Agenda for meeting in Academic Council, Wednesday June 8 th 2011at 9:30 to 11:00, Kilen, K 1.53.

Transkript

1 Agenda for meeting in Academic Council, Wednesday June 8 th 2011at 9:30 to 11:00, Kilen, K Approval of Agenda 2. Discussion of road map for the implementation of CBS strategy 3. Hearing. Proposal for Evaluation of World Class Research Environments 4. Hearing. CBS inputs to FORSK Strategic partnership between Sauder School of Business and CBS 6. Preliminary discussion of recommendation to the Board concerning analysis of expenses to general management and administration June 6th 2011 ULJ Ulla Lykke Jørgensen Dekansekretariatet for Forskning Dir. tlf.: Ulj.research@cbs.dk 7. Misc.

2 Business in Society Strategy Reinterpretation May 2011

3 Strategy Roadmap Milestones 17/6 2/9 Board meeting Board seminar Phase 1: Taking stock Phase 2: Strategy reinterpretation Phase 3: Strategy operationalisation Purpose Discussion of strategy implementation with key stakeholders at CBS Reinterpretation of key elements of the strategy Business in Society Transformational Initiatives Management Essentials Meetings Theme leaders 12/4 23/5 Academic Council HSU 5/4 9/5 31/5 22/8 16/6 30/8 Heads of departments Study leaders 3/ /5 6/6 12/8 Students 2

4 Business in Society Transformational Initiatives Management Essentials 3

5 Educating to Transform People Impacting Society through Research Educatin Business to transofrm in Society people Leveraging our Local Distinctiveness Extending our Global Engagement 4

6 Business in Society The CBS Business in Society strategy recognizes the vital role of business in shaping and improving our society. Copenhagen Business School aims to become a leading business university with research and teaching excellence in classical management disciplines and in disciplines that place business in a wider social, political and cultural context. As a state funded institution, CBS has a particular obligation to bring knowledge and new ideas to business firms and organizations, and to society as a whole. Specifically, we will play a major role in the discussion of business models, organizational forms and economic practices that are particular to Northern Europe. The transfer of new ideas and critical thinking to business and society occurs primarily through our students. The quality of this transfer can only be ensured through research excellence and a commitment to judging ourselves by the highest international standards. 5

7 Transformational Initiatives 1. Business-in-Society Platforms 2. World Class Research Environments 3. EngAGE 4. ICT in Education 5. Strategic Partnership with Sauder 6. Executive Doctorate 7. PRME 6

8 Management Essentials 1. Quality and accreditation 2. Quality of bachelor programmes / learning outcome 3. High quality research output 4. Dissemination 5. Integrated assessment 6. Green campus 7. Equal opportunities 8. Alumni relations 9. Dialogue in the organization 10.Staff development 11.Financial management 12.Administrative efficiency 13.Academic organisation/departmental structure 7

9 DRAFT WORLD-CLASS RESEARCH ENVIRONMENTS mid-term evaluation Background The World-Class Research Environment (WCRE) initiative was launched on September 10 th, 2007, see appendix. In line with CBS strategic goals, the stated intention was to create and maintain research environments in selected fields which will be clearly identified externally as among the best in the world. 24 applications were submitted from across CBS. May 25 th 2011 JTV/AI Six proposals were invited to submit full applications and subsequently in spring 2008 each supported with a grant of DKK 1 million per year for a five year period along with additional expectations of outstanding research performance internationally. Further, expectations of self-sustainable research environments in the medium term were expressed. The six CBS world class research environments ( ) supported are: Design and Governance of Economic Institutions Translation Processes and Translation Systems (CRITT) Sources of Institutional Competitiveness (SONIC) Strategic Management and Globalisation (SMG) Financial Risk Management Open Innovation WCRE should operate at (or have the potential to operate at) - in the short to medium term - international standards of excellence. It was outlined that a review of the WCREs should take place during Please find below a description of the purpose and the evaluation model including terms of reference and the time schedule. Appendices: Call for applications September 10 th 2007 Invitation to submit full applications December 19 th 2007 The Seven Pillars of Engaged Scholarship CBS strategy - reinterpreted 2011

10 2 Purpose of the mid-term evaluation The purpose of the mid-term evaluation is three-fold: 1) Assess the WCREs international standing by use of international peers 2) Assess the WCREs progress half-way through its operations 3) Invite recommendations on how to create, maintain and strengthen excellent research environments The evaluation model Half-way through the funding period an evaluation will take place of the selected WCREs. This will take the form of a peer review including quantitative and qualitative evaluation of research outputs and other results according to the proposed business plan. Ref.: Call for applications September 10 th The mid-term evaluation is thought as an academic assessment. Methodologically the evaluation is intended to take form of a peer review. The evaluation model is based on a self-assessment report and a selection of publications being assessed by two peers per WCRE. The evaluation involves a site-visit. In addition to the peer review assessment bibliometric analyses could be included as a supplement to the peer review. Two alternative models for bibliometric analysis could be considered: a) Subject specific WCRE bibliometric analysis as the individual panels finds appropriate. Thus, CBS will support each pair of peers as they request b) A standard-type bibliometric analysis for each WCRE based on the Danish Bibliometric Indicator: Den Bibliometriske Forskningsindikator Further, citation analyses can be considered. CBS will be able to provide such using Web of Knowledge or Scopus as tools. Procedure The WCRE is asked to provide a list of possible evaluators. A list of 4-5 internationally recognized professors (preferable of both sexes) who might serve as peer reviewers, including a short CV and a short statement of the candidates earlier affiliations with CBS is send to the Dean s office, jtv.research@cbs.dk The ordinary rules on conflict of interest are to be regarded. The CBS Library supports the process by providing information on possible co-authorship and standing of the nominated evaluators. From the list the Dean of Research will select 2 evaluators. The WCRE prepares a mid-term self-assessment report, see new paragraph. The evaluators receive the evaluation material and make a site-visit to the WCRE, including dialogue with the faculty. The agenda for the site-visit is prepared by the WCRE and confirmed by the Dean of Research. However, it is expected to include interviews with CBS faculty outside the WCRE.

11 3 Further, the relevant Head of Department is expected to participate in the evaluation exercise. Subsequently the evaluators prepare a written assessment report for the Dean of Research. The WCRE will have the opportunity to comment on the assessment report. The full evaluation material of the six parallel mid-term evaluations (applications, action plans, mid-term self-assessment reports, evaluator s reports and possible comments) will be discussed in the Leadership Team and with the Academic Councils and the Heads of Departments. The mid-term self-assessment report The evaluation material per WCRE will consist of the full application, 2008 the original action plan, 2008 a mid-term self-assessment report, 2011 including short CV s, 10 selected publications and budget and financial reporting ( ) including reflections on the spending of the grant Information on WCRE staff in relation to the hosting Department (2008 & 2011) The mid-term self-assessment report is expected to be illustrative of the activities and research production at the WCRE and as a minimum critical reflect efforts, progress and results in relation to the success criteria set out for WCREs. The expectations of outstanding research performance internationally have been made more specific as stated in the success criteria. The success criteria by which the initiatives should be judged are (Ref. December 19 th 2007 letter): o Membership (who belongs) o Aims and objectives o Deliverables/timetable Research publications Workshops Guest lectures PhD development o Internationalization efforts o Research development plans Attracting international researchers Assisting in the development of strategic partnerships with other universities and knowledge institutions Engagement with international research networks o Budget plan/spending of the grant (personal research time max. 50%) o Dissemination efforts, including the wider community Further, the mid-term self-assessment report should include reflections on international research groups that you compare yourself to, i.e. see as your main competitors/collaborators.

12 4 The report must address the granting period, spring 2008 to present. Further, perspectives for and beyond should be provided. The report is expected to be maximum 10 pages (plus any relevant appendices). 10 pieces of work being published in 2008 and onwards per WCRE that in particular represent the achievements of the WCRE are to be provided for the peers to read themselves. CV s for each member of the WCRE are attached as appendices to the report, see CV format. Thus, for each faculty member 10 publications are selected as indicative in presenting individual researcher profiles. [Publications that do fall outside a narrow definition of the WCRE might be included here.] The Department of Strategic Management and Globalization (SMG) went through a research evaluation exercise under the CBS research evaluation of Departments scheme late Since the entire SMG also constitutes the SMG WCRE, the Department could be offered to only supplement the 2010 self-assessment report with specific focus on the WCRE success criteria and the granting period. Terms of reference The mid-term evaluation is based on the evaluation material provided expected to contribute to a critical examination of the strategic initiative launched in 2007: CBS World Class Research Environments as reflected in the threefold purpose of the evaluation. The evaluation should include an assessment of the standing of the research environments internationally, i.e. the international scientific quality of the research carried out by the WCRE faculty from 2008 onwards, the academic ambitions and the WCRE s demonstrated ability to establish itself internationally the development and progress of the WCRE from 2008 onwards the initiative as a way of creating and maintaining research environments of excellence Time schedule 2011 May-June Design of the model for mid-term evaluation of WCREs June The environments provide names of possible evaluators. The Dean of Research selects the evaluators June-Sept Nomination of evaluators and accept obtained Sept. 15 th Representative publications to be reviewed send to jtv.research@cbs.dk October 1 st Deadline self-assessment reports Nov-Dec Site-visits Dec-Jan Evaluator s reports

13 Half way evaluation of the CBS World Class Research Environments Brief CV for Scientific Staff [Title] [first names] [sir name] [Degrees, short form] [Title] [Subject] Year of first appointment at CBS: [year] Citizenship: [country] Academic qualifications [Degree value list C] [subject] [university] [country] [year ] Research expertise [Keyword] Research management, including doctoral supervision and external grants 10 Indicative Publications [To be imported from PURE and arranged according to the categories in PURE (as in the PURE report Published publications per person )]

14 Half way evaluation of the CBS World Class Research Environments Brief CV for Scientific Staff VALUE LISTS There will be made value lists for Country and University as well Value list C Academic qualifications, degrees: Bcs BA Mcs MA PhD Dr. Other

15

16

17

18 Keld Laursen Department of Innovation and Organizational Economics Kilen Dear Colleague, Open Innovation I am very pleased to confirm that your application for World-Class Research Environment status has been passed through to the second stage. As you will be aware, competition has been extremely strong across CBS and your application has been rated very positively in that context. Congratulations on progress so far! 19. December 2007 AI Alan Irwin For your information, the other successful bids were: Translation Processes and Translation Systems International Centre for Business and Politics Strategic Management and Globalisation Financial Risk Management (based on the revision of two original bids from Finance) Design of Economic Institutions (including Corporate Governance) I now request that you submit a full application to me by noon on February 1 st, I will not restate the criteria for World-Class Research Environments since these can be found within my original memo of September 10 th (attached). However, I would like to emphasise that this is a significant investment for CBS as part of its wider research strategy so that expectations on the selected WCREs will be high. It is our current intention that support for each WCRE will be to the value of 1 million DKK per year for a five year period. It is expected that WCREs will become financially self-sustaining in the medium term. A review of each WCRE will take place mid-way through its operation. In submitting a full application, you should pay particular attention to the following requirements. Please note that you should feel free to repeat information previously submitted if this is appropriate: A short summary of the main academic ambitions of the proposed Research Environment. This should include a statement of the success criteria by which your initiative should be judged;

19 2 A statement of the membership of the research team (please include a CV for each participant); A statement of your main aims and objectives; A statement of your main deliverables (research publications, workshops, guest lecturers, PhD development) with an accompanying timetable; A statement of your plans for external fund-raising (including PhD stipends); A statement concerning your plans for internationalization and research development (eg. attracting international researchers, assisting in the development of strategic partnerships with other universities and knowledge institutions, engagement with international research networks); A budget plan which includes a specific request for research-support funds and a statement of how these will be spent over the designated period. Please note that any increase in personal research time beyond 50% in this context will require my specific approval; A statement of your plans for dissemination and, especially, the generation/consolidation of links with the wider community (including business organisations). We anticipate that the above documentation (not including CVs) should represent a maximum of 8 pages. Final selection of WCREs will be announced by Direktionen as close as possible to March 1 st, Please get in touch with either myself or Lene Lillebro if you require any further information or clarification about the next round of the process. We will be available from January 3 rd. Yours sincerely, Alan Irwin Dean of Research

20 JTV to AI FORSK2020 A revised basis for prioritizing Danish strategic research May 30 th 2011 CBS inputs to FORSK Process The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has decided to prepare a new basis for prioritizing strategic research (FORSK2020) in the light of the economic crises, the cut-downs in public expenses, and increased focus on growth. The FORSK2020 should be based on a revision of the FORSK2015 mapping. CBS invited to give inputs to FORSK2020 CBS is invited to contribute to FORSK2020 by September 26 th 2011 by: Critically reviewing the FORSK2015 catalogue in the light of main fields, themes, challenges, research needs, prerequisites and perspectives for a FORSK2020 catalogue Prioritizing the most significant research areas for a FORSK2020 in the light of societal and business development and challenges Strengthening and qualifying the description of the expected effects, potentials and perspectives for the strategic research initiatives in comparison with FORSK2015. Propose new aspects and new mail fields and themes to be included in FORSK2020 in so far CBS finds it relevant and needed Please be aware that the Ministry assumes that FORSK2020 can be further focused and include fewer themes. However, the 6 main fields are considered a valuable starting point. Contributions should be forwarded to the Ministry as one CBS compiled input. The outcome of the process the FORSK2020 catalogue is expected to be ready may 2012, thus in time to affect the political negotiations on funding for research Further it is the intension to use the catalogue to influence the EU research priorities. CBS Process proposal A sub-group of CBS faculty will be appointed to run the FORSK2020 process at CBS, including collecting inputs across CBS and supported by RESEARCH. The sub-group should naturally draft a joint CBS response to be discussed with the HoDs and finally at the Academic Council next meeting August 22 nd. Possible members of such sub-group (3-5 in total) could be a mix of members of Academic Council, and other good faculty with some experience in research funding and perhaps even research policy making. FORSK background The basis for prioritizing Danish strategic research (FORSK2015) was formulated after an open invitation mapping of strategic needs for research back in FORSK2015 involves 6 main fields (and related themes) where strategic research is considered driver for development of wealth or contributing to the solution of significant societal challenges:

21 JTV to AI Energy, climate and the environment o Energy systems of the Future o Climate and adaption in the Future o Competitive environment technologies Production and technology o Bio-resources, food, and other biological products o Intelligent societal solutions o Production systems of the Future o Strategic growth technologies Health and prevention o From basic research to individualized treatment o Chronic diseases between prevention and rehabilitation o Human health and security in interaction with environmental factors o Health lifestyle what creates change? Innovation and competitiveness o Denmark s competitiveness o Innovation o The public sector of the Future Knowledge and education o Education learning and competence development o What works? evidence in practice o Knowledge production and dissemination of knowledge in society People and the organization of society o Sustainable transport and infrastructure o Better lebensraum room for life and growth o Cultural understanding under globalization o Changing life courses

22 [INSERT CBS LOGO] STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT between SAUDER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, Canada and COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL, Denmark I. PREAMBLE Motivated by longstanding ties, shared values and a similar academic culture guided by common interests and building on previous Memoranda of Understanding and Student Mobility Agreements, the Sauder School of Business (the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration) and Copenhagen Business School agree to develop a broad based strategic partnership to deepen, expand and reinforce the Schools bilateral partnership across a broad range of academic programs, faculty and student exchange, research, academic and scholarly initiatives. II.INTENDED AREAS OF COOPERATION The objectives of this Agreement shall include, but not be limited to, the following: i. Joint development and delivery of academic degree programs, dual degree(s) and curricula; ii. iii. iv. Joint development and delivery of executive education and professional programs; Undertaking collaborative research projects; Joint supervision of doctoral candidates; v. Organization of joint academic and scholarly activities including but not limited to conferences, seminars, symposia and lectures; vi. vii. viii. Exchange of undergraduate and graduate students; visiting scholars, postdoctoral fellows, distinguished professorships and faculty; Joint development of innovative teaching and learning platforms; Exchange of scholarly materials and publications. 3.0 Supplemental Addenda

23 i. Specific details of any activity shall be set forth in Supplemental Addendum, which, upon signing by the appropriate legal signing authority at each institution, shall become an integral part of the Institutional Agreement. ii. The Addenda shall include such items as: the responsibilities of each Party for the agreed upon activity, schedule for the specific activity, budgets and sources of funding and any other information necessary for the achievement of the activity. 4.0 DURATION AND NOTICE i. This Agreement shall become effective on the date that it is signed by both Parties and shall be valid for a period of five years, but may be renewed or extended by mutual consent. Any changes to this Agreement shall be subject to the written consent of both Parties. ii. iii. This Agreement may be terminated by either Party at any time provided that the terminating Party gives written notice of its intention at least six months prior to termination. While the Institutions intend to cooperate with respect to foregoing activities, neither Institution will be obligated to commit funds or resources, nor will either Institution grant any rights with respect to intellectual property, unless a legally binding agreement has been entered into. This Agreement does not itself establish any legally binding obligations, financial or otherwise, on the part of either Institution. Dated this day of For the Sauder School of Business Daniel F. Muzyka Dean For The University of British Columbia For Copenhagen Business School Stephen J. Toope President Alan Irwin Rector

24 N O T A T Udgifter til generel ledelse og administration Hermed UBST rapport om generel ledelse og administration (GLA). Rapporten er udarbejdet som input til regeringen og formentlig politikerne mhp. udmøntning af de aftalte besparelser på det administrative område på hhv. 125 mio. kr. i 2012 og 250 mio. kr. i Der er blandt de fleste af universiteterne enighed om, at metoden er for usikker til at uddele besparelser efter. Ikke desto mindre kan dette forventes at blive tilfældet. Vi har bl.a. gjort følgende foreløbige observationer: Vi kan konstatere, at PWC opgør en GLA pct. for CBS for 2009 til 13,5 pct., mens øvrige universiteter ligger lavere startende fra 8,4 pct. Beregnes GLA procenten for 2009 på baggrund af Danske Universiteters definitioner til det statistiske beredskab alene kommer CBS ud med en GLA pct. på 8,9, hvilket ligger på niveau med flere af de andre universiteter (konsoliderede fælles 2010-tal findes ikke endnu), jf. nedenfor CBS KU AU SDU RUC AAU DTU ITU GLA/omsætning 8,9% 7,6% 8,1% 8,9% 8,9% 7,6% 9,6% 18,3% For CBS udgør forskellen mellem ovenstående og PWC rapporten en andel af omkostningerne til bygninger samt en andel af TAP løn + drift på institutter/centre. I beregningen af sidstnævnte andel har CBS anvendt en årsværksoptælling udarbejdet af McKinsey i foråret Angående decentrale årsværk, kan man konstatere, at enkelte universiteter har vurderet, at der slet ikke ligger omkostninger til GLA ud over institutlederen på institutniveau. Dette er eksempelvis tilfældet på Ålborg universitet, hvor man argumenterer for, at tallet er 0 som konsekvens af en central struktur. Alligevel kan man ved at slå op på institutterne finde administrative medarbejdere med opgaver indenfor f.eks. it-support og ledelsesstøtte. Andre universiteter fastlægger niveauet for decentral GLA på baggrund af ledelsens skøn. Vi har udarbejdet en opdateret opgørelse over GLA omkostningerne for 2010, hvor vi anvender samme metode som til PWC rapporten. I denne beregning har vi dog anvendt den reviderede opgørelse af decentrale TAP årsværk, som er blevet udarbejdet internt i forbindelse med etableringen af en ny og mere central administrativ organisation på CBS, kombineret med de gl. McKinsey tal for lederes opgaver. Resultatet af denne isolerede ændring er en GLA procent på ca. 12,2 pct. i Det er endvidere en del, der tyder på, at vi stadig med denne definition af GLA medtager flere decentrale opgaver, end i hvert fald visse andre universiteter.

25 Hvis vi yderligere inddrager bygningssiden og fx beregner vores andel af byggeomkostninger ud fra et standardindeks pr. adm. medarbejder på 33 m2 som KU gør (i hvert fald for en del af opgørelsen) eller fx tilsvarende trækker vores undervisnings- og fællesarealer (som mest benyttes af studenter) ud af beregningen får vi en GLA andel i 2010 på 10,8-11,1 pct. Vi ligger dog formentlig uanset hvad over gennemsnittet. På vegne af vores bestyrelsesformand skal jeg bede institutlederne og akademisk råd om nærmere kommentarer vedr. følgende: Hakon Iversen Hvilke metodiske udfordringer udviser rapporten? Hvor efterlader det CBS ift. andre universiteter, og hvordan skal vi håndtere dette? Hvordan bør universiteternes administration retteligt benchmarkes? Bestyrelsesformanden ser gerne et oplæg herom fra CBS eksperter til bestyrelsens strategiseminar 2. september. Jeg vedhæfter endvidere, hvad Camilla tidligere har udarbejdet til bestyrelsen om benchmarking. 2

26 B Pkt. 6 Bilag 6.1 N O T A T Bestyrelsen Direktionen Kilevej 14A DK-2000 Frederiksberg Tel: Fax: Forslag til måling af den administrative performance Jf. referatet fra det seneste bestyrelsesmøde var der enighed om følgende: En rimelig ambition for en business school som CBS må være at udvikle administrationen til at være best in class og en rollemodel for øvrige danske universiteter og at dette kan påvises gennem objektive mål. Bestyrelsen bad direktionen vende tilbage med en langsigtet vision for CBS administration. 18. februar 2011 CSA Direktionen Dette notat er et første bud på, hvordan CBS fremover kan følge op på den administrative performance med anvendelse af objektive mål og benchmarking med de øvrige danske universiteter. Forslag til fremgangsmåde I vurderingen af hvad der ligger i at være best in class, bør der ligge nogle overvejelser omkring kvaliteten af den administrative service, hvor mange penge der anvendes til forskellige aktiviteter i administrationen og hvilket output, der genereres på CBS. Med udgangspunkt heri skal der udarbejdes nogle Key Perfomance Indicators (KPI) for CBS, og skal vi efterfølgende måle, hvor vi ligger i forhold til de øvrige danske universiteter, skal der etableres tilsvarende KPI er for de andre universiteter. Overordnede KPI er til benchmarking UBST udarbejder i dag en række fælles nøgletal for universiteterne som kan bruges i en benchmarking mellem universiteterne. Det er dog forholdsvist få, og de måler primært på outputsiden. Danske Universiteter (DU) koordinerer et statistisk beredskab med fælles nøgletal for alle danske universiteter. Helt overordnet kan disse nøgletal godt anvendes i en benchmark, men de er meget overordnede, og der er mange nuancer, der ikke fremkommer i tallene, dels som konsekvens af forskellig organisering på universiteterne, og dels fordi de forskellige videnskabelige hovedområder stiller forskellige krav til f.eks. campusfaciliteter og forskningsstøtte. Nøgletallene fra UBST og DU kan godt bruges helt overordnet allerede nu. Det foreslås, at vi fremover følger op på nedenstående KPI er (se bilag for konkrete tal) for CBS over tid og i en benchmarking med de andre universiteter. De KPI er som på sidste bestyrelsesmøde blev angivet i et økonomipapir, vil i stedet udgå.

27 Niveau 1: Administrative indikatorer Årsværk: TAP/(VIP+DVIP) og TAP/STÅ Omkostninger til generel ledelse og adm./ Omsætning Kvalitetsindikatorer Gennemførselsprocent efter normeret tid og normeret tid + 1 år Beskæftigelsesgrad for dimittender Bibliometriske forskningsindikator (BFI) Der vil så vidt muligt alene blive sammenlignet med andre samfundsvidenskabelige og humanistiske områder på de andre universiteter. Tallene opgøres én gang årligt, dog på forskellige tidspunkter. Bestyrelsen præsenteres for resultatet af denne benchmarking så snart resultatet foreligger. KPI er til intern måling af CBS administrationens performance Ovenstående KPI er kan imidlertid ikke anvendes i en mere nuanceret og detaljeret performance måling af CBS administration. For at nå hertil bliver vi nødt til at gå spadestikket dybere, og koble omkostninger på konkrete aktiviteter og sammenholde disse med en række kvalitetsindikatorer og output mål. Så snart den nye administrative organisation er på plads, vil der blive defineret konkrete administrative KPI er samt metoder til interne brugertilfredshedsundersøgelser. Forslag til konkrete KPI er kunne være: Niveau 2: Administrative indikatorer Ex.: Udviklingen i TAP lønsummen set i forhold til VIP lønsummen Prisen for en uddannelse Udviklingen i omkostningerne til forskellige typer af aktiviteter sammenholdt med output Kvalitetsindikatorer Studentertilfredshed Intern brugertilfredshed, herunder overholdelse af de interne fastsatte KPI er. LT vil løbende følge udviklingen, men der vil ikke blive afrapporteret detaljeret til bestyrelsen, men muligvis blive udarbejdet en overordnet rapport én gang årligt. Flere af de administrative indikatorer forudsætter dog implementeringen af Activity Based Costing (ABC) i vores økonomisystem. Dette projekt er på tegnebrættet og er fuldt udrullet i løbet af Nuanceret benchmarking med andre danske universiteter Skal vi derhen, hvor vi kan måle CBS administrationens performance i forhold til de øvrige universiteter altså at CBS er best in class kræver det, at der etableres en række KPI er på et mere detaljeret niveau end nøgletallene fra UBST og DU giver os. En forudsætning herfor er et tættere samarbejde med ét eller flere af universiteterne, hvor vi 2