With the easy access to data, metrics of all sorts have become common place. Similarly, valuation is something we hear constantly about and we ourselves live and breathe. I am writing about both of these now because, I am looking at staffing data for the members of Consortium of Liberal Arts Colleges and also having to deal with annoying pricing issues with Adobe and SPSS software licensing.

Benchmarking is a very useful exercise in that it provides a first level comparison with those that we would consider peers. For example, we can use staffing metrics to justify additional positions (which has become a rare event in Higher Ed recently) or more importantly, we can use this to justify reallocation of existing staff. Of course, during difficult budget discussions, this can be used to reduce positions. The issue with data is that, even if it is done scientifically, the results tend to be in the eyes of the beholder. However, it is very important to treat these data for first level comparisons and not read too much into them for reasons I explain below.

Valuation is another problem. We hear that the cost of higher education is too high or that we argue that the cost of a software is ridiculously high. In most of these cases, the argument is based on how fast it is growing relative to CPI. As painful a question as it is, is this the right comparison to go by?

The most convenient metrics are the ones where we use the data to which we have easy access to. We know how many staff we each have, what are their functions (academic, infrastructure, administrative etc.). Then we look at how many students, faculty and staff we serve. Generally the assumption is that the number of staff in our organization should be a function of the constituent base we serve. So, we look at how many staff we have per student, faculty or staff.

Then we compare our budget as a percentage of the institution’s total budget. This is to see the level of importance/institutional commitment to technology or library services. Sometimes, we look at our endowments as a metric.

So, where is the problem? We don’t all provide the same types or levels of service. There is absolutely a common set of service we provide, such as a helpdesk, learning management system, an ERP etc. However, the way we deliver these services is so different that deeper comparison becomes extremely hard. In addition, the variance in the systems adds another level of complexity. For example, different learning management systems and ERPs require different levels of expertise and care. And whether a particular service is run in house or in the cloud makes a significant difference. This is why I strongly believe that a more meaningful metric is tied to services we deliver.

Along with the numbers, we should have a service catalog and service level agreement that makes the comparison more meaningful. It is extremely hard, but this is what would make these comparisons more reliable and usable.

In terms of valuation, there are at least two sides to the story. One is, the one offering a product or service sets the price based on market conditions and any regulations. Then the consumer makes purchasing decisions based on his/her own internal valuation. It is complex. It is based on affordability, branding & marketing by the seller and so on and so forth. In general it is the case that initial purchasing decisions tend to persist. For example, I complain so much about the cost and the service that AT&T provides, but the steps I have to take to move to a different cell phone service is so daunting that I have stuck with them forever!

We complain about journal subscription costs and software licenses are out of whack. This is mostly based on the fact that our own budgets don’t grow to cover the increased costs, whereas our needs for these resources remain constant. But, based on what criteria can we say that something is priced too much? If the product remains stagnant and the price keeps going up, we can say that this is unacceptable.  However, the software vendors need to keep their product enhanced on a regular basis and this costs money. As a consumer, we may not want or can afford all the jazz that they add to the product. In the software space, there are also not that many options that provides an easy way to move from one to the other and frankly, there is a cost for moving. From the user’s perspective, it is daunting – having to learn and adopt a new system is not that easy nor do people have a lot of time. We also need to have conversations internally about affordability and look at alternatives where it is possible. Open source software, open access for scholarly publishing are options that we should constantly explore…

It is also true that we all wear two hats. As a service provider, we tend to justify the price increases, but we don’t like the same as a beneficiary of a service!

I don’t think these two challenges will go away any time soon!