A Strategic Performance Model for Maximizing ROI in Engineering Education through Institutional Capability Human Capital and Global Project Engagement
AUTHORS
Mayur Qumer Collins,Western Sydney University, Rydalmere, Australia
Estrella Galbraith,Western Sydney University, Rydalmere, Australia
ABSTRACT
This study proposes a strategic performance improvement model for maximizing return on investment (ROI) in engineering education, focusing on faculty development, institutional capacity, and global consulting engagement. In the face of growing expectations for higher education institutions to function not only as educators but also as economic contributors and international service providers, the proposed model offers a structured framework to align training and development with measurable institutional and economic outcomes. The model is grounded in a systems-thinking approach that integrates input-process-output-outcome analysis, enabling engineering education providers to optimize internal capabilities while engaging in high-value external projects. Core components of the model include structured faculty development programs, interdisciplinary research integration, international consulting under bilateral and multilateral development partnerships, and mechanisms for knowledge capital creation and diffusion. A qualitative case study methodology was employed to develop and validate the model. Data was drawn from institutional project reports, international training records, and performance outcomes from multiple global development programs across technical education institutions. Thematic analysis was used to identify key enablers and barriers to ROI maximization, with insights validated through triangulation across program evaluation documents and faculty engagement outcomes. Findings highlight the importance of sustained investment in human capital, institutional autonomy, and strategic partnerships for achieving ROI in public education contexts. The model is designed for replication and adaptation by universities, polytechnic institutions, and government training agencies, particularly those operating in resource-constrained environments with global ambitions. By reframing education as a high-value strategic investment, this paper contributes to business-oriented educational reform discourse and offers actionable strategies for leaders, policymakers, and development agencies aiming to maximize impact, efficiency, and global competitiveness in engineering education.
KEYWORDS
Return on Investment (ROI), Strategic Performance Model, Institutional Capability, Global Project Engagement, Faculty Development, Human Capital Investment, International Development Consulting, Public Sector Innovation
REFERENCES
[1] S. Marginson, “The dream is over: The crisis of Clark Kerr’s California idea of higher education,” University of California Press, (2016)
[2] A. Norton, “Reforming Australia’s higher education system,” Grattan Institute, (2020). Retrieved from https://grattan.edu.au
[3] Universities Australia, “Higher education and the economy: Facts and figures,” (2022). Retrieved from https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au
[4] OECD, “Education at a Glance 2023: OECD indicators,” OECD Publishing, Paris, (2023), DOI: 10.1787/e13bef63-en
[5] Deloitte Access Economics., “The value of international education to Australia,” (2019). Retrieved from https://internationaleducation.gov.au
[6] Engineers Australia, “Engineering futures 2035: A scoping study,” (2021). Retrieved from https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au
[7] J. J. Phillips, “The Return-on-Investment (ROI) process: Issues and trends on JSTOR,” Educational Technology, vol.7, (1998). DOI:44428994
[8] L. Bassi and D. McMurrer, “Maximizing your return on people,” Harv Bus Rev. Mar;, vol.85, no.3, pp.115-23, 144. PMID: 17348175, (2007)
[9] L. Wilkerson and D. M. Irby, “Strategies for improving teaching practices: A comprehensive approach to faculty development,” Acad Med. Apr, vol.73, no.4, pp.387-396, (1998), DOI:10.1097/00001888-199804000-00011. PMID: 9580715.
[10] L. M. Nora, “The 21st-century faculty member in the educational process,” Academic Medicine, vol.85, no.9 Suppl, pp.45-55, (2010)
[11] A. Stes, M. Min-Leliveld, D. Gijbels, and P. Van Petegem, “The impact of instructional development in higher education: The state-of-the-art of the research,” Educational Research Review, vol.5, no.1, pp.25-49, (2009). DOI:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.07.001(CrossRef)(Google Scholar)
[12] L. D. Camblin Jr and J. A. Steger, “Rethinking faculty development on JSTOR,” Higher Education, vol.1, (2000). DOI:3447904
[13] M. Schneider, “Google spent 2 years studying 180 teams,” The Most Successful Ones Shared These 5 Traits, (2017) https://www.inc.com/michael-schneider/google-thought-they-knew-how-to-create-the-perfect.html?cid=search
[14] J. Deller, “Kirkpatrick level 4: How to measure ROI,” Kodo Survey, (2020). https://kodosurvey.com/blog
[15] J. T. Jonasson, “Educational change, inertia and potential futures,” European Journal of Futures Research, vol.4, no.1, pp.1-14, (2016). DOI:10.1007/s40309-016-0087-z(CrossRef)(Google Scholar)
[16] Royal Academy of Engineering, “Industrial engagement in engineering education,” (2020). https://raeng.org.uk
[17] Deloitte, “Economic impact of universities’ contribution to innovation,” (2018)
[18] C. R. Glass, D. M. Doberneck, and J. H. Schweitzer, “Unpacking faculty engagement: The types of activities faculty members report as publicly engaged scholarship during promotion and tenure,” Educational Leadership & Workforce Development Faculty Publications. 2, (2011). https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/efl_fac_pubs/2
[19] A. Valentine, M., Marinelli, and S. Male, “Successfully facilitating initiation of industry engagement in activities which involve students in engineering education, through social capital,” European Journal of Engineering Education, vol.47, no.3, pp.413-428, (2021). DOI:10.1080/03043797.2021.2010033(CrossRef)(Google Scholar)