Abstract
Higher education leaders are under unprecedented pressure to justify investments and demonstrate a clear return on their strategic plans. This document proposes a conceptual framework for peer analysis, intended to spark discussion on how we might better leverage institutional data. This methodology moves beyond static comparisons to reveal why some institutions are succeeding. It allows researchers to not only identify true operational peers based on a 5-year performance profile, but also to quantify the "strategic momentum" that may precede major prestige gains, such as a new R1 classification or an invitation to the AAU.
The Need for a New Mandate in University Strategy
A core question for institutional research has always been, "How do we compare?" Traditional reputation-based peer lists are often insufficient, serving as lagging indicators of past prestige rather than a measure of current velocity. Similarly, traditional methods that rely on simple inputs (like enrollment) or broad categories (like the Carnegie Classification) can obscure meaningful performance differences between institutions.
To justify resource allocation and optimize strategy, higher education leaders need data that:
Provides a stable, holistic, and objective measure of an institution's true operational scale.
Quantifies the trajectory and momentum of strategic initiatives.
Identifies emerging competitors who are winning the race, not just those who have already finished.
A Proposed Framework: Two Complementary Lenses
Our proposed methodology provides two distinct, complementary lenses to analyze the entire higher-education landscape, using a five-year dataset of institutional productivity.
Lens 1: The Structural Peer Profile (The "Apples-to-Apples" Baseline)
Concept: To identify institutions with a similar operational profile based on a stable, multi-year performance aggregate.
Methodology: This lens uses a five-year aggregate of key per-capita metrics (articles, grants, patents, books, etc.) to build a stable "fingerprint" of an institution. This multi-metric profile is then standardized (using Z-scores) and compared using Euclidean distance - a statistical method advocated in institutional research for creating objective peer groups. This approach is applied within a shared Carnegie Classification to ensure a valid, like-for-like comparison.
Lens 2: The Momentum Peer Profile (The Strategic "Growth Vector")
Concept: To identify institutions on a similar strategic trajectory by measuring their rate of growth, regardless of their current size or prestige.
Methodology: This forward-looking lens calculates the annualized growth rate for the same set of per-capita metrics over the 2018-2022 period. This creates a "growth vector" for each institution. Using Cosine Similarity, the analysis identifies other institutions whose vectors have a similar angle, or direction. This metric quantifies strategic execution and can serve as a leading indicator for future prestige gains.
Merging the Lenses: A Unified Strategic Map
The true analytical power of this framework is realized when both lenses are combined. By plotting every institution on a single 2x2 strategic map, we can move from simple lists to a rich, visual understanding of the entire competitive landscape.
The X-axis represents Structural Similarity (from dissimilar to similar).
The Y-axis represents Momentum Similarity (from divergent to aligned).
This map instantly categorizes every institution in the peer universe into one of four strategic quadrants:
True Peers (Top-Right): High structural similarity and high momentum. Direct competitors who are built similarly and moving with the same strategic velocity.
Stagnant Peers (Bottom-Right): High structural similarity but low momentum. Traditional, legacy peers who are not keeping pace.
Emerging Competitors (Top-Left): Low structural similarity but high momentum. "Up-and-comers" or specialized institutions who are successfully executing a similar strategy.
Divergent Institutions (Bottom-Left): Not similar in structure or momentum; these are not functional peers.
Analytical Capabilities of This Framework
Adopting this dual-lens framework enables a more sophisticated and nuanced analysis of the competitive landscape:
Model Strategic Investments: Allows researchers to quantify whether investments in key areas are generating a measurable growth trajectory that outpaces competitors.
Identify Emerging High-Momentum Institutions: Provides a data-driven method for seeing which institutions are building the "momentum profile" that often precedes major prestige upgrades.
Discover Functionally-Similar Competitors: Uncovers emerging institutions, regardless of their current size, that are on a similar strategic path and competing for the same resources and talent.
Establish Objective Baselines: Moves beyond historical affiliations to find institutions that are truly similar in scale and productivity, providing a valid baseline for resource and performance benchmarking.
Apply the Framework at Multiple Scales: This logic can be applied at any level: for university-wide comparisons ("Institution" level), for a college-level view ("Broad Fields"), or for highly specific program analysis ("Departments").
