Performance management at Ukrainian university: A case of the KPIs use

  • Received November 19, 2020;
    Accepted January 25, 2021;
    Published February 1, 2021
  • Author(s)
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(1).2021.07
  • Article Info
    Volume 19 2021, Issue #1, pp. 78-89
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    5 articles
  • 1024 Views
  • 430 Downloads

Creative Commons License
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.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • 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
    • Conceptualization
      Larysa Shaulska, Tetyana Nagornyak
    • Formal Analysis
      Larysa Shaulska, Oleksandra Laktionova, Hanna Sereda
    • Investigation
      Larysa Shaulska, Oleksandra Laktionova, Hanna Sereda
    • Methodology
      Larysa Shaulska, Oleksandra Laktionova, Tetyana Nagornyak, Hanna Sereda
    • Project administration
      Larysa Shaulska, Tetyana Nagornyak
    • Visualization
      Larysa Shaulska, Oleksandra Laktionova, Hanna Sereda
    • Writing – original draft
      Larysa Shaulska, Oleksandra Laktionova, Tetyana Nagornyak, Hanna Sereda
    • Writing – review & editing
      Larysa Shaulska, Oleksandra Laktionova, Hanna Sereda
    • Supervision
      Tetyana Nagornyak
    • Validation
      Tetyana Nagornyak