Systems thinking vs. Benchmarking
Increasing competition, demands for
accountability, and higher volumes of available information are changing
the methods of how institutions of higher education
operate in the mid-1990s. For higher education to enact substantial and sustainable
changes in efficiency and productivity, a new way of thinking or paradigm
that builds efficiency
and a desire for continual learning must be integrated into institutional
structures. Tools are also being developed that measure or
benchmark the progress and success of these efforts (Keeton
& Mayo-Wells 1994). Among the improvement strategies and techniques such
as Total Quality Management (TQM),
Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI), and Business Process Reengineering
(BPR), benchmarking has emerged as a useful, easily
understood, and effective tool for
staying competitive.
After more than a decade of marginally
effective reform, diverse stakeholders are coming to the same conclusion:
Demanding more from our schools is not
enough--the system itself (at local,
district, and state levels) must be fundamentally changed. Piecemeal reform
efforts of the past, some suggest, have been
tantamount to applying a bandaid to
assuage schools' ills when what is needed is major surgery.
Systemic reform is proposed as an alternative
to tinkering and add-on programs that, critics say, will not meet the demands
of business, parents, communities,
and students for fundamental change and significant improvement in schools.
Although support for systemic reform
has been growing, change is never easy. Many superintendents, school boards,
and principals harbor concerns about
how the roles that are familiar to them will be affected
by systemic reform.
B NANCY LOVERIDGE describes the benefits
and challenges associated with benchmarking practice
