This article examines how knowledge transfer (KT) indicators affect analyses on efficiency in the Higher Education sector, taking into account the characteristics of the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). After revising the concept of third mission as a field for data development and its importance in assessing university performance, we applied various data envelopment analysis models with different specifications to 47 Spanish public universities to test whether KT indicators are relevant when evaluating the performance of HEIs in terms of their efficiency and, if so, which indicators are most suitable. Our results suggest that the effect of including KT indicators in the efficiency analyses varies from university to university according to their characteristics. The subject mix taught at the university, the focus according to each mission’s relative importance within the total range of activities carried out in each university (mission mix), and the mix of their third mission activities affect the increase of the universities’ efficiency scores when KT is taken into account in the analysis. This means that these factors affect the universities’ position for the different efficiency scores.

New public management and increasing levels of competition driven by global rankings are bringing the managerial practices of public and private higher education institutions closer together. However, these two types of institutions still maintain different objectives and traditions and enjoy different degrees of autonomy that are reflected in their internal organisational structures. We study the relative efficiency and productivity performance of private and public universities in Spain through two adaptations of the Malmquist Index. Results show that, in 2009/2010, the greater flexibility of private universities meant a better adjustment between inputs and outputs in the private sector. However, in 2013/2014, public universities had caught up with private universities. Because of the economic crisis, the inputs of public universities have decreased, but this decrease had not fully impacted their results in 2013/2014.

The relationship between university performance and performance-based funding models has been a topic of debate for decades. Promoting performance-based funding models can create incentives for improving the educational and research effectiveness of universities, and consequently providing them with a competitive advantage over its competitors. Therefore, this paper studies how to measure the performance of a university through a mathematical multicriteria analysis and tries to link these results with certain university funding policies existing in the Spanish case. To this end, a reference point-based technique is used, which allows the consideration and aggregation of all the aspects regarded as relevant to assess university performance. The simple and easy way in which the information is provided by this technique makes it valuable for decision makers because of considering two aggregation scenarios: the fully compensatory scenario provides an idea of the overall performance, while the non-compensatory one detects possible improvement areas. This study is carried out in two stages. First, the main results of applying the proposed methodology to the performance analysis evolution of the largest three Spanish public university, over a period of five academic years, are described. Second, a discussion is carried out about some interesting features of the analysis proposed at regional level, and some policy messages are provided. The “intra” regions university performance analysis reveals some institutions with noteworthy behaviors, some with sustained trends throughout the analyzed period and other institutions with more erratic behaviors, within the same regional public university system despite having the identical funding model. However, the findings “inter” regions also reveal that only Catalonia has developed a true performance-based model, in theory and in practice, which has contributed to achieving excellent results at regional level in both teaching and research.

Over recent decades, universities in England have transitioned from providing higher education (HE) for the elite to HE for the masses. Funding mechanisms have changed, cost‐sharing has shifted from public to private sources, and efficiency and productivity have been emphasized. Three excellence frameworks relating to research, teaching, and knowledge exchange have been introduced to assess performance. In this paper, we explore the systems of performance measurement and funding implemented in English HE and critically appraise these against the recommendations from the relevant literature. We conclude that these frameworks, by separately assessing performance in the three missions, inadequately account for synergies between activities, thereby ignoring the civic nature of universities and possibilities for economies of scale and scope. We conclude by highlighting some emerging areas for future research. While the focus of the paper is English HE, the themes and findings are relevant to all HE sectors around the world.