Üniversitelerde Bölüm Etkinliklerinin Ölçülmesinde Kullanılan Kritik Başarı Faktörlerinin Bulanık DEMATEL Yöntemi ile Belirlenmesi

Öz

Günümüzün globalleşen dünyasında üniversite bölümlerinin başarılı etkinlik ölçümü çok önemli bir konudur ve bu ölçümün başarısı doğru girdi ve çıktı faktörlerinin belirlenmesine bağlıdır. Bu çalışmada, üniversite bölümlerinin etkinlik ölçümünde kullanılan kritik girdi ve çıktı faktörleri Bulanık DEMATEL (Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) yöntemi kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. Öncelikle literatürden üniversite bölümlerinin etkinlik ölçümünde kullanılan faktörler elde edilmiştir. Daha sonra Bulanık DEMATEL yöntemi ile girdi ve çıktı kümeleri için ayrı ayrı etkileyen-etkilenen gruplar belirlenmiştir. Etkileyen grupların VZA’da (Veri Zarflama Analizi) kullanılması önerilmiştir. Bu çalışma üniversite bölümlerinin etkinliklerinin ölçülmesinde kullanılan kritik girdi ve çıktı faktörlerinin tayini için bulanık DEMATEL tekniğinin kullanıldığı literatürdeki ilk çalışmadır.

Determination of Effective Critical Factors in Successful Efficiency Measurement of University Departments by Using Fuzzy DEMATEL Method

Abstract

Successful efficiency measurement of university departments is very important issue in today’s globalised world and depends on paying high attention on critical input and output factors affecting efficiency measurement. In this study we aim to determine critical input and output factors in efficiency measurement of university departments by using fuzzy DEMATEL (Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) method. Factors that are used in efficiency measurement of university departments have been extracted from the literature. Then Fuzzy DEMATEL method has been employed to separate cause and effect group of factors in input and output sets. Cause groups are advised to be used in DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis). This study is the first reference in the literature which uses a fuzzy DEMATEL technique in determination of effective critical input and output factors in successful efficiency measurement of university departments.

References

1. Abbott, M., & Doucouliagos, C. (2003). The efficiency of Australian universities: A data envelopment analysis. Economics of Education Review, 22(1), 89−97.
2. Ahn, T., Arnold, V., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W.W. (1989). DEA and ratio efficiency analyses for public institutions of higher learning in Texas. Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, 5, 165−185.
3. Arcelus, F. J., & Coleman, D. F. (1997). An efficiency review of university departments. International Journal of Systems Science, 28(7), 721−729.
4. Athanassopoulos, A. D., & Shale, E. (1997). Assessing the comparative efficiency of higher education institutions in the UK by means of data envelopment analysis.Education Economics, 5(2), 117−134.
5. Avkiran, N. K. (2001). Investigating technical and scale efficiencies of Australian universities through data envelopment analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35(1), 57−80.
6. Beasley, J. E. (1990). Comparing university departments. Omega International Journal of Management Science, 18(2), 171–183.
7. Beasley, J. E. (1995). Determining teaching and research efficiencies. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46(4), 441–452.
8. Bellman, R.E., & Zadeh, L.A. (1970). Decision-making in a fuzzy environment, Management Science, 17, 141–164.

9. Bessent, A. M., Bessent, E. W., Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Thorogood, N. C. (1983). Evaluation of educational programproposals by means of DEA. Educational Administration Quarterly, 19(2), 82–107.
10. Breu, T. M., & Raab, R. L. (1994). Efficiency and perceived quality of the nation's “Top 25” national universities and national liberal arts colleges: An application of data envelopment analysis to higher education. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 28(1), 33−45.
11. Casu, B., & Thanassoulis, E. (2006). Evaluating cost efficiency in central administrative services in UK universities. Omega, 34, 417–426.
12. Cave, M., Hanney, S., & Kogan, M. (1991). The Use of performance indicators in higher education: A critical analysis of developing practice. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
13. Chalmers, D. (2008). Teaching and Learning Quality Indicators in Australian Universities. IMHE/OECD conference. The quality, relevance and impact of higher education. Paris.
14. Chang, B., Chang, C., & Wu, C. (2011). Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria, Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 1850-1858.
15. Coelli, T. (1996). Assessing the Performance of Australian Universities Using Data Envelopment Analysis. Mimeo. Center for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. NSW: University of New England.
16. Coelli, T., Rao, D. S. P., & Battese, G. E. (1998). An Introduction to Efficiency And Productivity Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 271 pp.
17. El Mahgary, S., & Lahdelma, R. (1995). Data envelopment analysis: Visualizing the results. European Journal of Operational Research, 85, 700−710.
18. Erüz E. (2005). Yeni Mali Yönetim Yapısında Performans Esaslı Bütçeleme, 20. Türkiye Maliye Sempozyumu, 23-27 Mayıs, Denizli, s.61
19. Flegg, A. T., & Allen, D. O. (2007). Does expansion cause congestion? The case of the older British universities, 1994–2004. Education Economics, 15(1), 75−102.
20. Flegg, A. T., Allen, D. O., Field, K., & Thurlow, T. W. (2004). Measuring the efficiency and productivity of British universities: An application of DEA and the Malmquist approach. Education Economics, 12(3), 231–249.
21. Fox, K. J., & Milbourne, R. (1999). What determines research output of academic economists? Economic Record, 75, 256–267.
22. Friedman, L., & Sinuany-Stern, Z. (1997). Scaling units via the canonical correlation analysis in the data envelopment analysis context. European Journal of Operational Research, 100, 629−637.
23. Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1972). World problems an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL, Battelle Geneva Research Centre, Switzerland, Geneva.
24. Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1973). Perceptions of the world problematique: Communication procedure, communicating with those bearing collective responsibility (DEMATEL report no. 1). Battelle Geneva Research Centre, Switzerland, Geneva.
25. Glass, J. C, McKillop, D. G., & Hyndman, N. (1995). Efficiency in the provision of university teaching and research: An empirical analysis of UK universities. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 10(1), 61–72.
26. Haksever, C., & Muragishi, Y. (1998). Measuring value in MBA programmes. Education Economics, 6(1), 11−25.
27. Johnes J., & Yu L., (2008), Measuring the Research Performance of Chinese Higher Education İnstitutions Using Data Envelopment Analysis. China Economic Review, 19, 679–696
28. Johnes, J. (1996). Performance assessment in higher education in Britain. European Journal of Operational Research, 89(1), 18–33.
29. Johnes, J. (2006). DEA and its application to the measurement of efficiency in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 25(3), 273−288.
30. Johnes, J. (2006). Measuring teaching efficiency in higher education: An application of data envelopment analysis to Economics graduates from UK universities. European Journal of Operational Research, 174, 443−456
31. Johnes, J., & Johnes, G. (1995). Research funding and performance in UK university departments of economics: A frontier analysis. Economics of Education Review, 14(3), 301–314.
32. Katharaki M., & Katharakis G. (2010). A Comparative Assessment Of Greek Universities’ Efficiency Using Quantitative Analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 49(4-5), 115–128
33. Koksal G., & Nalcacı B. (2006). The Relative Efficiency of Departments at a Turkish Engineering College: A Data Envelopment Analysis. Higher Education, 51, 173–189
34. Madden, G., Savage, S., & Kemp, S. (1997). Measuring public sector efficiency: A study of economics departments at Australian universities. Education Economics, 5(2), 153–168.
35. McMillan, M. L., & Datta, D. (1998). The relative efficiency of Canadian universities. Canadian Public Policy, 24(4), 485–511.
36. Mokhtarian, M. N. (2007). Developing global manager's competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(7), 9050-9051
37. OECD. (2007). Education at a Glance. Retrieved January 12, 2008 from: http://www.oecd.org/document/30/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_39251550_1_1_1_1,00.html
38. Oruc K.O. (2008). Efficiency Measurements in Fuzzy Environment by Using Data Envelopment Analysis and an Application at Universities, Süleyman Demirel University, Department of Business Administration, Ph.D.
39. Pereira, A. P., & Tavares, A. F. (2002). O Uso de Indicadores de Performance na Avaliac¸a˜o de Ensino Superior. Revista de Administrac¸a˜o e Polı´ticas Pu´blicas, 3(1–2), 82–94.
40. Preeti T., Shiv P.Y., & Singh S.P. (2009).Relative Performance of Academic Departments Using DEA With Sensitivity Analysis, Evaluation and Program Planning, 32( 2), 168-177
41. Salerno, C. (2006). Using data envelopment analysis to improve estimates of higher education institution’s per student education costs. Education Economics, 14(3), 281–295.
42. Stern, Z. S., Mehrez, A., & Barboy, A. (1994). Academic departments’ efficiency via DEA. Computers and Operations Research, 21(5), 543–556.
43. Stevens, P. A. (2001). The Determinants of economic efficiency in English and Welsh universities. London: National Institute of Economic and Social Research. Discussion Paper no. 185.
44. Tomkins, C., & Green, R. (1988). An experiment in the use of DEA for evaluating the efficiency of UK university departments of accounting. Financial Accountability and Management, 4(2), 147−164.
45. Ward, D. (2007). Academic values, institutional management, and public policies. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2), 1–12.
46. Worthington, A. (2001). An Empirical survey of frontier efficiency measurement techniques in education. Education Economics, 9(3), 245–268.
47. Worthington, A. C., & Lee, B. L. (2008). Efficiency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities 1998–2003. Economics of Education Review, 27(3), 285−298.
48. Wu, W.-W., & Lee, Y.-T. (2007). Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert Systems with Applications, 32, 499–507.
49. YÖK (Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu). (2007). Türkiyenin Yüksek Öğrenim Stratejisi. (Yayın No: 2007-1), Ankara, YÖK.
50. Zadeh, L.A. (1965). Fuzzy sets, Information and Control, 8, 338–353.
51. Zhou, Q., Huang, W., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Identifying critical success factors in emergency management using a fuzzy DEMATEL method, Safety Science, 49, 243-252.