ارزیابی پویای عملکرد ‌ شبیه‌سازی کارت امتیازی متوازن مراکز آموزش عالی

نوع مقاله : مستخرج از پایان نامه

نویسندگان

1 هیات علمی گروه مدیریت صنعتی دانشگاه هرمزگان

2 دانشگاه هرمزگان

3 استادیار،گروه مدیریت ،دانشگاه هرمزگان

چکیده

هدف پژوهش توسعه‌ مدلی در قالب کارت امتیازی متوازن و پویایی­شناسی سیستم در جهت ارزیابی عملکرد  دانشگاه هرمزگان به شکل کارا و اثربخش، جهت شناسایی نقاط قوت و ضعف و بهبود عملکرد دانشگاه جهت دستیابی به اهداف استراتژیک است. با استفاده از رویکرد پویایی شناسی سیستم پس از بررسی مبانی نظری و نظرات خبرگان دانشگاه، متغیرهای کلیدی در حوزه ارزیابی عملکرد دانشگاه­ها شناسایی و روابط علت و معلولی میان این متغیرها ترسیم شد. سپس روابط ریاضی میان این متغیرها بر اساس روابط موجود در پیشینه تعیین و بر این اساس سیستم مورد مطالعه در دانشگاه هرمزگان در بازه زمانی 1390 تا 1406 شبیه­سازی شد. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که شاخص‌های کیفیت پژوهش، جایگاه در رتبه‌بندی، توان رقابتی و کیفیت خدمات در خلال سال­های 1390 تا 1397 روند صعودی با شیب متوسط داشته‌اند که انتظار می‌رود تا سال 1406 این روند با شیب افزایشی ادامه داشته باشد. شاخص رضایت دانشجو از بعد مشتری در خلال سال­های 1390 تا 1394 روند نزولی داشته است سپس در خلال سال­های 1394تا 1397 این شاخص با شیب متوسط افزایش یافته است که انتظار می‌رود تا سال 1406 این روند با شیب متوسط ادامه داشته باشد. در نهایت شاخص‌های «افزایش فرصت مطالعاتی برای اساتید» ، «افزایش دوره‌های آموزشی برای دانشجویان» و «افزایش تعداد دانشجویان اعزامی به مجامع علمی» از بعد رشد و یادگیری، «افزایش بودجه برای تسهیلات آموزشی، رفاهی و پژوهشی» از بعد مالی و «افزایش تعداد هیئت علمی جذب شده»از بعد فرآیندهای داخلی کارت امتیازی متوازن به­منزله سیاست‌های بهبود معرفی شدند. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Dynamic performance evaluation by balanced scorecard simulation for high education centers

نویسندگان [English]

  • mohammad ghafournia 1
  • sharifeh ghavidel janbeh saraiee 2
  • mohammad reza behboudi 3
2 university of hormozgan
3 university of hormozgan
چکیده [English]

Given the importance of the subject matter scorecard model and dynamic systems to evaluate University of Hormozgan performance in an efficient and effective way, to identify the strengths and weaknesses and improvement of university performance in achieving the university's strategic goals.
Method: This study uses system dynamics approach. First, after reviewing the theoretical literature and the views of the university experts, key variables were identified in the field of university performance evaluation and causal relationships between these variables were drawn up. Then, the mathematical relations between these variables were determined based on the existing relationships in the background and, accordingly, the system was simulated in Hormozgan University during the period from 1390 to 1406
Findings: Findings show that research quality indices, including “the university rank in the University Rankings”, “competitive ability” and “service quality” have had a moderate upward trend between 2011 and 1977, which is expected to continue upward by 1406. "Student Satisfaction" Index of the customer dimension of Balanced Scorecard has been declined from 2011 to 2015. Then, during the years 1394 to 1397 the index has increased with an average slope which is expected to continue until 1406 with an average slope of this trend.
Conclusion: Finally the indicators of “increasing sabbatical leaves for academic staff members”, and “increasing training courses for students”, and “increasing number of students who attend to scientific communities and conferences, from the learning and growth dimension, “increasing funding for educational, welfare and research facilities” from the financial dimension, and the “increasing number of recruited faculty members”  from the internal processes dimension of the Balanced Scorecard have been introduced as improvement policies for promotion of the university performance.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • educational
  • Welfare and research facilities
  • Training Courses
  • Recruited faculty
  1. Alani, F. S., Khan, M.F.R., & Manuel, D.F. (2018). University performance evaluation and strategic mapping using balanced scorecard (BSC) Case study–Sohar University, Oman. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(4), 689-700
  2. ‏ Afshar Kazemi, M.A., & Panahi, F. (2014). Evaluate a balanced scorecard model using balanced scorecard simulation. Journal of Management Accounting Research, Seventh year, (22), 1-19
  3. Behrozi, M., & Samimi, S. (2016). The role of balanced scorecard in evaluating the performance of managers. Scientific Research Quarterly New Approach in Educational Management,(26), 95-111. (In Persian)
  4. Bentes, A.V., Carneiro, J., Da Silva, J.F., & Kimura, H. (2012). Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP. Journal of business research, 65(12), 1790-1799.‏
  5. Bernardin, H.J., & Beatty, R.W. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work (p. 212). Boston: Kent Publishing Company.
  6. Chen, F.H., Hsu, T.S., & Tzeng, G.H. (2011). A balanced scorecard approach to establish a performance evaluation and relationship model for hot spring hotels based on a hybrid MCDM model combining DEMATEL and ANP. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 908-932.
  7. Chen, J.K., & Chen, I.S. (2010). A Pro-performance appraisal system for the university. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(3), 2108-2116.‏
  8. Chen, L., & Fong, P.S. (2015). Evaluation of knowledge management performance: An organic approach. Information & Management, 52(4), 431-453.‏
  9. Chen, T.Y., Chen, C.B., & Peng, S.Y. (2008). Firm operation performance analysis using data envelopment analysis and balanced scorecard: A case study of a credit cooperative bank. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57(7), 523-539.‏
  10. Enayati, Gh., Taheri Lari, M., Jiani Rezaei, H., & Wajdi, H. (2012). Evaluation of performance of Islamic Azad University, Mashhad Branch based on balanced scorecard. Journal of Management Research tomorrow. (30), In Persian
  11. Farid, D., Nejati, M., & Mirfakhredini, H. (2008). Balanced scorecard application in universities and higher education institutes: implementation guide in an Iranian context. Universitatii Bucuresti. Analele. Seria Stiinte Economice Si Administrative, 2, 29.‏
  12. Fekri, R., Alamshahi, A., & Ahmadi, A. (2013). Localization of the indicators of Payame Noor University's performance evaluation system. based on the balanced scorecard model, Sixth year, 20. (In Persian)
  13. Faiz, D., & Sharifi, N. (2009). Designing a conceptual model for evaluating the performance of the Islamic University by using a balanced scorecard model. Culture at the Islamic University, Thirteenth year, 42. (In Persian)
  14. Ghasemi, A.R., & Ahmadi, S. H. (2013). Evaluate higher education institutions with the help of a balanced scorecard and multi-criteria group decision-making methods. Journal of Medical Education Development.(10), 38-49. (In Persian)
  15. Ghashghayi, F. (2016). Evaluating the effectiveness of Al-Zahra University performance using balanced evaluation technique. Journal of Accounting and Management Knowledge and Research, Fifth year, 20. (In Persian)
  16. Iranzadeh, S., Barghi, A. (2009). Evaluate the organization's performance with a balanced scorecard method. Journal of Industrial Management, Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj Branch, 4. (In Persian)
  17. Ivancevich, J. M., Matteson, M. T., & Konopaske, R. (1990). Organizational behavior and management.
  18. Jafari Eskandari, M., & Keshvari, M. (2015). Application of dynamic integrated scorecard model and data envelopment analysis in order to evaluate the performance of Lorestan Center. Journal of Public Organization Management, 12, 76-89. (In Persian)
  19. Kanji, G.K., & E Sá, P.M. (2002). Kanji's business scorecard. Total Quality Management, 13(1), 13-27.‏
  20. Kapetaniou, C., & Lee, S.H. (2017). A framework for assessing the performance of universities: The case of Cyprus. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 169-180.
  21. Kaplan, & Norton.(2004). Strategic-oriented organization, Translated by Parviz Bakhtiari.
  22. Kaplan, R.S. (1994). Devising a balanced scorecard matched to business strategy. Planning Review, 22(5), 15-48.‏
  23. Kaplan, R. (2009). Performance appraisal: Professional solutions to daily challenges. Translated by Massoud Soltani. Harvard Business Review Publishing. (In Persian)
  24. Kettunen, J. (2006). Strategic planning of regional development in higher education. Baltic Journal of Management, 1(3), 259-269.‏
  25. Khatami Firoozabadi, A., & Rabbani, J. (2015). Using a combined SD and SSM approach to unstructured social issues. 15, 55-76. (In Persian)
  26. Khatami, M. (2016). Review and ranking of performance indicators of Bank Melli performance using balanced scorecard model and fuzzy AHP with emphasis on financial indicators. Monthly Management and Accounting Research Monthly, 14. (In Persian)
  27. Lee, A. H., Chen, W. C., & Chang, C. J. (2008). A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert systems with applications, 34(1), 96-107.‏
  28. Mojtaba, T., & Farzad, A. (2008). Evaluate performance with a balanced scorecard. Journal of Management Research. 12(20). (In Persian)
  29. Musa Khani, M., Haghkhah, D., & Hassanzadeh, R. (2009). Provide a conceptual framework for evaluating university performance. Quarterly Journal of Leadership and Educational Management, Islamic Azad University, Garmsar Branch, third year, 20, 145-161. (In Persian)
  30. Pourezat, A. A., & Seyed Rezaei, M. (2007). Evaluate government and government performance. Tehran Printing. (In Persian)
  31. Noor Ali, A., & Valizadeh, N. (2010). System dynamics is a practical approach to management issues. Tehran University of Science and Technology, First Edition. (In Persian)
  32. Sterman, J. (2001). Systems thinking and modelingfor a complex world.‏
  33. Taluli Ashlaqi, A., & Biglery, E. (2010). Provide a dynamic model for simulating a balanced scorecard to access efficient strategies. Management Accounting Journal. 6. (In Persian)
  34. Tseng, M.L. (2010). Implementation and performance evaluation using the fuzzy network balanced scorecard. Computers & Education, 55(1), 188-201.
  35. Turkmen, S., Attaran, H., & Mir Ahmadi, Z. (2003). Research and technology performance evaluation results. Deputy of Research and Technology, Tehran Press. (In Persian)
  36. Taluei Ashlaqi, A., & Biglery, E. (2010). Provide a dynamic model for simulating a balanced scorecard to access efficient strategies. Management Accounting Journal, third year, 6. (In Persian)
  37. Umashankar, V., & Dutta, K. (2007). Balanced scorecards in managing higher education institutions: an Indian perspective. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(1), 54-67.‏
  38. Wu, H. Y., Lin, Y. K., & Chang, C. H. (2011). Performance evaluation of extension education centers in universities based on the balanced scorecard. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(1), 37-50.‏
  39. Yarmohammadian, M. H., Shah Talebi, S., Fooladvand, M., & Shah Talebi, B. (2020). Provide a model for evaluating the performance of universities; Studied by Islamic Azad University, Khorasgan Branch. Scientific-Research Quarterly New Approach in Educational Management, Sixth year, 2. (In Persian)
  40. Zin, N.M., Sulaiman, S., Ramli, A., & Nawawi, A. (2013). Performance Measurement and Balanced Scorecard Implementation: Case evidence of a Government-linked Company. Procedia Economics and Finance, 7, 197-204.‏