Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance Management and Disciplinary Efficiency Comparison

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Incentives and Performance

  • 2697 Accesses

Abstract

Performance measurement and management in universities in a disciplinary perspective is a newly established perspective due to increasing interest in line with international university rankings as well as public management concepts. From the perspectives of methodology as well as data access and quality the disciplinary performance and productivity measurement poses several severe hurdles to research and practice. This chapter outlines conceptual views as well as a data envelopment analysis for four science disciplines in German universities as well as universities of applied sciences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The time gap between 2009 and 2012 can be connected to the distinctively longer time lag of teaching as teaching processes take significantly longer to “produce” graduates, assumed between two (master) and five years (Ph.D.) – whereas third party funding usually is registered about up to one year after the proposal work input regarding the acquisition of research funding.

  2. 2.

    DFG does not provide professor numbers for the FH/UAS; though the later data from 2012/2013 represents a rupture in data standards (university professor staff with data from 2009, different data source), the special interest in the performance of FH/UAS compared to the universities foregoes the data quality problem in this calculation. Added data is marked with an asterix (*) in the data tables.

References

  • Abbott M, Doucouliagos C (2003) The efficiency of Australian universities: a data envelopment analysis. Econ Educ Rev 22(1):89–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agasisti T, Johnes G (2009) Beyond frontiers: comparing the efficiency of higher education decision-making units across more than one country. Educ Econ 17:59–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahn T, Arnold V, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1989) DEA and ratio efficiency analyses for public institutions of higher learning in Texas. Res Govern Nonprofit Account 5:165–185

    Google Scholar 

  • ARWU (2014) About the ARWU ranking (Shanghai). Download at http://www.shanghairanking.com/aboutarwu.html. Accessed 31 Mar 2014

  • Beasley JE (1995) Determining teaching and research efficiencies. J Oper Res Soc 46:441–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan J, Lyon ES, Schomburg H, Teichler U (1994) The experiences and views of graduates: messages from recent surveys. High Educ Manag 6(3):275–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler TW, Li L (2005) The utility of returns to scale in DEA programming: an analysis of Michigan rural hospitals. Eur J Operati Res 161(2):469–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper W, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW, Thrall RM (1991) A structure for classifying and characterizing efficiency and inefficiency in data envelopment analysis. J Prod Anal 2(3):197–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coelli T (1995) Estimators and hypothesis tests for s stochastic Frontier function: a Monte Carlo analysis. J Prod Anal 6:247–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K (2000) Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software. Kluwer, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • DFG (2013) Funding Atlas 2012 – key indicators for publicly funded research in Germany. Wiley, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  • Dundar H, Lewis DR (1995) Departmental productivity in American universities: economies of scale and scope. Econ Educ Rev 14:199–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass JC, McKillop DG, O’Rourke G (1998) A cost indirect evaluation of productivity change in UK universities. J Prod Anal 10:153–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministerium für Innovation, Wissenschaft und Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (MIWF NRW) (2014) Ziel- und Leistungsvereinbarung V (ZLV 2014–2015) zwischen der RWTH Aachen und dem Ministerium für Innovation, Wissenschaft und Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Düsseldorf

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs R (2001) Alternative methods to examine hospital efficiency: data envelopment analysis and stochastic Frontier analysis. Health Care Manag Sci 4(2):103–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnes G, Johnes J (1992) Apples and oranges: the aggregation problem in publications analysis. Scientometrics 25(2):353–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jongbloed B, Vossensteyn H (2001) Keeping up performances: an international survey of performance-based funding in higher education. J High Edu Policy Manag 23(2):127–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao C, Hung HT (2008) Efficiency analysis of university departments: an empirical study. Omega 36(4):653–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kocher GM, Luptacik M, Sutter M (2006) Measuring productivity of research in economics: a cross-country study using DEA. Socio Econ Plan Sci 40:314–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korhonen P, Tainio R, Wallenius J (2001) Value efficiency analysis of academic research. Eur J Oper Res 130:121–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosmützky A, Krücken G (2014) Growth or steady state? A bibliometric focus on international comparative higher education research. High Educ 67:457–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumbhakar SC, Lovell CAK (2000) Stochastic Frontier analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin AY, Morey RC (1981) Measuring the relative efficiency and output potential of public sec-tor organizations – an application of data envelopment analysis. Int J Policy Anal Inf Syst 5(4):267–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay AW (1982) Institutional performance in higher education: the efficiency dimension. Rev Educ Res 52(2):175–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu NC, Cheng Y (2005) The academic ranking of world universities. High Educ Eur 30:127–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madden G, Savage S, Kemp S (1997) Measuring public sector efficiency: a study of economic departments at Australian universities. Educ Econ 5(2):153–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan ML, Chan WH (2006) University efficiency: a comparison and consolidation of results from stochastic and non-stochastic methods. Educ Econ 14(1):1–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan ML, Datta D (1998) The relative efficiencies of Canadian universities: a DEA perspective. Can Pub Policy 24(4):485–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng YC, Li SK (2000) Measuring the research performance of Chinese higher education institutions: an application of data envelopment analysis. Educ Econ 8:139–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden P (1994) Describing and explaining research productivity. High Educ 28(2):207–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reale E (2014) Challenges in higher education research: the use of quantitative tools in comparative analyses. High Educ 67:409–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarrico CS (2010) On performance in higher education – towards performance government. Tert Educ Manag 16(2):145–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarrico CS, Dyson RG (2004) Restricting virtual weights in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 159(1):17–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarrico CS, Hogan SM, Dyson RG, Athanassopoulos AD (1997) Data envelopment analysis and university selection. J Oper Res Soc 48(12):1163–1177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarrico CS, Teixeira P, Rosa MJ, Cardoso MF (2009) Subject mix and productivity in Portugese universities. Eur J Oper Res 197(2):287–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiford LM (1996) Data envelopment analysis: the evolution of the state of the art (1978–1995). J Product Anal 7:99–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin JC, Totkoushian RK (2012) The past, present, and future of university rankings. In: Shin JC, Totkoushian RK, Teichler U (eds) University rankings – theoretical basis, methodology and impact on global higher education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl MJ, Leap SL, Wei ZZ (1998) Publication in leading management journals as a measure of institutional research productivity. Acad Manag J 31(3):707–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistisches Bundesamt (2014) Statistisches Bundesamt, Fachserie 11, Reihe 4.2, Prüfungsjahr 2012, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens PA (2005) Stochastic Frontier analysis of English and Welsh Universities. Educ Econ 13(4):355–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor B, Harris G (2004) Relative efficiency among South African universities: a data envelopment analysis. High Educ 47(1):73–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thannasoulis E, Portela MCS, Despic O (2008) Data envelopment analysis: the mathematical programming approach to efficiency analysis. In: Fried HO, Knox Lovell CA, Schmidt SS (eds) The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 251–419

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Vaught FA, Ziegele F (2012) Multidimensional rankings – the design and development of U-multirank. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Worthington AC, Higgs H (2011) Economies of scale and scope in Australian higher education. High Educ 61:387–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worthington AC, Lee BL (2008) Efficiency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998–2003. Econ Educ Rev 27:285–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zangoueinezhad A, Moshabaki A (2011) Measuring university performance using a knowledge-based balanced scorecard. J Product Perform Manag 60(8):824–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu J (2001) Super-efficiency and DEA sensitivity analysis. Eur J Oper Res 129(2):443–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu J, Cook WD (eds) (2007) Modeling data irregularities and structural complexities in data envelopment analysis – a problem-solving handbook. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Duisburg-Essen, Campus Essen (PIM) & FOM University of Applied Sciences Essen (ild), Essen, Germany

    Matthias Klumpp

Authors
  1. Matthias Klumpp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Klumpp .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. TUM School of Management, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Isabell M. Welpe

  2. TUM School of Management, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Jutta Wollersheim

  3. TUM School of Management, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Stefanie Ringelhan

  4. Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany, and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Margit Osterloh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Klumpp, M. (2015). Performance Management and Disciplinary Efficiency Comparison. In: Welpe, I., Wollersheim, J., Ringelhan, S., Osterloh, M. (eds) Incentives and Performance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_26

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation