The CASE International Journal of Educational Advancement. Vol.3 No.

Benchmarking on Organization of
Communications: University versus
Private Companies
Received (in revised form): December 2, 2002

Joop M. M. Kessels
Joop M. M. Kessels Ph.D. is Director of Corporate Communications and spokesman at Utrecht University, in
The Netherlands. He has been involved in major changes in communications at Utrecht.

Hans Ruijgers
Hans Ruijgers M.A. is Communications Consultant at Utrecht University. He is Project Manager for Corpo-
rate Identity and Corporate Design within the University’s Strategic Program.

Abstract has grown into a modern, dynamic, and

A benchmarking exercise was performed international institute of higher
on the communications of two education, by now the largest in The
universities and four private companies. Netherlands, with 45 bachelor and 190
This article describes the aims, the master programs. The university is
approach, and the results of the innovative in its key processes in view of
benchmarking, and the effect it had on the increasing competition between
the University’s communications, in terms universities. It is the largest university in
of organization as well as content. The Netherlands, in terms of staff,
students, and budget.1 Its market share in
Keywords: freshmen has increased now for seven
communications, benchmark, benchmarking, consecutive years. At university level,
corporate identity, organization of communications is organized both in the
communications University Strategic Program (USP, 4.5
FTE) and in the Communications Service
Introduction Center (CSC, 35 FTE). USP is a strategic
Utrecht University is a typical European department that ensures integration of
research university. Founded in 1636, it education, research, human resource
Author’s Contact Address: management (HRM), communications,
Joop M.M. Kessels PhD and allied activities within the
Hans Ruijgers MA
University’s strategy. The CSC operates on
University Strategic Programme
Utrecht University the basis of assignments from the Board
Heidelberglaan 8 of the University and from the faculties.
3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands Ten out of the fourteen faculties and
Tel: + 31 30 2534477
Fax: + 31 30 2537752 several of the support services have
E-mail: j.kessels@usp.uu.nl professional staff in communications.

200 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.3 NO.3 200–212
ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657.
 Benchmarking on Organization of Communications: University versus Private Companies
The university seems pretty successful
in the field of advancement and
communications. Nevertheless, in view of
the fast-changing environment (i.e. budget
cuts, the Bologna agreement for
harmonization of educational systems in
Europe, entering the international market)
the Board of the University initiated a
branding project at university level. In
addition to this project, the Board asked
for an evaluation of the present
organization of communications, to make
sure that the results of the branding
project would be supported by an efficient
organization. When defining a framework
for this evaluation, it was decided that a
comparison with other organizations
would be extremely helpful. Consequently,
benchmarking was used as a tool in this
evaluation. Comparisons with other
universities are relatively easily made, and
are facilitated by the activities of
professional organizations that bring
together professionals in advancement like
Voorlichtingsraad Nederlandse
Universiteiten (VONU; a platform for
directors of communications of Dutch
universities), European Universities Public
Relations and Information Officers
(EUPRIO), Council for Advancement and
Support of Education (CASE), and The
European Higher Education Society
(EAIR). However, it was thought that the
project could additionally profit from the
experience of private companies. At the
same time Van Sluis Consultants
(Amsterdam, now part of Publicis)2
approached us. They had developed a
method of benchmarking communications
in private companies; they intended to
extend their method to not-for-profit
organizations and therefore approached
the university for their cooperation. As a
result, a benchmark exercise was carried
THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.3 NO.3 200–212
ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657.
out, comparing the organization of
communications in two universities and
four private companies. (The approach
and results of this benchmark were
presented at the CASE International
Conference in Chicago in 2002 and the
CASE-HEERA Conference in Nottingham,
UK in 2002.)
Benchmarking
In his presentation at the 2002 congress of
the American Association of Institutional
Research in Toronto, J. L. Yeager defined
benchmarking as ‘‘the process of
identifying and learning from the best
practices anywhere in the world.’’ The
purpose is ‘‘to provide managers with an
external point of reference or standard for
evaluating the quality and cost of their
organization’s activities, practices, and
processes.’’3 Yeager in addition classified
benchmarking into several types.a We
think his is an excellent definition of
benchmarking.
Utrecht University has developed several
different types of benchmarks, aimed at
different targets. Examples from Utrecht
University’s existing program of
monitoring are listed below, using a
classification adapted from Yeager.
1. Internal benchmarks (i.e., internal
comparisons), via student surveys in the
first and third year and employee
surveys (two-yearly);
2. Competing (competitors in same
industry), via education and research
peer reviews and analysis of alumni
positions on the labor market;
3. Functional (the best in same industry/
discipline), covering, so far, financial
administration, housing, IT, and
communications.
201
Joop M. M. Kessels and Hans Ruijgers
The different benchmarks had to date
proven to be successful in support of
policy decisions of the Board and deans. It
was decided to classify the
communications benchmark as functional:
comparing an aspect of the organization
of different benchmark partners, both
competitors and noncompetitors. In
addition the project aimed to make the
benchmark qualitative: however, the
number of benchmark partners (six, see
below) allowed a qualitative report only
on certain aspects of communications.
This was not seen as a drawback, as other
researchers have compared universities’
approaches to communications, for
example, a very elegant study initiated by
Lund University.4
The aim of this benchmark was to gain
insight into the organization of
communications at the six organizations.
The results would, it was anticipated,
provide the basis for adaptation of our
own organization, to make sure that the
responsibilities in communications are
clear; that corporate identity is a shared
starting point for the Board, for deans,
and for communications staff on all
levels; and that performance, process, and
organization of communications are
optimized.
Approach of the Benchmark
The benchmark was set up with the
following basic approach. The unit that
led each stage is given in brackets: the
university (UU) or the consultant (VSC).
The total process took three months.
Definition of Criteria for Selection
of Benchmark Partners (UU/VSC)
Organizations were selected that were seen
as comparable to our university:
knowledge-intense, run by professionals,
202 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.3 NO.3 200–212
ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657.
similar in size and organizational
structure, preferably with a strong
(international) profile and a successful
product–market position. They would have
to belong to (or have the ambition to
belong to) the national and European, or
even global, top companies. The focus was
on profit organizations. Based on a long
list supplied by the consultant, eventually
four profit organizations and one
university were selected. The consultant
contacted the organizations. All
cooperated, but on the basis that their
participation and the reports would be
confidential. It is likely that their
cooperation was positively influenced by
the fact that the consultant has an
extremely well-organized network in The
Netherlands. The benchmark partners
were:
. A large international firm for
management consulting and
accountancy,
. A large Dutch insurance company,
. The Dutch branch of an international
bank,
. A Dutch international bank,
. A university in a neighboring country
Table 1 provides information on the
benchmark partners.
Content and Criteria of the
Benchmark (UU/VSC)
The content of the benchmark was derived
from the strategic plan of the university,
experience of the present organization of
the communications function, and from
general developments in communications.
Several sessions between the university and
consultant were necessary to define the
subjects and the approach in the
interviews. The content of the benchmark
 Benchmarking on Organization of Communications: University versus Private Companies

Table 1: General facts on the benchmark partners

Partners Utrecht University Services firm Insurance Bank 1 Bank 2

University company

Core business Education Education Management Insurance Banking Banking

& research & research consultancy &
accountancy
Staff 6,000 7,000 6,000 1,200 7,000 37,000
Turnover 0.45 3.6 1.35 0.65 ? 15
(Euro 6 1.000.000.00)

is described in more detail in the organization were discussed with this

following section. As for the criteria for
judging the performance of the
benchmark partners, the consultant
suggested using ‘‘best in class,’’ that is, the
organization that performs best against the
mean of all the benchmark partners. To
define who was ‘‘best in class,’’ the
consultant used a detailed system of
criteria. Table 2 gives an example of these
criteria.
Desk Research and Interviews with
the Chief Officer in
Communications at each
Organization (VSC)
The consultant did desk research on each
benchmark partner and subsequently
interviewed the person professionally in
charge of (corporate) communications at
the highest level. They were mostly
directors of corporate communications.
Verification of Individual Reports
and Final Report (VSC)
Based on the desk research and the
interviews, the consultant made draft
reports of its findings in each
organization. These drafts were discussed
in a second meeting with the same person
at each organization. The final reports
were combined and presented to the
university. Individual reports on each
person. The individual reports were then
combined and analyzed, with ‘‘best in
class’’ for different aspects defined, and a
final report presented to the university.5
Content of Benchmark
Together with the consultant, and starting
from a long list, the following aspects to
be part of the benchmark were selected:
. General facts and figures for each of the
benchmark partners;
. Developments and trends in
communications (specific and in
general);
. Structure of the organization;
. Organization of communications
(corporate versus divisions);
. Management of corporate identity;
. Staff recruitment communications;
. Internal communications;
. Issue management;
. Staff and budget.
Every aspect was further divided into
subsections, to aid the interviewer. For
example, the aspect ‘‘management of
corporate identity’’ was subdivided into
the following items:
. What, if present, is the strategy toward
internal target groups?

THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.3 NO.3 200–212 203
ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657.
Joop M. M. Kessels and Hans Ruijgers

Table 2: Examples of criteria for defining performance

Aspect Examples of criteria

Organization of communications
Communications as part of Does the communications department report directly to CEO/President etc.?
policy Is communications an integral part of the written strategy of the organization?
Are communications activities periodically evaluated on their effectiveness?
Relation between Is communications department consulted by other departments involved in
communications and others strategy development or strategy execution?
aspects of policy
Type of relation between Does corporate communications department take the lead in providing
corporate communications guidelines, manuals, and standards for other divisions?
department and divisions Do divisions have to report on communications to corporate department?
Type of relation between Are there formal, structured meetings for all communications staff?
communications staff

Staff recruitment communications

Relation to corporate identity Are staff recruitment communications based on corporate communications
strategy?
Is corporate identity leading in all products?

Internal communications
Relation to corporate identity Are internal communications based on corporate communications strategy?
Is corporate identity leading in all products?

Control of corporate identity

Strategy for internal and
external target groups
Relationship of ambition
(aims and objectives), strategy,
and execution
Corporate design
Is there a written and accepted communications strategy?
Are the vision, mission, key values, building blocks of the communications
strategy translated into all activities?
Is there a corporate design manual?
Are there written guidelines on tone (in text, in photographs/illustration)
Is there a corporate database of photographs/illustrations?

Issues management
Issues management Is issues management recognized as a subdiscipline in communications?
Does issues management have its own budget?

. What, if present, is the strategy toward
external target groups?
. Is the ambition (‘‘aims and objectives’’)
of the organization translated into
values, vision, mission, key messages,
profile, brand manual for
communicators?
. Who is in control of corporate design
and on what basis?
By following this approach the interviewer
was able to collect detailed information on
the communications of each benchmark
partner in a relatively short time.
In view of the increasing competition
between universities, both nationally and
global, information on marketing strategy
and marketing communications was
keenly gathered. However, all four

204 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.3 NO.3 200–212
ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657.
 Benchmarking on Organization of Communications: University versus Private Companies

commercial benchmark partners involved be expected, the performance of the

in the interviews refused to share
information on their marketing strategy.
In a further effort to gain information on
marketing communications, we invited
one of the benchmark partners to join us
in a follow-up project. We discussed and
devised an approach that would guarantee
confidentiality and got so far as securing
the participation of their director of
communications in this follow-up project.
However, halfway through the process the
project was cancelled by their side.
Results
The results were presented by the
consultant in oral and written form. For
each aspect they used given criteria to
define the performance of the benchmark
partners and the ‘‘best in class.’’ As was to
organizations varies across many aspects:
no organization is ‘‘best in class’’ on all
aspects. In the final report, detailed scores
of performance were given on all aspects.
An example of the presentation of the
results is given in Table 3.
Some of the results are summarized in
Tables 4 and 5. Table 4 summarizes results
on the role of communications as part of
policy making. Table 5 summarizes some
of the results on the aspect of
responsibilities in communications.
The consultant constructed an overall
ranking of the benchmark partners. The
ranking was as follows:
1. Bank 1 (overall ‘‘best in class’’)
2. Bank 2
3. Services firm

Table 3: Results on organization of communications

Partner Is communications part of policy making?

Utrecht University Chief communications officer reports directly to president

Board supports (including financially) developments in communications
University Chief communications officer does not report directly to president
Communications is absent in written policy
Communications is mainly damage control
No evaluation of communications activities
Services firm Chief communications officer reports directly to president
Corporate communications is responsibility of CEO
Division managers get training in communications (theory/practice)
Periodic research into effects of communications activities
Insurance company Chief communications officer reports directly to president
Division managers get training in communications (theory/practice)
Periodic research into effects of (external) communications activities
Bank 1 Chief communications officer reports directly to president and to senior VP marketing
‘‘Best in class’’ Communications is integral part of corporate strategy
Communications is seen as ‘‘core competence’’
Periodic research into effects of communications activities
Managers get periodical training in communications
Bank 2 Chief communications officer reports directly to president and to senior VP marketing
Chief communications officer often present in board meetings
Managers get periodical training in communications
Periodic research into effects of communications activities

THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.3 NO.3 200–212 205
ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657.
Joop M. M. Kessels and Hans Ruijgers

Table 4: Summarized results on organization of communications. Is communications part of

policy making?

Utrecht University Services Insurance Bank 1 Bank 2

University Firm Company ‘‘Best in
class’’

Accountable to University Head of Board Board Board Board

Board Administration
Communications integral +/– – + + + +
part of corporate strategy?
Communications training – – + + Periodic +
for managers?
Evaluation of Occasional – Periodic Periodic Periodic Periodic
communications?

+ = yes, +/– = more or less, – = no

Table 5: Summarized results on organization of communications: responsibilities

Utrecht University Services Insurance Bank 1 Bank 2

University Firm Company

Managers integral responsible? + Deans + Deans + Managers + Managers + Managers + Managers

Communications reflect values? +/– – + + + +
Enrollment
Corporate control on values? +/– – + ++ ++ +

+ = yes, +/– = more or less, – = no

4. Insurance company Regarding the organizational structure,

5. Utrecht University
6. University
With respect to our own organization,
according to VSC, Utrecht University
performed in general better than the other
university, in some aspects equal to the
insurance company and the professional
services company, and in most aspects
lower than the two banks.
Conclusions on Benchmark
The results of the benchmark led VSC to
formulate suggestions for changes in the
communications of the university, in
terms of organization as well as approach.
since 1997 Utrecht has had a structure in
which at university level communications
staff are present in the strategy department
USP and in the communications service
center (CSC). The Strategic Program is
responsible for formulating and executing
the policy of the university in the fields of
education, research, human resources
management, communications, IT, and
housing. Communications is seen as an
integrated part of university strategy.
(Since 1997 the USP Communications
staff has grown from 1 FTE to 4.5 FTE in
2002.) The service center CSC is
responsible for the execution of
communications, in accordance with

206 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.3 NO.3 200–212
ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657.
 Benchmarking on Organization of Communications: University versus Private Companies
assignments from the board of the
university and the deans of the faculties.
In addition, in Utrecht communications
staff are present at faculty level. It should
be noted that the deans of faculties are
integrally responsible for communications
in their areas, and are accountable to the
board for this.
VSC concluded from the benchmark
that the responsibilities between the
corporate staff, the service center and the
faculty staff were not clearly defined and
that in addition corporate
communications could be improved.
Regarding the latter, there was seen to be a
need for more fit-for-purpose corporate
guidelines and manuals and for a shared,
written starting point for communications.
They devised several models of how to
organize communications in a large,
professional organization and suggested
the following approach in a university
where deans are integrally responsible:
. Central departments USP (strategy) and
CSC (operations) and faculties to have
their own communications staff.
. Faculty communications budget to be
the responsibility of the deans.
. Deans to assign the task of writing an
annual communications plan to the
faculty communications staff, if
necessary with assistance of the CSC.
. USP and CSC to check these plans (as
well as their implementation plans)
against explicit corporate starting points
and manuals, and report to the deans
on their findings.
. The deans to decide on their faculty
communications plans and to be
responsible for implementation and for
providing an account to the board of
the university on communications.
. USP and CSC support the
THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.3 NO.3 200–212
ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657.
communications staff of the faculties in
matters of professional education,
respectively with an accent on strategy
matters and operational matters.
VSC suggested the following
implementation of this approach:
. Define the relations between the board of
the university, the corporate departments
(USP and CSC), the deans of the faculties,
and the faculty staff in communications
(responsibility, budget, etc).
. ‘‘Translate’’ the mission statement and
branding strategy of the university into
(practical) guidelines for all those who
work in the field of communications.
. Formulate an explicit framework for
controlling the corporate identity and
checking communications plans of
faculties (renewing corporate design,
with more profile opportunities for
faculties).
. Develop a ‘‘planning and control’’ cycle
for communications within the
university. Communications plans for
faculties should be developed in
cooperation with USP and CSC to
ensure that the plans fit into the
corporate communications strategy.
Each plan to get a formal check by the
corporate department that subsequently
controls execution.
. Enhance the facilitating function of
USP and CSC by showing their added
value (evaluations of plans and
implementations, training, corporate
photography database).
. Stimulate continuous professional
development of the communications
staff, both at university and faculty
level, to be organized and initiated by
USP (seminars, conferences, job
rotation).
207
Joop M. M. Kessels and Hans Ruijgers
. Enhance internal communications
(internal corporate medium).
. Strengthen communications-
consciousness of the deans and
incorporate corporate communications
into the strategic plans of the faculties
(as has already been achieved at
corporate level).
. Enhance corporate feel in general
(recruitment, internal communications,
website).
The suggestions of VSC were taken as a
guideline and played an important role in
the development of communications. They
also resulted in several projects (see below).
Follow-Up
In 1998 and 1999 USP Communications
advised the board to amplify the Strategic
Program on aspects of corporate identity
(1 FTE), and in 2001 on internal
communications (0.9 FTE). This growing
focus at USP and board level was strongly
underlined by the advice of VSC and led
in 2001 to the following projects,
coordinated by USP.
. A branding project aimed at sharpening
corporate identity (based on the identity
model of Jean-Noël Kapferer).6 Key
values were defined: ambition, inspiring,
involvement, teamwork.
. A staff recruitment communications
project based on corporate identity, in
cooperation with HRM departments of
the various faculties. Key words were
‘‘Science never stops.’’
. A project for a new approach to
enrollment marketing based on
corporate identity, alongside the
introduction of the bachelor/master
system in The Netherlands in 2002. Key
words: ‘‘Follow your own master plan.’’
208 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.3 NO.3 200–212
ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657.
. A project to devise a more systematic
approach toward internal
communications. The addition of a USP
staff member in Internal
Communications made it possible to
start to manage, on a structural basis,
the internal communications of
corporate projects that affect the whole
university community.
. A project to revitalize corporate design
(latest renewal 1992) based on corporate
identity. The existing network of
communications professionals
responsible for design was renewed. The
philosophy of the network is ‘‘colleagues
advise (inspire) colleagues.’’
. The start of a communications network:
all communications professionals united
in one network (intranet site,
newsletter, seminars, informal lunch
meetings).
. The development of an image-
monitoring process, in addition to those
already developed for (prospective)
students, alumni, and employees. This
image-monitoring process investigates
the corporate image in other target
groups (politics, profit organizations,
local and national government).
As a whole the benchmark and the
projects that resulted from it strengthened
the position of communications as a
strategic tool both at university level, as
well as in the majority of the faculties.
Evaluation
Utrecht University has an extensive
program of benchmarking. The
benchmark on communications described
above was new in its approach, as the
benchmark partners were private
companies and the number of partners
made qualitative conclusions possible.
 Benchmarking on Organization of Communications: University versus Private Companies
In retrospect the benchmark can be
seen as highly valuable. First, the
cooperation with the consultant in the
preparation of the benchmark forced the
thorough review of the existing policies
and organizational structure. Then, the
input from the approach in various
organizations provided a storehouse of
information on the practice of
communications in professional
organizations. The variety in approach and
the arguments used to support a certain
approach, as well as the ‘‘best in class’’
nominations, were very valuable in the
internal discussions on how to approach
and organize aspects of communications.
In addition, the evaluation of the
different approaches afforded effective
arguments in the discussions with staff,
with the board, and with the deans on
how to review communications.
Preconceived opinions could effectively be
criticized and suggested innovations
provided with supporting arguments.
It is fair to say that, in the benchmark
exercise, no information was discovered
that was not already available. Apparently
‘‘new is rare.’’ However, the combined
collected information was a key incentive
in the realization of a new program of
communications and in finding support
for this program within the university. It
therefore proved to be the right activity at
the right moment.
Methodology
Two comments should be made regarding
the methodology. First, a key element in
the method used was the interview of the
benchmark partner by the consultant.
We—as a university—had to rely on the
information given by the person who
performed the interviews. It is possible
that the personal views of this person
THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.3 NO.3 200–212
ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657.
influenced the reports of the benchmark
partners. This was not found to be a
major drawback of the benchmark for the
purpose of this study. However, for this
type of benchmarking to become a
professional instrument in evaluating and
developing strategies it is important to
reduce the possibility of interview
influence in the benchmark (ambiguity) in
favor of valid facts and information.
One solution could be that a
representative of the organization
assigning the benchmark accompanies the
consultant interviewer. Possible other
approaches may be found in the fields of
accountancy, accounting and advocacy, or
in the field of knowledge management.
A second comment is in line with the
opinion expressed by Philip Nattermann
on best practice benchmarking.7 Although
the benchmark described in this article is
very inspiring and became a proven
instrument in realizing change for Utrecht
University, we think that it is not possible
or even advisable to implement one-on-
one models and systems from benchmark
partners into one’s own company without
organization-specific adjustments.
Nattermann states that best practice
benchmarking is an excellent tool for
enhancing operational efficiency, but it is
not an instrument for strategy building. If
all competitors play the same game (style),
profit margins will decrease. There are
limits to the possibility and the scope for
adopting best practices.
In addition, the individual
organizations have developed certain
models/systems through the years and
these cannot simply be adopted by other
organizations. Therefore it is necessary
that communications professionals
evaluate the possibilities of each
implementation proposal. What works for
209
Joop M. M. Kessels and Hans Ruijgers
the bank does not necessarily have to
work for the university. The classification
‘‘best in class’’ suggests that there is a class
(i.e., of comparable organizations). In fact
there is no such class. The benchmark is
no more and no less than an effective aid
in developing one’s own strategy.
Conclusions
This benchmark project was new but very
valuable for Utrecht University and for
the University Strategic Program
Communications. It was also a valuable
learning experience for Van Sluis
Consultants. Some final remarks:
. New insights are rare.
. The benchmark provides incentives and
extra arguments for change (in content
and in organization), both for
professionals as well as for the
management of the university. External
references and comparing one’s
performance with nonacademic
‘‘partners’’ creates room for change, and
are a good remedy against existing
preconceived notions.
. The benchmark is supportive in
discussions with the board: comparison
of one’s own performance with
successful international companies
broadens the discussions with the board
and gives new insights.
. The benchmark forced us to focus in a
relative short period on local (i.e.,
Utrecht) approaches.
. At the moment a repetition of the
benchmark is not planned. However,
various follow-up projects are being
monitored.
210 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.3 NO.3 200–212
ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657.
. The differences between universities and
companies are challenging.
. Methods and data are readily discussed
in an academic environment. Thus, in
performing benchmarks within a
university, be prepared for criticism
from academics.
References
1. See <www.uu.nl>.
2. See <www.vansluis.nl>.
3. J. L. Yeager (2002), ‘‘Utilization of benchmarking to
support the institutional performance improvement
process.’’ Paper presented at the AIR - 42nd Annual
Forum, Toronto.
4. ‘‘Be excellent and tell it. Creating the
communicative university’’ (2001), Wennstrom
Integrated AB/Valuenetwork in cooperation with
Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
5. ‘‘Een georganiseerd gezicht’’ (2000), confidential
report, Van Sluis Consultants, Amsterdam.
6. J.-N. Kapferer (1994), Strategic Brand Management,
The Free Press, New York.
7. P. M. Nattermann, ‘‘Best Practice Best Strategy,’’ The
McKinsey Quarterly, 2000, 2, pp. 22-31.
Editor’s note
a
The reference to benchmarking types, discussed in
Yeager’s presentation (ref. 3 above), is based on M. J.
Spendolini (1992), The Benchmarking Book, The
Amrerican Management Association, New York.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Van Sluis
Consultants Amsterdam (Hans ten Brinke,
Hidde van Kersen, Martin Sloot) and
Utrecht University (Cor Jansen, Maria
Mennen) for their participation in the
benchmark. They would also like to thank
Carol Dix (South Bank University
London) for assistance in preparing the
final manuscript.
 Benchmarking on Organization of Communications: University versus Private Companies

Practitioners’ Perspectives

For those who belong to a profession, looking to colleagues at other institutions

and like-minded professionals in other fields for consultation on challenges or
issues is natural – almost instinctive. In advancement, and specifically in marketing
and communications, we have often looked around us to benefit from the wisdom
and good work of others who have confronted similar issues in the past.
The practice of benchmarking is rooted in the traditions of total quality and is
designed to seek out the ‘‘best practices’’ of similar organizations as a framework
for comparison and improvement. In the model of Spendolini (1992), the
benchmarking process is a ‘‘continuous, systematic process for evaluating the
products, services and work processes of organizations for purposes of
organizational improvement’’ (p.9).
The authors used one of Spendolini’s three major types of benchmarking,
functional benchmarking, to compare the outcomes, services and processes of a
Dutch university to those at comparable organizations, including a university in
another country, and four corporate organizations (two banks, an insurance
company and an international management and consulting firm). The rationale for
using these organizations as benchmarks and the criteria that were used to identify
them were appropriately matched to the global competitive environment in which
this institution and others find themselves. Nevertheless, the authors note the
challenges inherent in using corporate, profit-oriented comparisons as a
comparison for an academic organization.
The study provides a solid methodology that serves as a road map for a valuable
benchmarking exercise. The process of qualifying the characteristics that mark the
best practices in strategic integrated marketing, within one’s competitive market
environment, is a valuable one. Objective measures for evaluating the institution’s
communication goals, organization, standards and accountability are tangible and
practical outcomes of the process.
The authors provide perspectives on the relative value of the exercise. Indeed,
while they did not find anything really new in the study, they certainly unearthed
persuasive information that would help many communications professionals in
decentralized, complex academic organizations. In such environments, where
strategic decisions are not always tightly coupled with marketing considerations,
and where communications resources, staff and accountability are diffuse,
compelling data show the value of:

. communications perspective represented in policy development,

. strong standards and clear expectations for institutional identity, and
. accountability at the highest organizational (deans) levels for communication
plans and outcomes.

A challenge presented itself in this study, one that limits the depth of the

THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.3 NO.3 200–212 211
ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657.
Joop M. M. Kessels and Hans Ruijgers

exploration. All of the organizations that participated agreed to participate in the

exercise on the condition of confidentiality, and yet, even with this assurance,
none would agree to share specifics on marketing strategy. It is understandable that
this information would be treated as proprietary, given the advantages that could
be gained by competitors with access to such information. Even with the
boundaries of this natural limitation, there is much to be gained by the exercise.
Still, others considering the use of the benchmarking model ought to be aware of
such limitations.
By contrast, the authors themselves are to be commended for their candid
presentation of the content of the benchmarking comparisons. It is courageous
and extremely instructive to show how a specific institution performed compared
with best practices. Colleagues can glean much for their own work from the
concrete examples that are shared through such candor.
Finally, the authors present views on the value and trade-offs associated with
using a consultant for this process. As with most market research, the objectivity
gained by using an outside firm must often be balanced with the informed
perspective and judgment of a strong internal guide.
This paper presents an excellent method for creating powerful and compelling
data that can be used to convince leaders to represent communications perspectives
in strategic planning, establish and support strong institutional identity standards
and practices, and require accountability for communication plans across the
organization.

Terry Flannery
Executive Director for University Marketing and Communications
University of Maryland, USA

212 THE CASE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT. VOL.3 NO.3 200–212
ª COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT & SUPPORT OF EDUCATION/HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 2003. ISSN 1467-3657.