Which KPIs are missing from the UK’s international strategies?

Before I look at what’s missing, there are a couple of areas which were included as KPIs in international strategies reviewed in 2020, but don’t fit neatly into any of the main thematic categories I used.

Two institutions used KPIs related to increasing the pool of prospective international donors and/or the level of philanthropic income generated from overseas.

One university, under the heading of ‘internationalised professional services’ proposed a KPI of ‘systems and processes that reflect the international diversity of the University’s staff and student community both on and off campus’. Internationalising systems and processes is at the less glamorous end of international activities and is often glossed over in strategies. While it’s difficult to measure success (and the overarching KPI quoted above is presumably elaborated on with additional detail in a supporting document), including it in the section on KPIs does flag up that it’s a priority to be addressed. 

The main KPI gap I found in international strategies reviewed in both 2000 and 2024 was around environmental sustainability. The Education Insight Global Engagement Index includes a section on Environmental Impact, with indicators for ‘sustainabilty of institution’ (using outcomes from the People and Planet database), and ‘staff air travel carbon footprint per student’.

I’m aware of one recent (non-public) global engagement strategy which adopts principles (not yet KPIs, though development of a set of measures is planned) to work towards a sustainable and climate-friendly approach. The institution’s default position is to use digital communication and platforms wherever possible (from collaborative partnership development to virtual student projects). International travel is reserved for initiatives where there is clear value that justifies the carbon cost.

There’s a tension between many of the ambitions set out in international strategies and an institution’s environmental commitments. However, the challenges merit being debated and it’s short-sighted to sweep them under the carpet. First steps can be taken by debating and signing up to some of the 70 climate actions outlined in the CANIE Accord, established by the Climate Action Network for International Educators (CANIE) to act as a catalyst for change.

Other themes I might have expected to feature more prominently among international strategy KPIs include ones associated with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and ones linked to technological developments, including the international reach (and impact) of online learning. It may be that these feature in other institutional strategies instead.  

Are KPIs a help or a hindrance?

The old Peter Drucker adage that ‘what gets measured gets managed’ highlights the power of metrics to determine what an organisation focuses its efforts on. However, as succinctly set out in this LinkedIn article, there’s a nuanced perspective – and both merits and pitfalls when it comes to metrics.

The pros are listed as:

• Visibility and accountability
• Continuous improvement
• Data-driven decision making
• Allocation of resources

And the cons as:

• Not everything that counts can be counted
• Overemphasis on what’s measurable
• False sense of control
• Potential for manipulation.

That final one is explained by Esteban Marks, the author of the article, in the following terms:

‘When performance is tied to specific metrics, it can incentivize behaviors aimed at improving those numbers, sometimes at the cost of genuine progress or ethical considerations.’

Just as I started working on this series, I attended a fascinating webinar hosted by the Centre for Global Higher Education. It was a book launch for Audit Culture: How Indicators and Rankings are Reshaping the World, by Cris Shore and Sue Wright.

Shore and Wright argued that the spread of audit culture (defined as ‘the (mis)uses of accountancy and metrics-based governance’) should be of concern because it can result in:

• Replacing professional judgment with numerical / economic calculus
• Substituting trust for surveillance, inspection and control
• Rise of managerialism and at-a-distance control – erosion of democracy
• Perverse effects of auditing and rankings (gaming, culture of compliance, increased stress and anxiety)
• Rise of global audit/accountancy firms (and spread of ‘audit capitalism’).

(Source: CGHE Audit Culture presentation, Slide 4)

They highlighted the appeal of numerical measures as a tool of new public management. Rankings and performance indicators represent a simple way to allocate funding and steer behaviours. However, there’s a tendency to persist with this approach long after it becomes clear that specific indicators are not working or, worse, are resulting in damaging outcomes. And a fixation on them impels individuals and teams to concentrate on what is counted (which is often not the same as what matters).

So, while KPIs can be useful if applied judiciously, it’s important to be aware of their dangers and watch out for perverse consequences. (For more on avoiding KPI traps, see blog number three in this series: Good KPIs, traps and tips.)  

And, talking about what is counted, there are some serious gaps and time lags in UK higher education sector data, as highlighted in the June 2024 International Higher Education Commission report, Data Matters in Higher Education (pdf), and elaborated on in this University World News article by Nic Mitchell (Avoid HE policy dramas by harnessing data). This can mean we’re ill-equipped to demonstrate our direction of travel.

I’ll give the final word to Vincenzo Raimo, who asked an important question in response to one of my previous blogs:

‘Your series raises a key question for me: do universities explicitly articulate why these KPIs matter and what they’re ultimately trying to achieve?
Tracking metrics is crucial, but unless universities clearly (and honestly!) define their international ambitions - whether for financial sustainability or other reasons - KPIs risk becoming an administrative exercise rather than a meaningful tool for shaping global engagement...
How well do universities link their international KPIs to a clear strategic purpose?’ 

My brief answer to that final question is that some do this better than others. All too often, there is a KPI ‘section’ at the end of a strategy document that feels divorced from the narrative. Contextualising the KPIs (honestly) – and linking them to specific ambitions – helps to make them relevant and useful.

(Which links to another bugbear of mine: strategies that resemble promotional brochures rather than presenting a candid view of strategic priorities, and spelling out what opportunities and challenges they’re seeking to address. Even in external-facing strategy documents, there’s value in a certain degree of openness. But that’s a topic for another time!)   

In the meantime I’d love to hear other readers’ views on whether KPIs are a help or a hindrance.

Next and final blog in this series

As mentioned at the start, the twelfth and final blog in this series will share an overview of key learning points and some concluding observations.

Links to earlier blogs in this series

Part 1 – What sits below the top of the iceberg?

Part 2 – Characteristics and key themes

Part 3 – Good KPIs, traps and tips

Part 4 – TNE students, programmes and partnerships

Part 5 – Attracting international students to the home campus

Part 6 – International and intercultural experiences and exposure

Part 7 – International student experience, success and alumni engagement

Part 8 – Internationalised research and knowledge exchange

Part 9 – International staff base and development opportunities

Part 10 – Global rank and reputation

Tags/Keywords

KPIS INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIES

Oldest First Newest First 0 Comments Add Comment