Overview of results of HEI-interviews and interactive workshops on the implementation of ICR in the HEI sector focussing on the national HEI system
| Topic No. | Austria | Slovakia |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Austrian Ministry | Slovak Ministry |
| The success of the ICR implementation and application as a steering tool strongly relies on the acceptance by the universities and their level of commitment and involvement > dialogue is crucial, avoid a sole top-down approach; The selection and amount of indicators are crucial > Less is more | For the distribution of funds, indicators which measure quality appropriately are needed; It is planned to set up a new a new steering tool including indicators for HEIs – ICR could be an inspiration for this | |
| Austrian HEIs | Slovak Universities | |
| The compatibility with other tools and reports required by law could be improved – many key figures are not related, more synergy concerning indicators is needed. Some indicators cause misinterpretation, internal/external “translation” is necessary; Some indicators are not justified or useful from the HEI’s perspectives and other useful indicators are missing | For the implementation a bottom-up approach is needed; There should not be too many (new) indicators; It is important to stress the benefits of ICR as a strategic management tool, not just another reporting tool, since there are already other different indicators currently been collected for accreditation and budget distribution; Quality, instead of quantity concerning the distribution of governmental grants. The indicators should be more linked to research results than student numbers | |
| 4 | Austrian Ministry | |
| The ICR methodology is a dynamic and open process and continuously improving > further development is important, but shall not restrain consistency | ||
| Austrian HEIs | Slovak Universities | |
| ICR is an excellent source for statistical information, reporting for stakeholders and benchmarking with others; ICR should be further developed to enhance the international comparability (adapt indicators to fit to international HEI rankings, such as “Multirank”) | International benchmarking to top 100 universities following an approved methodology is needed (at least at the European level). National comparison is not sufficient |
| Topic No. | Austria | Slovakia |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Austrian Ministry | Slovak Ministry |
| The success of the ICR implementation and application as a steering tool strongly relies on the acceptance by the universities and their level of commitment and involvement > dialogue is crucial, avoid a sole top-down approach; | For the distribution of funds, indicators which measure quality appropriately are needed; | |
| Austrian HEIs | Slovak Universities | |
| The compatibility with other tools and reports required by law could be improved – many key figures are not related, more synergy concerning indicators is needed. Some indicators cause misinterpretation, internal/external “translation” is necessary; | For the implementation a bottom-up approach is needed; | |
| 4 | Austrian Ministry | |
| The ICR methodology is a dynamic and open process and continuously improving > further development is important, but shall not restrain consistency | ||
| Austrian HEIs | Slovak Universities | |
| ICR is an excellent source for statistical information, reporting for stakeholders and benchmarking with others; | International benchmarking to top 100 universities following an approved methodology is needed (at least at the European level). National comparison is not sufficient |
Note: The table contrasts the findings from the Austrian vs the Slovakian system
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.