Revisión de procesos, actividades y productos

The National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030 (Department of Education & Skills 2011) envisages Ireland as a country recognised for innovation, competitive enterprise and continuing academic excellence, with higher education playing a central role - “focus around economic regeneration is the defining feature of the report….[reflecting] a firmly utilitarian policy” (Walsh and Loxley 2015, p.1142). It highlights the need for a diverse system to evolve within a clear framework aimed at developing a coherent set of higher education institutions (HEIs) through a social democratic model, which meet individual, enterprise and societal needs.

The Social-democratic model seeks to balance excellence and equity by supporting the development of a world-class system of higher education across a country. This is to be achieved by strengthening horizontal (mission or functional) differentiation across a diverse portfolio of high performing HEIs, some of which may be globally or regionally focused. Emphasis is on supporting ‘excellence’ wherever it occurs by encouraging HEIs to each specialize in specific disciplines or knowledge domain according to their expertise, competence, demand and/or mission.

(Marope et al. 2013, p.86)

Stensaker et al. (2007, p.12) refer to such frameworks as a “new means of system oversight and performance-based steering of organizations” while “governments are not withdrawing from responsibility for higher education systems” as a whole. This framework is in line with an OECD (2004) recommendation and reflects what Takayama (2012, p.506) terms “soft power” and the “enactment of global cultural scripts in education”. The national HE strategy envisages a consolidation, through mergers or incorporations, of smaller institutions to

promote coherence, critical mass, and efficiencies and concentrating expertise through economies of scale and programme rationalisation (Department of Education & Skills 2011), consistent with the European modernisation agenda for HE (European Commission 2006) and developments in many states across Europe (Aarrevaara et al. 2009; Benneworth and Velderman 2016; Drowley et al. 2013; Kyvik and Stensaker 2013; Nokkala et al. 2016; Tight 2013).

A systems performance framework (HEA 2013a) has been developed in Ireland to enable national priorities to be identified, and to facilitate ongoing evaluation of performance at system and institutional levels, as envisaged by Santiago et al. (2008a, p.19) and reviewed by de Boer et al. (2015). These priorities have been identified as: “economic renewal and development; social cohesion, cultural development and equity; public sector reform towards greater effectiveness and efficiency; and restoration of Ireland’s international reputation” (HEA 2014b, p.119). The national priorities are supported by seven key system objectives: meeting Ireland’s human capital needs; promoting access to higher education for non- traditional groups; developing excellence in teaching and learning; sustaining excellence in research and further develop research partnerships and knowledge exchange activities; maintain an international oriented world-class system of HEIs that can compete on the global stage; reform/restructure the higher education system towards a smaller number of high performing diverse HEIs; and, finally, increase accountability for public funding and delivering on national priorities (HEA 2014b). The performance evaluation framework is supported by annual strategic compacts with each HEI, and the HEA regards these compacts as critical to aligning institutional strategic plans with the national priority areas for development (HEA 2013d). Figure 2.4 illustrates how the process for HEI Strategy Development and Performance Evaluation is being implemented.

Figure 2.4 Process for HEI Strategy Development and Performance Evaluation

Source: (HEA 2008b, p.12)

Minister for Education and Skills, Jan O Sullivan, has emphasised the need to “leverage one another’s strengths” and “work as a system”, while respecting individual autonomy, to deliver on the “strategic imperatives” for Irish society and the economy:

At a regional basis through the establishment and implementation of regional clusters;

Nationally through alliances which deliver on key elements of public service reform and our access and equity agenda;

And internationally through the growth in global collaborations in research, the continuing internationalisation of our sector and through our ambitions for Ireland’s success in Horizon 2020.

(O Sullivan 2014, pp.2-3)

Such developments are placing Ireland’s higher education performance within a globally competitive framework with an attendant focus on quality, accountability, transparency, and systems to support international comparison. The range of policy initiatives outlined earlier signal a clear government strategy towards alignment of higher education, research and innovation with the needs of the economy and society at large, while seeking to broaden participation to the benefit of all citizens. Such developments rest on a solid relationship and reputation for excellence (Prendergast 2014). Reflecting on the issue of quality and the interdependency between the state and the university, Newman (1987) postulates that:

What becomes clear is that the real need is not simply for more autonomy but for a relationship between the university and the state that is constructive for both, built up over a long period of time by careful attention on the part of all parties.

(Newman 1987, p.xiii)

A new contractual relationship, the ‘strategic compact’, between individual HEIs and the Higher Education Authority (HEA) is agreed as part of the wider strategic dialogue process (steps 1 and 2), supported by an expert panel that draws on international experience. This is consistent with most countries in Europe, where strategic plans for HEIs are required to align with national policies and goals for higher education (Eurydice 2008). Through such processes, institutional strategies and related performance indicators are defined and aligned with national priorities. Clear stable goals are highlighted as an important element of effective performance funding (NCHEMS 2011; Wellman and Harvey 2016), along with “base” plus “bonus” funding components (Wellman and Harvey 2016, p.2).

If there is not a clear statement of goals that has broad bipartisan acceptance, there is almost no chance of creating a performance funding model that can last…. It is important that all institutions have an opportunity (not a guarantee) to benefit by excelling at their different missions.

(NCHEMS 2011, pp.1-2)

A new recurrent grant funding model (HEA 2014e) for Irish higher education was introduced in 2006 for universities and 2011 for institutes of technology (Appendix A), following a detailed consultation process and an OECD review (OECD 2004). The HEA describes its current funding allocation model as “comparing well to best practice models internationally”, comprising three elements: an annual formula-based recurrent grant, a “new element” of performance related funding (up to 10% of the annual core recurrent grant), and a curtailed targeted/strategic fund arising from the economic crisis (HEA 2013c; HEA 2014b, p.92; HEA 2015d). The emphasis on performance funding has become an inherent element of national policy in Ireland.

The performance budgeting initiative provides a single, coherent organising principle for public service information funded by the Exchequer….This new design ensures that the information needed by decision- makers and those who scrutinise public policy is available 'at a glance'. This includes details of financial and human resources, outputs and public service activities, and context and impact indicators.

(Government of Ireland 2016b)

Mr Tom Boland, CEO of the HEA, in introducing Towards a Performance Evaluation Framework: Profiling Irish Higher Education (HEA 2013d), emphasises that the report “is

intended to support higher education institutions in their strategic performance management…..is fundamental to the implementation of the national strategy, particularly in respect of the imperative to align institutional strategies and national priorities, and to foster and clarify mission-diversity and it does not reflect any desire to instigate a ranking system” (HEA 2013d, p.7). However, there is a large body of international literature that points to the significant influence of indicator based funding and ranking systems on institutional planning, as outlined earlier. Klumpp et al. (2014), while encouraging institutional profiling and an increasing emphasis on mission-based and performance funding, caution that:

Differences in policy context, timing and approach to institutional profiling are likely to affect the higher

education institutions differently.

(ibid, p.170)

So, concepts and approaches that have worked favourably in one environment may not necessarily be imported seamlessly into another context or culture. Some of the key issues that are particular to the Irish context (autonomy and HESPF implementation, restructuring and diversity, funding, global competition) are explored in the following section.