There's a new Chapel Hill News article on this study, reporting on some questions asked of Holden Thorpe about it: http://www.chapelhillnews.com/news/story/43803.html. He does acknowledge that there are issues regarding taking anonymous monies for such an effort.
Some other questions, in addition to the comments posted above, are coming to mind. Will the raw data be in the public domain? Will meetings held in pursuing this study be open meetings, legally speaking?
Such benchmarking approaches might actually reveal where cost savings could accrue, if some of the factors noted above are truly taken into account. But that will take a lot more work than UNC or its consultants are bargaining for. And what bureaucrats are going to provide information that could lead to their positions being eliminated? Back in the 80's, people may recall, there was a big purge of middle managers by industry. (Remember "re-engineering the corporation" and other such consultant-speak?) Much of this ousted dead weight went...you guessed it!...into academia. There is something of a revolving door between academia and industry, perhaps more at the bureaucratic/administrative levels than among faculty ranks. Maybe Bain & Co. can find that door, but it is no doubt being obfuscated behind a lot of faux ivy.
Comments
The study is out, with no benchmarking visible.
The study has been released: see http://universityrelations.unc.edu/budget/. It is an interesting read (or video view, for a good summary by Holden Thorpe). They appear to have blown off doing benchmarking to other institutions. That would have been very difficult, but still it might help put some things in perspective to have some ideas as to how other institutions tackle some of the issues.