FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1499796364> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1499796364 endingPage "34" @default.
• W1499796364 startingPage "20" @default.
• W1499796364 abstract "Introduction (1) It has taken almost 30 years for universities to borrow from the corporate world and integrate the concepts, methodologies, and logistics of various quantitative and qualitative evaluative processes (such as evaluation, assessment, and total quality management [TQM]) into institutional planning. It has taken even more time--beginning circa 1980--for performance indicators, strategic planning, benchmarking, and ranking to gain broad acceptance. A rapid review of the recent history and evolution of benchmarking illustrates the exponential growth of its use to compare and rank universities: more than 40 countries (2) now have national or regional university rankings, including * America's Best Colleges published by U.S. News & World Report (see, for example, U.S. News & World Report 2010). * Maclean's University Rankings produced by the Canadian magazine Maclean's (see, for example, Dwyer 2008). * The University Guide published by the Guardian in the United Kingdom. * The CHE University Rankings produced by the Centre for Higher Education Development in Germany. * Six other international university ranking and league tables systems that compare and rank world universities, such as the Academic Ranking of World Universities produced by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China and the World University Rankings edited by The Times Higher Education Supplement in the United Kingdom. Very clearly, a change has occurred in university culture: benchmarking is now widely used throughout the world. This cultural innovation necessarily has affected university institutional research activities. At one time, institutional research offices simply produced facts and figures that were collected and published as a fact book, primarily for descriptive purposes. Starting in the early 1980s, data and metrics began to be related to other purposes such as quality improvement, strategic planning, and accountability. These data were then compared to metrics produced by peer institutions. Benchmarking has since contributed to more policy-oriented institutional research studies and has demonstrated the rich possibilities for the use of data analysis and reporting. It was in this context that a consortium of 10 Canadian research-intensive universities launched a data exchange program in 1999 to share information that could be used to identify and evaluate the best practices of each institution and to help each institution position itself strategically to achieve its mission. One part of the program was devoted to collecting departmental-level academic data (instructional and financial) from these 10 institutions. This project built on two previous studies by the consortium that were experimental and limited in focus. In 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, data for six and 12 academic departments, respectively, were collected. In 2003-2004, the goal was more comprehensive: between 30 and 35 academic departments (figure 1) were benchmarked using 24 variables (figure 2) in comparisons based on selected indicators. This article presents the data from 2003-2004 as a case study to illustrate the purpose and methodology (process, variables, indicators, and ratios) of benchmarking. In addition, the article presents the results of this exercise and describes the multiple uses made of the data generated by the program. Figure 2 Variables and Definitions Section 1--Faculty FTE Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty: Full-time and part-time (converted to FTE) tenured and tenure-track faculty from all funding sources. Filled positions only. Joint appointments have to be prorated. Individuals with duties outside the department such as vice presidents, deans, and associate deans should be excluded for the duties they assume outside the faculty/department but should be prorated for their work within the faculty/department. The count should exclude non-tenured/tenure-track staff. …" @default.
• W1499796364 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1499796364 creator A5041054052 @default.
• W1499796364 date "2010-07-01" @default.
• W1499796364 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1499796364 title "Benchmarking 10 Major Canadian Universities at the Divisional Level: A Powerful Tool for Strategic Decision Making" @default.
• W1499796364 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W1499796364 type Work @default.
• W1499796364 sameAs 1499796364 @default.
• W1499796364 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1499796364 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1499796364 hasAuthorship W1499796364A5041054052 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConcept C155202549 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConcept C189430467 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConcept C191935318 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConcept C48243021 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConcept C86251818 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConcept C97509610 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConceptScore W1499796364C119857082 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConceptScore W1499796364C120912362 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConceptScore W1499796364C144024400 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConceptScore W1499796364C144133560 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConceptScore W1499796364C155202549 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConceptScore W1499796364C162324750 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConceptScore W1499796364C162853370 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConceptScore W1499796364C17744445 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConceptScore W1499796364C187736073 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConceptScore W1499796364C189430467 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConceptScore W1499796364C191935318 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConceptScore W1499796364C199539241 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConceptScore W1499796364C39549134 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConceptScore W1499796364C41008148 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConceptScore W1499796364C48243021 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConceptScore W1499796364C86251818 @default.
• W1499796364 hasConceptScore W1499796364C97509610 @default.
• W1499796364 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W1499796364 hasLocation W14997963641 @default.
• W1499796364 hasOpenAccess W1499796364 @default.
• W1499796364 hasPrimaryLocation W14997963641 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W1481706151 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W1513156897 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W1560350658 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W1815681303 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W2010823318 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W2025302442 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W2066698351 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W2115160640 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W218001908 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W2216088398 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W2225585286 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W2226598071 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W2387361183 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W2509364691 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W2644911752 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W2974566679 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W2992831219 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W652635712 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W656946526 @default.
• W1499796364 hasRelatedWork W2112732721 @default.
• W1499796364 hasVolume "38" @default.
• W1499796364 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1499796364 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1499796364 magId "1499796364" @default.
• W1499796364 workType "article" @default.