ادراک ذی‌نفعان کلیدی از میزان انطباق دانشگاه با مؤلفه‌های آموزش عالی ناب

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیات علمی دانشگاه تهران

2 گروه مدیریت و برنامه ریزی آموزشی، دانشکده روان شناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

3 دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد رشته مدیریت آموزشی

4 دانشآموخته کارشناسی ارشد مدیریت آموزشی دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر باهدف بررسی دیدگاه ذی‌نفعان کلیدی از میزان انطباق دانشگاه با مؤلفه‌های آموزش عالی ناب در دانشگاه تهران است. پژوهش حاضر ازنظر هدف، کاربردی و از منظر گردآوری داده‌ها، کمی از نوع توصیفی-تحلیلی است. در بخش اول با استفاده از رویکرد نظام‌مند و روش تحقیق مطالعه اسنادی، پژوهش‌های مرتبط در حوزه آموزش عالی ناب (در سطح بین‌المللی) موردبررسی و تعداد 34 مؤلفه شناسایی شد، سپس بامطالعه و تلفیق الگوهای موجود در زمینه مؤلفه‌های مرتبط و انتخاب مؤلفه‌هایی که بیشتر پژوهشگران به آن‌ها اشاره داشته‌اند؛ 7 مؤلفه که دارای بیشترین فراوانی بودند، انتخاب و سپس بر اساس آن ابزار گردآوری داده‌ها ساخته شد. روایی پرسش‌نامه با استفاده ازنظر صاحب‌نظران متخصص در این حوزه و روایی سازه و همسانی درونی آن نیز با استفاده از آلفای کرونباخ (6/95%) محاسبه و مورد تأیید قرار گرفت. جامعه آماری پژوهش شامل کلیه اعضای هیئت‌علمی، کارشناسان و دانشجویان پردیس علوم اجتماعی - رفتاری دانشگاه تهران است که از میان آن‌ها تعداد 183 نفر اعضای هیئت‌علمی، 185 نفر کارشناس و 213 نفر دانشجو به شیوه نمونه‌گیری تصادفی انتخاب شدند. نتایج تجزیه‌وتحلیل داده‌ها نشان می‌دهد؛ ۱) مهم‌ترین مؤلفه‌های آموزش عالی ناب عبارت‌اند از؛ فرایندهای ناب، رهبری ناب، فرهنگ ناب، توسعه و توانمندسازی کارکنان، راهبرد و چشم‌انداز ناب، مدیریت منابع و امکانات و تمرکز بر ذی‌نفعان کلیدی. 2) ادراک ذی‌نفعان کلیدی از میزان انطباق پردیس علوم اجتماعی و رفتاری دانشگاه تهران با مؤلفه‌های آموزش عالی ناب (هر 7 مؤلفه)، در هر سه گروه از ذی نفعان پایین‌تر از میانگین نظری است. 3) ازنظر ذی‌نفعان کلیدی به ترتیب فرایندهای ناب، راهبرد و چشم‌انداز ناب، رهبری ناب، فرهنگ ناب، تمرکز بر ذینفعان، توسعه و توانمندسازی کارکنان و درنهایت مدیریت منابع و امکانات دارای اهمیت است.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Key stakeholders' perceptions toward the compliance with the lean higher education components

نویسندگان [English]

  • Fatemeh Narenji thani 1
  • Javad Pourkarimi 2
  • Fatemeh Dehghani 3
  • Samane Hejazi 4
1 Tehran university
2 Educational Management and Planning Department, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 MA graduate
4 MA Graduate
چکیده [English]

Aim and Introduction: In recent decades, quality improvement approaches in higher education institutions have facilitated and continuously improved processes. Nevertheless, it has failed to meet the expectations of key stakeholders and academic suppliers in practice. However, some quality approaches, such as lean thinking, have a different view of continuous process improvement and have tried to pursue and resolve organizational issues. Therefore, applying the lean approach at the University has significantly reduced costs, waste, and increased satisfaction. On the other hand, the University faces some challenges such as; not doing the right actions at the right time, changes in the needs and expectations of participants, and rising university costs. The core of lean thinking is meeting or exceeding stakeholder expectations, eliminating waste, and creating a value chain across all academic processes. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions of non-academic staff, teachers and students on the degree of compliance of the lean higher education components.
 Methodology: This research is practical in terms of subject, and also collecting data is quantitative (descriptive-scaling method). In the first part, using a systematic approach and research method of documentary study, 24 related research about lean higher education and  university examined. Then after studying and analyzing them,  34 components identified. Formerly, without basing a particular theory, by studying and combining the existing models in this field on the one hand and selecting the components that most researchers have mentioned. On the other hand, seven components were chosen and developed based on a research tool (including 35 items). Lean higher education experts confirmed the questionnaire's validity, and structural validity was also used on the other hand. Its internal consistency was calculated from the Cronbach alpha value of 94%. The statistical population of the study includes; The total number of faculty members (350 people), experts (360 people), and students (7062 people) of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Campus of the University of Tehran in the academic year 2020-2021. The statistical population determined the statistical sample size using Cochran's random sampling method and sampling formula, 183 faculty, 185 non-academic staff, and 380 students. The results were analyzed by the SPSS and Lisrel software and the independent t-test, the confirmatory factor analysis, and the Friedman test. Thus, by creating an online questionnaire and providing a link to three relevant groups, 73 people from 183 faculties, 121 out of 185 experts, and 213 out of 360 students answered the questionnaires thoroughly(The researchers discarded incomplete questionnaires).
Findings: The results show that  the most critical components of lean higher education are; Lean processes, leadership, culture, staff development, strategy, vision, resource management, and focus on key stakeholders. In this regard, the results demonstrate that critical stakeholders' perception of the degree of adaptation of the University about the components of lean higher education (all seven components) are lower than average. Finally, the results indicated that the essential components from stakeholders' view were Lean processes, Lean strategy and vision, Lean leadership, Lean culture, stakeholder focus, people development and empowerment, and resource and facility management.
Discussion and Conclusion: Based on several critical factors of research’model that determine the success of implementing the concept of lean in the University of Tehran, one of which is leadership. Academic leadership must support all staff (from experts to senior managers) at all university levels, welcome the expression of ideas, and provide the necessary resources for its cultivation. On the other hand, it has the necessary power and influence to motivate people to participate in quality improvement processes, take risks, and learn from mistakes. To establish lean higher education, staff at all levels (from senior managers to experts) accept that higher education has various stakeholders. However, they keep asking themselves, how can we happier the stakeholders? This requires stakeholder ideas and feedback to monitor quality and improve academic processes.
 conversely, the key decision-makers and planners of the university Emphasize the principle of continuous improvement, waste reduction, and increased stakeholder satisfaction in all activities related to the planning, budgeting, evaluation processes, etc. Successful implementation of Lean Higher Education requires codified implementation mechanisms to empower human capital. On the other hand, faculty and other staff should feel proud to be part of the University and care about its success. Therefore, it is necessary to define each personal responsibility to support the unit/department and the University in achieving the objectives of the Lean approach. Based on the present study results, it is suggested that senior managers should try to improve the university climate by designing mechanisms and activities to motivate the staff and maintain their sense of loyalty and organizational commitment. In addition, risk-taking needs to be strengthened due to a changing and improving organizational climate.
In contrast, it is suggested that by designing and launching the suggestion system, the ideas and feedback from key stakeholders be used to provide quality control and continuous improvement of university processes and give them feedback. Furthermore, the University's vision, mission, strategies, and goals should be designed to implement the lean-approach. In this regard, the organizational values should be defined based on continuous improvement and respect for stakeholders. In brief, the requirements for implementing the lean approach are the readiness to establish it. Hence, before designing and implementing continuous improvement programs, universities should pay attention to the critical factors of the success of the lean approach, and even before in their financial, material and human resources in the organization. Additionally, continuous quality improvement seeks input from key stakeholders on the University's level of readiness and compliance with the lean approach components. So the successful implementation of lean programs requires the full attention of academic leaders so that the organization can continue to grow and be able to build a sustainable competitive advantage.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Lean higher education, University of Tehran
  • Social-Behavioral Sciences Campus, key stakeholders
  1. Akmal, A., Foote, J., Podgorodnichenko, N., Greatbanks, R., & Gauld, R. (2020). Understanding resistance in lean implementation in healthcare environments: an institutional logics perspective. Production Planning & Control, 1-15.
  2. AlBalushi, , Sohal, A.S., Singh, P.J., AlHajri, A., AlFarsi, Y.M., & Al Abri, R.(2014). Readiness factors for lean implementation in healthcare settings a literature review, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 28(2), 135-153.
  3. Amaro, P., Alves, A. C., & Sousa, R. M. (2020). lean thinking: from the shop floor to an organizational culture. In IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems (pp. 406-414). Springer, Cham.
  4. Anthony, S., & Antony, J. (2017). Lean Six Sigma in Academic Institutions—UK vs. Rest of the World.‌
  5. Antony, J. (2014). Readiness factors for the Lean Six Sigma journey in the higher education sector. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(2), 257-264.
  6. Antony, J., Douglas, J., & Douglas, A. (2015). Waste identification and elimination in HEIs: the role of Lean thinking. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.
  7. Antony, J., Ghadge, A., Ashby, S. A., & Cudney, E. A. (2018). Lean six sigma journey in a UK higher education institute: a case study. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.
  8. Arasteh, H. (2001). Management in universities affiliated to the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, Challenges and shortcomings, Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 21, 69-41.
  9. Azim Khairi, M., & Rahman, M. A. (2018). Implementing lean in Malaysian universities: Lean awareness level in an engineering faculty of a local university. MS&E, 290(1), 012027.
  10. Balzer, W. K. (2020). Lean higher education: Increasing the value and performance of university processes. CRC Press.
  11. Bumjaid, S. E., & Malik, H. A. M. (2019). The effect of implementing of six sigma approach in improving the quality of higher education institutions in Bahrain. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research, 9.
  12. Cardinaels, E., & Van Veen-Dirks, P. M. (2010). Financial versus non-financial information: The impact of information organization and presentation in a Balanced Scorecard. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(6), 565.
  13. Comm, C. L., & Mathaisel, D. F. (2005). An exploratory study of best lean sustainability practices in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(3), 227-240.‌
  14. Cook, Y. J. (2020). Motivation in the Nonprofit Sector: How does Public Service Motivation, Job Satisfaction, and Level of Commitment Explain Executive Directors' and Full-Time Employees' Motivation to Achieve the Mission of the Organization? (Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University).
  15. Cox, D., Cleak, H., Bhathal, A., & Brophy, L. (2020). Theoretical frameworks in social work education: a scoping review. Social Work Education, 1-26.
  16. Cudney, E. A., Venuthurumilli, S. S. J., Materla, T., & Antony, J. (2020). Systematic review of lean and six sigma approaches in higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 31(3-4), 231-244
  17. Daggett, W. R., & McNulty, R. J. (2005). Best practices of high performing high schools [Electronic version]. Leadership, 34(4), 12-15
  18. Dennis, (2002). Lean production simplified: a plain language guide to the world's most powerful production system, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
  19. Dragomir, C., & Surugiu, F. (2013). Implementing lean in a higher education university. Constanta Maritime University: Constanta, Romania, XIII, 18, 279-282.‌
  20. Emiliani, M.L. (2015). Engaging faculty in lean teaching. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 6(1).
  21. Ghanem, M., Albanna R., Hage, R., & Hamzeh F. (2019). Comparing lean management principles and evolutionary design in nature, In: Proc. 27th Annual Conference of the International. Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Pasquire C. and Hamzeh F.R. (ed.), Dublin, Ireland, 573-582.
  22. Gong, Y., & Blijleven, V. (2017). The role of Lean principles in supporting knowledge management IT outsourcing relationships. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 15(4), 533-541.‌
  23. Gupta, S. K., Antony, J., Lacher, F., & Douglas, J. (2018). Lean six sigma for reducing student dropouts in higher education–an exploratory study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 1-16.‌
  24. Haj Khozeymh, M., Abili, K., & Pourkarime, J. (2020). Presenting a model for professional development departments’ heads in universities and institutes of higher education based on a lean approach. Journal of Educational Scinces, 27(1), 221-240
  25. Hess, J. D., & Benjamin, B. A. (2015). Applying lean six sigma within the university: opportunities for process improvement and cultural change. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma.
  26. Hines, P., & Lethbridge, S. (2008). New development: creating a lean university. Public Money and Management, 28(1), 53-56.‌
  27. Höfer, S., & Naeve, J. (2017). The application of Lean Management in higher education. International Journal of Contemporary Management, 16(4), 63-80.
  28. Jasti, N. V. K., Kota, S., & Kale, S. R. (2020). Development of a framework for lean enterprise. Measuring Business Excellence.
  29. Javanak Liaoli, M. (2017). Designing a professional development model for medical education managers of public medical universities in Tehran (with emphasis on department heads). PhD Thesis, University of Tehran, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology
  30. Kazancoglu, Y., & Ozkan-Ozen, Y. D. (2019). Lean in higher education: A proposed model for lean transformation in a business school with MCDM application. Quality Assurance in Education, 27(1), 82-102.
  31. Kruger, D. (2016). Lean utilization for streamlining processes in the higher education sector in South Africa. In 2016 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) (pp. 1740-1750). IEEE.
  32. Lasrado, F. (2020). Let's get everyone involved! The effects of transformational leadership and organizational culture on organizational excellence. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.
  33. LeMahieu, P. G., Nordstrum, L. E., & Greco, P. (2017). Lean for education. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(1), 74-90.
  34. Li, N., Ely, S., & Laux, C. (2017). How to Use Lean Six Sigma to Improve Service Processes in Higher Education: A Case Study.
  35. Lu, J., Laux, C., & Antony, J. (2017). Lean six sigma leadership in higher education institutions. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 66(5), 638-650.‌
  36. Mahalingam, S. (2018). An empirical investigation of implementing Lean Six Sigma in higher education institutions. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.
  37. Mohammadi, A., Igwe, C., Amador-Jimenez, L., & Nasiri, F. (2020). Applying lean construction principles in road maintenance planning and scheduling. International Journal of Construction Management, 1-11.
  38. Moore, M., Nash, M., & Henderson, K. (2007). Becoming a lean university. Best Practices of Southern Association of College and University Business Officers (SACUBO).‌
  39. Mostafavi, Z., & Narenji Thani, F. (2020). Modeling and ranking the affecting factors on lean higher education. Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 10(Issue 4, Winter 2020), 91-116. doi: 10.29252/jimp.10.4.91
  40. Mukhopadhyay, K. (2017). Application of lean six sigma in Indian higher education system. In 2017 International Conference on Innovative Mechanisms for Industry Applications (ICIMIA) (pp. 519-523). IEEE.‌
  41. Nadeau, S. (2017). Lean, six sigma and lean six sigma in higher education: a review of experiences around the world.American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 7(05), 591.
  42. Ng, D., Wong, C. P., & Liu, S. (2020). Future-ready learners: learning, lifework, living, and habits of practices (No. 20). NIE Working Paper Series.
  43. Pearce, A., Pons, D., & Neitzert, T. (2018). Implementing lean—Outcomes from SME case studies. Operations Research Perspectives, 5, 94-104.‌
  44. Pennington adi, A., Igwe, C., Amador-Jimenez, L., & Nasiri, F. (2020). Applying lean construction principles in road maintenance planning and scheduling. International Journal of Construction Management, 1-11.
  45. Petrusch, A., Vaccaro, G. L. R., & Luchese, J. (2019). They teach, but do they apply?. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma.
  46. Radnor, Z., & Bucci, G. (2011). Analysis of lean implementation in UK business schools and universities. Association of Business Schools, London, 74.‌
  47. Salewski, A., & Klein, V. (2009). How to launch lean in a university. Downloaded November, 13, 2016.
  48. Sfakianaki, E., & Kakouris, A. (2019). Lean thinking for education: development and validation of an instrument. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.
  49. Shafiq, M., & Soratana, K. (2020). Lean readiness assessment model–a tool for Humanitarian Organizations' social and economic sustainability. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management.
  50. Shirzad, Z., Rajaieepour, S., & Mahram, B. (2020). Analysis of globalization in the higher education system of Iran. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 11(44), 149-166.
  51. Shokri, N., Salavati, A., & Hasani, R. (2019). Designing a model for strategic indicators of quality in applied science education centers. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 10(39), 231-250.
  52. Sunder M, V., & Antony, J. (2018). A conceptual Lean Six Sigma framework for quality excellence in higher education institutions. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 35(4), 857-874.‌
  53. Sunder M, V., & Mahalingam, S. (2018). An empirical investigation of implementing Lean Six Sigma in higher education institutions. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 35(10), 2157-2180.
  54. Sutin, S. E. (2018). Reforming higher education from within: Lessons learned from other mature sectors of the economy. International Journal of Educational Development, 58, 18-25.‌
  55. Thomas, A., Antony, J., Francis, M., & Fisher, R. (2015). A comparative study of Lean implementation in higher and further education institutions in the UK. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 32(9), 982-996.‌
  56. Van Dun, D. H., Hicks, J. N., & Wilderom, C. P. (2017).Values and behaviors of effective lean managers: Mixed-methods exploratory research. European management journal, 35(2), 174-186.
  57. Vukadinovic, S., Djapan, M., & Macuzic, I. (2017). Education For Lean & Lean For Education: A Literature Review. International Journal for Quality Research, 11(1).‌
  58. Waterbury, T. (2015). Learning from the pioneers: A multiple-case analysis of implementing Lean in higher education. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 32(9), 934-950.
  59. Yonnesi, R., Fekri, R., Babaeianpour, M. (2016). Investigation the Influence of Lean on Information Technology Productivity in the Iranian banking Industry. The Journal of Productivity Management, 10(3(38)), 91-116.
  60. Ziskovsky, B., Ziskovsky, J. (2007). Doing more with less – going lean in education. Shoreview, MN: Lean Education Enterprises, Inc.