IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v34y2011i1p37-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance evaluation of extension education centers in universities based on the balanced scorecard

Author

Listed:
  • Wu, Hung-Yi
  • Lin, Yi-Kuei
  • Chang, Chi-Hsiang

Abstract

This study aims at developing a set of appropriate performance evaluation indices mainly based on balanced scorecard (BSC) for extension education centers in universities by utilizing multiple criteria decision making (MCDM). Through literature reviews and experts who have real practical experiences in extension education, adequate performance evaluation indices have been selected and then utilizing the decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) and analytic network process (ANP), respectively, further establishes the causality between the four BSC perspectives as well as the relative weights between evaluation indices. According to this previous result, an empirical analysis of the performance evaluation of extension education centers of three universities at Taoyuan County in Taiwan is illustrated by applying VlseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR). From the analysis results, it indicates that "Learning and growth" is the significant influential factor and it would affect the other three perspectives. In addition, it is discovered that "Internal process" perspective as well as "Financial" perspective play important roles in the performance evaluation of extension education centers. The top three key performance indices are "After-sales service", "Turnover volume", and "Net income". The proposed evaluation model could be considered as a reference for extension education centers in universities to prioritize their improvements on the key performance indices after performing VIKOR analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Wu, Hung-Yi & Lin, Yi-Kuei & Chang, Chi-Hsiang, 2011. "Performance evaluation of extension education centers in universities based on the balanced scorecard," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 37-50, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:34:y:2011:i:1:p:37-50
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(10)00048-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liou, James J.H. & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung & Chang, Han-Chun, 2007. "Airline safety measurement using a hybrid model," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 243-249.
    2. Tsai, Wen-Hsien & Hsu, Jui-Ling, 2008. "Corporate social responsibility programs choice and costs assessment in the airline industry—A hybrid model," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 188-196.
    3. Erdogmus, Senol & Kapanoglu, Muzaffer & Koc, Eylem, 2005. "Evaluating high-tech alternatives by using analytic network process with BOCR and multiactors," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 391-399, November.
    4. Roberts-Gray, Cynthia & Gingiss, Phyllis M. & Boerm, Melynda, 2007. "Evaluating school capacity to implement new programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 247-257, August.
    5. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    6. Park, Timothy A. & Lohr, Luanne, 2007. "Performance evaluation of university extension providers: A frontier approach for ordered response data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(2), pages 899-910, October.
    7. Fortuin, Leonard, 1988. "Performance indicators -- Why, where and how?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-9, February.
    8. Gomez, Pedro & Gonzalez, Maria Jose & Gil, Francisco & Lupianez, Jose Luis & Moreno, Maria Francisca & Rico, Luis & Romero, Isabel, 2007. "Assessing the relevance of higher education courses," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 149-160, May.
    9. Zeidner, Moshe & Schleyer, Esther Jane, 1999. "Evaluating the effects of full-time vs part-time educational programs for the gifted: affective outcomes and policy considerations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 413-427, November.
    10. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2007. "Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 514-529, April.
    11. P. L. Yu, 1973. "A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(8), pages 936-946, April.
    12. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    13. Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung & Lin, Cheng-Wei & Opricovic, Serafim, 2005. "Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(11), pages 1373-1383, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohammad Taghi Amini & Elham Keshavarz & Arezu Keshavarz & Seyed Mohammad Bagheri, 2016. "Prioritisation and performance evaluation of employees at strategic human resource management process using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods," International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 17(1), pages 61-81.
    2. Noor Azmi Bin Hashim & Aliyu Olayemi Abdullateef & Bashir Danlami Sarkindaji, 2015. " The Moderating Infl uence of Trust on the Relationship between Institutional Image/Reputation, Perceived Value on Student Loyalty in Higher Education Institution," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 5(3), pages 122-128.
    3. Schalock, Robert L. & Lee, Tim & Verdugo, Miguel & Swart, Kees & Claes, Claudia & van Loon, Jos & Lee, Chun-Shin, 2014. "An evidence-based approach to organization evaluation and change in human service organizations evaluation and program planning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 110-118.
    4. Abbas Keramati & Fatemeh Shapouri, 2016. "Multidimensional appraisal of customer relationship management: integrating balanced scorecard and multi criteria decision making approaches," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 217-251, May.
    5. Camelia Mihaela Oane (Marinescu) & Klaudia Smol¹g & Emanuel Stefan Marinescu & Romuald Szopa, 2015. "Value-Based Management As The Innovating Paradigm Of Contemporary Governance – A Theoretical Approach," Polish Journal of Management Studies, Czestochowa Technical University, Department of Management, vol. 12(1), pages 106-120, DEcember.
    6. Varmazyar, Mohsen & Dehghanbaghi, Maryam & Afkhami, Mehdi, 2016. "A novel hybrid MCDM model for performance evaluation of research and technology organizations based on BSC approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 125-140.
    7. Schalock, Robert L. & Verdugo, Miguel & Lee, Tim, 2016. "A systematic approach to an organization’s sustainability," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 56-63.
    8. Tang, Hui-Wen Vivian, 2011. "Optimizing an immersion ESL curriculum using analytic hierarchy process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 343-352, November.
    9. Fahmi Fadhl Al-Hosaini & Saudah Sofian, 2015. " A Review of Balanced Scorecard Framework in Higher Education Institution (HEIs)," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 5(1), pages 26-35.
    10. repec:eee:epplan:v:63:y:2017:i:c:p:18-28 is not listed on IDEAS

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:34:y:2011:i:1:p:37-50. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.