MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY RELATIONSHIP OF PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES IN SOMALIA (on the Example of the University of Amud)

Abstract

The study investigated the relationship between management efficiency and productivity of private universities in Somaliland/Somalia, by taking the case of Amoud University, Boroma. It is the source for higher level manpower for specialized sectors of a country. For this, it requires management efficiency: But productivity of private universities in Somaliland had been low. For example in Amoud University, no research was recorded since 2010 and the quality of graduates has been rated at about 48.96% while learning at the university is largely by rote. This called to question of the management efficiency. Guided by Max Weber Bureaucratic Theory. The study adopted quantitative research paradigm, using a cross sectional survey research design, on a stratified sample of 544 respondents of students, managers, administrators and teachers. Data was analyzed using regression. The study found that (a) management efficiency of Amoud University was poor, (b) productivity of Amoud University was low. The researcher recommends that (a) Amoud University develops clear control and guidelines for the minimum and maximum management efficiency (time, money, material and effort) (b) Amoud University reviews its curriculum and make more relevant teaching and learning methods (c) that Amoud University improves the emphasis and weight put on research and innovation

Keywords

• management, efficiency, productivity, private universities

MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY RELATIONSHIP OF PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES IN SOMALIA (on the Example of the University of Amud)

Abstract

The study investigated the relationship between management efficiency and productivity of private universities in Somaliland/Somalia, by taking the case of Amoud University, Boroma. It is the source for higher level manpower for specialized sectors of a country. For this, it requires management efficiency: But productivity of private universities in Somaliland had been low. For example in Amoud University, no research was recorded since 2010 and the quality of graduates has been rated at about 48.96% while learning at the university is largely by rote. This called to question of the management efficiency. Guided by Max Weber Bureaucratic Theory. The study adopted quantitative research paradigm, using a cross sectional survey research design, on a stratified sample of 544 respondents of students, managers, administrators and teachers. Data was analyzed using regression. The study found that (a) management efficiency of Amoud University was poor, (b) productivity of Amoud University was low. The researcher recommends that (a) Amoud University develops clear control and guidelines for the minimum and maximum management efficiency (time, money, material and effort) (b) Amoud University reviews its curriculum and make more relevant teaching and learning methods (c) that Amoud University improves the emphasis and weight put on research and innovation.

Keywords

• management,efficiency,productivity,private universities

ЭФФЕКТИВНОСТЬ УПРАВЛЕНИЯ И ПРОДУКТИВНОСТЬ ВЗАИМООТНОШЕНИЙ ЧАСТНЫХ УНИВЕРСИТЕТОВ В СОМАЛИ (на примере университета Амуд)

Abstract

Изучены взаимосвязи между управлением эффективностью и продуктивностью частных университетов в Сомалиленде/Сомали на примере университета Амуд (г.Борама). Он является источником рабочих кадров наиболее высокого уровня для специализированных секторов страны, однако нуждается в эффективном управлении. Продуктивность университетов Сомалиленда находится на очень низком уровне. К примеру, в университете Амуд с 2010 г. не было зарегистрировано ни одного исследования, а квалификация выпускников оценивается в 48,96%. Так возник вопрос эффективности управления. В исследовании использована теория бюрократии Макса Вебера. В обучении была применена квантитативная исследовательская парадигма, в которой используется поперечное сечение по стратифицированной выборке респондентов из 544 студентов, менеджеров, администраторов и учителей. Данные были проанализированы на основе регрессии. Обнаружено: (а) эффективность управления в университете Амуд была довольно низкой, (б) продуктивность университета также невысокая. Университету рекомендовано: (а) разработать систему контроля и рекомендации для минимальной и максимальной эффективности управления (время, деньги, материал и усилия); (б) пересмотреть учебную 39 программу и методы обучения, для того чтобы сделать процесс обучения и изучения актуальным и современным; (в) акцентироваться на проведении новых исследований и внедрении инноваций в свою деятельность.

Keywords

• управление,эффективность,продуктивность,частные университеты

References

1. Amin, M. Foundation of social inference for social research. – Kampala: Makerere University Printery, 2004.
2. Anselin, L. Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations / L. Anselin, A. Varga, Z. Acs // Journal of Urban Economics. – 1977. – №42(3). – Р. 422-448.
3. Abdisalan A. Osman. A staffing Policy On Performance. – AU, Borama, Somaliland, 2015.
4. Baird, A. Public Service Output, Input and Productivity / A. Baird, J. Haynes, F. Massey, R. Wild. – Education. Newport, South Wales: UK Centre for the Measurement of Government Activity. Standford University Press, 2010.
5. Bienenstock, A. The Global Forum on International Quality Assurance and Accreditation // Papers presented at the UNESCO Forum’s Global Colloquium on Research and Higher Education Policy. UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge, 29 November to 1 December, 2006.
6. Bitting, R. Using Effective Leadership Strategies in the Workplace. – 2010. – http://www.robertbitting.com/files/articles/Toxic-Employees-in-the-Work-Place.pdf. Retrieved May 13, 2011. Boddy, C. R. ‘Corporate Psychopaths and Productivity', Management Services Spring, 26-30.
7. Bowen, G. A. Document analysis as a qualitative research method // Qualitative Research Journal. – 2009. – №9(2). – Р. 27-40.
8. Brown, S. Assessing learners in higher education / S. Brown, P. Knight. – London, Uk: Kogan Page, 1994.

9. Chadwick. The early Reformation on the Continent. Oxford. – USA: Oxford University Press, 2003.
10. Dattalo, P. Determining Sample size: Balancing Power, Precision and practicality. – Oxford, USA: Oxford University Press, 2008.
11. Edqvist, C. Universities as Centres of Research and Knowledge Creation: An Endangered Species? // UNESCO Forum Global Colloquium, Centre for Innovation Research and Competence in the Learning Economy (CIRCLE), 20 November to 1 December. – Lund, Sweden: Lund University, 2006.
12. El Kaffass, I. Funding of Higher Education and Scientific Research in the Arab World // Presentation at the UNESCO Forum Regional Research Seminar for Arab States (The Impact of Globalization on Higher Education and Research in the Arab States). – Rabat, Morocco, 24 and 25 May, 2007.
13. Fink, A. How to sample in syrveys. Vol.7 thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, 2014
14. Fowler , F. Survey research methods // International Journal of Research. – 1994. – №1(25). – Р. 150-160.
15. Frascati, M. Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. – Paris: OECD Publishing, 2002.
16. Frensch, D. // Economic system of the world. International Journal of Research. – 2010. – 1(2). – Р. 73-75.
17. Cokins G. Performance Management - Integrating Strategy Execution, Methodologies, Risk, and Analytics / G. Cokins, J. Wiley, I. Sons // Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2009.
18. Gerrish, Ed. The Impact of Performance Management on Performance in Public Organizations: A Meta-Analysis // Public Administration Review. – 2015. – №76(1). – Р. 48-66.
19. Gonzalez, F. Learning at Universities. – IUIU. Uganda: Kampala University, 2012.
20. Guthrie, J. Public Schools and Money: Improving productivity in times of austerity / J. Guthrie, E. Ettema // Education Next, 2009.
21. Hayde, P. Universities and Cities in Medieval Italy. – Washinton D.C; USA: Oxford University Press, 1991.
22. Hanushek, E. The Knowledge Capital of Nations: Education and the Economics of Growth / E. Hanushek, L. Woessmann. – Cambridge: MA, MIT Press, 2015.
23. Hanushek, E. Returns to skills around the world: Evidence from PIAAC / E. Hanushek, G. Schwerdt, S. Wiederhold, L. Woessmann // European Economic Review. – 2015. – №73 (January). – Р. 103‐150.
24. Hazelkorn, E. The Impact of Global Rankings on Higher Education Research and the Production of Knowledge: Occasional Paper // UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge. – Paris: UNESCO, 2009.
25. Head, S. The New Ruthless Economy: Work and Power in the Digital Age. – Oxford, UK: Oxford University, 2005.
26. Howard, L. Why is Requitment to trials difficult? // Contemporary Clinical trials. – 2012. – №30(1). – Р. 40-46.
27. Hoy, W. K. Educational administration / W. K. Hoy, C. G. Miskel // Theory, research and practice. (5th ed). – New York: McGraw-Hill, İnc, 1996.
28. Jake, H. Attributes, skills and Knoweldge of learners. – Rift Valeey Institute, Rift valley Province, Kenya, 2011.
29. John, S. Learning is one the output of productivity. – Chicago; Irwin: McGraw, 2005.
30. Jibril, A. Ali. Effect of Staff Policy on Performance of Academic Staff of AU. – Borama, 2015.
31. Kumar, R. Descriptive Design. – Washinton, DC; USA: Patent and Trade Mark, 1999.
32. Kurt. Difference between effectiveness and efficiency. – Cape Town; South Africa: University of Cape Town, 2011.
33. Leedy, P. Practical research planning and design. – New Jersey, 1997.
34. Levin, K. A. Study design III: cross-sectional studies // Evidence Based dentistry. – 2006. – №7(1). – Р. 24-25.
35. LFHE. Institutions of Higher Educaion. – Delhi; India: Jutonline, 2013.
36. Mettler T. Performance management in health care: The past, the present, and the future / T. Mettler, P. Rohner // International Conference Business Informatics. – Vienna, 2009. – Р. 69-708.
37. Mugenda. O. M. Research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches / O. M. Mugenda, A. G. Mugenda. – Nairobi: ACTS press, 2004.
38. Muller, R. A critical discussion of intraclass correlation coefficients // Statistics in Medicine. – 1994. – №13(23-24). – Р. 2465-2476.
39. National Research Council. Defining Productivity for Higher Education. Improving Measurement of Productivity in Higher Education. – Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012.
40. Nowotny, H. Re-thinking Science, Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty / H. Nowotny, P. Scott, M. Gibbons. – Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002.
41. Oso, W. Y. Principles and practice of educational resaerch. – Borama; Somaliland: Barkhadleh Printing, 2016.
42. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. 4th Edition. – Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute (PMI), 2008.
43. Rausch P. Springer Verlag U.K. Business Intelligence and Performance Management: Theory, Systems, and Industrial Applications / P. Rausch, A. Sheta, A. Ayesh, 2013.
44. Ramirez, J. A. National Planning for Postgraduate Education, Including Perspectives for International Cooperation // Presentation at the UNESCO Forum International Experts’ Workshop “Trends and Issues in Postgraduate Education: Challenges for Research”. – Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland, 5 to 7 March, 2008.
45. Rust, K. F. Variance estimation for complex surveys using replication techniques / K. F. Rust, J. N. Rao // Statistical Methods in Medical Research. – 1996. – №5(3). – Р. 283-310.
46. Rosenberg, E. Applied regression anaylsis and other multivariable motheds. – London; UK: Cengage Learning, 2013.
47. Salmi, J. Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education // Presentation at the Meeting of Higher Education Partners as a Follow-up to the World Conference on Higher Education, UNESCO, Paris, 2003.
48. Straits, M. Approaches to Social research. – New York, USA: Oxford University press, 2010.
49. Tarsitano, A. Comparing the effectiveness of rank correlation statistics. – Chicago, USA: Prentice Hall, 2009.
50. Thomas C. Mawhinney. Handbook of Organizational Performance / Thomas C. Mawhinney, William K. Redmon, Carl Merle Johnson. – Rutledge, 2001.
51. Thomas F. Gilbert. Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance. – Pfeiffer, 1996.
52. UN. Delivering as One // Report of the UN High-Level Panel on System-Wide Coherence (HLP), 9 November, 2006, New York.
53. Young, P. Scientific social survey and research. – New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India, 1975.