Value creation for stakeholders in higher education management

DSpace Repository

Show simple item record Stankevičienė, Jelena Vaiciukevičiūtė, Agnė
dc.contributor.other Ekonomická fakulta cs 2016-03-09 2016-03-09
dc.identifier.issn 12123609
dc.description.abstract The article deals with value creation measurement issue in public Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and discuss the linkage between selected Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and new multi-criteria Factor Relationship (FARE) method capability to present accurate results when one of the Lithuanian universities is chosen. In order to enhance the precision of the results, the specific stakeholder group according to their power and willingness to cooperate was used as the basis for selected KPIs. Based on the stakeholders’ distribution the employees from the group with the highest power and cooperation level were chosen as a target group. The selection process was diverted to the criteria groups of efficiency and internationality regarding to value creation process when public university is considered as a beneficiary of value created. The employees of the university were compared against 6 criteria, 4 of which characterize specific performance of various types of employees based on internationality aspect which was considered as important component in overall performance, 1 refer to financial performance activities and another 1 respond to resource contribution towards internationality in university as a whole. The minimum amount of initial data of the relationship between the chosen criteria group was taken from experts and used as the basis for analytical evaluation of other criteria groups’ relationship. Based on the new Factor Relationship (FARE) multi-criteria evaluation method, results concerning importance of each criterion were measured. The findings showed which KPIs group plays the highest role in value creation process of selected Lithuanian university. The results showed that the most important criteria groups were professors’ internationality as well as Service and Administration Resources Environment. These two components had the highest importance weights compared with other criteria groups. en
dc.format text
dc.format.extent 17-32 s. cs
dc.language.iso en
dc.publisher Technická Univerzita v Liberci cs
dc.publisher Technical university of Liberec, Czech Republic en
dc.relation.ispartof Ekonomie a Management cs
dc.relation.ispartof Economics and Management en
dc.relation.isbasedon Alves, H., Mainardes, E.W., & Raposo, M. (2010). A relationship approach to higher education institution stakeholder management. Tertiary Education and Management, 16(3), 159-181. doi:10.1080/13583883.2010.497314.
dc.relation.isbasedon Bjorkquist, C. (2008). Continuity and change in stakeholder influence: reflections on elaboration of stakeholder regimes. Reflecting Education, 4(2), 24-38.
dc.relation.isbasedon Brandenburg, U., & Federkeil, G. (2007). How to Measure Internationality and Internationalisation of Higher Education Institutions! Indicators and Key Figures (Working Paper No. 92). Gütersloh: Centre for Higher Education Development [CHE]. Retrieved from:
dc.relation.isbasedon Borwick, J. (2013, September 19). Mapping the system of US higher education. HEIT Management. Retrieved November 25, 2013, from
dc.relation.isbasedon CUC in collaboration with J M Consulting Ltd. (2006). CUC Report on the Monitoring of Institutional Performance and the Use of Key Performance Indicators. Sheffield: The University of Sheffield.
dc.relation.isbasedon Dorri, M., Yarmohammadian, M.H., & Nadi, M.A. (2012). A Review on Value Chain in Higher Education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3842-3846. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.157.
dc.relation.isbasedon Financial Times LEXICON. (2011). Definition of stakeholder theory. In Financial Times LEXICON. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from
dc.relation.isbasedon Ginevičius, R. (2011). A new determining method for the criteria weights in multicriteria evaluation. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 10(6), 1067-1095. doi:10.1142/S0219622011004713.
dc.relation.isbasedon Ginevicius, R., Podvezko, V. (2008b). A feasibility study of multicriteria methods’ application to quantitative evaluation of social phenomena. Business: theory and practice, 9(2), 81-87. doi:10.3846/1648-0627.2008.9.81-87.
dc.relation.isbasedon Ginevičius, R. (2006a) A comparative analysis of multicriteria evaluation methods AHP and FARE used to determine the criteria weights. In 4th International Scientific Conference BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT (pp. 16-18). Vilnius: Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
dc.relation.isbasedon Ginevičius, R. (2006b). Multicriteria Evaluation of the Criteria Weights Based on their Interrelationship. Business: theory and practice, 7(1), 3-13. doi:10.3846/btp.2006.01.
dc.relation.isbasedon Goldsworthy, J. (2008). Research Grants mania. Australian Universities Review, 50(2), 17-24.
dc.relation.isbasedon Ipsos MORI. (2009). Understanding your stakeholders. A best practice guide for the public sector. London: Ipsos MORI, Social Research Institute. Retrieved from
dc.relation.isbasedon Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring corporate strategy: text and cases. Harlow: Pearson Education.
dc.relation.isbasedon Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, Interdependencies and Reaserch Agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303-324. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9128-2.
dc.relation.isbasedon Kendall, M.G. (1970). Rank correlation methods. London: Charles griffin.
dc.relation.isbasedon Maric, I. (2013). Stakeholder Analysis of Higher Education Institutions. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 11(2), 217-226. doi:10.7906/indecs.11.2.4.
dc.relation.isbasedon Mainardes, E., Alves, H., Raposo, M. (2011). Identifying Stakeholders in a Portuguese university: a case study. Revista de educación, 362. 429-457. doi:10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2012-362-167.
dc.relation.isbasedon McClung, G.W., Werner, M.W. (2008). A Market/Value Based Approach to Satisfy Stakeholders of Higher Education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 18(1), 102-123. doi:10.1080/08841240802100345.
dc.relation.isbasedon Ong, M.Y., Muniandy, B. et al. (2013). User Acceptance of Key Performance Indicators Management Systems in a Higher Education Institution in Malaysia: A Pilot Study. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(1), 22-31.
dc.relation.isbasedon Pathak, V., & Pathak, K. (2010). Reconfiguring the higher education value chain. Management in Education, 24(4), 167-171. doi:10.1177/0892020610376791.
dc.relation.isbasedon Pecht, J. (2008). Managing Limited Resources in Higher Education (Quality Endeavors Issue No. 107). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from
dc.relation.isbasedon Robbins, S., Bergman, R., & Stagg, I. (2008). Management. Pearson Education Australia.
dc.relation.isbasedon Saaty, T. (1993). Decision-Making. Analytic Hierarchy Process.
dc.relation.isbasedon Savage, G.T. et al. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing and managing stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61-75. doi:10.5465/AME.1991.4274682.
dc.relation.isbasedon Suryadi, K. (2007). Framework of Measuring Key Performance Indicators for Decision Support in Higher Education Institution. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 3(12), 1689-1695.
dc.relation.isbasedon Thornton, R. (2004). How Does a University Create Value? In ‘Reinventing the University’, Conference on Higher Education.Grahamstown, South Africa: Rhodes University.
dc.relation.isbasedon Tomosho, R. (2006, Oct 25). As tuition soars, federal aid to college students falls. The Wall Street Journal, pp. B1-B2.
dc.relation.isbasedon Turner, F.M. (1996). The idea of a university, John Henry Newman. NY: Vail-Ballou Press.
dc.relation.isbasedon Vincent-Lancrin, S., & Pfotenhauer, S. (2012). Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border Higher Education: Where do we stand? (Education Working Paper Series). Paris: OECD. doi:10.1787/5k9fd0kz0j6b-en.
dc.relation.isbasedon Webber, G. (2003). Funding in UK universities: living at the edge. Perspectives: Policy & Practice in Higher Education, 7(4), 93-97. doi:10.1080/1360310032000129441.
dc.relation.isbasedon Wit, H. de (2009). Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe and its Assessment Trends and Issues. Den Haag: Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie [NVAO]. Retrieved from: .
dc.rights CC BY-NC
dc.subject small and medium-sized enterprises en
dc.subject project management en
dc.subject large enterprises en
dc.subject entrepreneurship en
dc.subject comparative studies en
dc.subject.classification G34
dc.subject.classification M12
dc.title Value creation for stakeholders in higher education management en
dc.type Article en 2016-03-09
dc.publisher.abbreviation TUL
dc.relation.isrefereed true
dc.identifier.doi 10.15240/tul/001/2016-1-002
dc.identifier.eissn 2336-5604
local.relation.volume 19
local.relation.issue 1
local.relation.abbreviation E&M en
local.relation.abbreviation E+M cs
local.faculty Faculty of Economics
local.citation.spage 17
local.citation.epage 32
local.access open
local.fulltext yes

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace

Advanced Search


My Account