Institutions often compare themselves with their peers in terms of ranking, funding and reputation. Many institutional comparisons are still rather superficial and miss opportunities to provide strategic insights to enhance research funding success.
The Strategic Value of Research Benchmarking
Research benchmarking is the systematic comparison of institutional research performance, practices and strategies with those of selected peer institutions. Valuable competitive information, weaknesses are revealed, strategic decisions are validated with data, competitive advantage is obtained with effective benchmarking. Strategic benchmarking differs from passive comparison in that it does not merely acknowledge where different institutions lie on a ranking but instead asks why the performance is different and what corrective measures might close gaps or exploit advantages. This actionable focus turns data into strategy.
Selecting Appropriate Peer Groups
The process of benchmarking necessitates selecting an appropriate peer. Drawing comparisons with unsuitable peers leads to wrong conclusions. An R2 research university that benchmarks against R1 research universities may identify performance gaps that are differences in resources rather than differences in strategies. Take note of varied peer groups. Operational peers are firms which are similar in size, research intensity, and geographically located. The aspirational peers represent the growth targets of institutions. Rivals pursue the same research funding directly. Different strategic questions emerge from each peer group.
The Carnegie Classifications can be useful starting points for identifying peers, but meaningful benchmarking can only occur through more detailed analysis. When choosing peers, think about similarities in research portfolios, patterns in funding sources, and strategic priorities.
Research Funding Composition Benchmarking
Value benchmarking activity is comparing the composition of funding sources. What is the federal versus non-federal peer research funding percentage? To what extent do they succeed in their efforts to diversify through foundation funding, corporate partnerships, or state funding programs?
These comparisons illustrate whether you fund administrative expenses in line with your peers or as an outlier. A substantial misalignment requires investigation. Do your peers know something you don’t? Do the capabilities exist which your institution lacks? Have they pursued strategies that your institution has not?
Benchmarking the composition of funding has brought out prominent insights about the non-federal research funding opportunities. If similar institutions are obtaining 15% of their research funding through commercial partnerships, but your institution is only 3%, there is a big opportunity to capture if you build the right capabilities and relationships.
Field-Specific Performance Analysis
Comparisons of research expenditure mask important patterns. Institutions could perform similarly overall but excel in different fields. Field-specific benchmarking highlights these complex patterns. Your school may be ranked 30th nationally in total research expenditures, but 10th in marine sciences. Research funding strategy should be informed by this field-specific strength, indicative of a competitive edge in marine science research funding opportunities. On the contrary, a weak field-specific performance, despite overall strong research, points to certain research funding that would be difficult to pursue without major investments in capacity. Benchmarking ensures scarce resources are used to develop competitive strengths rather than struggling in areas where peer advantages are insurmountable.
Indirect Cost Recovery Benchmarking
Institutions implement different indirect cost recovery rates and methods. Benchmarking helps you understand how your peers negotiate indirect costs with non-federal funders for your institution. Some institutions manage to keep a high indirect cost rate across a wide range of funders. Some companies are agreeable to lower rates for certain types of funding sources or partnerships. Understanding competitors’ strategies will help define sustainable policies between full-cost recovery and competitive positioning. Assistance with the benchmarking of indirect costs is particularly useful for non-federal research funding, where the rates are much more variable than for federal programs. Understanding what strategies work in peer institutions gives useful insights.
Research Development Capacity Benchmarking
How many research development professionals do peer institutions employ? What do the services onclude? In what way are they organized? This operational benchmark guides capacity investment decisions. Usually, those institutions that successfully diversify their research funding invest in significant research development capacity. Benchmarking helps to find out where your institution stands with respect to investment in research and development. This operational benchmarking goes beyond staffing to services, systems, and processes. How do peers assist other non-federal funders? Which tools and platforms are they using? Examining peer capabilities enables identification of improvement opportunities.
Strategic Priority Alignment
The process of benchmarking provides insight into how peers decide and articulate their research priorities. This intelligence informs your institution’s priority-setting and helps identify opportunities for differentiation. If multiple peers have highlighted similar research priorities, then this area likely has competition. On the other hand, research strengths that your competitors are not highlighting can be areas of differentiation that your institution can use to carve out a unique position. It is especially important to benchmark strategic priority in the case of non-federal research funding, where funders are looking for distinctive capabilities rather than just the most prominent institutions. Our distinctive research strengths appeal to foundations and corporate partners seeking expertise on the specific issue.
Collaboration Pattern Analysis
Analyzing collaboration behaviors allows us to understand how peers build partnerships. Which institution works with them? In which discipline? What mechanisms are being used? This evaluation highlights opportunities for collaborations while identifying strategies for emulation. Institutions with strong partnerships with corporates as well as productive relationships with foundations offer models for developing similar capabilities. Geographic collaboration patterns are decisive for regional non-federal research funding. In what way do the peers collaborate with regional funders? Which collaboration models are working in your region?
Success Metrics Beyond Expenditures
Most benchmarking is driven by research expenditures, while other metrics have their strategic value. Metrics such as proposal success rates, award sizes, researcher participation rates and time-to-submission illuminate research enterprise health. These metrics and outcome processes often reveal competitive advantages or challenges not evident through expenditure data. Research development needs are suggested by high proposal volumes and low success rates. Low researcher participation, despite institutional strength in research, indicates possible cultural or communication impediments.
Technology and Systems Benchmarking
What administration labor technology do peer institutions use? In what ways are researchers supported through technology? Stakeholders, suppliers, retailers, and other parties. The successful pursuit of a variety of research funding by peers is facilitated by advanced research administration and funding discovery technologies. Analyzing your institution’s technology capabilities reveals where your infrastructure enables or inhibits research funding goals.
Utilizing Benchmarking Insights
Benchmarking can add value only when insights drive actions. Implement processes to convert benchmarking results into strategic plans, resource allocations, and operational improvements. Not only note performance gaps, but analyze the root causes and action plans. What tools or methods allow my peers to succeed? What investments or adjustments could enable your institution to close gaps or capitalize on advantages?
Continuous Benchmarking
Landscapes of research change continuously. A one-time benchmarking generates snapshots but misses dynamic patterns. Set up ongoing benchmarking processes that monitor peer performance over time and identify trends. Continuous benchmarking allows for a proactive strategy rather than a reactive response. Early identification of peer trends enables your institution to adapt tactics before gaining a competitive disadvantage.
Analytics Infrastructure
Effective benchmarking calls for an analytics infrastructure that turns raw data into meaningful insights. Business intelligence tools visualize benchmarking data, allowing them to observe trends and patterns that are theoretically missed with manual analysis. Streamlyne Reporting offers research administrators embedded benchmarking and analytics capabilities that contextualize the institutional performance trends against peer and national data. Rather than carrying out a special project at intervals, integrated analytics provide continuous competitive intelligence to inform ongoing strategic decision-making by institutions. This allows institutions to identify and act on research funding opportunities where they are likely to have a competitive edge.
Taking Strategic Action
Start by identifying specific strategic questions your institution needs to answer. Consequently, develop benchmarking activities that explore these questions with peer groups and metrics appropriate for this specific circumstance. Benchmarking clarifies questions but doesn’t answer them. Strategic judgment remains essential. Leverage benchmarking findings to shape decisions, verify strategies, and identify opportunities, always incorporating your institution’s context and ability. Learn how Streamlyne’s HERD Visualizer PRO can enhance your research benchmarking capabilities →
