Performance management at Ukrainian university: A case of the KPIs use
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(1).2021.07
-
Article InfoVolume 19 2021, Issue #1, pp. 78-89
- Cited by
- 1174 Views
-
459 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Implementing performance management systems, including the KPI (Key Performance Indicators) system, at the university level faces many difficulties. The study aims to determine the problems of formation and implementation of the system of KPIs at the HEIs (higher education institutions) level based on the case study. Methodologically the study is based on the analysis of the case of the KPI system implementation at Vasyl’ Stus Donetsk National University (Ukraine) using a 3-year project survey of managers and employees of structural units about self-analysis of deviations and perception of each performance indicator. The essential subjective factor – irrational participants’ behavior – is demonstrated, reflected in their resistance, fear, and lack of acceptance of innovations in assessment processes, which needs to delineate tools for effective KPI system implementation (reduction of its negative influence and growth of the personnel loyalty). The main organizational obstacles that reduce such a measurement system’s efficiency are incomprehensibility, difficulty of evaluation, non-influence or independency of indicators from the efforts of respondents, poor communication, and motivation to achieve them. The analysis results allowed providing the recommendations that could contribute to the formation of reflexive and active management culture in the strategic management system and a culture of productive dialogue through vertically and horizontally management interaction.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)I23, L30, M12
-
References20
-
Tables1
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. KPI of the university by two steps of their implementation (the number of KPIs of each administrative subdivision is indicated in the blocks of stage 1; the number of subdivisions and in parentheses – the number of KPIs are indicated on stage 2)
-
- Table 1. The average rating for the KPI groups connected with accreditation, competitiveness, financial support, and social security
-
- Ballentine, H., & Eckles, J. (2009). Dueling scorecards: How two colleges utilize the popular planning method. Planning for Higher Education, 37(3), 27-35.
- Beard, D. F. (2009). Successful applications of the balanced scorecard in higher education. Journal of Education for Business, 84(5), 275-282.
- Committee of University Chairmen. (2004). A final report to the CUC on: Good practice in six areas of the governance of higher education institutions.
- Fitzgerald, L., Johnson, R. Brignall, T. J., & Sivelstro, R. (1991). Performance Measurement in Service Business. The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, London.
- Ionescu, M. (2012). The balanced scorecard (BSC): Framework, implementation methodology and recommended application. Balanced Scorecard Romania.
- Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2005). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 83(7), 172.
- Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard – measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79.
- Kolot, A., Kozmenko, S., Herasymenko, O., & Štreimikienė, D. (2020). Development of a decent work institute as a social quality imperative: Lessons for Ukraine. Economics and Sociology, 13(2), 70-85.
- Lynch, R. L., & Cross, K. F. (1991). Measure up! The essential guide to measuring business performance. Mandarin. London.
- McAdam, R., & Bailie, B. (2002). Business performance measures and alignment impact on strategy: The role of business improvement models. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 9, 972-996.
- McDevitt, R., Giapponi, C., & Solomon, N. (2008). Strategy revitalization in academe: A balanced scorecard approach. International Journal of Educational Management, 22(1), 32-47.
- Ndoda, G. R., & Sikwila, M. N. (2014). Ubuntu-praxis: Re-modelling the balanced scorecard model at a university, an Afrocentric perspective. Research in Higher Education Journal, 25, 1-27.
- Neely, A. (2005). The evolution of performance measurement research: developments in the last decade and a research agenda for the next. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25(12), 1264-1277.
- Niven, P. R. (2002). Balanced Scorecard Step-by-Step. Maximizing Performance and Maintaining Results. New York: Wiley.
- Rohm, H., Wilsey, D., Perry, G. S., & Montgomery, D. (2013). The institute way: Simplify strategic planning & management with the balanced scorecard (1st ed.). Cary, NC: Institute Press.
- Sereda, H. V. (2018). Dosvid universytetiv v oblasti vprovadzhennia KRI-pokaznykiv dosiahnennia stratehichnykh tsilei [Experience of universities in the field of the implementation of KPI-indicators to achieving strategic goals]. Ekonomika i orhanizatsiia upravlinnia – Economiсs and organization of management, 4, 87-99. (In Ukrainian).
- Sureshchandar, G. S., & Leisten, R. (2005). Holistic scorecard, strategic performance measurement and management in the software industry. Measuring Business Excellence, 9(2), 12-29.
- Taylor, J., & Baines, C. (2012). Performance management in UK universities: Implementing the balanced scorecard. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(2), 111-124.
- Wynder, M., Wellner, K., & Reinhard, K. (2013). Rhetoric or reality? Do accounting education and experience increase weighting on environmental performance in a balanced scorecard? Accounting Education: An International Journal, 22(4), 366-381.
- Yu, M. L., Hamid, S., Ijab, M. T., & Soo, P. H. (2009). The e-balanced scorecard (e-BSC) for measuring academic staff performance excellence. Higher Education, 57, 813-828.