UWA's mission is to provide world-class education, research and community engagement for the advancement of the prosperity and welfare of our communities. The University aspires to be recognised in the world's top 50 universities by 2050 for its commitment to excellence in all its activities. The following KPIs are designed to evidence progress towards our vision and mission.
A small number of KPIs have been revised since the 2017 report to reflect changing emphasis and performance-reporting mechanisms. These changes are noted where relevant in the following.
Leadership in education
To be recognised as a global leader in university education.
UWA delivers excellent courses that will engage, challenge and transform students through a rich variety of learning experiences.
Key performance indicators
Achievement of this goal will be measured by the following indicators:
1.1. Share of first preferences in TISC applications from school leavers with an ATAR ≥ 95 (effectiveness)
This effectiveness indicator measures the University's ability to attract the highest performing school leavers. The quality of incoming students is an important driver of educational performance and a marker of the University's reputation for academic excellence and success. The following table shows the proportion of school leavers with an ATAR ≥ 95 that have applied to study at UWA as a first preference in TISC applications. The 2018 figures indicate that while UWA remained the first choice university for the majority of WA's highest performing school leavers, the University continues to lose share of the high-performing cohort as some of these students are choosing other public WA universities. While this decline is slowing, it has not reversed as intended. Much of the market share decline can be attributed to the launch of a third medical program in WA, attracting the component of this cohort that may have been unsuccessful in getting into medicine at UWA. The remainder of the decline is due to the launch of new high-ATAR entry courses at other WA public universities not offered at UWA. Among other strategies, the University is expanding its entry opportunities and scholarships for offerings that appeal to this segment to attract more of the highest performing students.
Share of first preferences in TISC applications from school leavers with an ATAR ≥ 95, 2014–2018
|Proportion of school leavers with an ATAR ≥ 95||74%||75%||70%||64%||61%||69%|
Data source: Tertiary Institutions Service Centre (TISC).
Note: Population is limited to school leavers listing one of the four public WA universities as their first preference. Figures are rounded to the nearest whole number.
1.2. Student satisfaction (effectiveness)
This effectiveness indicator provides an insight to students' perceptions of the overall student experience at UWA. It includes perspectives from domestic and international students in undergraduate and postgraduate coursework and research degrees.
Students' satisfaction with their courses is derived from the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) for coursework students and the Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire (PREQ) for Higher Degree by Research students. In each questionnaire, graduates are asked to respond to the statement 'Overall, I was satisfied with the quality of this course' using a five-point scale, ranging from 'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree'. Percentage agreement is the proportion of graduates who responded with 'agree' or 'strongly agree' divided by the total number of valid responses. These surveys are undertaken four months following the completion of a degree.
The below table shows the recent decline in percentage agreement results for coursework students has halted with consistent results between 2017 and 2018. Strong performance in the higher degree by research student segment has been regained after a dip in 2017. In 2019 initiatives focusing on student experience, teaching excellence and experiential learning will be expanded to improve student satisfaction. Measures will be taken, as per the International Student Barometer in 2018, to drive up response rates.
Percentage agreement on the Overall Satisfaction Item in the Course Experience Questionnaire and Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire, 2014–2018 Year refers to the reference year of the survey, e.g. 2016 represents 2015 graduates.
|CEQ Responses of graduates of undergraduate and postgraduate coursework degrees.|
|UWA response rate Offshore students are excluded from the CEQ and PREQ figures.||50%||37%||35%||38%||44%|
|PREQ Responses of graduates of postgraduate research degrees.|
|UWA response rate Offshore students are excluded from the CEQ and PREQ figures.||61%||59%||52%||56%||73%|
Data source: Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) and Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire (PREQ).
1.3. Graduate outcomes (effectiveness)
To gain an indication of the quality of the University's students and courses, and how well these meet individual, global and industry needs, graduates are surveyed four months after they have finished their courses to determine their employment status.
The following table shows the trends in total employment rate, which is the proportion of graduates who are in either full-time or part-time employment, as a percentage of those who are available for work (working or seeking work, but not in full-time study). The total employment rate can also point to trends in the way new graduates are seeking to work, as well as changes in the local labour market conditions. Gaining a better understanding of the paths students take after graduation also informs the development of the University's educational experience and the courses it offers.
The table below indicates that in 2018 the total employment rate for domestic and international students who had graduated from UWA was 84 per cent, remaining consistent with recent years. The trends seen in this data mirror the performance of the WA average, reflecting the nature of the current WA labour market. In 2019, the University will continue to strengthen its focus on Work Integrated Learning (WIL), by delivering 500 additional placements for students, and formalising its WIL strategy.
Total employment rate of students The respondents include domestic and international students who have completed either an undergraduate or postgraduate coursework degree or a higher degree by research. who completed coursework at UWA, 2014–2018 Year refers to the reference year of the survey, e.g. 2016 represents 2015 graduates.
|UWA response rate||46%||35%||32%||39%||46%|
Data source: Graduate Destination Survey (pre-2016), Graduate Outcomes Survey (2016+).
1.4. Equity access rate (effectiveness)
UWA recognises the importance of achieving a more diverse student population and has developed a range of strategies to improve access by students from designated equity groups: low socioeconomic status (SES) students, students from a non- English speaking background (NESB), Indigenous students, students with disabilities and students from regional and remote locations.
Accessibility to a world-class education at UWA by the broader community is inherent in UWA's values. Access rates from these equity groups provide an indicator of the University's effectiveness towards achieving diversity and accessibility.
The table below presents access rates of domestic commencing students belonging to designated groups. In 2018 UWA continued to perform well towards achieving some targets, though did not reach target for students from non-English speaking backgrounds, Indigenous students and students from a regional and remote location. Inclusion and diversity continues to be a focus for the recruitment and support of students from equity groups through 2019, supported by the Student Equity and Participation Working Group and a targeted equity strategy.
Access rates The access rate is the proportion of the domestic commencing students who are from each equity group. for equity groups commencing at UWA, 2014–2018
|2014||2015||2016||2017||2018 Based on preliminary data prior to the March 2019 finalisation.||2018 target|
|Low SES students SES is attributed based on postcode of the permanent home address. In SEIFA 2016, the classification of SES changed. In calculating this measure for 2018, this new classification was adopted and also applied for 2016 and 2017. As a result, figures reported above for 2016 and 2017 differ to those reported in the 2017 Annual Report. In the 2017 Annual Report, the access rate for Low SES students reported for 2016 was 10.3 per cent and for 2017 was 9.5 per cent.||9.0%||9.3%||13.9%||12.3%||13.1%||11.0%|
|Students from a NESB NESB students comprise those who arrived in Australia in the previous 10 years and speak a language that is not English at home.||5.6%||5.8%||5.2%||5.0% Variation from previously reported figures is due to the inclusion of full-year data in the figures currently presented.||4.0%||5.0%|
|Indigenous students||1.5%||1.7%||1.6%||1.5% Variation from previously reported figures is due to the inclusion of full-year data in the figures currently presented.||1.4%||1.5%|
|Students with a disability||7.0%||7.7%||7.6%||7.8% Variation from previously reported figures is due to the inclusion of full-year data in the figures currently presented.||8.3%||8.0%|
|Students from a regional location In SEIFA 2016, the classification of regional location changed. In calculating this measure for 2018, this new classification was adopted and also applied for 2016 and 2017. As a result, figures reported above for 2016 and 2017 differ to those reported in the 2017 Annual Report. In the 2017 Annual Report, the access rate for regional students reported for 2016 was 8.9 per cent and for 2017 was 8.2 per cent.||8.9%||8.9%||8.8%||7.7%||8.8%||10.0%|
|Students from a remote location In SEIFA 2016, the classification of remote location changed. In calculating this measure for 2018, this new classification was adopted and also applied for 2016 and 2017. Despite this change, figures reported above for 2016 and 2017 do not differ to those reported in the 2017 Annual Report.||2.1%||2.0%||1.9%||1.5%||1.4%||1.7%|
Data source: Commonwealth Government Higher Education Student Data Collection Files, 2014–2018, Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) 2011 applied to 2014 and 2015, SEIFA 2016 applied to 2016 onwards.
These metrics are the best representation of UWA’s strategic aspirations and their structure is consistent with the measures reported in 2017.
Internationally renowned research
To strive for an international research agenda of relevance to the community it serves.
UWA undertakes research across all disciplines focused on issues of relevance to its communities and industries, while generating understanding and solutions of global value, and offers high-quality research training principally through its higher degree by research (HDR) programs.
Key performance indicators
Achievement of this goal will be measured by the following indicators:
2.1. Research income (effectiveness)
Research funds earned by an institution provide an indication of its effectiveness in conducting relevant and valued research, while also informing the community how the University funds its efforts towards the advancement of knowledge.
The Australian Competitive Grants funds are allocated on the basis of competitive bids to the Australian Research Council (ARC), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), primary industry research and development corporations, and other Commonwealth departments and organisations. An institution's share of research income is a proxy measure of research relevance and competitiveness.
As shown in the table below, in 2017 the University received $167 million in total research income, which equates to an average of just under $144,000 per academic staff FTE (excluding casual appointments). This total research income places UWA eighth in Australia for funding within the Group of Eight universities.
The majority of this decline was due to reduced Western Australian Government investment into research activities as a mechanism to deliver budgetary containment measures. The University continues to secure improvements in funding performance by growing and diversifying industry and other research income to leverage Federal and State Government investment.
A key driver of low performance against target for international research income was due to a change in the Department of Education and Training's Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC) specifications for 2017. The reporting of HDR student fee income was no longer eligible to be reported within this category, resulting in reported performance being $5m lower than expected.
Research income awarded to UWA, 2014–2017
|Total research income ($M)||$204||$195||$190||$167||$175|
|Total research income per academic FTE at Level B+ Full-time equivalence of academic staff at lecturer Level B and above, excluding casual appointments. ($)||$161,581||$157,324||$158,229||$143,914||$155,000|
|UWA share of total research income (%)||5.5%||5.2%||5.0%||4.2%||6.0%|
|National rank Rank based upon total research income per academic staff FTE at Level B and above relative to Australian universities. No target is set as this is a benchmark only.||6th||7th||7th||8th||-|
|Australian Competitive Grants ($M)||$108||$87||$86||$79||$85|
|International research income ($M)||$12||$16||$15||$15||$25|
|Research contract income ($M)||$19||$26||$28||$29||$32|
Data source: Commonwealth Government Higher Education Research Data Collections (HERDC); figures in millions are rounded to the nearest million. Sector-wide changes in the Government reporting requirements resulted in some small changes in the way funding is categorised in 2017. 2017 is the most recent information available for this indicator. It is anticipated 2018 data will be released by the Government in 2019.
2.2. Publications (effectiveness, efficiency)
UWA is committed to communicating its research globally through highquality publications. The numbers of refereed publications in reputable journals are indicators measuring the research output of a university.
Publications in the top journal quintile are used to benchmark research outputs regardless of differences in size and disciplinary profiles, and to showcase the presence of publications in journals considered to be the most prestigious around the world. The numbers of weighted publications per academic staff FTE are efficiency indicators of research productivity.
UWA continues to maintain the quantity of its publication output, as measured by the output per academic staff FTE. Quality, as measured by the proportion of articles published in top quintile journals, remains within the boundaries of recent performance, but fell below target. Quality of research outputs will remain a strategic focus for 2019.
Selected weighted Books are weighted 5:1. research publications per academic staff FTE Full-time equivalent of academic staff at Level B or above, excluding casual appointments.
|2013||2014||2015||2016||2017||2017 target Reported to 2017 instead of 2018 as datain Scopus has not been finalised for 2018 due to timing of actual publication and the data collation in Scopus; national figures are for comparison only.|
|UWA weighted research publications per academic staff FTE||3.5||3.5||3.7||3.9||3.9||4.0|
|National weighted research publications per academic staff FTE||1.8||1.9||1.9||2.0||2.1||-|
Percentage of UWA articles published in the top 20 per cent journals
|% UWA articles published in the top 20% journals Top 20 per cent journals are the top quintile journals based on the number of citations per citable publications as it relates to the Web of Science category to which it is mapped.||47%||46%||47%||47%||47%||50%|
Data source: Publications: (books, book chapters, articles in scholarly refereed journals and full written papers in refereed proceedings) as indexed in Scopus; Staff FTE: Commonwealth Government Higher Education Staff Collection; Top 20 per cent journal list generated with Clarivate’s Journal Citation Report. Proportion of articles published in the top 20 per cent of journals generated using the Science Citation Index-Expanded and Social Science Citation Index, in the Web of Science.
Data for the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) (effectiveness) metric will not be available until later in 2019 so will not be reported in this report.
Community and global engagement
To be recognised for the strong and mutually beneficial relationships forged with stakeholders.
UWA engages with global stakeholders and partners to contribute to the intellectual, cultural and social lives of its community; expand access to capabilities and resources; and seek feedback to focus and align research and education with community need.
Key performance indicators
Achievement of this goal will be measured by the following indicators:
3.1. Key rankings (effectiveness)
UWA aspires to be a global top 50 university and this indicator tracks its progress towards the achievement of this goal. To provide a robust reflection of the University's comparative performance, UWA's international ranking is measured using the three most influential international rankings instruments:
- Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) – based on research measures
- Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Ranking – based on research measures, reputation measures, the mix of international staff and students and the staff to student ratio
- Times Higher Education (THE) World University Ranking – based on research measures, a teaching score and an international mix component
UWA remains a top 100 university in the ARWU and QS rankings in 2018 and fell within the target range. UWA's THE ranking fell to 134th from 111th. Relative performance on this ranking system underpins this outcome, as UWA's contributing scores remained largely consistent with 2017. Maintaining a position of being WA's leading university across all of these ranking systems and a top 100 university in two ranks is a great achievement given the competitiveness within these global rankings and high quality of the higher education sector.
UWA remains committed to the investment in research and teaching excellence initiatives to improve impact and reputational performance. Focus is being placed on research and teaching excellence to help drive progress in these ranks.
International ranks, 2014–2018
3.2. Media outcomes (effectiveness)
This effectiveness indicator provides a measure of the University's coverage in the media, with media engagement undertaken to communicate the University's successes and demonstrate our impact and value to the communities we serve.
Quarterly reporting on media coverage is compiled by external company iSentia for the University and this type of analysis has been in place since January 2015. The analysis is of Australian press and broadcast media only and covers major media outlets. Social media, journals, blogs and some media publications are not included.
In 2018 the University continued to attract a large volume of media coverage with an increase in coverage from the previous year.
The majority of coverage was positive (57.1 per cent), with 40.9 per cent classified as neutral, and only two per cent considered negative. In 2019 a targeted media strategy will drive UWA's media outcomes.
Yearly comparison of media coverage, 2016–2018
|Number of media items||5,846||5,460||4,414||4,691||5,500|
|Percentage of positive coverage||55%||58.5%||50.5%||57.1%||60%|
Data source: iSentia
Notes: The percentage of positive coverage outlined is based on a yearly average taken from the iSentia quarterly analysis. The quarterly analysis of positive coverage is calculated through a random representative sample. The sample in 2018 was 2,191 items (47 per cent of total media items), and in 2017 the sample was 2,327 items (53 per cent of total media items).
These metrics are the best representation of UWA's strategic aspirations. Since the 2017 report, the Development outcomes indicator has been removed, reflecting the completion of the New Century Campaign.
4.1. Teaching and research revenue per staff dollar employed (cost-effectiveness)
4.2. Operating margin (costeffectiveness)
These indicators are designed to inform the operating efficiency and cost productivity of the University's core activities. Performance on these indicators is primarily driven by the percentage of fee-paying equivalent full-time student load (EFTSL) (to yield a higher gross margin), as well as the timing of income and expenditure associated with research grants, donations and capital grants. These indicators are also influenced by annual investment returns and expenditure associated with investment in academic excellence, student experience and other University strategic priorities.
Teaching and research revenue per staff dollar employed was in line with target, with reductions in projected income managed through employee costs.
The 2018 operating margin is lower than target predominately due to underperformance from the University's investments during 2018.
Contrasting the 2018 operating result to that of 2017, the 2017 operating margin benefited from the receipt of $27 million associated with the second deed of gift from the Minderoo Foundation, along with strong performance from the University's investment corpus.
Financial ratios, 2014–2018
|Teaching and research revenue per dollar of staff expenditureStaff expenditure is defined as salaries (plus on-costs: superannuation, payroll tax, workers’ compensations, leave expenses) as reported in the Annual Report.||1.24||1.23||1.17||1.30||1.32||1.32|
Data source: Audited financial statements.