‘So, you’re opposed to using KPIs to track how well we’re doing?’

‘I just don’t think they’re a good means of comparing performance across disciplines. What’s valued and expected in terms of research, teaching and service vary. There are different opportunities to land big grants or work with industry and government. The gold standard for publication differs. Some subjects are more popular with students than others, meaning higher teaching and admin demands.’

The University Research Committee are discussing a proposal to use a set of key performance indicators to measure departmental performance. A colleague from the Science faculty is arguing in favour of an indicative set of KPIs that senior management is recommending be adopted. I am pushing back. In part because I think that managing through KPIs will fail to produce the outcomes intended. But also because I think the measures chosen are inherently biased and will make some departments appear as if they are over-performing and others as if they are failing, as well as creating other counterproductive effects such as internal competition and overwork leading to loss of morale and stress-related ill-health.

The science professor continues: ‘We have to have some way of measuring how well staff and departments are doing and what progress they’re making. The government want us to use KPIs and we have to supply them with data. And every other country is using KPIs.’

‘Okay, if we have to use KPIs I want them standardized,’ I say, changing tack. I’m unlikely to win an argument about whether we’ll use them if the mandate is coming from outside the university. However, if they’re letting us determine our own KPIs, I can try to influence their form.

‘Standardized? How?’

‘Well, a lot of the ones you’re proposing are actually flat counts and inputs – how much grant income earned, how many students enrolled, how many publications produced. If you’re going to use KPIs they should be standardized against base resources, and performance tracked by outputs and impact. So, rather than simply counting how much research income was gained, we measure what was produced with that funding.’

‘I’m not sure …’