The world of academia is complex, particularly when it comes to assessing institutional performance. This whole theme is vexing as markers include, inter-alia, good teaching, innovative curricula, discovery research, translational and applied research, grant attraction, community service, industry engagement, strategic partnerships, reputational standing, alumni profiles, and a broad range of related criteria.

Given this level of complexity, it is little wonder that wide differences exist in assessing the standing of many universities either in general terms, or insofar as particular disciplines and schools are concerned. This being the case, attention turned toward “proxy” markers that are straightforward and easier to relate to.

Accreditation (institutional and program-based), and ranking (also institutional and school-based) are the two main proxies used. There are other lesser-known “Quick” proxies including applicants/acceptance ratio, yield ratio, attrition ratio, faculty profile, graduates' employment status, and level of diversity, to name but a few.

A quick look at all these markers of differentiation reveals that they have one key factor in common: Maximizing Impact. Impact is defined as the intellectual/professional vital sphere of the university and its influence or the dent it makes on multiple constituencies, stakeholders and segments. The greater the impact, the more certain we are that the university is ahead of the curve all the way to the highest levels of excellence and competitiveness.

To be sure, impact is not a simple construct. It is composite and quite complex as it involves academic, professional, ad service categories with a plethora of sub-categories covering research, teaching, technology integration, facilities, alumni employment rates and levels, industry ties, grants, community perceptions, reputational elements, etc. Accreditation and ranking are obviously among the net results of the factors above.

Given the comprehensiveness, inclusiveness, and representativeness of the term IMPACT, it is now commonly used as a measure or index of university differentiation and a convenient marker equally useful both for self-assessment and external assessment. 

Toward an Impact Index for Universities

A major challenge facing universities today is to work on an “impact index” based on an agreed-upon methodology with content factors and weights that can be employed across the board. It should be possible to allow for differences among various types of universities (teaching vs. research, non-comprehensive vs. comprehensive, etc.) and even different sub-categories of impact. We should thus be able to talk about “research impact,” “innovation impact,” “industry impact,” and “community impact,” among others.

Until We Get There

Until we get to this point of having such an agreed-upon composite index in place – which will take a fair amount of effort and resources – we are likely to continue to have to work with preliminary versions of the “impact index” and allow the element of continuous improvement to take its course. What will help the process is seeking acceleration through inter-university cooperation schemes, information sharing, joint platforms and greater transparency in working together to transform ourselves into true “learning organizations.” This is what we need to become for the “impact index” to work as it should.  

Pursuit of Impact at LAU

Over the past two years, LAU has witnessed dramatic transformations in the direction of maximizing impact by putting in place key ingredients that are now materializing. We commenced this process knowing fully well it will take some time, involve serious resources, and require a level of integration that universities normally find very challenging. Significant steps have been completed in this direction but there is considerably more to be done. Building on what has already been achieved, the process will continue to unfold over the coming months and years. 

Our Scorecard Thus Far

On the academic front, curricula, delivery, research, learning resources, and financial resources have all been stepped up considerably with impact-related measures in place. New schools are being considered, and new institutes are being planned. By the same token, strategic faculty appointments are being made, intramural research resources allocated, and our teaching infrastructure is being significantly upgraded. This is going hand-in-hand with greater emphasis on grant acquisition and taking decisive steps in the direction of expanding LAU’s footprint regionally and globally. This includes turning the New York Academic Center into a full-blown degree-granting micro-campus.

On the industry engagement front, our Industrial Park is now a reality on the Byblos campus, our Innovation Center is fully functional, and our Academy of Continuing Education has concluded multiple partnerships with industry inside and outside Lebanon.

On the facilities front, a major new signature academic building was opened this fall, a historic theater was reopened following massive renovation, a new garden was dedicated on the Beirut campus, and an ultra-modern new library was opened on the Byblos campus. The picture will not be complete without mentioning the new hospital LAU opened in Jounieh last year. The healthcare impact of such a step can hardly be overstated.

We Are Committed

LAU is committed to an impact-driven approach to performance assessment and to working on refining this tool in cooperation with other like-minded institutions. Firm in our belief that impact is the one indicator that tells our story better than any other, we are determined to make it a measurable tool and a composite marker that accurately reflects our purpose and reason for existence. The transformation has started and it can only accelerate.