The impact of Ireland’s new higher education system performance framework on institutional planning towards the related policy objectives

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.


This research examines the implementation of Ireland’s higher education system performance framework (HESPF), through its first 3-year cycle 2014–2017, in a sample of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). In particular, it examines the extent to which the HESPF aids or inhibits HEI planning towards the related national policy objectives. Integral to the HESPF are performance agreements (PAs) that specify how HEI strategies contribute to national priorities. An exploratory case study design frame is used to address the research question, with cases drawn from small, medium-sized and large institutions. A concurrent triangulation design strategy is deployed with qualitative data drawn from 24 key informants and PAs, and quantitative data elicited from 92 questionnaires. Oliver’s strategic response framework was adapted for deployment in the study. The design of the PAs associated with the HESPF is generally consistent with the core building blocks of PAs internationally. The HESPF is generally considered a good concept that has resulted in constructive relationship building between the Higher Education Authority (HEA) and HEIs.' Strategic planning capacity building, self-reflection and institutional learning are regarded as strengths of the process. However, it appears that the levers being used by the HEA to bring about performance improvements are having very little behavioural influence. Reputation and a desire to respond to regional and national needs along with global expectations appear to be driving performance. The process is not operating at a sufficiently strategic level and lack of enabling/incentive funding is regarded as a major weakness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Agasisti, T. (2011). Performances and spending efficiency in higher education: a European comparison through non-parametric approaches. Education Economics, 19(2), 199–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Hoxby, C., Mas-Colell, A., & Sapir, A. (2010). The governance and performance of universities: evidence from Europe and the US. Economic Policy, 25(61), 7–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Altbach, P. G., & Salmi, J. (2011). The road to academic excellence: the making of world-class research universities. In P. G. Altbach & J. Salmi (Eds.). The World Bank.

  4. Broucker, B., De Wit, K., & Leisyte, L. (2015). New public management or new public governance for the higher education sector? An international comparison. Paper presented at the EGPA Annual Conference Toulouse.

  5. Burquel, N., & van Vught, F. (2010). Benchmarking in European higher education: a step beyond current quality models. Tertiary Education & Management, 16(3), 243–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cassells, P. (2016). Investing in national ambition. A strategy for funding higher education: report of the expert group on future funding for higher education. Available from: [Accessed on 12 July 2016: Government of Ireland.

  7. Cavanaugh, J. C., & Garland, P. (2012). Performance funding in Pennsylvania. Change, 44(3), 34–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Clark, B. (2004). Sustaining change in universities: continuities in case studies and concepts. Berkshire: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  10. de Boer, H., & Jongbloed, B. (2015). Reflections on performance agreements in higher education: practical considerations in delivering system-wide improvements. Available from: [Accessed on 25 May 2017]: CHEPS.

  11. de Boer, H., Jongbloed, B., Benneworth, P., Cremonini, L., Kolster, R., Kottmann, A., . . . Vossensteyn, H. (2015). Performance-based funding and performance agreements in fourteen higher education systems. Available from: [Accessed on 26 May 2017]: European Commission.

  12. de Jager, G. (2011). Missions on the move: university systems in England, New York State and California. Higher Education Management and Policy, 23(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Department of Education & Skills. (2011). National strategy for higher education to 2030. Available from: Accessed 15 Nov 2014.

  14. Dougherty, K. J., & Natow, R. S. (2019). Analysing neoliberalism in theory and practice: the case of performance-based funding for higher education CGHE Working Paper 44. Available from: [Accessed on 25 March 2019]: Centre for Global Higher Education.

  15. Dougherty, K. J., & Reddy, V. (2011). The impacts of state performance funding systems on higher education institutions: research literature review and policy recommendations. Available from: [Accessed on 7 June 2017]: Columbia University.

  16. Engwall, L. (2007). Universities, the state and the market: changing patterns of university governance in Sweden and beyond. Higher Education Management & Policy, 19(3), 87–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. EUA (2015). University leaders’ perspectives: governance and funding. Available from: [Accessed on 21 September 2016]: EUA.

  18. EUA (2017a). EUA Public Funding Observatory 2017 Country sheets. Available from: [Accessed on 6 December 2018]: EUA.

  19. EUA (2017b). University Autonomy in Europe.

  20. European Commission. (2006). Communication of 2006 delivering on the modernisation agenda for universities: education, research and innovation. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  21. European Commission (2009). Strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training ET2020. Available from: [Accessed on 1 February 2016]: European Commission.

  22. European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  23. European Commission. (2011). Progress towards the common European objectives in education and training: indicators and benchmarks 2010/2011. Brussels: Euroepan Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  24. European Commission (2017). Communication from the commission on a renewed EU agenda for higher education. Available from: [Accessed on 27 February 2018]: European Commission.

  25. Eurostat (2018). Your Key to European Statistics. Retrieved 28 April 2017.

  26. Feller, I. (2002). Performance measurement Redux. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(4), 435–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Harvey, L., & Williams, J. (2010). Fifteen years of quality in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 16(1), 3–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hazelkorn, E., & Massaro, V. (2011). A tale of two strategies: higher education and economic recovery in Ireland and Australia. Higher Education Management and Policy, 23(2), 79–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. HEA (2013). Higher Education System Performance Framework 2014–2016. Available from: Accessed 15 November 2015.

  30. HEA (2014). Higher Education System Performance: First Report 2014–2016. Accessed 24/3/2015.

  31. HEA (2016a). Higher Education System Performance 2014–2016; Second Report of the Higher Education Authority to the Minister for Education and Skills. Available from: [Accessed on 22 December 2016]: HEA.

  32. HEA. (2016b). Higher education system performance: Institutional and sectoral profiles 2013/14. Dublin: HEA.

    Google Scholar 

  33. HEA (2017a). Higher Education System Performance Report 2014–2017: Third Report of the Higher Education Authority to the Minister for Education and Skills. Available from: [Accessed on 16 January 2018]: HEA.

  34. HEA (2017b). Review of the Allocation Model for Funding Higher Education Institutions. Available from: [Accessed on 15 January 2018]: HEA.

  35. HEA (2018). Higher Education System Performance Framework 2018–2020. Available from: [Accessed on 15 January 2018]: HEA.

  36. Jongbloed, B. (2010). Funding higher education: a view across Europe. European Centre for Strategic Management of universities.

  37. Klumpp, M., de Boer, H., & Vossensteyn, H. (2014). Comparing national policies on institutional profiling in Germany and the Netherlands. Comparative Education, 50(2), 156–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lahr, H., Pheatt, L., Dougherty, K. J., Jones, S., Natow, R. S., & Reddy, V. (2014). Unintended impacts of performance funding on community colleges and universities in three states. Available from: [Accessed on 31 May 2017]: Columbia University.

  39. Maingot, M., & Zeghal, D. (2008). An analysis of voluntary disclosure of performance indicators by Canadian universities. Tertiary Education & Management, 14(4), 269–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Marginson, S. (2016). Rankings must disaggregate data to drive performance. Paper presented at the university rankings and international academic relations - a bridging tool or a hindrance?, Lisbon, Portugal.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2009). The new global landscape of nations and institutions Higher Education to 2030 (Vol. 2, pp. 17–62). Paris: Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD).

  42. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  43. NCHEMS. (2011). Performance funding: from idea to action. Available from: 121411.pdf [Accessed on 23 November 2015]: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.

  44. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Pheatt, L., Lahr, H., Dougherty, K. J., Jones, S., Natow, R. S., & Reddy, V. (2014). Obstacles to the effective implementation of performance funding: a multi-state cross case analysis. Available from: [Accessed on 31 May 2017]: Columbia University.

  46. Pruvot, E. B., Claeys-Kulik, A.-L., & Estermann, T. (2015). Designing strategies for efficient funding of universities in Europe. EUA.

  47. Smidt, H. (2018). Lifelong Learning is More Relevant than Ever Before. University World News.

  48. Stensaker, B., Enders, J., & de Boer, H. F. (2007). Comparative analysis, final report of the project: the extent and impact of governance reform across Europe. Available from: [Accessed on 11 November 2015]: European commission, Brussels.

  49. Wellman, J., & Harvey, D. (2016). Recent statewide reforms in higher education financing and accountability: emerging lessons from the states. Available from: [Accessed on 24 May 2016]: College Futures Foundation.

  50. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seamus O Shea.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O Shea, S., O Hara, J. The impact of Ireland’s new higher education system performance framework on institutional planning towards the related policy objectives. High Educ 80, 335–351 (2020).

Download citation


  • Higher education
  • Performance agreement
  • Performance framework
  • Key performance indicator
  • Higher education policy