PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SETTING AMONG PUBLIC AND

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES IN MALAYSIA: A LESSON TO LEARN

By :Sharul Effendy Janudin Jamal @ Nordin Yunus

Mohamad Ali Roshidi AhmadFaculty of Management and Economic

Sultan Idris Education University, Malaysia 

Ayu Rita binti MohamadFaculty of Education and Social Sciences

Universiti Selangor, Malaysia

Introduction

• The higher education capacity in Malaysia has grown from the formation of the country’s first university, Universiti Malaya in 1961, to the 2007 enrolment of 942,200 students in 20 public universities, 32 privates’ universities and university colleges, four branches campuses of international universities, 21 polytechnics, 37 public community colleges and 485 private colleges.

• As a platform to move forward, The National Higher Education Action Plan 2007-2010 is a stepping stone towards promoting long-term objectives of human capital development contained in the National Higher Education Strategic Plan. The ultimate aim is to empower Malaysian higher education in order to meet the nation’s developmental needs and to build its stature both at home and internationally.

• Therefore seven strategic thrusts have been outlined (Malaysia Ministry of Higher Education, 2007):

• Widening access and enhancing equity• Improving the quality of teaching and learning• Enhancing research and innovation• Strengthening Institution of higher education• Intensifying Internalization• Enculturation of lifelong learning• Reinforcing the Higher Education Ministry’s delivery

system

Statistics of Higher Education of Malaysia 2010

Level of Study

Enrolment Public HEI

Enrolment Private HEI

2009 2010 2009 2010

PHD 14669 17718 2278 3804

Masters 44880 49676 13372 14038

Bachelors 272012 274690 198760 220299

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

• The aim of this paper is to highlights the strategic performance measurement setting used by the public and private university in Malaysia. In addition, it also discusses the factors affect strategic performance measurement system among Malaysian universities.

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

• The last 20 years has witnessed a revolution in performance measurement (Neely & Bourne, 2000). This reformation has been driven by changes in business environment, which has led to the recognition that conventional measures do not present a complete of organizational performance (Anderson & McAdam, 2004).

• Non-profit organizations like public university have no survival pressure and external competition is limited. Therefore each university should establish its core competitiveness that based on its mission and vision and also its current resources and competitive conditions. Thus different strategic themes will produce different strategic targets and the resulting.

• In their study on performance measurement indicators among Taiwan university, 18 dimensions of performance indicators were used (Chen, Wang, & Yang, 2009). There are:

• School reputation Development target and

characteristics• Academy exchange Administration

resource• Teaching resources Curriculum planning• Graduate’s career planning Research results• Social responsibility Teaching quality• Student retention rate Faculty resources• Financial resources Financial donations• Student quality Tutorship result• Continuous education services Students structure

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION• Performance Measure System (PMS) plays an important

role in developing corporate strategy and performance evaluation (Ukko, Tenhunen, & Rntanen, 2007) in order for the organization to be more competitive in the global economy and this reflect higher education industry

• According to Tang & Zairi (1998), the core functions of a university are basically teaching, research and scholarship. These core functions must be stated in university’s daily operational and performance measurement indicator should have the following functions:1. Control and measure education quality;2. Provide information to education policy decision makers;3. Provide references for education resources management and

allocation; and 4. Provide each department with indicators of performance

management

• Basically there are two primary objectives of measurement: to assist in universities in improving education quality; and to help universities meet customer demands and achieve their responsibilities.

• Johnes (1996) believed that university’s performance can be measured through four categories of output:1. output from teaching activities 2. output from research activities3. output from consulting services 4. output of cultural and social activities

FINDINGS

• 70 sets of questionnaires distributed to the respondents and only 57 sets were returned to the researcher. Only 53 sets used for the purpose of analysis due to the incompleteness of 4 sets of questionnaires. 25 of respondents are working in public university while 28 are working with private universityJob Title No

Associate Professor 2Senior Lecturer 23Lecturer 26Tutor 2Total 53No of Years Involve in Management PositionLess than 2 years 112 – 4 years 264 to 8 years 9More than 8 years 7Total 53

Table 2: Steps of performance measurement system in

universities

Steps of performance measurement system in universities

MeanPublic

UniversityPrivate

UniversityClearly define the university’s mission statement. 3.7586 3.6071Identify the university’s strategic objectives using the mission statement as a guide.

3.6207 3.4286

Develop an understanding of each functional area’s role in achieving the various strategic objectives.

3.6552 3.4286

For each functional area, develop global performance measures capable of defining the university’s overall competitive position to top-management.

3.1724 3.3571

Communicate strategic objectives and performance goals to lower level in the university. Establish more specific performance criteria at each level.

3.2414 3.2500

Assure consistency with strategic objectives among the performance criteria used at each level.

3.3793 3.2500

Assure the compatibility of performance measures used in all functional areas.

3.5517 3.1786

Use the performance measurement system. 3.6552 3.1786Periodically re-evaluate the appropriateness of the established performance measurement system in view of the current competitive environment.

3.3793 3.0714

Table 3: Factors affected performance measurement

system in universities

Public University Private UniversityMean Rank Mean Rank

Use of performance measurement system

3.7586 1 3.3929 4

Type of organizational structure 3.6207 2 3.4286 2Management commitment 3.5862 3 3.4643 1Systematic use of quality frameworks 3.5517 4 3.2143 9Purpose and benefits of using performance measurement system

3.5517 5 3.3571 5

Structured approach to performance measurement design

3.5172 6 3.3214 7

Focus on appraisal and rewards 3.4483 7 3.1786 10Team maturity 3.4138 8 3.3214 6Strategy deployment 3.3103 9 3.2857 8Business process view 3.2069 10 3.4286 3

HYPHOTHESES ( T-TEST)

No Hyphotheses Note1 There is no significant difference on

steps of performance measurement system use by public university and private university

Fail to RejectT (55) = .396,

p > 0.05

2 There is no significant difference on factors affected performance measurement system between public university and private university

Fail to RejectT (55) = .363,

p > 0.05

CONCLUSIONS• This research support the idea for each university to

develop its distinguishing characteristics by following its long term plan.

• Although there are many higher learning institutions in Malaysia, the different visions and missions should not be barriers to apply the BSC and this “educational business model” should also be helpful for them to enhance their educational quality because the basic educational purposes are the same. The perspectives of the BSC can be developed from five perspectives:1. Growth and development 2. scholarship and research3. Teaching and learning 4. service and outreach5. Financial resources