HERDSA 1996: Smeal et al - benchmarking "best practice"

Benchmarking "best practice": The induction of new academic staff

Georgia Smeal, Patricia Weeks, Patricia Kelly, Cheryl Gilbert and Sean Hodgson
Academic Staff Development Unit
Queensland University of Technology

This paper reports on a benchmarking project being conducted by the Academic Staff Development Unit at Queensland University of Technology. The project involves comparing the Unit's performance against a small number of institutions (nationally and internationally) in its delivery of the Graduate Certificate in Education (Higher Education) and an induction program for new academic staff. This paper reports on the project in progress, focussing on benchmarking in higher education, learnings from the process and preliminary project findings, particularly as these relate to the induction of new academic staff.

Introduction

Whilst the preparation of university lecturers for their teaching role is still quite new, it is becoming common for universities in Australia to offer academic staff, programs to assist them with their teaching. However, in the present higher education climate which sees an increasing emphasis on self evaluation, quality assurance and accountability, developers of these academic programs are perpetually challenged by the following questions: How can we better prepare university teachers for their role? How do we secure the best possible outcomes for program participants? What changes are needed to secure continuous improvement in program delivery? What constitutes "best practice" in the preparation of university teachers? How do our programs compare to other institutions? Questions such as these underpin the benchmarking project, which is the focus of this paper and at the same time reflect the need for academic staff developers to engage reliable mechanisms for measuring, monitoring and improving their performance.

Aligned to QUT's commitment to quality assurance in 1995, quality funding was made available to initiate a number of benchmarking projects across the institution. This paper reports on one such project which involves comparing ASDU's performance in the development and delivery of the Graduate Certificate in Education (Higher Education) and the induction (Enter) program, with other institutions at the national and international level. The purpose of the project is to improve the quality of the benchmarked programs thereby having a positive impact on teaching and student learning at QUT. The project directly aligns with QUT's primary objective which is to "enhance its standing as one of Australia's leading universities in terms of the excellence of its teaching and learning, its commitment to quality assurance and the continuous improvement in its academic program ..." (QUT Strategic Plan 1995 - 2000, p.10).

Benchmarking what is it?

Benchmarking is an active, rigorous process - a partnership (Ruby, 1995) As Ruby (1995, p.46) notes, just talking about benchmarking is "not enough the benefits come only through application". It is a process of making comparisons for the purpose of improvement. Benchmarking originated in the late 70 in America when the Xerox business plummeted due to competition from Japan (Camp, 1993). Yet despite the relatively rapid uptake of benchmarking in the private sector and more recently in the public sector in Australia, in education "efforts to introduce monitoring systems have been met with resistance (Marchese, 1995; Masters, 1991; McGaw, 1994; Morton, 1993). Further, Pascoe (1995, p.48) argues, that on the whole in education there is a "long standing hostility to attempts to record its outputs in any systematic or comparable manner". Recognising this shortfall ASDU saw the potential of the benchmarking process, as an evaluation tool, a mechanism for performance comparison and as a means of identifying the critical success factors which underpin "best practice" in the benchmarked programs.

The process

Following Spendolini (1992) and Kenny (1996) the project has focussed on process in terms of improvement in practices as opposed to quantitative measures and comparisons. Spendolini's (1992) five stage cyclical model has guided the project - determine what to benchmark; form a team; identify partners; collect and analyse benchmarking information, take action. This relatively simplistic outline of the stages in the process however belies its depth and intensity which become more evident in the following overview of the process.

What to benchmark and knowing ourselves

ASDU offers a variety of programs to support teaching and learning at QUT. The Graduate Certificate in Education (Higher Education) and the Enter program are two such programs. Both programs reach a broad academic audience, form part of ASDU's core business and we believe offered the best potential for applying the outcomes of the benchmarking project in terms of enhancing the quality of teaching and learning at QUT.

However, early in the process it became apparent that before we could begin meaningful comparisons with other institutions it was important to fully understand our own protases and the rationale and processes which underpinned them. We recognised that QUT, like other higher education institutions nationally and internationally, has gaps in its induction provision for new academic staff. The inadequacy of such provision is strongly supported in the literature (Boice, 1992; Martin and Ramsden, 1994). Benchmarking perpetually challenges us to look critically at our own practice and at the same time draw comparisons against better practices in other institutions. It is doing more than just helping us to identify gaps in existing performance but rather is providing a framework to support changes in our programs that are aligned to the "best practice" approaches identified through working with partner institutions.

The team

The benchmarking team comprised those individuals most closely associated with programs being benchmarked, therefore those well positioned to know what to look for in other organisations. No team member had previously been involved in benchmarking. On reflection this was a limitation, a team member well versed in benchmarking would have helped the team to focus earlier, more clearly and quickly. Further, the Unit Director was not a member of the project team but kept abreast with project developments. DeToro (1995, p.61) emphasises the importance of the involvement of senior managers in the project. As a team member, the key decision maker becomes integral to the process and subsequently has an intimate understanding of the rationale underpinning and driving proposed changes.

Selecting partners

Benchmarking requires searching for the "best" against which to compare. Although in education we usually look to others in education for practices to borrow, the literature suggests that the most successful benchmarking initiatives look outside as well as inside their own field. Questions we needed to address in selecting partner institutions included: How do we identify institutions which are engaging in best practice? How do we know what constitutes best practice? How do we know that potential partners will be willing to share information? Will partner institutions be prepared to put in the ground work on the project?

A number of measures were used to narrow the field of potential benchmarking partners including: a national survey of academic staff development units, the pre-existing reputations of the programs conducted by potential partner institutions, pre-existing links with our Unit, partners' level of interest and commitment to the project and advice received through existing academic staff development networks. We are presently working with three national and a number of international benchmarking partners with whom links are still being forged. Partners, like ourselves however, did not have prior experience in benchmarking and in hindsight, provision should have been made on our part to bring partner institutions "up to speed" on the benchmarking process and its objectives.

Making comparisons

To begin the process of data collection we developed a questionnaire specific to each program, which focussed on five areas: background information; what you are currently doing; why you are doing it; how do you do it and what are the outcomes. It was intended that partners' responses to the questionnaire would help the project team to narrow the focus for further data collection, articulate points of comparison and define key issues to target in follow-up interviews. The project team acknowledged that benchmarking is a mutual learning process and therefore were conscious of the need to openly share information on our programs and practices with partners. This was achieved in the first instance by completing the questionnaire we sought our partner institutions to complete. In the case of our induction program for example, by completing the questionnaire we were forced to revisit and clarify the aims of the program, articulate the way in which the program interfaced with the University's Strategic Plan, examine the ways in which the induction needs of non-English speaking background staff are addressed by the Unit, reflect upon and describe the ways in which we evaluated the program and how this evaluation informed continuous program improvement.

Engaging in this process became quite a revelation for us. At times we were more able to identify that information which we didn't have as opposed to that which we did and consequently identified gaps in our programs. This self analysis forms a key factor in the benchmarking process and those best able to know what questions to ask of partner institutions are those who understand their own processes and performance (Robson, 1995, p.7).

Collecting information for comparison has also involved face to face interviews with partners, a ten day visit from Dr Liz Beaty Director of the Teaching and Learning Unit at the University of Brighton, representing our United Kingdom partner institution and a trip is planned for later this year to visit partner institutions in the United States. Documentation on the benchmarked programs has also formed an important part of data collection.

Gaining participation from our benchmarking partners however, was not as easy as we had envisaged. Our urgency for questionnaire completion in terms of moving the project forward was not experienced by our partners. At the same time however, we acknowledged that our experience had shown the task of questionnaire completion to be time consuming in terms of seeking out the relevant information and had to balanced against other competing work priorities. One of the partners who did complete the questionnaire in advance of face to face interviews however, commented that in completing the questionnaire she was encouraged to consider aspects of the program which did not commonly receive her attention. This partner had at the same time pointed out that she had gained considerable information on the ASDU program as a consequence of reading our survey responses and brought to the interview issues she wished to explore which she believed would benefit academic staff development programs in her institution.

Preliminary findings some observations on induction "best practice"

Although the benchmarking project is some time from completion, the process of data collection and comparison at this stage has revealed some preliminary findings in relation to the underpinning "best practice" in inducting new academic staff. These factors are broadly categorised as institutional valuing, involvement of Unit Directors; advocacy of the program at school and faculty level, systematic program delivery and articulation of the program with other academic staff development programs.

The effectiveness of induction programs appear to closely correlate with the level of institutional support attached to them and whether or not the programs are embedded within institutional culture. The University of Brighton program for example is a two day program which precedes a Certificate in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education course that is comprised of a series of 12 half day workshops which introduce new academic staff to different aspects of teaching and learning and 15 action learning set meetings which provide support and guidance for professional development and peer assessment. The certificated program is compulsory for new academic staff, staff are released from normal duties to attend the program.

In the case of each of our University benchmarking partners in Australia (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), University of New South Wales) and in the United Kingdom (University of Brighton) each of the Unit Directors either coordinate the programs (that is the induction and/or the Graduate Certificate) or are intimately involved with them. In the case of Brighton University in particular, the induction/Certificate program coordinator who is also the Director of the Unit, devotes considerable time advocating the program at the school and faculty level to heads of school and deans. Involvement of senior staff in the Unit in the program and advocacy at the school and faculty level at this stage appear to be critical factors associated with successful programs.

A structured and regular approach to induction program delivery also featured as an important aspect of "best practice". Systematic induction provision is evident in the University of Brighton program and at RMIT where a series of introduction to teaching workshops ranging from two day to lunch time sessions are provided for new academic staff and new academics have the opportunity to take part in a structured mentor scheme. Ongoing induction provision as a feature of "best practice" interfaces with preliminary project findings which suggest that induction programs which articulate with other academic staff development programs appear to provide new staff with opportunity to incrementally enhance their teaching practice which cannot be achieved in the "one stop" induction approach involving a one or two day workshop.

Concluding comments

Benchmarking, our experience tells us, is undoubtedly an important strategy for continuous program improvement. The outcomes from our project to date, we believe, legitimise the process in terms of its capacity to inform the future development of academic staff development programs. Most importantly its ability to energise and sustain continual program project has been the catalyst to drive our continuous search for improvement - it's been like a race without a finishing line (Russell, 1995). The project has brought new energy to the quality of the management of the Graduate Certificate and the Induction programs. In fact, it has formalised a way of managing change in our Unit. It has helped to develop a clearer picture of what it is we are doing, our strengths and how to target our weaknesses. We are moving toward our benchmarking objectives and have initiated a significant change agenda for both our Enter program and Graduate Certificate.

The dialogue and information sharing between ourselves and our partners will continue long beyond project completion and we will be using benchmarking to improve other academic staff development programs provided by the Unit.

References

Boice, R. (1992). The New Faculty Member: Supporting and Fostering Professional Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Camp, R.C. (1993). A bible for benchmarking, by Xerox. Financial Executive, 23-27.

DeToro, I. (1995). The 10 pitfalls of benchmarking. Quality Progress, 61-63.

Kenny, G. (1996). Benchmarking: How to carry out a benchmarking project. Cremorne: Unpublished seminar manual.

Marchese, T. (1995). Understanding benchmarking: Is higher education ready for still another management idea from industry? Let's see. Assessment and Quality, 47(8), 3-4.

Martin, E. & Ramsden, P. (1994). Effectiveness and efficiency of courses in teaching methods for recently appointed academic staff. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

Masters, G. (1991). Improving the assessment of student outcomes. In J. Hewton (Ed), Performance indicators in education: What can they tell us? Australian Conference of Directors-General of Education, Brisbane.

McGaw, B. (1994). US/OECD Study on performance standards in education: Quality, curriculum, standards, assessment: Australian case study. Melbourne: OECD Performance Standards Project.

Morton, I. (1993). Benchmarking in education: Tech prep, a case in point. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Pascoe, S. (1995). Benchmarking school education: school reviews in the non-government sector. Unicorn, 21(2), 7-12.

QUT. (1995). Strategic plan, 1995-2000. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

Robson, R. (1995). Achieving world class performance through workplace change and best practice. Unicorn, 21(2), 13-23.

Ruby, A. (1995). Benchmarking and the pursuit of quality. Unicorn, 21(2) 43-47.

Russell, J. P. (1995). Quality management benchmark assessment. Quality Progress, 57-61.

Spendolini, M. J. (1992). The benchmarking book. New York: AMACOM.

Authors: Georgia Smeal: email g.smeal@qut.edu.au
Dr Patricia Weeks: email p.weeks @qut.edu.au
Patricia Kelly: email p.kelly@qut.edu.au
Cheryl Gilbert: email cl. gilbert@qut.edu.au
Sean Hodgson: email s.hodgson@qut.edu.au
Academic Staff Development Unit
Queensland University of Technology
Fax: (07) 3864 1805
Please cite as: Smeal, G., Weeks, P., Kelly, P., Gilbert, C. and Hodgson, S. (1996). Benchmarking "best practice": The induction of new academic staff. Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/smeal1.html

[ HERDSA ] [ Proceedings Contents ]
This URL: http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/smeal1.html
Created 3 June 2002. Last revision: 3 June 2002.
© Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Inc