An Alternative Model of Portfolio Analysis

Analysing your department:

An alternative model of portfolio analysis

On the following page is a model of good practice in portfolio analysis identified by DEETYA (Australian Department of Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, now DEEWR – the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations). The model has been derived from the work of Ernest Boyer.

In essence, the quality of all university activities is assessed and ranked on the contribution they make to Boyer’s theoretical conception of the four scholarships:

Teaching

Integration

Application

Discovery (research).

The attraction of this model is that it:

Recognises the distinctiveness of higher education

Can be applied universally throughout the institution

Is more likely to secure consensus than other alternatives.

NB: Throughout the table, unless otherwise stated, the term ‘department’ is taken to mean department, faculty or service.

Source: Based on DEETYA (2003). Used with permission.

Principal criteria / Definition / Examples of possible performance indicators
Centrality / The degree to which the department is central to the university’s vision, mission, values, strategic goals and objectives / Identifiable strategic contribution to university’s vision, mission, values, goals and objectives – locally, regionally, nationally and internationally
Quality / For university-wide services / The degree to which the service excels in its contribution to the quality of the student experience and that of other stakeholders / Identifiable contribution (high, medium, low) to the quality of the student experience and other stakeholders
Integration with the work of other university departments and services
For academic departments and faculties / The degree to which the academic department/faculty excels in terms of its contribution to scholarship (using Ernest Boyer’s notion of four inter-related aspects of scholarship, education etc.) / Identifiable contribution to the scholarship of:
Teaching (e.g. quality of student learning and retention, innovation in teaching methods, balance between general and professional)
Integration (e.g. contribution to professional practice, integration of curriculum, community education and relations etc.)
Application (e.g. industry collaborative grants, commercial research, consultancy, impact on problems of technology, policy, environment, etc.)
Discovery (e.g. scholarly publications, competitive grants, conference papers, higher degree by research completions, recognition by peers, etc.)
Demand / The degree to which the department excels in terms of the call upon it from students and other stakeholders / [For university-wide services]
Identifiable contribution (high, medium, low) to meeting the needs of students and other stakeholders
[For academic departments and faculties]
Application and recruitment (number and quality of applicants)
FTE imports and exports in relation to other courses, additional student numbers, demand for services (e.g. research and consultancy)
Graduate employment etc.
Comparative advantage / The degree to which the department excels in strategic terms in relation to comparator departments locally, regionally, nationally and internationally / Identifiable strategic contribution to distinctive local, regional, national or international needs
Identifiable advantage with respect to comparators locally, regionally, nationally and internationally
Cost / The degree to which the department excels in terms of cost-effective delivery / Identifiable contribution to resource efficiency, (high, medium, low)