BENCHMARKING SERVICE SAMPLE REPORT - QS
BENCHMARKING SERVICESAMPLE REPORT
SAMPLE REPORTThis is an abbreviated sample of the full Benchmarking Report.A full Benchmarking Report is tipically between 50-100 pages,depending on the number of selected peer institutions.The Modules in this sample report are condensed to provide apreview of the information covered in the full report, which ismore substantial.Please contact Jason Newman at jason@qs.com formore information, or visit us at www.iu.qs.com2Copyright 2014 QS Intelligence Unit
CONTENTSExecutive Summary.4MODULE 1: Institution Reports.6Client Institution.8Athena Institute of Technology.10Atlantis University. Not includedApollo University. Not includedUniversity of Delphos. Not includedDemeter University. Not includedHermes University. Not includedPoseidon University. Not includedZeus University of Sciences. Not includedMODULE 2: Comparative Analysis. 12MODULE 3: Rankings Performance.16MODULE 4: Research Performance.20MODULE 5: Academic Reputation.24Appendix I: Trends in Higher Education. Not includedAppendix II: Refinement Chronology. Not includedAppendix III: Survey Results. Not includedAppendix IV: Data Definitions. Not included2013 QSWUR Country Report: Country A. Not includedBenchmarking Service - Sample Report3
Executive SummaryThe QS international rankings have gained unprecedented attention over the last few years. The rigourand authority of the QS World University Rankings have been underlined by the official approval oftheir methodology and data collection processes from the IREG Observatory on Academic Rankingand Excellence. Furthermore, the QS World University Rankings are being widely used by trustedorganisations throughout the world, feeding publications compiled by the Economist IntelligenceUnit for their Sea Turtles Index, and INSEAD, Cornell and WIPO (World Intellectual PropertyOrganization) for their Global Innovation Index.In 2013, the QS World University Rankings were published for the tenth consecutive year, with over3,000 institutions considered and more than 800 institutions evaluated on a global level.The biggest development in the 2013QS World University Rankings resultshas been the inclusion of over 100 newinstitutions, adding more variety andregional balance to the mix. Additionally,the reputational surveys used for therankings have achieved record response,with over 62,000 academics and almost28,000 employers contributing their expertopinions on the best universities in theworld. The results were widely coveredby the global media including Forbes,People’s Daily, The New York Times,Guardian News, BBC News, Times ofIndia, and The Australian.their positions, including Imperial CollegeLondon, which advanced from 6th to5th place this year, California Instituteof Technology (CALTECH) ranking attenth place, ETH Zurich shifting up to12th place, and the Ecole PolytechniqueFédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), progressingan impressive 10 places to 19th position.Another important development in 2013 isthe dramatic increase in terms of studentmobility. International enrolments at thetop 400 universities in the QS WorldUniversity Rankings grew by 80,000this year to a total of 1.37 million. Thisrepresents an average of approximately3,400 international students per institution,up from 3,225 in 2013–an annual growthof 6.5%. The trend is even more evidentamong the top 100 institutions, whereinternational enrolments grew by 9% toan average of approximately 5,100 perinstitution.In 2013, 21Country A universities wereincluded in the QS World UniversityRankings . Country A institutions tend toperform well above the global averagein the Faculty Student indicator andperform similarly to the global mean inthe Employer Reputation index. However,they lag behind the global average in theinternational indicators.They also performbelow the global mean in the importantAcademic Reputation indicator and inthe Citations per Faculty, although thedifference is less marked in these cases.Nonetheless, it should be considered thatsome Country A peers are displaying goodresults in the international indicator, ledby Delphos National University (Delphos)and Athena (Athena University), forinstance.SAMPLE REPORTThis is an abbreviated sample of theThe institutional ranking grows steadilyfull benchmarking report.more stable every year, with only oneuniversity dropping out of the top 50 andfour leaving the top 100. The volatilityof some international rankings has beena frequent source of criticism, but theaverage movement in the top 100 is lessthan 3.5 places, down from 4.6 last year.Continuing the trend of previousyears, science and technology focuseduniversities have made their presencefelt in the top 50 of the 2013 QS WorldUniversity Rankings . With almost allsuch institutions either maintaining theirposition or advancing in the QS WorldUniversity Rankings , it is clear thatuniversities focusing on the so-calledSTEM subjects – science, technology,engineering and mathematics – are on therise.The Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT) remained as the top-rankeduniversity, having taken the lead forthe first time in 2013. It also heads thefaculty-level ranking for engineeringand technology, is second in the naturalsciences. Other science and technologyoriented universities have strengthened4The following Executive Summary presentsan overview of what each research modulecontributes, together with some keyobservations.QS World University Rankings :The basicsMODULE 1: Institution ReportsFour key criteria form the basis of the QSWorld University Rankings : ResearchQuality, Teaching Quality, GraduateEmployability and International Outlook.Six indicators encompass these criteria:Module 1 provides a two-page overviewof each individual institution included inthe exercise. The completeness of eachinstitution report depends on a number offactors:IndicatorWeightAcademic Reputation40%Employer Reputation10%Faculty Student Ratio20%Citations per Faculty20%International Faculty5%International Students5% Whether the institution has beenincluded in QSIU’s evaluations inthe year leading up to the reportcompilation How long the institution has beenincluded in QSIU’s considerations How forthcoming the institution is withdata that does not directly contribute toany of QSIU’s evaluations.Copyright 2014 QS Intelligence Unit
To acquire a quick feel for an institution,reviewing this module is the easiest wayto obtain a visual read of its key strengthsand performance over time. A moredetailed schematic of how these reportsare structured can be found at the start ofthe module.Of key interest is the large amount ofranking data that is not available in thepublic domain, and which is protectedunder the terms of the Non-DisclosureAgreement referenced on the inside frontcover of this report. This includes rankingsby indicator and faculty area outsidethe top 300, which are not generallypublished, and overall rankings outside thetop 400, where the results are generallypublished in ranges.In addition, included in Module 1 isinformation on other rankings for eachinstitution. The latest results, if applicable,from the following exercises are included: ARWU (Shanghai Jiao Tong) University Ranking by AcademicPerformance (URAP) Ranking Web of World Universities(Webometrics) Times Higher Education Rankings 4icu University Web Ranking Alexa Web Rankings. A common pattern for the majorityof the selected peers is a strongperformance in the Faculty Studentand Employer Reputation indicators,counterbalanced by weaker results inthe international indicators and in theCitations per Faculty index. This trendcan be seen in the shapes of Hermes,Poseidon, Atlantis, Apollo and evenDemeter. Client’ shape has shown somesignificant changes from the previousresults, particularly in the AcademicReputation (AR) indicator, whichwitnessed a drop from 281 in 2012to 420 in 2013. Conversely, theInternational Students (IS) index hasseen an improvement of 39 places.Currently, this is the institution’s secondstrongest indicator at 291. It is worth noting that the peer group isvery competitive in the Faculty Studentindicator. Therefore, despite Client’relatively strong rank in this indicator(227), it is outperformed by all peers.Inversely, the selected Country Ainstitutions are not strong performersin the International Faculty indicator.With a rank of 407, Client managesto outperform six of the eight chosenpeers.outperformed by Client in all indicatorsbut the Employer Reputation andFaculty Student indexes. When it comes to the internationalindicators, Apollo’s performance is verysimilar to that of Client. Following thelatter institution’s fall in the AcademicReputation index, Apollo took the leadin this indicator. However, Client isranked ahead of Apollo in the Citationsper Faculty indicator (521 versus 585). Despite top 200 ranks in thereputational indicators, Hermesunderperforms Client in bothinternational indicators. Client is performing slightly better thanPoseidon in the international indicators,but it displays much lower results in allthe remaining areas.MODULE 3: RankingsPerformanceIf Module 2 provides an institution-byinstitution snapshot, Module 3 providesa deeper analysis on an indicator-byindicator basis. For each indicator, a chartreveals the performance of each institutionover the last five years (2009-2013).This not only indicates fluctuations inperformance over time, but also highlightswhen enhancements to QS Rankingsmethodology took effect, such as theswitch from Essential Science Indicators(Thomson) to Scopus (Elsevier).Therefore, it is important to refer to theaccompanying text in Appendix II prior todrawing conclusions.SAMPLE REPORTQSIU has endeavoured to present themost current institutional data; however,this may not always be possible. In theinterests of providing the most up-to-datefigures available, data in the sectionsself-reported by institutions such as thePersonnel, Exchanges, Financial, andAdditional Information may not have beenvalidated at the point at which this reportwas compiled. Delphos, ranked 35 overall, is visiblyshowing the strongest profile, with aremarkable performance in the tworeputational indicators, both includedin the top 50. Its lowest indicator ranksat 269 for International Faculty.This is an abbreviated sample of thefull benchmarking report.Each institution report includes a datedsnapshot of the university website andits current logo, providing a quick, ifbasic, impression of the university’s brandposition. Client outperforms Zeus in allindicators but the Faculty Studentindex, where Zeus is ranked at 193. Athena displays a relatively similarshape to Client; however, Athenaoutperforms Client in all indicators butCitations per Faculty where the latterinstitution leads by 18 places.Module 2 provides a detailed summaryof the current position of each selectedinstitution in comparison with Clientacross all indicators used in the 2013 QSWorld University Rankings . It is importantto note that the charts in this module arenot adjusted for the weightings used in therankings. Atlantis’ strongest features areundoubtedly the two reputationalindicators and the Faculty Studentindex, in which it achieved a top150 rank. Atlantis’ weaknesses lie inthe International indicators. Clientoutperforms this peer in InternationalFaculty (407 versus 445) and inInternational Students (291 versus 386).Key observations from this moduleinclude: Demeter’s shape is quite similar tothat of Client. However, Demeter isMODULE 2: Comparative AnalysisBenchmarking Service - Sample ReportKey observations from this moduleinclude: Overall, the selected peer group can bedivided into several performance tiers.Delphos is clearly the leader amongstthe selected peers, with a stellar rankof 35. The second tier consists ofPoseidon, Atlantis and Hermes, whichare placed in the 100-200 range.Athena and Apollo both hover aroundthe 250 rank. Client is placed at 362,while Demeter ranks at 405 and Zeusat 507. It is worth noting that the selected peergroup has demonstrated a relativelyhigh stability since 2012, aside fromZeus, which has moved up 50 places.This stability is particularly true for thehighest-ranked institutions.5
Module 1Institution ReportsThe following section contains an individual report for each of the institutions. This page shows an annotatedschematic of an institution report with some guidance notes to assist in their interpretation.QSIU has endeavoured to present the most current institutional data, however, this may not always be possible. Inthe interests of providing the most up-to-date figures possible, data in the sections self-reported by institutions suchas the Personnel, Exchanges, Financial, and Additional Information may not have been validated at the point atwhich this report was compiled.Web CapturePersonnel DataFull Time Equivalent data (orextrapolated alternative data) isused for the QS World UniversityRankings . Here, only dataaccurately verified is shownresulting in some blanks mostcommonly in the FTE column.A screen capture ofthe home page of eachinstitution’s websitereveals a quick insightinto its branding andpriorities.Client UniversityIndicator and FacultyArea ScoresInstitution Name:Client ation yearSizeXLFocusFO1942Age3ResearchHIStatusAThe data presented in this profile are the most up-to-datefigures held by the QS Intelligence Unit. In some cases, theinformation provided could be more recent than the oneutilised for rankings calculations.Personnel DataExchangesFacultyExchanges are a potential futureaddition as a rankings indicatorbut the data completion levelsare not yet sufficiently high.There will be some blanks here.2,1872,18777,01738,508International ational 269HeadcountFTE281281Undergraduates InboundUndergraduates Outbound113113Postgraduates Inbound2,3361,752Postgraduates Outbound3,1702,378Financial DataFTEDate taken: 07/10/2013QS IndicatorsClientWorldOverall61.0Academic Reputation98.037.9Employer Reputation76.042.237.3Faculty Student19.044.7Citations per Faculty43.033.8International Faculty8.038.1International Students22.037.9QS Faculty Area ScoreClientWorldArts & Humanities79.053.9Engineering & Technology76.057.6Life Sciences & Medicine78.056.4Natural Sciences82.059.7Social Sciences & Mgmt77.055.9Scopus Data 02.1Arts & Humanities0.20%0.20%1.5Engineering & Technology28.70%20.10%1.2Life Sciences & Medicine43.20%54.90%2.2Natural Sciences23.80%22.10%1.6Social Sciences & Mgmt2.70%2.20%1.4Domestic Undergraduate Fees1,910International Undergraduate Fees1,910Domestic Postgraduate Fees2,359Add-itional Information2,359Staff with PhDInternational Postgraduate FeesAnnual Library Spending11,496,825PatentsTotal Research Funding136,558,82211,882214Overall Student Satisfaction Rate196%Government100,529,613Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate198%Industrial35,415,939PhDs Awarded997Facilities Investment42,571,695Graduate Employment Rate57%Community Investment14,058,837Students Pursuing Further Study88%Alumni Donations105,594StudentsExchange DataFinancial data are not the mostuniversally completed so moreblanks will appear here than inother areas. There may also beexchange rate related anomalies.The amounts appear in US dollars.FTE5,705International FacultyInternational PostgraduatesFinancialHeadcountWebsite: www.iu.qs.com-Average Entry RequirementsInstitutionalperformance in eachIndicator and FacultyArea is presented herealong with globalaverages. The figurespresented here havebeen through a rigorousvalidation process.Scopus DataScopus results forPapers, Citations, andImpact appear in thissection with overallresults as well as infive faculty areas:Arts & Humanities,Engineering &Technology, LifeSciences & Medicine,Natural Sciences, andSocial Sciences &Management.4Copyright 2013 QS Intelligence UnitAdditional InformationIf available, additional information, includingpatents, staff with PhDs, teaching and studentsatisfaction, student graduation rate, studentspursuing further study, and average entryrequirements are included.6Copyright 2014 QS Intelligence Unit
QS ClassificationsSizeXLLMSFocusVery largeFCFully ComprehensiveVHVery HighLargeCOComprehensiveHIHigh30,00 0 or more students12,000-29,999 studentsMedium5,000-11,999 studentsSmallLess than 5,000 studentsRankings ata GlancepageGrey lines onthese chartsreflect theperformance ofthe institution onbehalf of whomthe report hasbeen compiled.FOSPAgeResearch IntensityAll 5 faculty areas medical schoolAll 5 faculty areasFocusedThreshold relative to size and focusSpecialist4Mature3Established2Young1New100 or more years old50 to 99 years oldThreshold relative to size and focusLimited or noneThreshold relative to size and focusAPublicBPrivate - Non profitCPrivate - For profit25 to 49 years oldModerateLO1 or 2 faculty areasHistoricThreshold relative to size and focusMDMore than 2 faculty areas5Status10 to 24 years oldLess than 10 years oldQS StarsThe opt-in Ratings Systemfrom QS. It is designed toreflect the nuanced missionof universities, and the needsof students who may beinterested in things other thanthose to which traditionalrankings are necessarilylimited.RANKINGS AT A GLANCE ClientQS STARSRating 132082242372853242013/14 Overall RankResearchAcademic ReputationEmployer 84454525449InternationalizationInnovationFaculty StudentEngagementCitations per FacultySpecialist 22013448521593631750315285277252252AccessOther RankingsOther RankingsInternational FacultyInternational StudentsARWU232 (243)URAP423 (457)Webometrics302 (320)THE400 35122948299534525416433520Alexa23112321Latest results, if applicable,for the various majorranking systems are listed.Previous results are inparentheses. Alexa webtraffic results are dynamic.Faculty Level RankingsPlease, note that the QS WorldUniversity Rankings by FacultyArea have a new and improvedmethodology since 2013.20102011Arts & Humanities285218239198Engineering & Technology2009227305263233233Life Sciences & Medicine9758121159343Natural Sciences310381302307377Social Sciences & Management340233217236274Benchmarking Service: Template UniversityBenchmarking Service - Sample Report20122013For certain institutions, rankscan vary substantially year toyear.192Rankings by Faculty AreaPlease note that in 2013the methodology for theRankings by Faculty Areahas been improved, leadingto sudden rank changes forcertain institutions.117
Commissioning UniversityInstitution Name:Commissioning UniversityAbbreviation:ClientLocation:Country AFoundation yearFocusFCSizeL1902Age5ResearchHIStatusBThe data presented in this profile are the most up-to-datefigures held by the QS Intelligence Unit. In some cases, theinformation provided could be more recent than the oneutilised for rankings calculations.Personnel DataFacultyInternational FacultyStudentsInternational StudentsUndergraduatesInternational UndergraduatesPostgraduatesInternational PostgraduatesExchange DataFTE3,0692,180231190QS IndicatorsClientWorldOverall43.737.3Academic Reputation35.637.9Employer Reputation30.942.2Faculty Student23.244.7Citations per Faculty45.733.8International Faculty16.938.1International Students59.537.9QS Faculty Area 3Arts & HumanitiesThisis an abbreviatedsampleof the2,4692,463Engineering & Technologyreport.6,461full benchmarking5,175281263FTEUndergraduates Inbound614514Undergraduates Outbound625625Postgraduates Inbound191191Postgraduates Outbound2323Financial DataUSDDomestic Undergraduate Fees9,300International Undergraduate Fees9,300Domestic Postgraduate Fees9,300International Postgraduate Fees9,300Total Research FundingDate taken: 5/1/2014SAMPLE REPORT21,913HeadcountAnnual Library Spending8HeadcountWebsite: iu.qs.com9,010,20058.957.6Life Sciences & Medicine50.856.4Natural Sciences54.059.7-55.9Social Sciences & MgmtScopus Data 4.1Arts & Humanities2.8%1.6%2.7Engineering & Technology26.6%31.6%5.7Life Sciences & Medicine---Natural Sciences52.6%47.9%4.4Social Sciences & Mgmt0.2%0.0%1.5Additional InformationStaff with PhD1,045Patents23100,000,000Overall Student Satisfaction Rate92%Government60,000,000Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate84%Industrial40,000,000PhDs Awarded130Facilities Investment-Graduate Employment Rate82%Community Investment-Students Pursuing Further Study34%Alumni Donations-Average Entry Requirements-Copyright 2013 QS Intelligence Unit
RANKINGS AT A GLANCE ClientQS STARSRating 134424444023613522013/14 Overall RankResearchAcademic ReputationEmployer 13287281420InternationalizationInnovationFaculty StudentEngagementCitations per FacultySpecialist 22013468396371380407288251339330291AccessSAMPLE REPORTOther RankingsThis is Internationalan abbreviatedsample of theStudentsfull benchmarking report.ARWUInternational Faculty430 (413)URAP483 (496)Webometrics1002 (1050)THE550 479475470494493521231191187250227Alexa10823Faculty Level RankingsPlease, note that the QS WorldUniversity Rankings by FacultyArea have a new and improvedmethodology since 2013.20092010201120122013Arts & Humanities251303247251378Engineering & Technology466442439291366Life Sciences & Medicine521562673772560Natural Sciences465585399338367Social Sciences & Management171140150170-Benchmarking Service - Sample ReportFor certain institutions, rankscan vary substantially year toyear.9
Athena Institute of TechnologyInstitution Name:Athena Institute of TechnologyAbbreviation:AthenaLocation:Country BFoundation yearFocusFCSizeL1945Age4ResearchVHStatusBThe data presented in this profile are the most up-to-datefigures held by the QS Intelligence Unit. In some cases, theinformation provided could be more recent than the oneutilised for rankings calculations.Personnel DataFacultyInternational FacultyStudentsInternational StudentsUndergraduatesInternational UndergraduatesPostgraduatesInternational PostgraduatesExchange DataUndergraduates InboundFTE3,3762,398255209QS IndicatorsAthenaWorldOverall50.237.3Academic Reputation45.337.9Employer Reputation32.442.2Faculty Student27.344.7Citations per Faculty69.033.8International Faculty15.638.1International Students96.037.9QS Faculty Area 23Arts & HumanitiesThisis an abbreviatedsampleof the2,7162,710Engineering & Technologyreport.7,108full graduates Inbound5252Postgraduates Outbound305305Financial DataDate taken: 5/1/2014SAMPLE REPORT24,1061,409Undergraduates Outbound10HeadcountWebsite: iu.qs.comUSDDomestic Undergraduate Fees11,500International Undergraduate Fees15,500Domestic Postgraduate Fees12,500International Postgraduate Fees17,50058.457.6Life Sciences & Medicine62.156.4Natural Sciences52.959.7Social Sciences & Mgmt45.155.9Scopus Data 62.5Arts & Humanities2.1%1.7%2.4Engineering & Technology33.6%35.3%3.2Life Sciences & Medicine---Natural Sciences21.1%27.8%4.0Social Sciences & Mgmt0.1%0.1%1.8Additional InformationStaff with PhD1,580Annual Library Spending10,000,000PatentsTotal Research Funding150,000,000Overall Student Satisfaction Rate85%Government50,000,000Teaching Student Satisfaction Rate88%Industrial100,000,000PhDs Awarded-Facilities Investment30,214,800Graduate Employment Rate-Community Investment6,320,100Students Pursuing Further Study-Alumni Donations10,422,000Average Entry Requirements--Copyright 2013 QS Intelligence Unit
RANKINGS AT A GLANCE AthenaQS STARSRating 134354353723372902013/14 Overall RankResearchAcademic ReputationEmployer 72340314405InternationalizationInnovationFaculty StudentEngagementCitations per FacultySpecialist 22013361352358357382345348258243177AccessSAMPLE REPORTOther RankingsThis isInternationalan abbreviatedsample of theStudentsfull benchmarking report. ARWUInternational Faculty301-400 (82)URAP250 (243)Webometrics480 (504)THE302 864654534794975391911371228053Alexa11,892Faculty Level RankingsPlease, note that the QS WorldUniversity Rankings by FacultyArea have a new and improvedmethodology since 2013.20092010201120122013Arts & Humanities348506318311426Engineering & Technology349430437387381Life Sciences & Medicine243302242186261Natural Sciences227537552539384Social Sciences & Management298316348359402Benchmarking Service - Sample ReportFor certain institutions, rankscan vary substantially year toyear.11
Module 2Comparative analysisThis section analyses Client’ performance in relation to the selected peer group across all theindicators in the 2013 QS World University Rankings .The scatter charts on this page show theresults for all the ranked institutions inthe Rankings, highlighting Client’ andthe selected peers’ positions. Each chartcombines two indicators, providing aquick snapshot of the performance interms of reputation, teaching commitment,research quality and internationalisation.The following conclusions can beextracted: Chart 2.1 combines the results for bothreputational indicators (Academic andEmployer Reputation) used for theRankings calculations. The AcademicReputation score is represented inthe horizontal axis and the EmployerReputation in the vertical axis. Thechart demonstrates that [SAMPLECONTENT]. Although Client is placed in thelower left area, which contains thoseinstitutions with a relatively low scorein both reputational indexes, it is nearthe [SAMPLE CONTENT] mark linefor Employer Reputation. It performsbetter than Zeus in both indicators, andbetter than Demeter in the AcademicReputation index. Chart 2.2 combines Faculty Student/Teaching Commitment (horizontal axis)and Citations per Faculty/ResearchInfluence (vertical axis). In this case,[SAMPLE CONTENT].with a group of institutions performingat a high level in both indexes (topright), and another tight knit groupdemonstrating poorer results (bottomleft). This trend is reflected in theselected peer group, as most institutionscan be found in the lower-left area,displaying low performances in bothindicators. However, a few institutionspresent interesting results in theInternational Students indicator. In thisindicator, Client is placed very close tothe score median.SAMPLE REPORT Chart 2.3 connects the InternationalFaculty (horizontal axis) andInternational Students (vertical axis)indicators. In this case, the globalresults depict a clear polarisation,This is an abbreviated sample of thefull benchmarking report.Chart 2.1 - Reputational performance - Client and selected peers - Year 201312Copyright 2014 QS Intelligence Unit
Chart 2.2 - Teaching Commitment & Research Influence Performance - Client and selected peers - Year 2013SAMPLE REPORTChart 2.3 - Internationalisation performance - Client and selected peers - Year 2013This is an abbreviated sample of thefull benchmarking report.Benchmarking Service - Sample Report13
The radar charts in this module represent a snapshot of performance. In each case, the area insidethe line represents the all-round strength of the institution across the six principal ranking indicatorsand would correlate perfectly with the overall
SAMPLE REPORT This is an abbreviated sample of the full Benchmarking Report. A full Benchmarking Report is tipically between 50-100 pages, depending on the number of selected peer institutions. The Modules in this sample report are condensed to provide a preview of the information covered in the full report, which is more substantial.
Bad benchmarking Benchmarking has its limitations. Whilst good benchmarking is about performance and best practice, bad benchmarking can lead to mediocrity. Bad benchmarking is using data to justify average performance, rather than challenging and driving improvements. This
manufacturing industry, benchmarking is still an obscure idea in the service industry, especially in the tourism field. Many researchers have stated benchmarking in different aspects which helps in benchmarking the tourism destination in different crite
The tourism sector began to apply benchmarking in the mid-1990s. Wöber (2001) distinguishes these areas of benchmarking focus in tourism: (a) benchmarking of profit-oriented organisations, (b) benchmarking of non-profit organisations, and (c)
Benchmarking in Tourism Benchmarking in tourism can be classified into these spheres – Benchmarking of non-profit oriented tourism organizations National or regional tourist boards/organizations Attractions operated by public authorities or other forms of non-profit oriented bus
benchmarking, tourism, tourist destination, comparability. 1. Introduction Benchmarking is a relatively new concept that derives from the English word “benchmark”. In a simple manner, benchmarking is a management method that involves an organiza
We will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of composite indicators focusing on their two probable uses, benchmarking and quality improvement. Composites for benchmarking Benchmarking of providers based on only one or a few indicators of quality may be problematic for several rea-sons. First,
Proceso de Benchmarking Pasos previos para diseñar un buen proceso de Benchmarking: 1. Obtener el respaldo de la alta gerencia y buscar información. 2. Seleccionar el equipo de trabajo, tipo y método de benchmarking. 3. Seleccionar el proceso de Benchmarking más ligado a los objetivos estratégicos y procesos clave de la organización. 4.
Core 6 – Equality and Diversity . Status Core – this is a key aspect of all jobs and of everything that everyone does. It underpins all dimensions in the NHS KSF. Levels 1 Act in ways that support equality and value diversity . 2. Support equality and value diversity . 3. Promote equality and value diversity
