ارزیابی کارآیی گروه های آموزشی دانشگاه از مناظر آموزشی، پژوهشی و کارآفرینانه

نوع مقاله : مدیریت کارآفرینی( مدیریت کسب­‌وکار، فرایندهای کسب­‌وکار، سیاست‌های کارآفرینانه، کارآفرینی سازمانی، اکوسیستم کارآفرینی، فضای کسب­‌وکار، مدل‌های کسب­‌وکار، چرخه حیات کسب و کارها، . . . )

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد مدیریت صنعتی-تحقیق در عملیات، دانشکده علوم اقتصادی و اداری ، دانشگاه مازندران،بابلسر، ایران

2 استادیار، گروه مدیریت، دانشکده علوم اقتصادی و اداری، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران

3 استاد، گروه مدیریت، دانشکده علوم اقتصادی و اداری، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران

چکیده

ماموریت اصلی دانشگاه‌ها و مراکز آموزش عالی آموزش و پژوهش می‌باشد که تاثیر عمده ای بر رشد و توسعه کشور ایفا می‌کنند. دانشگاه‌ها و مراکزآموزش عالی به طور فزاینده ای علاقه‌مند به ارزیابی عملکرد واحد های آموزشی خود، از نظر عملکرد آموزشی و عملکرد پژوهشی هستند، چرا که ارزیابی عملکرد علاوه بر پیچیدگی، نقش بسزایی در ارتقا کیفی دانشگاه دارد. هدف تحقیق حاضر، ارزیابی عملکردآموزشی، پژوهشی و کارآفرینی گروه‌های آموزشی دانشکده علوم اقتصادی و اداری دانشگاه مازندران طی سال های 94-97 می‌باشد که ورودی‌ها و خروجی های موثر از طریق بررسی ادبیات و نظر خبرگان تعین شده و از روش بهترین- بدترین جهت تعیین اوزان ورودی و خروجی‌ها استفاده شده‌است. نتایج حاصل از تحقیق نشان می‌دهد مهمترین بعد در عملکرد دانشگاهی، بعد آموزشی بوده و بعد پژوهشی و کارآفرینی تقریبا اهمیت یکسانی برای عملکرد گروه‌های آموزشی دارند. همچنین با توجه به ماهیت عملکردی دانشگاه در توسعه، نیاز است تمرکز گروه‌های آموزشی در حداکثر کردن خروجی‌ها باشد. متغیر‌های خروجی تعداد پذیرفته شدگان در مقاطع تحصیلات تکمیلی، طرح های پژوهشی مورد تصویب دانشگاه و درآمد حاصل از پروژه های صنعتی به ترتیب در ابعاد آموزشی، پژوهشی و کارآفرینی دارای بشترین اهمیت می‌باشند. نتیجه حاصل از آزمون ویلکاکسون نشان می‌دهد که رتبه های عملکردی هر یک از گروه‌های آموزشی در ابعاد عملکردی مستقل از هم نیست و ارتباط این ابعاد را تاکید می کند. استفاده از روش پیشنهادی در این تحقیق می‌تواند برای ارزیابی عملکردی گروه‌های آموزشی در دانشگاه‌ها برای تعیین ضعف ها و نقاط بهبود موثر باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluating the Efficiency of University Departments from Educational, Research, and Entrepreneurial Perspectives

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sara Majidi 1
  • Hamidreza Fallah Lajimi 2
  • Abdolhamid Safaei Ghadikolaei 3
1 MSc. Student,, Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
3 Professor, , Department of Industrial Management,, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
چکیده [English]

The main mission of universities and higher education centers is education and research that have a major impact on the growth and development of the country. Universities and higher education institutions are increasingly interested in evaluating the performance of their educational units in terms of educational performance and research performance, because performance evaluation, in addition to complexity, plays a major role in improving the quality of the university. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the educational, research and entrepreneurship performance of educational departments of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences in University of Mazandaran during 1394-1397. Best-Worst Method Used to determine the input and output weights. The results show that the most important dimension of academic performance is the educational dimension, and the research and entrepreneurship dimension are almost equally important for the performance of educational departments. Also, given the functional nature of the university in development, there is a need for focus departments to maximize output. The results of the Wilcoxon test show that the performance ratings of each of the training departments are not independent in performance dimensions and emphasize the relevance of these dimensions. Using the proposed method in this study can be effective for evaluating the performance of educational departments in universities to identify weaknesses and improvement points.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Performance evaluation
  • Efficiency
  • University departments
  • Best-Worst Method
  • University of Mazandaran
Abbott, M., & Doucouliagos, C. (2003). The efficiency of Australian
universities: a data envelopment analysis. Economics of Education
review, 22(1), 89-97.
Agasisti, T., & Dal Bianco, A. (2006). Data envelopment analysis to the
Italian university system: theoretical issues and policy implications.
International Journal of Business Performance Management, 8(4), 344-
367.
Agasisti, T., & Dal Bianco, A. (2009). Reforming the university sector:
effects on teaching efficiency—evidence from Italy. Higher education,
57(4), 477.
Agasisti, T., & Johnes, G. (2009). Cost structure, efficiency and
heterogeneity in US higher education: An empirical analysis. Efficiency
and Heterogeneity in US Higher Education: An Empirical Analysis.
Agasisti, T., Catalano, G., Landoni, P., & Verganti, R. (2012). Evaluating
the performance of academic departments: an analysis of research-
related output efficiency. Research Evaluation, 21(1), 2-14.
Ahmadi, H. B., Kusi-Sarpong, S., & Rezaei, J. (2017). Assessing the social
sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 126, 99-106.
Alipour, A., Nasri, F. (2017). Investigation And Analysis Of Educational
Performance Indices Of Imam Khomeini Naval Academy By BSC –
TOPSIS. Journal of Research on Management of Teaching in Marine
Sciences, 4(2), 45-60. [In Persian]
Aviles-Sacoto, S. V., Cook, W. D., Güemes-Castorena, D., Benita, F.,
Ceballos, H., & Zhu, J. (2018). Evaluating the Efficiencies of Academic
Research Groups: A Problem of Shared Outputs.
Avkiran, N. K. (2001). Investigating technical and scale efficiencies of
Australian universities through data envelopment analysis. Socio-
economic planning sciences, 35(1), 57-80.
Aziz, N. A. A., Janor, R. M., & Mahadi, R. (2013). Comparative
departmental efficiency analysis within a university: a DEA approach.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 540-548.
Bai, C., Rezaei, J., & Sarkis, J. (2017). Multicriteria green supplier
segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 64(4),
515-528.
Bankina, I. V., Aleskerov, F. T., Belousova, V. Y., Bonch-Osmolovskaya, A.
A., Petruschenko, V. V., Ogorodniychuk, D., ... & Zinkovsky, K. V. (2012).
University efficiency evaluation with using its reputational component.
Lecture Notes in Management Science, 4, 244-253.
Barra, C., & Zotti, R. (2016). Measuring efficiency in higher education: An
empirical study using a bootstrapped data envelopment
analysis. International Advances in Economic Research, 22(1), 11-33.
Beasley, J. E. (1995). Determining teaching and research efficiencies.
Journal of the operational research society, 46(4), 441-452.
Berbegal-Mirabent, J., García, J. L. S., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. E. (2015).
University–industry partnerships for the provision of R&D
services. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1407-1413.
Bessent, A. M., Bessent, E. W., Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Thorogood,
N. C. (1983). Evaluation of educational program proposals by means of
DEA. Educational Administration Quarterly, 19(2), 82-107.
Chang, T. Y., Chung, P. H., & Hsu, S. S. (2012). Two-stage performance
model for evaluating the managerial efficiency of higher education:
Application by the Taiwanese tourism and leisure department. Journal
of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 11(2), 168-177.
Chitsaz, N., & Azarnivand, A. (2017). Water scarcity management in arid
regions based on an extended multiple criteria technique. Water
Resources Management, 31(1), 233-250.
Cinar, Y. (2016). Research and Teaching Efficiencies of Turkish
Universities with Heterogeneity Considerations: Application of Multi-
Activity DEA and DEA by Sequential Exclusion of Alternatives Methods.
Colbert, A., Levary, R. R., & Shaner, M. C. (2000). Determining the relative
efficiency of MBA programs using DEA. European journal of operational
research, 125(3), 656-669.
De Witte, K., & Rogge, N. (2010). To publish or not to publish? On the
aggregation and drivers of research performance. Scientometrics, 85(3),
657-680.
Fallah Lajimi, H., Jafari Soruni, Z. (2020). Suppliers Evaluation in
Uncertain Conditions by Combining Dempster Shafer and Multi-Criteria
Decision Making Techniques. Journal of Executive Management, 11(22),
115-150. [In Persian]
Flegg, A. T., Allen, D. O., Field, K., & Thurlow, T. W. (2003). Measuring the
efficiency and productivity of British universities: an application of DEA
and the Malmquist approach. University of the West of England,
Department of Economics, series Discussion Papers, 304.
Flégl, M., & Vltavská, K. (2013). Efficiency at Faculties of Economics in
the Czech Public Higher Education Institutions: Two Different
Approaches. International Education Studies, 6(10), 1-12.
Fuentes, R., Fuster, B., & Lillo-Bañuls, A. (2016). A three-stage DEA
model to evaluate learning-teaching technical efficiency: Key
performance indicators and contextual variables. Expert Systems with
Applications, 48, 89-99.
García Aracil, A., López Iñesta, E., & Palomares Montero, D. (2009). An
analysis of the Spanish Public Universities missions in efficiency terms.
Ghomi, H., Rahmani, M., Khakzar, M. (2017). Measuring the Research
Performance of Iranian State University through Utilizing Analytic
Hierarchy Process and Network Data Envelopment Analysis.Military
management, 17(67), 141-167. [In Persian]
Guironnet, J. P., & Peypoch, N. (2018). The geographical efficiency of
education and research: The ranking of US universities. Socio-Economic
Planning Sciences, 62, 44-55.
Gupta, H., & Barua, M. K. (2017). Supplier selection among SMEs on the
basis of their green innovation ability using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 152, 242-258.
Huang, M. H., & Chen, D. Z. (2017). How can academic innovation
performance in university–industry collaboration be improved?.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 210-215.
Johnes, J. (2006). Data envelopment analysis and its application to the
measurement of efficiency in higher education. Economics of education
review, 25(3), 273-288.
Johnes, J., & Li, Y. U. (2008). Measuring the research performance of
Chinese higher education institutions using data envelopment analysis.
China economic review, 19(4), 679-696.
Kao, C., & Hung, H. T. (2008). Efficiency analysis of university
departments: An empirical study. Omega, 36(4), 653-664.
Katharaki, M., & Katharakis, G. (2010). A comparative assessment of
Greek universities’ efficiency using quantitative analysis. International
journal of educational research, 49(4-5), 115-128.
Köksal, G., & Nalçaci, B. (2006). The relative efficiency of departments at
a Turkish engineering college: A data envelopment analysis. Higher
education, 51(2), 173-189.
kolaei darabi, R., Taghvaeeyazdi, M. (2019). Study of the effect of
educational and research dimensions on sustainable development of
universities in order to present a model (Case Study of Mazandaran
Islamic Azad Universities) Scientific Journal Management System, 7(14),
146-171. [In Persian]
Kongar, E. L. I. F., Sobh, T. M., & Baral, M. (2009). Two-Step Data
Envelopment Analysis Approach for Efficient Engineering Enrollment
Management. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(2), 391.
Korhonen, P., Tainio, R., & Wallenius, J. (2001). Value efficiency analysis
of academic research. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(1),
121-132.
Lee, D., Kim, S., & Cha, S. H. (2014). Evaluating the effectiveness of
research centers and institutes in universities: Disciplines and life cycle
stages. KJEP, 119.
Liang, L., Li, Z. Q., Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2011). Data envelopment
analysis efficiency in two-stage networks with feedback. IIE
Transactions, 43(5), 309-322.
Liu, J., & Li, S. (2015). Research on the ranking of university education
based on Grey-TOPSIS-DEA method. International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Learning (iJET), 10(8), 51-54.
McMillan, M. L., & Datta, D. (1998). The relative efficiencies of Canadian
universities: A DEA perspective. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de
Politiques, 485-511.
Mehregan, M. (2008). Few models in evaluating organizational
performance. Tehran: Tehran University School of Management
Publications. [In Persian]
Meng, W., Hu, Z., & Liu, W. (2006). Efficiency evaluation of basic research
in China. Scientometrics, 69(1), 85-101.
Montoneri, B., Lee, C. C., Lin, T. T., & Huang, S. L. (2011). A learning
performance evaluation with benchmarking concept for English writing
courses. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(12), 14542-14549.
Navas, L. P., Montes, F., Abolghasem, S., Salas, R. J., Toloo, M., & Zarama,
R. (2020). Colombian higher education institutions evaluation. Socio-
Economic Planning Sciences, 100801.
Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method.
Omega, 53, 49-57.
Rezaei, J., & Fallah Lajimi, H. (2019). Segmenting supplies and suppliers:
bringing together the purchasing portfolio matrix and the supplier
potential matrix. International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications, 22(4), 419-436.
Rezaei, J., Wang, J., & Tavasszy, L. (2015). Linking supplier development
to supplier segmentation using Best Worst Method. Expert Systems with
Applications, 42(23), 9152-9164.
Salimi, N. (2017). Quality assessment of scientific outputs using the
BWM. Scientometrics, 112(1), 195-213.
Salimi, N., & Rezaei, J. (2018). Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using
best worst method. Evaluation and program planning, 66, 147-155.
Sinuany-Stern, Z., Mehrez, A., & Barboy, A. (1994). Academic
departments efficiency via DEA. Computers & Operations Research,
21(5), 543-556.
Tabarsa, G., Hadizadeh Moghadam, A., Ghahramani, M., Mohebbi, S.
(2014). Designing and Defining the Effective Model of Universities’
Performance Appraisal. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 5(19),
91-115. [In Persian]
Thanassoulis, E., Sotiros, D., Koronakos, G., & Despotis, D. (2018).
Assessing the cost-effectiveness of university academic recruitment and
promotion policies. European Journal of Operational Research, 264(2),
742-755.
Torabi, S. A., Giahi, R., & Sahebjamnia, N. (2016). An enhanced risk
assessment framework for business continuity management systems.
Safety Science, 89, 201-218.
Torkashvand A, Azar A(2006). Assessing the Teaching Researching
Performance With the Help of Data Envelopment Analysis Model:
Teaching Groups of Humanity Sciences Faculty, Tarbiat Modares
University, 10 (1) :1-23. [In Persian]
Tran, C. D. T., & Villano, R. A. (2017). An empirical analysis of the
performance of Vietnamese higher education institutions. Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 41(4), 530-544.
Tyagi, P., Yadav, S. P., & Singh, S. P. (2009). Relative performance of
academic departments using DEA with sensitivity analysis. Evaluation
and Program Planning, 32(2), 168-177.
Warning, S. (2004). Performance differences in German higher
education: Empirical analysis of strategic groups. Review of Industrial
Organization, 24(4), 393-408
Y, M., SH, S., F, M., SH, B. (2015). Providing a Model for evaluating
universities performance (A survey study of Islamic Azad University
Isfahan(Khorasgan)Branch. Journal of New Approaches in Educational
Administration, 6(22), 19-38. [In Persian]
Yang, G. L., Fukuyama, H., & Song, Y. Y. (2018). Measuring the
inefficiency of Chinese research universities based on a two-stage
network DEA model. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 10-30.
Yang, G. L., Yang, J. B., Xu, D. L., & Khoveyni, M. (2017). A three-stage
hybrid approach for weight assignment in MADM. Omega, 71, 93-105.