Evaluation of the territorial coordination policies of insitutions

The French Higher Education and Research Act of 22 July 2013 puts a great deal of importance on site policies in the definition of higher education institution strategies and their contractual relationship with the State. The law states that Hcéres is responsible for evaluating higher education institutions and their groupings, which can take a number of different forms, including mergers of institutions, communities of universities and institutions (called COMUE), and associations of institutions.

To this end, Hcéres produced an evaluation methodology for the site policies of these territorial coordination organisations. As part of this, in 2014, Hcéres designed, in consultation with the groupings concerned, external evaluation standards for evaluating the site policies of the Paris-Est University (Group E) and Grenoble-Alpes University (Group A) COMUEs.

This led to three main lines of enquiry in the evaluation reports: territorial coordination positioning and strategy, governance and organisation, and monitoring and evaluation of activities.

The first evaluation report covering the Paris-Est University territorial coordination is now available. The evaluation was carried out following the evaluation of the study programmes, research units and institutions 1 that make up the COMUE.

Bernard Dizambour, President of the University, talked to Hcéres about the process.

How did you prepare for the Hcéres evaluation?

We were involved in the evaluation process from a very early stage, helping to draft the standards, producing characterisation reports and setting out our challenges. What’s more, our evaluation, which followed on from the evaluation of our institutions and study programmes, was a very integrated experience. Although this evaluation had a very specific nature, it was part of an ongoing process. We didn’t really do any specific preparation but I felt like we saw it as something that was part of a broader approach including evaluation, strategic discussions in preparation of our policy document, strategic priorities and contractualisation with the State. Information was therefore produced smoothly throughout the phase running up to the evaluation.

How did the panel of experts visit go?

The strong connection between the evaluations was very helpful, with some experts included on both the panels of experts for our institutions and for the site. Discussions which were important for our departments were also important for our stakeholders and associates. An evaluation creates a process that helps everyone to progress. I particularly appreciated the interview with our management team and the final summary meeting. These discussions were highly stimulating, and sometimes provocative, and required us to think through our approaches and reasoning in full.

What recommendation(s) is (are) highest priority for you?

It is always useful to have your strategic priorities challenged, but for us, I think that the greatest value of the evaluation was in areas of implementation: structures, funding balances, and even more, the role of the COMUE in the site dynamic. The evaluation report provided specific help on these points.

1 Ten higher education and research institutions: Paris-Est Créteil Val de Marne University (UPEC); Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée University (UPEM); ENVA national veterinary school in Maisons-Alfort; ENPC engineering school; ESIEE-Paris school of technological innovation; ESTP engineering school; EIVP Paris engineering school; ENSAPB Paris-Belleville national school of architecture; ENSAPM Paris-Malaquais national school of architecture; ENSAVT national school of urban and territorial architecture.