TEQSA Guidance Note

Benchmarking
Overview
Benchmarking can be defined as a structured, collaborative, learning process for comparing
practices, processes or performance outcomes. Its purpose is to identify comparative strengths
and weaknesses, as a basis for developing improvements in academic quality. Benchmarking
can also be defined as a quality process used to evaluate performance by comparing
institutional practices to sector good practice.
Benchmarking needs to accommodate the significant contextual variations that exist in the
Australian higher education sector between providers with different missions, educational and
student profiles, and scale of operations. It is important for higher education institutions at the
outset to identify the purpose of benchmarking. The purpose of benchmarking is not to
standardise all courses and all assessment outcomes, but to reveal variations, and establish
whether those variations arise from the individual nature of the courses or the student cohorts,
or from variations in quality or academic standards.

Points of Guidance
Characteristics of benchmarking in higher education
The broad types of benchmarking include:
1. Organizational benchmarking in which comparisons are made at the organizational
level (institution, faculty/department, school, course and unit levels)
2. Course benchmarking, of course design and student performance
3. Process benchmarking involving comparisons of particular processes and practices
4. Outcomes benchmarking is about the comparison of outcomes data, especially
student outcomes
5. Best practice benchmarking in which the provider selects a comparator thought to at
the forefront in the area to be benchmarked.
Higher education institutions may use one or more types of benchmarking at the same time.
The Threshold Standards do not prescribe that a provider should undertake all of these types of
benchmarking. But Provider Registration Standard 5.6 requires a provider to compare its
performance on teaching, student learning outcomes, graduate outcomes (which includes both
graduate employment and further study), and research (where applicable) with other higher
education providers.
PCAS 5.5 specifically refers to course benchmarking, not only of intended academic
achievement standards but also of student performance data relevant to outcomes (see below).
The former is taken to mean a systematic external comparison of course design features of a
proposed course with comparable courses at other providers, including admission criteria,
assessment tasks, student work samples and assessment criteria. Student performance data
relating to outcomes would normally include: attrition/retention rates, student progress and
completion rates. It would again extend to student and graduate satisfaction outcomes,
graduate destinations, graduate employment and further study outcomes.

Benchmarking Exercises
Benchmarking exercises will characteristically investigate the interaction of processes and
outcomes.

Before embarking on a benchmarking exercise, providers should consider:

 Who are the prospective/suitable partners?

 What will be measured?
 How will results be compared between the partners?

Choices or trade-offs will need to be made between breadth (number of partners) and the depth
of assessment, as it will be more feasible to investigate more deeply with a smaller number of
well-matched partners. Some providers will prefer to benchmark with partners at the level they
aspire to rather than with their peers.

For providers considering benchmarking which is more investigative in nature and which goes
beyond the sharing of data there are six key phases, which are explained further in Appendix A.

As outlined above, benchmarking is more than the comparison of data. It is a process of

continuously monitoring and evaluating the quality and effectiveness of a provider’s operations.
The Threshold Standards do not prescribe any particular process, but here are some indicative
elements that would contribute to meeting the expectations for benchmarking in the Threshold
Standards:

 Identify areas for improvement and areas of good practice

o Evidence could include benchmarking reports
 Analyse the reasons for any variation or commonality
o Evidence could include benchmarking reports and follow-up interviews
 Formulate improvement strategies
o Evidence could include action plans or elements of other plans
 Report the results and analysis of benchmarking, which should be internally considered
by the appropriate governance body or person.
o Evidence of consideration could include minutes of meetings, emails, or file notes
 Implement the agreed action plans
 Review the outcomes of the implemented actions, both against the expected outcome
as well as against subsequent benchmarking results
o Evidence could include progress reports back to managers and governance
bodies.

Institutional context
For benchmarking to be successfully implemented in HE institutions it has to become the ‘way
things get done’. Institutional processes need to support benchmarking exercises, including
policies and procedures and adequate resourcing needs to be considered, including

Guidance Note – Benchmarking | 2

administrative and management support. For benchmarking to be a key strategy for institutional
organisational change, it needs to be endorsed and supported by senior executive leadership.
For benchmarking exercises to be truly successful, there has to be a bottom-up empowerment
where there is sharing of expertise. Collaboration and openness are key ingredients for effective
benchmarking exercises. Benchmarking becomes a shared conversation and a form of peer
development, as well as a mechanism to drive institutional change and quality improvement.

Relevant references
The Office for Learning and Teaching’s Resource Library contains a collection of higher
education learning and teaching materials flowing from projects funded by the Australian
Government, including those from the Australian Learning and Teaching Council. See
<http://www.olt.gov.au/resources/good-practice>.
Australasian Council on Open Distance and e-Learning. (2007). ACODE benchmarks for e-
learning in universities and guidelines for use. Retrieved from
http://www.acode.edu.au/resources/acodebmguideline0607.pdf
Booth, S. (2012). Utilising benchmarking to inform decision-making at the institutional level: A
research informed process. Journal of Institutional Research, 18(1), 1-12.
Epper, R. M. (1999). Applying benchmarking to higher education: Some lessons from
experience. Change, 31(6), 24-31.
Henderson-Smart, C., Winning, T., Gerzina, T., King, S., & Hyde, S. (2006). Benchmarking
learning and teaching: Developing a method. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(2), 143-155.
doi: 10.1108/09684880610662024
Longden, B., & Yorke, M. (2009). Institutional research. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in
Higher Education, 13(3), 66-70.
McAllister, S., Lincoln, M., Ferguson, A., Davidson, B., Hill, A., Davenport, R., et al. (2011). The
benchmarking COMPASS® database: A confidential interactive web based strategy to
benchmark learning outcomes. Paper presented at the Australian Universities Quality Forum:
Demonstrating Quality, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
McKinnon, K. R., Walker, S. H., & Davis, D. (2000). Benchmarking: A manual for Australian
universities. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Higher
Education Division.
Meade, P. H. (1998). A guide to benchmarking. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago.
Oliver, B. (2011a). Assuring graduate capabilities: An approach to determining and evidencing
standards. Paper presented at the Australian Universities Quality Forum: Demonstrating quality,
Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Oliver, B. (2011b). Assuring graduate capabilities: Enhancing levels of achievement for
graduate capability, from http://boliver.ning.com/page/benchmarking-2
Stella, A., & Woodhouse, D. (2007). Benchmarking in Australian higher education: A thematic
analysis of AUQA audit reports Australian Universities Quality Agency Retrieved from
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/127066/20110826-
0004/www.auqa.edu.au/files/publications/benchmarking_final_text_website.pdf
The Association of Commonwealth Universities. (2012). Benchmarking programme from:
http://www.acu.ac.uk/member_services/benchmarking_programme/benchmarking_programme

Guidance Note – Benchmarking | 3

TEQSA contact
For further information about or discussion of TEQSA’s view of benchmarking please contact
your case manager in the first instance.

Guidance Note – Benchmarking | 4

Appendix A: Six Phases of Benchmarking
Phase 1: Concept and Scope

This phase is about deciding what type of benchmarking do we use, how are we are going to
undertake it and with whom? Providers need to have a shared commitment and understanding
of benchmarking goals.

Phase 2: Plan & Design

This phase is critical in identifying and agreeing on the benchmarking project’s objectives,
scope (as well as what is not in scope), schedule, allocation of tasks, timelines and deliverables.
and development of a project plan, project team, reference group, and communication plan).

Phase 3: Self Review

This phase includes: planning self-review activities; identifying key stakeholders to answer
particular sections; writing up institutional context statements for peer review workshop;
collecting evidence from as many sources and stakeholders as possible; triangulating the
evidence, using focus groups, surveys and interviews to gather data for analysis and
consideration.

Phase 4: Peer Review

A common and useful element of the review process is to conduct a peer review workshop
(either face-to-face and/or Skype) with the benchmarking partners comparing processes and
data. The key aims of the workshop are:

 To identify areas of good practice

 To identify areas for improvement
 To identify areas for sharing and collaboration
The peer review workshop is also an external validation and calibration exercise to assist
institutions to understand the quality of their processes.
Phase 5: Communicate and Implement Improvements
This phase is about communicating the findings from the peer review workshop and
implementing improvements. Discussions need to consider who is responsible for carrying out
these improvements and do these improvements carry significant budget implications. Reports
need to be submitted to the appropriate academic governance body or manager.
Phase 6: Evaluate and Review
This phase is about evaluating the effectiveness of the benchmarking exercise. What were the
outcomes? How useful were they? Were they implemented?

Guidance Note – Benchmarking | 5