Skip to main content
Log in

Performance indicators: Towards a synoptic framework

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper sets out to sketch a synoptic framework within which performance indicators may be used within higher education.

The evidence to date suggests that the use of performance indicators has not adequately taken into account a number of factors - the level within the higher education system at which they are being used, their practicability, and the inter-relationship between both quantitative and qualitative data. The effective use of performance indicators is discussed in terms of exercises in which judgments have to be made upon complex sets of data rather than upon a narrow range of parameters, with significant implications for what is managerially feasible.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allsop, P. and Findlay, P. (1989). ‘Performance indicators as an agent of curriculum change: broadening the base of HE’, in McVicar, M. (ed.), Performance Indicators and Quality Control in Higher Education. Portsmouth: Portsmouth Polytechnic, pp. 105–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allsop, P. et al. (1990). Performance Indicators: The Development of Common Performance Indicators, Their Implementation and Critical Evaluation (Final Report of a CNAA Development Fund Project). Portsmouth: Portsmouth Polytechnic.

    Google Scholar 

  • AVCC/ACDP (1988). Performance Indicators (Report of the AVCC/ACDP Working Party on Performance Indicators). Reprinted in Dochy, F.J.R.C. et al. (eds.)(1990). Management Information and Performance Indicators in Higher Education: An International Issue. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, pp. 119–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cave, M. et al. (1988). The Use of Performance Indicators in Higher Education: A Critical Analysis of Developing Practice. London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • CDP (1987). Performance Indicators: A Position Statement. London: Committee of Directors of Polytechnics (mimeo).

    Google Scholar 

  • CVCP (1985). Report of the Steering Committee for Efficiency Studies in Universities (‘The Jarratt Report’). London: Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

    Google Scholar 

  • CVCP/UGC (1986). Performance Indicators in Universities: A First Statement by a Joint CVCP/UGC Working Group. London: Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

    Google Scholar 

  • CVCP/UGC (1988). University Management Statistics and Performance Indicators in the U.K. London: Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F. J. R. C. et al. (1990). ‘Preliminaries to the implementation of a quality assurance system based on management information and performance indicators: results of a validity study’, in Dochy, F. J. R. C. et al. (eds.), Management Information and Performance Indicators in Higher Education: An International Issue. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, pp. 69–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elton, L. (1984). ‘Evaluating teaching and assessing teachers in universities’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 9, 97–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elton, L. (1987a). Teaching in Higher Education: Appraisal and Training. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elton, L. (1987b). ‘UGC resource allocation and the assessment of teaching quality’, Higher Education Review 19 (2), 9–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jesson, D. and Mayston, D. (1990). ‘Information, accountability and educational performance indicators’, in Fitzgibbon, C. T. (ed.), Performance Indicators (BERA Dialogues No. 2). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 77–87.

  • Krakower, J. Y. (1985). Assessing Organizational Effectiveness: Considerations and Procedures. Boulder, CO: NCHEMS.

    Google Scholar 

  • NAB (1987). Management for a Purpose (Report of the Good Management Practice Group). London: NAB.

    Google Scholar 

  • PCFC (1990). Performance Indicators (Report of a Committee of Inquiry chaired by Mr. Alfred Morris) [‘The Morris Report’]. London: PCFC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. (1990). ‘Measuring university performance: never mind the quality, never mind the width?’, Higher Education Quarterly 44 (1), 60–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scottish Education Department (1989). ‘Performance indicators in higher education’, discussion paper prepared by HMI. Edinburgh: S.E.D. (mimeo).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, G. (1989). ‘Bridging to the future: Humberside College of Higher Education (Case Study)’, in Yorke, D. M. et al., Four Case Studies of Effectiveness in Polytechnics and Colleges. London: CNAA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vroeijenstein, T. I. and Acherman H. (1990). ‘Control oriented quality assessment versus improvement oriented quality assessment’, in Goedegebuure, L. C. J. et al. (eds.), Peer Review and Performance Indicators: Quality Assessment in British and Dutch Higher Education. Utrecht: Lemma, pp. 81–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yorke, M. (1989). ‘Quality control and the management of institutions’, in McVicar, M. (ed.), Performance Indicators and Quality Control in Higher Education. Portsmouth: Portsmouth Polytechnic, pp. 54–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yorke, M. (1990). Observations on the Use of Performance Indicators in the Assurance of Course Quality (report prepared for CNAA). London: CNAA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yorke, M. Performance indicators: Towards a synoptic framework. High Educ 21, 235–248 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00137076

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00137076

Keywords

Navigation