3. Analyse the existing process
This step involves data collection in order to identify the root causes of problems and then techniques such as Pareto
analysis will improve the focus of action on the issues that give raise to the majority of complaints based on the idea
that 20% of the categories of causes will give rise to 80% of the complaints. For example, the analysis at Thebe could
look at causes of delays in complaint resolution such as staff motivation or processing time for rebilling.
4. Improve the process
This is the implementation stage for any changes that are suggested and it is important at this stage to check on the
cost and resource consequences of any suggested improvement.
5. Control the process
The improvement project will be monitored after implementation to ensure that the benefits of reduced complaints are
maintained. This can be done through exception reporting if complaint numbers begin to exceed the tolerance set or
continued monitoring of the time taken to resolve complaints. The general performance measure of the success of the
project will be the retention of customers which is commonly measured through the churn rate of customers (percentage
of existing customers lost per year).
4 (a) Benchmarking process
The benchmarking process is often described using seven steps. The following are the steps with the current state of the
exercise:
1. Set objectives and decide the areas to benchmark
GU has set the objective of improving efficiency and is benchmarking all of its administration operations relating to
teaching and research.
2. Identify key performance drivers and indicators
The performance drivers have been provided and the indicators are based on the activity per driver. The drivers might
be improved by distinguishing between teaching staff and administrative staff.
193. Select organisations for benchmarking comparison
The government selected the three largest universities for benchmarking which excludes five other smaller universities.
This can be justified if the large universities cover similar teaching and research areas while the smaller ones are
narrower in focus (for example science and engineering subjects only). However, it may be that there are examples of
good practice in university administration that will be missed as a result of restricting the exercise. It might be sensible
to include foreign universities in the exercise. Differences in the mix of subjects researched and taught might also affect
the results (e.g. managing teaching facilities in engineering and law will be different).
4. Measure performance of all organisations involved in benchmarking
The basic data has been gathered as required by government. This step would normally be more complex in a private
sector situation as commercial secrecy would hinder the sharing of information.
5. Compare performances
This is the stage that has been reached. See answer to part (b) for results.
6. Specify improvement projects
The results of the comparison should lead to identification of areas for improvement. If GU is not demonstrating leading
performance then it should send staff to the top performer to identify their best practice processes and devise projects
to implement these at GU.
