PART II – AN OVERVIEW OF BENCHMARKING

At their core, benchmarks are tools for comparing two or more groups of data. There is a variety of different types of benchmarking that can be divided into two categories: internal benchmarking and external benchmarking. Internal benchmarking typically compares data groups within an institution or even within a specific department. External benchmarking compares institutional or departmental data with data from peer universities or national data sets (Timm, Barham, McKinney, & Knerr, 2013).

There are various types of benchmarking that provide insight into different details, trends, and attributes of a student population, department, program, or university. Using multiple types of benchmarking is preferred because this allows for a more accurate picture of the data as opposed to a more skewed view that comes from looking at a data set through a single lens (Suskie, 2009).

Local standards, a form of internal benchmarking, compare data against an internally defined standard created by a program, department, or university. This type of benchmarking generally relies on self-reported data, which can lead to inaccuracies. External standards, a form of external benchmarking, compare data against a standard defined by an outside entity (often a national organization). Peer benchmarking can be done either internally or externally, and allows for comparison of similar groups of students, programs, departments, or universities. When done internally, data is compared between peer groups in the same community even if they have not necessarily had the same experiences. The definition of community in this context is broad and can refer to anything from being on the same campus to being in the same state depending on the needs of the specific assessment. External peer benchmarking allows for comparison of data against a standard from outside of the community (Suskie, 2009). Peer benchmarking is most successful when using established peer groups, such as the University of Florida’s list of peer institutions, State University System of Florida institutions, Southeastern Conference institutions, or the U.S. News top ten public institutions. Aspirational universities also provide a strong group to conduct benchmarking with. While what is defined as aspirational is vague, these universities or departments provide tangible external standards to strive for in the future.

• University of Florida’s Peer Institutions: https://ir.aa.ufl.edu/about/peer-institutions/
• State University System of Florida Institutions: https://www.flbog.edu/universities/
• Southeastern Conference Institutions: https://www.thesecu.com/sec-universities/
• U.S. News Top Ten Public Institutions: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public

Value-added benchmarks measure a group of students, a program, a department, or a university before and after the introduction of a stimulus to look for change. An example of value-added benchmarking could be measuring a group of students’ understanding of resources available on campus before and after a presentation on the topic through a survey. Historical trends benchmarking is used to measure change over time and is generally done by comparing recent data to older data to analyze changes in successive student groups, programs, departments or university climates (Suskie, 2009).

Using multiple benchmarks is always advised so that the data is being viewed from different angles to paint the full picture of what may be going on with a specific student group, program, department, or university (Suskie, 2009). However, not all types of benchmarking will be appropriate given the type of data being worked with or the questions that need to be answered. Benchmarking is often the first step to assessing the current climate and setting goals for growth (Holton, 2020).

To start, it is best to identify the type of metric you want to measure. This can be student learning, program attendance, satisfaction with a program, etc. After selecting a metric, the next step is deciding whether you want to use an internal or external performance standard. If using an internal one, it is essential to set one that is reasonable and attainable given the information that is currently available. If using an external performance standard, it is important to select one that directly lines up with what is being measured (a CAS Standard, NASPA/ACPA competency, etc.). Collaboration is critical to the standard selection process, which can be done through conducting research, forming focus groups with campus partners, and collecting student input. External standards can be used as a framework to help build internal standards that are personalized to the unique needs of your student population, program, department, or university (Suskie, 2009).

Setting standards, whether internal or external, is made easier with a rubric. Rubrics provide tangible minimum standards for a variety of traits that contribute to the overall goal. Rubrics can be created in a variety of different ways, where some include a minimum standard for each defined trait and others include a minimum average for the sum of all traits. In addition to rubrics, setting standards for collective performances is another useful tool. This refers to how many students are expected to meet the outlined standards and are always expressed as percentages. Generally, when setting standards for collective performance, multiple standards are created for varying performance levels that range from exemplary performance to minimally passing performance (Suskie, 2009).