Performance Evaluation of education centre Based on the Balanced Scorecard with using MCDM Technique

سال انتشار: 1394
نوع سند: مقاله کنفرانسی
زبان: انگلیسی
مشاهده: 574

فایل این مقاله در 11 صفحه با فرمت PDF قابل دریافت می باشد

استخراج به نرم افزارهای پژوهشی:

لینک ثابت به این مقاله:

شناسه ملی سند علمی:

AMTM01_040

تاریخ نمایه سازی: 19 اردیبهشت 1395

چکیده مقاله:

This study aims at developing a set of appropriate performance evaluation indices mainly based on balanced scorecard (BSC) for extension educationcenters in universities by utilizing multiple criteria decision making (MCDM). Through literature reviews and experts who have real practicalexperiences in extension education, adequate performance evaluation indices have been selected and then utilizing the analytic network process (ANP), andTOPSIS respectively, further establishes the causality between the four BSC perspectives as well as the relative weights between evaluation indices. Fromthe analysis results, it indicates that ‘‘Learning and growth’’ is the significant influential factor and it would affect the other three perspectives. In addition, it is discovered that ‘‘Internal process’’ perspective as well as ‘‘Customer’’ perspective play important roles in the performance evaluation of educationcenters. The top three key performance indices are Satisfaction of graduates with technology in the university, Average quality of students’ intake (Mean intake CGPA), Satisfaction of graduates with facilities for personal need. The proposed evaluation model could be considered as a reference for education centers to prioritize their improvements

کلیدواژه ها:

Higher education ، Performance evaluation ، Balanced Scorecard (BSC) Analytic network process (ANP) ، TOPSIS

نویسندگان

Neda Jalaliyoon

Malaysia- Japan International Institute of Technology (MJIIT), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)

Nooh Abu Bakar

Malaysia- Japan International Institute of Technology (MJIIT), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)

مراجع و منابع این مقاله:

لیست زیر مراجع و منابع استفاده شده در این مقاله را نمایش می دهد. این مراجع به صورت کاملا ماشینی و بر اساس هوش مصنوعی استخراج شده اند و لذا ممکن است دارای اشکالاتی باشند که به مرور زمان دقت استخراج این محتوا افزایش می یابد. مراجعی که مقالات مربوط به آنها در سیویلیکا نمایه شده و پیدا شده اند، به خود مقاله لینک شده اند :
  • Gill, A. and Lashine, S. (2003). "Business education: a strategic ...
  • Lee, S. H. (2010). "Using fuzzy AHP to develop intellectual ...
  • Neave, G. (1998). "The evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of ...
  • Beamish, N. G. and Armistead, C. G. (2001). "Selected debate ...
  • Neely, A., Gregory, J., and Platts, K. (1995). "Performance Measuremen ...
  • Gleich, _ Motwani, J. and Wald, A. (2008). "Process benchmarking: ...
  • Green, G. I. and Keim, R. T. (1983). " After ...
  • Wu, H.Y. Lin, Y. K. Chang, C.H. (2011). "Performance evaluation ...
  • Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1992). "The balanced ...
  • Abran, A. and Buglione, L. (2003). ". A multidime nsional ...
  • Ravi, V., Shankar, R., and Tiwari, M.K. (2005). "Analyzing alternatives ...
  • Chen, J. K. and Chen, I. S. (2010a). "Using a ...
  • Chen, J. K. and Chen, I. S. (2010b). " A ...
  • Neda Jalalliyoon, Nooh Abu bakar, Hamed Taherdoost. (2014). Propose _ ...
  • Azma, F. (2010). "Qualitative Indicators for the evaluation of universities ...
  • Anninos, L. N. and Chytiris, (2008). University Performance Evaluation: Is ...
  • Saaty, T., L. (2001). Decision making with dependence and feedback ...
  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: ...
  • Dodangeh, J. and Yusuff, R. _ (2011). A decision model ...
  • Duqrette, D. J., & Stowe, A. M. (1993). A performance ...
  • Fortuin, L. (1988). Performance indic ators-Why, where and how. European ...
  • Fuller, C. W. (1997). Key performance indicators for benchmarking health ...
  • نمایش کامل مراجع