Teaching-Research Efficiencies of State Universities in Turkey and the Role of Strategic Priorities in Improving Efficiency: An Application of MultiActivity DEA

Öz

In this study, the research and teaching efficiencies of 45 selected state universities in Turkey are measured by using the Multi-Activity Data Envelopment Analysis (MA-DEA) model for the year 2010. Universities are institutions which face multiple production functions simultaneously, therefore they can be considered as carrying out mainly research and teaching activities using common resources. The mathematical formulation of MA-DEA is capable of objectively assigning the shared variables to different activities. Hence, the model is adapted to the problem by assuming a suitable production process for the Turkish Higher Education System. Results first show that the MA-DEA model generates different efficiency scores for universities and hence “research efficient” and “teaching efficient” universities have been identified. In addition, since the structure of MA-DEA model allows each university can give different priorities to different activities, scenario analyses have been applied on this priorities and it is shown that by assigning higher priorities to the activities which they are more efficient, universities can reach higher total efficiencies. The importance of this result related with performance analysis and strategic planning is then emphasized.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Multi-Activity DEA
• Turkish Universities
• joint-efficiency
• strategic priorities
• nonlinear programming

Türkiye'de Kamu Üniversitelerinin Eğitim-Araştırma Etkinlikleri ve Etkinlik Artışında Stratejik Önceliklerin Rolü: Çok-Aktiviteli VZA Uygulaması

Öz

Bu makalede, Çok Aktiviteli Veri Zarflama Analizi (ÇA-VZA) yöntemi ile Türkiye’deki 45 kamu üniversitesinin 2010 yılı için eğitim ve araştırma etkinlikleri ölçülmüştür. Üniversiteler, farklı işlevleri ile ilişkili olarak aynı anda birden fazla üretim fonksiyonu ile karşı karşıya olan kurumlardır. Bu nedenle, kaynaklarını temelde eğitim ve araştırma aktiviteleri arasında paylaştırmaya çalışan karar birimleri olarak değerlendirilebilirler. ÇA-VZA yönteminin matematiksel altyapısı paylaşılan bu değişkenleri farklı aktivitelere atamayı, bu yolla etkinlik hesaplamaları yapmayı mümkün kılmaktadır. Bu nedenle ÇA-VZA modeli, Türkiye’deki yükseköğretim sistemindeki üretim yapısına uyarlanmış ve uygulanmıştır. Sonuçlara göre; üniversitelerin, eğitim ve araştırma etkinlikleri bakımından farklı skorlara ulaştıkları görülmüş, böylece üniversiteler arasından “Araştırma Etkin” veya “Eğitim Etkin” üniversiteler tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, modelin aktivitelere farklı öncelikler atanmasına izin veren yapısı kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen senaryo analizleri ile her üniversitenin, daha etkin olduğu alana fazla öncelik atayarak toplam etkinlik skorunu artırabildiği gösterilmiş ve bu sonucun performans analizi ve stratejik planlamadaki önemi vurgulanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çok Aktiviteli VZA
• Üniversiteler
• birleşik etkinlik
• stratejik öncelikler
• doğrusal-olmayan programlama

Kaynakça

1. Abankina, Irina, Fuad Aleskerov, Veronika Belousova, A. B. Osmolovskaya, V. Petruschenko, D. Ogorodniychuk, V. Yakuba ve K. Zinkovsky (2012), "University Efficiency Evaluation with Using its Reputational Component," Lecture Notes in Management Science, 4: 244-253.
2. Abbott, Malcolm ve Chris Doucouliagos (2003), "The Efficiency of Australian Universities: A Data Envelopment Analysis," Economics of Education Review, 22 (1): 89-97.
3. Agasisti, Tommaso ve Antonio Dal Bianco (2006), "Data Envelopment Analysis to the Italian University System: Theoretical Issues and Policy Implications," International Journal of Business Performance Management, 8 (4): 344-367.
4. Ahn, Taesik ve Lawrence M. Seiford (1993), "Sensitivity of DEA to Models and Variable Sets in a Hypothesis Test Setting: The Efficiency of University Operations," Yuji Ijiri (Eds.), Creative and Innovative Approaches to the Sciences of Management (Quorum Books, Westport): 191-20
5. Aleskerov, Fuad ve Vsevolod Petruschenko (2013), “DEA by Sequential Exclusion of Alternatives”, Higher School of Economics Working Paper Series, WP7/2013/02.
6. Amor Diez-Ticio ve María-Jesús Mancebon (2002), “The Efficiency of the Spanish Police Service: An Application of the Multiactivity DEA Model”, Applied Economics, 34 (3): 351-362.
7. Athanassopoulos, Antreas D. ve Estelle Shale (1997), "Assessing the Comparative Efficiency of Higher Education Institutions in the UK by the Means of Data Envelopment Analysis," Education Economics, 5 (2): 117-134.
8. Avkıran, Necmi K. (2001), “Investigating Technical and Scale Efficiencies of Australian Universities Through Data Envelopment Analysis,” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 35 (1): 57-80.

9. Babacan, Adem, Mahmut Kartal ve Hüdaverdi Bircan (2007), “Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi’nin Etkinliğinin Kamu Üniversiteleri ile Karşılaştırılması: Bir VZA Tekniği Uygulaması,” C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 8 (2): 97-114.
10. Banker, Rajiv D., Abraham Charnes ve William Wager Cooper (1984), "Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis," Management Science, 30 (9): 1078-1092.
11. Bayazıtlı Ercan ve Orhan Çelik (2002), “Mesleki Yeterlik Sınavları Açısından Türkiye’deki Üniversitelerin Etkinliği”, XVII. Türkiye Muhasebe Kongresi, 10–12 Ekim 2002 / İstanbul: 95–114.
12. Baysal, Mehmet Emin, Bahriye Alçılar, Hakan Çerçioğlu ve Bilal Toklu (2005), “Türkiye’deki Devlet Üniversitelerinin 2004 Yılı Performanslarının, Veri Zarflama Analizi Yöntemiyle Belirlenip Buna Göre 2005 Yılı Bütçe Tahsislerinin Yapılması,” SAÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9 (1): 67-73.
13. Beasley, John E. (1995), "Determining Teaching and Research Efficiencies," Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46 (4): 441-452. Beasley, John E. (1990), “Comparing University Departments,” Omega, 18: 171-183.
14. Çelik, Orhan ve Alaattin Ecer (2009), “Efficiency in Accounting Education: Evidence from Turkish Universities,” Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20 (5): 614-634.
15. Charnes, Abraham, William W. Cooper ve Edwardo Rhodes (1978) "Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units," European Journal of Operational Research, 2 (6): 429-444.
16. Chuang-Min Chaoa, Ming-Miin Yub ve Mu-Chen Chenc (2010), “Measuring the Performance of Financial Holding Companies,” The Service Industries Journal, 30 (6): 811-829.
17. Çokgezen, Murat (2009), “Technical Efficiencies of Faculties of Economics in Turkey,” Education Economics, 17 (1): 81–94.
18. Dyson, Robert G. ve Emmanuel Thanassoulis (1988) "Reducing Weight Flexibility in Data Envelopment Analysis," Journal of the Operational Research Society, 39: 563-576.
19. Emrouznejad, Ali, Barnett R. Parker ve Gabriel Tavares (2008) "Evaluation of Research in Efficiency And Productivity: A Survey and Analysis of the First 30 Years of Scholarly Literature In DEA," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 42 (3): 151-157.
20. Engert, Frank (1996) "The Reporting of School District Efficiency: The Adequacy of Ratio Measures," Public Budgeting and Financial Management, 8: 247-271.
21. Haksever, Cengiz ve Muragishi Yuki (1998), "Measuring Value in MBA Programmes," Education Economics, 6 (1): 11-25.
22. Haktanırlar Ulutaş, Berna (2011), “Assessing the Relative Performance of University Departments: Teaching vs. Research,” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Ekonometri ve İstatistik Dergisi, 13: 125-138.
23. Johnes, Geraint, and Jill Johnes (1993), "Measuring the Research Performance of UK Economics Departments: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis," Oxford Economic Papers, 45: 332-347.
24. Johnes, Jill ve Li Yu (2008), "Measuring the Research Performance of Chinese Higher Education Institutions Using Data Envelopment Analysis," China Economic Review, 19 (4): 679- 696.
25. Johnes, Jill (2006), “Data Envelopment Analysis and Its Application to the Measurement of Efficiency in Higher Education,” Economics of Education Review, 25 (3): 273–288.
26. Johnes, Jill ve Geraint Johnes (1995), “Research Funding and Performance in UK University Departments of Economics: A Frontier Analysis,” European Economics Review, 14 (3): 301–314.
27. Karacabey, Argun (2001), “Veri Zarflama Analizi”, Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Gelişme ve Toplum Araştırmaları Merkezi Tartışma Metinleri, 33: 1-12.
28. Köksal, Gülser ve Burak Nalçacı (2006), “The Relative Efficiency of Departments at a Turkish Engineering College: A Data Envelopment Analysis,” Higher Education, 51: 173–189.
29. Kutlar, Aziz ve Adem Babacan (2008) “Türkiye’deki Kamu Üniversitelerinde CCR Etkinliği-Ölçek Etkinliği Analizi: DEA Tekniği Uygulaması,” Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15 (1): 148-172.
30. Kutlar, Aziz ve Mahmut Kartal (2004), “Cumhuriyet Üniversitesinin Verimlilik Analizi: Fakülteler Düzeyinde Veri Zarflama Yöntemiyle Bir Uygulama,” Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8 (2): 49-79.
31. Kwimbere, Francis J. (1987) "Measuring Efficiency in Not-For-Profit Organizations: An Attempt to Evaluate Efficiency in Selected UK University Departments Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)," MSc Thesis, School of Management, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath.Lewis, Darrell R. ve Halil Dündar (1995), “Economies of Scale and Scope in Turkish Universities,” Education Economics, 3 (2): 133-157.
32. Mar Molinero, Cecilio ve Pai Fang Tsai (1997), "Some Mathematical Properties of a DEA Model for the Joint Determination of Efficiencies," Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48 (1): 51-56.
33. Mar Molinero, Cecilio (1996), “On the Joint Determination of Efficiencies in a Data Envelopment Context,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47: 1273–9.
34. McMillan, Melville L. ve Debasish Datta (1998), “The Relative Efficiencies of Canadian Universities: A DEA Perspective,” Canadian Public Policy, 24 (4): 485-511.
35. Ming-Miin Yu ve Erwin T.J. Lin (2008), “Efficiency and Effectiveness in Railway Performance Using a Multi-Activity Network DEA Model,” Omega, 36: 1005 – 1017.
36. Oruç, Kenan Oğuzhan, İbrahim Güngör ve Mehmet Fatih Demiral (2009), “Üniversitelerin Etkinlik Ölçümünde Bulanık Veri Zarflama Analizi Uygulaması,” Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22: 279-294.
37. Özden, Ünal H. (2008), “Veri Zarflama Analizi (VZA) ile Türkiye’deki Vakıf Üniversitelerinin Etkinliğinin Ölçülmesi,” İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 37 (2): 167-185.
38. Rhodes, Edwardo ve Lawrence Southwick (1986),”Determinants of Efficiency in Public and Private Universities,” Working paper, School of Environmental and Public Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington.
39. Robst, John (2000), “Do State Appropriations Influence Cost Efficiency in Public Higher Education,” Applied Economics Letters, 7 (11): 715-719.
40. Johnes, Geraint, and Jill Johnes (1993), "Measuring the Research Performance of UK Economics Departments: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis," Oxford Economic Papers, 45: 332-347. Johnes, Jill ve Li Yu (2008), "Measuring the Research Performance of Chinese Higher Education Institutions Using Data Envelopment Analysis," China Economic Review, 19 (4): 679- 696. Johnes, Jill (2006), “Data Envelopment Analysis and Its Application to the Measurement of Efficiency in Higher Education,” Economics of Education Review, 25 (3): 273–288. Johnes, Jill ve Geraint Johnes (1995), “Research Funding and Performance in UK University Departments of Economics: A Frontier Analysis,” European Economics Review, 14 (3): 301–314. Karacabey, Argun (2001), “Veri Zarflama Analizi”, Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Gelişme ve Toplum Araştırmaları Merkezi Tartışma Metinleri, 33: 1-12. Köksal, Gülser ve Burak Nalçacı (2006), “The Relative Efficiency of Departments at a Turkish Engineering College: A Data Envelopment Analysis,” Higher Education, 51: 173–189. Kutlar, Aziz ve Adem Babacan (2008) “Türkiye’deki Kamu Üniversitelerinde CCR Etkinliği-Ölçek Etkinliği Analizi: DEA Tekniği Uygulaması,” Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15 (1): 148-172. Kutlar, Aziz ve Mahmut Kartal (2004), “Cumhuriyet Üniversitesinin Verimlilik Analizi: Fakülteler Düzeyinde Veri Zarflama Yöntemiyle Bir Uygulama,” Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8 (2): 49-79. Kwimbere, Francis J. (1987) "Measuring Efficiency in Not-For-Profit Organizations: An Attempt to Evaluate Efficiency in Selected UK University Departments Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)," MSc Thesis, School of Management, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath. Lewis, Darrell R. ve Halil Dündar (1995), “Economies of Scale and Scope in Turkish Universities,” Education Economics, 3 (2): 133-157. Mar Molinero, Cecilio ve Pai Fang Tsai (1997), "Some Mathematical Properties of a DEA Model for the Joint Determination of Efficiencies," Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48 (1): 51-56. Mar Molinero, Cecilio (1996), “On the Joint Determination of Efficiencies in a Data Envelopment Context,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47: 1273–9. McMillan, Melville L. ve Debasish Datta (1998), “The Relative Efficiencies of Canadian Universities: A DEA Perspective,” Canadian Public Policy, 24 (4): 485-511. Ming-Miin Yu ve Erwin T.J. Lin (2008), “Efficiency and Effectiveness in Railway Performance Using a Multi-Activity Network DEA Model,” Omega, 36: 1005 – 1017. Oruç, Kenan Oğuzhan, İbrahim Güngör ve Mehmet Fatih Demiral (2009), “Üniversitelerin Etkinlik Ölçümünde Bulanık Veri Zarflama Analizi Uygulaması,” Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22: 279-294. Özden, Ünal H. (2008), “Veri Zarflama Analizi (VZA) ile Türkiye’deki Vakıf Üniversitelerinin Etkinliğinin Ölçülmesi,” İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 37 (2): 167-185. Salerno, Carlo (2006), “Using Data Envelopment Analysis to Improve Estimates of Higher Education Institution’s Per student Education Costs,” Education Economics, 14 (3): 281- 295.
41. Tarım, Armağan (2001), “Veri Zarflama Analizi: Matematiksel Programlama Tabanlı Göreli Etkinlik Ölçümü Yaklaşımı,” Sayıştay Araştırma/İnceleme/Çeviri Dizisi, 15, Ankara.
42. Tomkins, Cyril ve Rodney Green (1988),”An Experiment in the Use of Data Envelopment Analysis for Evaluating the Efficiency of UK University Departments of Accounting,” Financial Accountability & Management, 4 (2): 147-164.
43. Tsai, Pai Fang ve Cecilio Mar Molinero (2002), “A Variable Returns to Scale Data Envelopment Analysis Model for the Joint Determination of Efficiencies with an Example of the UK Health Service,” European Journal of Operational Research, 141: 21-38.
44. Türkiye’nin Yükseköğretim Stratejisi Raporu (2007), YÖK-Meteksan Matbaası, Ankara.
45. Ulucan, Aydın (2011), “Measuring the Efficiency of Turkish Universities Using Measure-Specific Data Envelopment Analysis,” Sosyoekonomi, 2011 (1): 181-196.
46. Ustasüleyman, Talha (2007), “Veri Zarflama Analizini Kullanarak Türkiye’deki Devlet Üniversitelerinin Etkinliğinin Ölçümü,” İktisat İşletme ve Finans, 22 (259): 24-43.
47. Warning, Susanne (2004), "Performance Differences in German Higher Education: Empirical Analysis of Strategic Groups," Review of Industrial Organization, 24 (4): 393-408.
48. Worthington, Andrew (2001), “An Empirical Survey of Frontier Efficiency Measurement Techniques in Education,” Education Economics, 9 (3): 245-268.
49. Yu, Ming-Miin (2008), “Measuring the Efficiency and Return to Scale Status of Multi-Mode Bus Transit – Evidence from Taiwan's Bus System,” Applied Economics Letters, 15 (8): 647- 653.
50. Zhu, Joe (2009), “Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking: Data Envelopment Analysis with Spreadsheets,” Springer, USA.