Performance measurement and benchmarking of a major innovation programme

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to describe the problems encountered and the solutions developed when using benchmarking and key performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor a major UK social house building innovation (change) programme. The innovation programme sought improvements to both the quality of the house product and the procurement process. Design/methodology/approach: Benchmarking and KPIs were used to quantify performance and in-depth case studies to identify underlying cause and effect relationships within the innovation programme. Findings: The inherent competition between consortium members; the complexity of the relationship between the consortium and its strategic partner; the lack of an authoritative management control structure; and the rapidly changing nature of the UK social housing market all proved problematic to the development of a reliable and robust monitoring system. These problems were overcome by the development of multi-dimensional benchmarking model that balanced the needs and aspirations of the individual organisations with the broader objectives of the consortium. Research limitations/implications: Whilst the research methodology provides insight into the factors that affected the performance of a major innovation programme its findings may not be representative of all projects. Practical implications: The lessons learnt should assist those developing benchmarking models for multi-client consortia. Originality/value: The work reported in this paper describes an inclusive approach to benchmarking in which a multiple client group and their strategic partner sought to work together for shared gain. Very few papers have addressed this issue.

Student Experience of E-Learning (SEEL)

The Student Experience of E-Learning project (SEEL) was an institutional response to the university’s HEA/JISC Benchmarking exercise (Ryan and Kandler, 2007). The study had a social constructivist approach which recognised the importance of listening to the student voice (JISC 2007) within the University of Greenwich context, to interpret the student experience of e-learning. Nearly 1000 students responded to an online survey on their approaches to, and their use of, learning technology. The quantitative and qualitative questions used included identifying study patterns, using specific online tools, within the context of learning and beyond, and student’s attitudes towards using e-learning in their studies. Initially, individual responses to questions were analysed in depth, giving a general indication of the student experience. Further depth was applied through a filtering mechanism, beginning with a cross-slicing of individual student responses to produce cameos. Audio logs and individual interviews were drawn from these cameos. Analysis of the cameos is in progress but has already revealed some unexpected results. There was a mismatch between students’ expectations of the university’s use of technology and their experiences and awareness of its possible use in other contexts. Students recognised the importance of social interaction as a vehicle for learning (Vygotsky 1978, Bruner 2006) but expressed polarised views on the use of social networking sites such as Facebook for e-learning. Their experiences in commercial contexts led them to see the university VLE as unimaginative and the tutors’ use of it as lacking in vision. Whereas analysis of the individual questions provided a limited picture, the cameos gave a truer reflection of the students lived experiences and identified a gulf between the university’s provision and the students’ expectation of e-learning and their customary use of technology. However it is recognised that the very nature of an online survey necessarily excludes students who chose not to engage, either through lack of skills or through disillusionment and this would constitute a separate area for study.