Measure What Matters: 5 Steps to Benchmarking the Connected Campus

Field Editor: John Cook, NV5

In an age where technology constantly evolves, college and university facilities operations managers face the challenge of keeping up with the latest advancements. One effective solution to this is implementing an academic technology benchmarking program. This program enables institutions to build agility and adaptability into their strategic technology planning process, ensuring the effective use of technology resources while enhancing the overall learning experience.

Integrating technologies like audiovisual systems, IT/Telecom systems, collaboration systems, and mixed reality systems is crucial to engaging the digital-native student population that expects a “connected campus” experience. Benchmarking technology performance in learning, research, and student life facilities improves planning, design, and integration for renovations and new spaces.

5 Steps to Benchmarking

By understanding the features, costs, and benefits of various technologies and learning from other institutions’ experiences, an institution’s facilities planning, design, operations, and technology managers can make informed decisions about resource allocation, optimize capital and operational budgets, and achieve desired outcomes. One approach is a 5-step benchmarking process (Figure 1).

 

1. Strategy: Benchmarking in strategic planning includes highlighting the goals, what is working well, what needs to improve, what the study will benchmark against, and how success is envisioned (i.e., Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)). Determine the sample set of peer institutions with similar characteristics (e.g., small, medium, large; public, private, community college; region; affiliations). The more granular the sample set, the more relevant the data. Completing this step allows the effort to move forward, focusing on gathering the information needed and determining what success looks like.
2. Collection: The next step is to collect information on processes and how other institutions do the same. Contacting peer organizations and programs and offering to share benchmark data analysis forms a bond of common interest. Communicating processes and results benefits all participants with data related to best practices. Gathering as much information as possible is essential. Survey tools like Google Forms, SurveyMonkey, and Typeform provide easy-to-use platforms for online data collection.
3. Analytics: The next step is collating the data and understanding where the institution falls in each measured category. At this point in the process, analyze data objectively; it is important to remember that no institution is perfect. Review the findings, collate results (totals/percentages/ratios), and draft a report defining the information discovered (Figure 2).
4. Initiatives: Review the data with stakeholders to establish the next steps and initiatives to improve performance in each area. Presenting findings to an institution is always challenging, especially when proposing changes. Developing an inclusive benchmarking process allows recommendations to equate to the success metrics highlighted in the planning stage.
5. Monitoring: A benchmark plan is only complete with monitoring results to determine the plan’s success. The implementation phase highlights the metrics and goals for success within a set time frame. Monitoring is the only way to realize the changes’ efficacy. Monitoring periods can be short or long, depending on the desired outcomes.

 

 

Resources for Benchmarking

Beyond polling APPA members (which is a good first step), leveraging data from other higher education organizations such as Flexible Learning Environments eXchange (FLEXspace), Higher Education Technology Managers Alliance (HETMA), and Educational Technology Collaborative can help identify and engage with peer institutions to develop comprehensive benchmark input. FLEXSpace has 6000+ members from 1400+ institutions, HETMA has 1,000+ members representing over 300 schools, and ETC represents over 900 members from more than 160 institutions. These technology-focused cohorts are a valuable resource for any institution seeking credible benchmark data.

Lisa Stephens, Ph.D., Assistant Dean, University of Buffalo School of Engineering & Applied Sciences, and executive director of the FLEXspace Initiative, said: “Using the FLEXspace Integrated Planning Process (FLIPP) leverages the resources provided by Educause’s Learning Space Rating System and the FLEXspace members’ database. FLIPP is a proven process to engage and align stakeholders—executive leadership, faculty, AV/IT, architects, facilities planners, and internal/external vendors and contractors—by gathering objective data to gain insights about the current state of space effectiveness and inform campus priorities and the scope of future projects.”

“The higher education vertical within the tech sector prides itself on its dedication to community-building, collaboration and idea sharing. Organizations like FLEXspace, HETMA, and ETC allow technology and facilities managers to learn and grow from one another to make informed decisions founded on our collective knowledge,” noted Joe Way, Ph.D., CTS, Director, Learning Environments, Information Technology Services at the University of Southern California, and co-founder and chair of the Higher Education Technology Managers Alliance.

“ETC is an incredible resource for benchmarking against peer institutions, whether with processes, strategic planning, or specific technology choices. The advantage of having instructional designers, AV professionals, manufacturers, and institutional leaders—Deans, AVPs, faculty, support staff—all participating in the same conversation leads to better outcomes and greater confidence in the decisions we make,” added Don Merritt, Ph.D., Director, Office of Instructional Resources, University of Central Florida, and President, Educational Technology Collaborative.

Metrics of Success

Utilizing OKRs and KPIs helps establish key benchmarks when measuring the success of technology implementations.

KPIs may include technology adoption rate, system reliability, user satisfaction, technology refresh cycle, network performance, support response time, professional development, and budget efficiency.

Objectives could include improving the quality and accessibility of learning environments, enhancing AV/IT infrastructure for better connectivity and communication, fostering a culture of innovation, and adopting emerging technologies. Measured results include factors such as increases in technology-equipped spaces, reduced downtime, increased availability of training, increased ratio of support staff to technology-equipped spaces, and the increased implementation of pilot projects to test and evaluate new academic technologies.

Benefits of Benchmarking

Benchmarking encourages institutions to keep up with the latest academic technology trends and innovations. Benchmarking allows facilities managers to understand better the infrastructure and support services needed to accommodate emerging technologies in their planning, design, and integration efforts, ultimately enhancing the educational experience. Regular benchmarking provides several valuable benefits, such as:

• Ensuring alignment with institutional goals
• Facilitating informed decision-making
• Promoting continuous improvement
• Encouraging data-driven planning
• Enhancing competitiveness
• Improving stakeholder engagement
• Providing a framework for measuring progress
• Supporting accountability and transparency.

The Value to the Institution

One potential downside of benchmarking is a tendency to “benchmark to average.” However, by focusing on strategic OKRs and KPIs based on a foundation of best-in-class institutional goals, the value of continual technology benchmarking combined with campus strategic planning lies in the ability to “benchmark to better” (or better, “best”), ultimately contributing to the institution’s overall success.

By studying the applications and implementations at other colleges and universities, the operational team identifies best practices in planning, designing, and integrating educational technology, allowing for the development of more effective planning strategies, better-informed procurement decisions, enhanced stakeholder engagement, and improved learning outcomes.

---

Craig Park is associate principal and director of digital experience design at Clark & Enersen, architects and engineers. He is based in Charleston, SC and can be reached at [email protected].