IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i8p4149-d532275.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improvement of Quality of Higher Education Institutions as a Basis for Improvement of Quality of Life

Author

Listed:
  • Zorica Lazić

    (Faculty of Engineering, University in Kragujevac, 34000 Kragujevac, Serbia)

  • Aleksandar Đorđević

    (Faculty of Engineering, University in Kragujevac, 34000 Kragujevac, Serbia)

  • Albina Gazizulina

    (Institute of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, 195251 St. Petersburg, Russia)

Abstract

This paper aims to propose a quality assessment model for higher education institutions in the technical–technological field and a system for decision support and optimal management strategies for quality improvement. Obtaining research results is based on surveying stakeholders in higher education and obtaining quantitative data regarding key performance indices. Quantitative data and the genetic algorithm method are applied to determine optimal management strategies for quality improvement. Quality in the higher education sector is among the current issues in the academic community. By monitoring and researching the higher education field and analysing the literature and the current situation in the system of higher education in developing countries, it can be concluded that there is no single way to assess the quality of higher education institutions. This knowledge was a good starting point for the research presented in this paper. Accordingly, the findings include developing a system for quality assessment and the ranking of higher education institutions. Additionally, evaluating the relevance of key performance indicators of higher education institutions differs from different stakeholder perspectives. However, it is possible to develop a system for decision support and the selection of the optimal strategy for improving the performance of study programs and higher education institutions with regard to quality. The practical implications include defining a decision support system that enables the adoption of optimal decisions by the management teams of higher education institutions to improve study programs and the performance of the higher education institutions. The presented system may enable the benchmarking, simulation, and verification of different scenarios for improving the quality and performance of higher education institutions. In this paper, the authors analysed the characteristics, benefits, and drawbacks of different ranking systems to develop and introduce a novel ranking system that suggests weights for the ranking criteria and different perspectives regarding new digital age requirements. The model was tested, and the results are presented to demonstrate the advantages of the developed model. The originality of the research lies in the presented novel model that can be made available to government institutions and serve as a basis for the overall ranking and evaluation of higher education institutions, with the possibility of developing a performance-based funding system. Additionally, other stakeholders can gain an insight into the performance of an institution in relation to their needs and goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Zorica Lazić & Aleksandar Đorđević & Albina Gazizulina, 2021. "Improvement of Quality of Higher Education Institutions as a Basis for Improvement of Quality of Life," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-27, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4149-:d:532275
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4149/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4149/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Garrett Roth & William P. McAndrew, 2018. "To each according to their ability? Academic ranking and salary inequality across public colleges and universities," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 34-37, January.
    2. Daraio, Cinzia & Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Simar, Léopold, 2015. "Rankings and university performance: A conditional multidimensional approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(3), pages 918-930.
    3. Duerrenberger, Nicole & Warning, Susanne, 2018. "Corruption and education in developing countries: The role of public vs. private funding of higher education," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 217-225.
    4. Justice Mensah, 2020. "Improving Quality Management in Higher Education Institutions in Developing Countries through Strategic Planning," Asian Journal of Contemporary Education, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 4(1), pages 9-25.
    5. N. Ramasamy & R. Rajesh & S. Pugazhendhi & K. Ganesh, 2016. "Development of a hybrid BSC-AHP model for institutions in higher education," International Journal of Enterprise Network Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(1), pages 13-26.
    6. Murat Perit Çakır & Cengiz Acartürk & Oğuzhan Alaşehir & Canan Çilingir, 2015. "A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 813-848, June.
    7. Tommaso Agasisti & Giuseppe Munda & Ralph Hippe, 2019. "Measuring the efficiency of European education systems by combining Data Envelopment Analysis and Multiple-Criteria Evaluation," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 105-124, June.
    8. Kooli, Chokri, 2019. "Governing and managing higher education institutions: The quality audit contributions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    9. Marlo M Vernon & E Andrew Balas & Shaher Momani, 2018. "Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    10. Alberto Amaral, 2012. "Implementing Quality Management Systems in Higher Education Institutions," Chapters, in: Mehmet Savsar (ed.), Quality Assurance and Management, IntechOpen.
    11. Justice Mensah, 2020. "Improving Quality Management in Higher Education Institutions in Developing Countries through Strategic Planning," Asian Journal of Contemporary Education, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 4(1), pages 9-25, June.
    12. Kirsi-Mari Kallio & Tomi J. Kallio & Giuseppe Grossi, 2017. "Performance measurement in universities: ambiguities in the use of quality versus quantity in performance indicators," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(4), pages 293-300, June.
    13. Millot, Benoit, 2015. "International rankings: Universities vs. higher education systems," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 156-165.
    14. Raquel Garde Sánchez & Jesús Mauricio Flórez-Parra & María Victoria López-Pérez & Antonio Manuel López-Hernández, 2020. "Corporate Governance and Disclosure of Information on Corporate Social Responsibility: An Analysis of the Top 200 Universities in the Shanghai Ranking," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, February.
    15. Henk F. Moed, 2017. "A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 967-990, February.
    16. Elena Fleacă & Bogdan Fleacă & Sanda Maiduc, 2018. "Aligning Strategy with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Process Scoping Diagram for Entrepreneurial Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, March.
    17. Wang, Derek D., 2019. "Performance-based resource allocation for higher education institutions in China," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 66-75.
    18. SAM, Vichet, 2018. "Overeducation among graduates in developing countries: What impact on economic growth?," MPRA Paper 87674, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Antonio Fernández-Cano & Elvira Curiel-Marin & Manuel Torralbo-Rodríguez & Mónica Vallejo-Ruiz, 2018. "Questioning the Shanghai Ranking methodology as a tool for the evaluation of universities: an integrative review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2069-2083, September.
    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. Yossi Maaravi & Ben Heller, 2021. "Digital Innovation in Times of Crisis: How Mashups Improve Quality of Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Daniela-Emanuela Dănăcică & Ana-Gabriela Babucea & Lucia Paliu-Popa & Gabriela Bușan & Irina-Elena Chirtoc, 2023. "The Nexus between Higher Education and Unemployment—Evidence from Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2022. "Using the Leiden Rankings as a Heuristics: Evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," LEM Papers Series 2022/08, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    2. Yating Wen & Xiaodong Zhao & Xingguo Li & Yuqi Zang, 2023. "Explaining the Paradox of World University Rankings in China: Higher Education Sustainability Analysis with Sentiment Analysis and LDA Topic Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Mohammad Reza Zare Banadkouki & Mohammad Ali Vahdatzad & Mohammad Saleh Owlia & Mohammad Mahdi Lotfi, 2018. "Ranking Iranian universities: an interpretative structural modeling approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1493-1512, December.
    4. Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2023. "A heuristic approach based on Leiden rankings to identify outliers: evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 483-510, January.
    5. Antonio Fernández-Cano & Elvira Curiel-Marin & Manuel Torralbo-Rodríguez & Mónica Vallejo-Ruiz, 2018. "Questioning the Shanghai Ranking methodology as a tool for the evaluation of universities: an integrative review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2069-2083, September.
    6. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    7. Manuel Muñoz-Suárez & Natividad Guadalajara & José M. Osca, 2020. "A Comparative Analysis between Global University Rankings and Environmental Sustainability of Universities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-19, July.
    8. Dmitry Kochetkov, 2023. "Review of the Russian-language academic literature on university rankings and a global perspective," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    9. Csóka, Imola & Sebestyén, Géza & Neszveda, Gábor, 2019. "Tudományos teljesítmény mérése a magyar felsőoktatás gazdasági képzéseiben [Measuring scientific performance of business and economics faculties in Hungarian higher education]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(7), pages 751-770.
    10. Hong Li & Zilin Chen, 2022. "A Comprehensive Evaluation Framework to Assess the Sustainable Development of Schools within a University: Application to a Chinese University," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-12, August.
    11. John Mingers & Jesse R. O’Hanley & Musbaudeen Okunola, 2017. "Using Google Scholar institutional level data to evaluate the quality of university research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1627-1643, December.
    12. Ernesto Galbán-Rodríguez & Deborah Torres-Ponjuán & Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge, 2021. "Multidimensional quantitative analysis of the Cuban scientific output and its regional context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2643-2665, March.
    13. Yang Zhang & Yu Xiao & Jun Wu & Xin Lu, 2021. "Comprehensive world university ranking based on ranking aggregation," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 1139-1152, June.
    14. Massucci, Francesco Alessandro & Docampo, Domingo, 2019. "Measuring the academic reputation through citation networks via PageRank," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 185-201.
    15. Angel Meseguer-Martinez & Alejandro Ros-Galvez & Alfonso Rosa-Garcia & Jose Antonio Catalan-Alarcon, 2019. "Online video impact of world class universities," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(3), pages 519-532, September.
    16. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    17. Vicente Safón, 2019. "Inter-ranking reputational effects: an analysis of the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE) reputational relationship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 897-915, November.
    18. Ye Sun & Athen Ma & Georg von Graevenitz & Vito Latora, 2023. "The importance of quality in austere times: University competitiveness and grant income," Papers 2309.15309, arXiv.org.
    19. Frenken, Koen & Heimeriks, Gaston J. & Hoekman, Jarno, 2017. "What drives university research performance? An analysis using the CWTS Leiden Ranking data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 859-872.
    20. Natividad Blasco & Isabel Brusca & Margarita Labrador, 2019. "Assessing Sustainability and Its Performance Implications: An Empirical Analysis in Spanish Public Universities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-21, September.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4149-:d:532275. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.