education are needed, if European states want to be successful in this strategy. As much as EUR 10 000 more per student would be necessary to catch up with the levels of the US spending on higher education.
As for the next steps, the Commission is expected to launch the two remaining benchmarks – on learning mobility and employability, while all the EU member states are expected to spell out the EU-level targets in their national reform programmes.
Download the COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, Progress towards the common European objectives in education and training (2010/2011), Indicators and benchmarks.
3. Higher Education (pp.54-66)
Higher education is crucial to Europe's ambitions to be a world leader in the global knowledge economy. The Europe 2020 Strategy aims to support the further modernisation of European higher education systems, to allow higher education institutions to reach their full potential as drivers of human capital development and innovation. In order to respond to the demands of a modern knowledge-based economy, Europe needs more highly skilled higher education graduates, equipped not only with specific subject knowledge, but also the types of cross-cutting skills – such as communication, flexibility and entrepreneurial spirit – that will allow them to succeed in today's labour market. At the same time, higher education institutions must be able to play their full part in the so-called "knowledge triangle", in which education, research and innovation interact.
Europe 2020 has established the headline target that 40% of 30-34 year olds should have tertiary education qualifications by 2020. Closely linked to this is the headline target that Europe should spend 3% of GDP on research. Other EU-level objectives for higher education include the education benchmark for 2010 to increase the number of mathematics, science and technology graduates by at least 15% over 2000 level and the Bologna process objective that, by 2020, 20% of all university graduates should have undertaken learning mobility as part of their university education. When it comes to funding, the European Commission has proposed an objective that 2% of GDP should be spent on higher education.
The first section of this sub-chapter examines progress in the European modernisation agenda in higher education and the related inter-governmental Bologna Process to create a European Higher Education Area. The following section focuses on quality in higher education institutions and the remaining sections look at progress in participation in higher education by analysing growth in the number of students and graduates.
3.1 The Modernisation Agenda for Higher Education and the Bologna Process
The European Commission presented an over-arching strategy for European higher education in its 'Modernisation Agenda for universities: education, research and innovation' Communication of 2006. The Modernisation Agenda sets out three core priorities: curriculum, governance and funding reform. The issue of degree structure and curriculum reform was established as a key priority with the intergovernmental Bologna Process. Launched with the signature of the Bologna Declaration in 1999, the Bologna Process aims to create a European Higher Education Area, in which national higher education systems are more coherent and compatible. 47 European countries now participate in the Process, which has expanded in scope and geographical coverage over the years since 1999. On 28-29 April 2009, Ministers responsible for higher education met in Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve to establish the priorities for European Higher Education until 2020. The importance of lifelong learning, widening access and mobility were underlined. The goal was set that by 2020 at least 20% of those graduating in the European Higher Education Area should have had a study or training period abroad. The Ministerial Anniversary conference, held in March 2010, confirmed the priorities set the year before but acknowledged that some of the Bologna aims and reforms have not been fully implemented and explained and that an increased dialogue with students and staff is necessary. Ministers committed to step up efforts to accomplish the reforms to enable students and staff to be mobile, to improve teaching and learning in higher education institutions, to enhance graduate employability, and to provide quality higher education for all...
3.2 Current International University Rankings
There are currently three worldwide university rankings initiatives regularly published and subject to much public debate: the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) from Shanghai’s Jiao Tong University, the World University Ranking from the Times Higher Education (THE) and since addition the QS World University Ranking (in previous years QS prepared the Times ranking). In the "Shanghai" ranking institutions are ranked according to six criteria mainly related to their scientific production. The "THE" ranking on the other hand applies criteria covering the international dimension of staff and students, teachers to student ratios and peer reviews...
3.3 Investment in higher education
The economic crisis, which has resulted in sometimes drastic cuts in higher education budgets, has had an impact of many higher education systems. The full extent of effects still remains to be seen, which will make further monitoring and analysis important. Whilst no specific target for investment has been agreed at European level, the European Commission has repeatedly stressed that in order to fulfil their potential, universities and other higher education institutions need to be adequately funded, and at least 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) should be invested in a modernised higher education sector, public and private sources combined. Current levels of investment are substantially below this level: 1.2%, for the EU as a whole, of which public investment accounts for by far the largest part, about 1.12% of GDP (due to data lag these figures do not take into account recent cuts in budgets). Levels of investment in higher education vary significantly between Member States, for example, in Denmark, public spending on higher education already surpasses 2% of GDP ; a large share of this, however (as in Finland and Sweden) is direct financial aid to students and direct public spending on higher education institutions in these countries is hence considerably lower. Seven EU countries have a share of direct public spending below 1%, including Italy, Spain and Romania...
3.4 Graduates in higher education
The knowledge-based society on which the EU bases its hope for future prosperity and social cohesion requires a considerable supply of highly skilled people. High private returns to tertiary education - evidenced by relatively high wage levels and low unemployment rates for tertiary graduates as a whole - demonstrate that there is strong demand for tertiary graduates. Demand is particularly strong for graduates in science and engineering, but also in other fields like languages and economics...
3.5 Higher education attainment of the population: meeting the Europe 2020 headline target
As already discussed in section 2.3 and the Introduction (Figure 2.8), the new Europe 2020 headline target for tertiary attainment levels among the young adult population foresees that by 2020 at least 40% of 30-34 year olds should hold a university degree or equivalent. In 2009, 32.3% of 30-34 year olds in the EU had tertiary attainment, compared to only 22.4% in 2000. The trend since 2000, shown in Figure 2.8, suggests it will be possible to reach the target level by 2020. However, Member States' targets, as set out in their first provisional National Reform Programmes, are by and large very cautious and would lead to a lower rate of progress and possibly failure to meet the target by 2020. In 2009, eleven EU countries had already exceeded the 2020 target of 40%. Ireland, Denmark, Luxembourg and Finland show the highest tertiary attainment, with rates of over 45%. Southern European countries (with the exception of Spain) and Central European countries, despite the fact that they have very high secondary education completion rates, tend to lag behind. Progress in tertiary attainment rates in the period 2000-2009 was strongest in Luxembourg, Ireland and Poland (more than 20 percentage points increase)...

Benchmarking Conference - Facing the rankings: Using benchmarking tools for strategic positioning, Vienna, Austria (20-21 January 2011). A leading conference with practical workshops and plenty of networking opportunities.
With the increasing rise of rankings of all kinds, universities are under serious threat of loosing students, loosing attractiveness for the best researchers and of loosing core and competitive funding. When unprepared to anticipate the possible outcomes and to respond adequately by improving their performance, higher education institutions are running the risk of their reputation being damaged in already difficult situations experienced in the context of the economic crisis.
Benchmarking is a modern management tool which helps to address the challenges of the rankings, through a better understanding of institutional profiles and needs, with a view to set targets for improvement and to improve strategic positioning.
The conference will look at transparency tools such as classifications, rankings and benchmarking exercises in an increasingly diverse higher education context. Drawing on the handbook produced in the framework of the two-year EU-funded EBI-II project Benchmarking in Higher Education, the conference will offer practical peer learning sessions (on benchmarking tools) and specialised workshops (to assist both in the selection of appropriate indicators in the three areas of internationalization, university-enterprise cooperation and regional innovation and in discussing the strength of these indicators). The handbook offers a very detailed methodology on defining and selecting indicators with the use of balance scorecards as well as designing powerful action plans to implement changes as a result of benchmarking exercises. To attend the conference, register here. Download the preliminary programme.