BÜTÇE-PERFORMANS SİMÜLASYONLARI: PEDAGOJİK BİR ÖRNEK VE BİR ARAŞTIRMA HİPOTEZİ

Öz

Amaç: Bu makalede, ilkin, pedagojik bir bütçe-performans simülasyonu örneğinin kurgulanması amaçlanmaktadır. İkinci olarak, fiziki ve akademik-idari beşeri sermaye yatırımlarının ve kaynakların bu yatırım bileşenlerine tahsisinin üniversite performansı üzerindeki muhtemel etkilerinin, bir araştırma hipotezi çerçevesinde, incelenmesi hedeflenmektedir. Yöntem: Makalede, bir sistem dinamiği yöntemi kullanılmakta ve basit bir yapı çerçevesinde, bir bütçenin örnekleme amaçlı olarak seçilen bazı bileşenleri bir performans fonksiyonu ile ilişkilendirilmekte, sistemin bazı anahtar değişkenlerinin seyrinin nasıl simüle edilebileceği ve politika-temelli performans optimizasyonunun nasıl yapılabileceği gösterilmektedir. Makalede kullanılan yöntem (sistem dinamiği), iç içe geçmiş, karmaşık optimizasyon ve simülasyon süreçlerinin modellenmesi için uygun bir yöntemdir. Bulgular:¨Makaledeki simülasyon ve optimizasyon alıştırmalarıyla, iki tür bulgu örneklenmektedir: İlkin, yatırım temelli performans yörüngeleri simüle edilerek, fiziki ve beşeri sermaye yatırımlarının fark yaratabileceği gösterilmektedir. İkincisi, nümerik bir örnekle, üniversite performansını maksimize edecek kaynak dağılım(lar)ının varlığı kanıtlanmaktadır. Özgünlük: Yükseköğretim kurumları ile ilgili performans optimizasyonu ve simülasyonu süreçlerinin kapsamlı ve derinlikli incelemelere ihtiyacı bulunmaktadır. Bu makale, bu tür incelemelere mütevazı bir katkı niteliği taşımaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bütçe.
• Simülasyon.
• Pedagojik bir örnek.

Budget-performance simulations: A Pedagogical example

Öz

Purpose: This paper has two main purposes, the first of which is to present a simple pedagogical example of budget-performance simulations that can be used for instructional purposes. The second purpose is to formulate a research hypothesis about the effects, on the overall performance, of (i) the overall level of physical and academic-managerial human capital investments and (ii) the allocation of resources between physical capital and academic-managerial human capital. Method: We have employed a system dynamics method so as to construct a simplified setup (model) where some pedagogically illustrative components of the budget are specified and linked to an elementarily exemplified performance function. We have then simulated the investment-based performance trajectories to demonstrate the findings of the paper. We have shown how to undertake a policy-based optimization as well. The method (system dynamics) we have chosen is suitable for the modeling of complexly-interwoven optimization and simulation processes. Findings: Through simulation and policy-based performance optimization exercises, we have demonstrated that the physical and academic-managerial capital investments matter and there exists an optimal allocation of resources that maximizes the university performance. Originality: There is a need for a comprehensive and in-depth examination/inquiry of the performance optimization and simulation processes associated with the higher education institutions. This article represents a modest contribution to such an inquiry.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• : Budget.
• Simulation.
• A pedagogical example.

Kaynakça

1. Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C.A. & Di Costa, F. (2014). Investigating returns to scope of research fields in universities. Higher Education, 68 (1), 69-85.
2. Barlas, Y. & Diker V. (2000). A Dynamic simulation game for strategic university management. Simulation and Gaming, 31(3),331-358.
3. Barlas, Y., Diker, V. & Polat, S. (Eds.). (1997). Systems approach to learning and education into the 21st century (Proceedings of 15th International System Dynamics Conference). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
4. Dzisah, J. (2007). Institutional transformations in the regime of knowledge production: The University as a catalyst for the science-based knowledge economy. Asian Journal of Social Science, 35(1), 126-140.
5. Ehrenberg, R. G. (2020). Akademinin yönetimi: Modern Üniversite’de sorunlu kim? Küre Yayınları.
6. Hage, J., Mote, J.E. & Jordan, G. B. (2013). Ideas, innovations, and networks: a new policy model based on the evolution of knowledge. Policy Sciences (Special Issue: Protecting and Sustaining Indigenous People's Traditional Environmental knowledge and Cultural Practice), 46(2), 199-216.
7. Häyrinen-Alestalo, M. & Peltola, U. (2006). The problem of a market-oriented university. Higher Education, 52(2), 251-281.
8. Ivanov, V.V., Markusova, V.A. & Mindeli, L.E.(2016). Government investments and the publishing activity of higher educational institutions: Bibliometric analysis. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 86 (4), 314-321.

9. Kara, A. (1996). The Economic self as a multidimensional complexity: Towards a critique and reconstruction of economic theory. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Microfilm version, UMI.
10. Kara, A. (2001). On the efficiency of the financial institutions of profit and loss sharing. Journal of Economic & Social Research, 3(2), 99-104.
11. Kara, A. (2007). Discrete stochastic dynamics of income inequality in education. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2007(1), 1-15.
12. Kara, A. (2009). Implications of multiple preferences for a deconstructive critique and a reconstructive revision of economic theory. Journal of Economic & Social Research, 11(1), 69-78.
13. Kara, A. (2013a). Dynamics of education and technology in higher education. Hacettepe Journal of Mathematics and Statistics, 42(1), 87-99.
14. Kara, A. (2013b). Educational technology and human capital. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 970-979.
15. Kara, A. (2015). Simulations of technology-induced and crisis-led stochastic and chaotic fluctuations in higher education processes. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(2), 303-312.
16. Kara, A. (2018). Escaping Mediocre-Quality, Low-Productivity, Low-Performance Traps at Universities in Developing Countries: A Human Capital-Based Structural Equation Model with System-Dynamics Simulations. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(3), 541-559.
17. Lach, S. & Schankerman, M. (2008). Incentives and invention in universities. The RAND Journal of Economics, 39(2), 403-433.
18. Metcalfe, J. S. (2010). University and business relations: Connecting the knowledge economy. Minerva, 48(1), 5-33.
19. Munoz, D.A. (2016). Assessing the research efficiency of higher education institutions in Chile: A data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Educational Management, 30 (6), 809-825.
20. Owen-Smith, J. (2018). Research universities and the public good: Discovery for an uncertain future (Innovation and technology in the world economy). Stanford Business Books.
21. Parrilli, M.D. & Elola, A. (2012). The strength of science and technology drivers for SME innovation. Small Business Economics, 39(4), 897-907.
22. Ramos-Vielba, I. & Fernández-Esquinas, M. (2012). Beneath the tip of the iceberg: exploring the multiple forms of university—industry linkages. Higher Education, 64(2), 237-265.
23. Shin, J.C. (2009). Building world-class research university: The brain Korea 21 project. Higher Education, 58(5), 669-688.
24. Simai, M. (2003). Knowledge, research, development and innovations: Some ideas from a research program. Society and Economy, 25(3), 305-319.
25. Spencer, J. W. (2001). How relevant is university-based scientific research to private high-technology firms? A United States-Japan comparison. The Academy of Management Journal, 44 (2), 432-440.
26. Wang, Y., Chen, Y., Weiping, L., Wang, T., Guo, L. & Li-Ying, J. (2020). Funding research in universities: Do government resources act as a complement or substitute to industry funding? Economic Research, 33 (1), 1377-1393.