Cover: Understanding Productivity in Higher Education

Understanding Productivity in Higher Education

Published 1997

by Susan M. Gates, Ann Stone

Download eBook for Free

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 2.3 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

The state of California will face significant challenges over the next decade as it tries to maintain access to higher education, for all Californians who can benefit, in the face of limited state resources and pressure to allocate those resources to other purposes, such as corrections. Productivity improvement is frequently looked to as a strategy that will enable the state higher education system to continue to meet public needs without increased public spending. The purpose of this report is to present an overview of the literature on productivity in higher education and in the service sector more generally, and to provide a framework for thinking about productivity improvement for state higher education systems. This framework can serve as a useful starting point for public discussion of how to develop productivity improvement programs for the higher education system. The framework suggests that productivity improvement involves four key steps: defining the unit of analysis, articulating the objectives of the higher education system, identifying measures of efficiency and effectiveness that relate to those objectives, and developing strategies for improving and monitoring productivity. The authors link this framework to the California context, illustrating the complexity of the tasks involved by using specific issues state policymakers might face. The examples included are intended not as policy recommendations but as points of departure for policy discussion among members of the California Higher Education Round Table.

This report is part of the RAND draft series. The unrestricted draft was a product of RAND from 1993 to 2003 that represented preliminary or prepublication versions of other more formal RAND products for distribution to appropriate external audiences. The draft could be considered similar to an academic discussion paper. Although unrestricted drafts had been approved for circulation, they were not usually formally edited or peer reviewed.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.