Value creation for stakeholders in higher education management

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorStankevičienė, Jelena
dc.contributor.authorVaiciukevičiūtė, Agnė
dc.contributor.otherEkonomická fakultacs
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-09
dc.date.available2016-03-09
dc.date.defense2016-03-09
dc.description.abstractThe 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.formattext
dc.format.extent17-32 s.cs
dc.identifier.doi10.15240/tul/001/2016-1-002
dc.identifier.eissn2336-5604
dc.identifier.issn12123609
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.tul.cz/handle/15240/13603
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTechnická Univerzita v Libercics
dc.publisherTechnical university of Liberec, Czech Republicen
dc.publisher.abbreviationTUL
dc.relation.isbasedonAlves, 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.isbasedonBjorkquist, C. (2008). Continuity and change in stakeholder influence: reflections on elaboration of stakeholder regimes. Reflecting Education, 4(2), 24-38.
dc.relation.isbasedonBrandenburg, 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: http://www.che.de/downloads/How_to_measure_internationality_AP_92.pdf.
dc.relation.isbasedonBorwick, J. (2013, September 19). Mapping the system of US higher education. HEIT Management. Retrieved November 25, 2013, from http://www.heitmanagement.com/blog/2013/09/mapping-the-system-of-us-higher-education/.
dc.relation.isbasedonCUC 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.isbasedonDorri, 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.isbasedonFinancial Times LEXICON. (2011). Definition of stakeholder theory. In Financial Times LEXICON. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=stakeholder-theory.
dc.relation.isbasedonGinevičius, 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.isbasedonGinevicius, 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.isbasedonGinevičius, 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.isbasedonGinevičius, 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.isbasedonGoldsworthy, J. (2008). Research Grants mania. Australian Universities Review, 50(2), 17-24.
dc.relation.isbasedonIpsos MORI. (2009). Understanding your stakeholders. A best practice guide for the public sector. London: Ipsos MORI, Social Research Institute. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/sri-understanding-stakeholders-november-2009.pdf.
dc.relation.isbasedonJohnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring corporate strategy: text and cases. Harlow: Pearson Education.
dc.relation.isbasedonJongbloed, 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.isbasedonKendall, M.G. (1970). Rank correlation methods. London: Charles griffin.
dc.relation.isbasedonMaric, 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.isbasedonMainardes, 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.isbasedonMcClung, 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.isbasedonOng, 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.isbasedonPathak, V., & Pathak, K. (2010). Reconfiguring the higher education value chain. Management in Education, 24(4), 167-171. doi:10.1177/0892020610376791.
dc.relation.isbasedonPecht, J. (2008). Managing Limited Resources in Higher Education (Quality Endeavors Issue No. 107). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from http://www.opia.psu.edu/features/Issue107.
dc.relation.isbasedonRobbins, S., Bergman, R., & Stagg, I. (2008). Management. Pearson Education Australia.
dc.relation.isbasedonSaaty, T. (1993). Decision-Making. Analytic Hierarchy Process.
dc.relation.isbasedonSavage, 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.isbasedonSuryadi, 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.isbasedonThornton, R. (2004). How Does a University Create Value? In ‘Reinventing the University’, Conference on Higher Education.Grahamstown, South Africa: Rhodes University.
dc.relation.isbasedonTomosho, R. (2006, Oct 25). As tuition soars, federal aid to college students falls. The Wall Street Journal, pp. B1-B2.
dc.relation.isbasedonTurner, F.M. (1996). The idea of a university, John Henry Newman. NY: Vail-Ballou Press.
dc.relation.isbasedonVincent-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.isbasedonWebber, 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.isbasedonWit, H. de (2009). Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe and its Assessment Trends and Issues. Den Haag: Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie [NVAO]. Retrieved from: .
dc.relation.ispartofEkonomie a Managementcs
dc.relation.ispartofEconomics and Managementen
dc.relation.isrefereedtrue
dc.rightsCC BY-NC
dc.subjectsmall and medium-sized enterprisesen
dc.subjectproject managementen
dc.subjectlarge enterprisesen
dc.subjectentrepreneurshipen
dc.subjectcomparative studiesen
dc.subject.classificationG34
dc.subject.classificationM12
dc.titleValue creation for stakeholders in higher education managementen
dc.typeArticleen
local.accessopen
local.citation.epage32
local.citation.spage17
local.facultyFaculty of Economics
local.fulltextyes
local.relation.abbreviationE&Men
local.relation.abbreviationE+Mcs
local.relation.issue1
local.relation.volume19
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
EM_1_2016_2.pdf
Size:
1.72 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
Collections
Číslo 1