Artikel 3
Artikel 3
Artikel 3
Author(s): May Leen Yu, Suraya Hamid, Mohamad Taha Ijab and Hsaio Pei Soo
Source: Higher Education, Vol. 57, No. 6 (Jun., 2009), pp. 813-828
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40269160
Accessed: 17-10-2019 08:25 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40269160?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Higher
Education
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
High Educ (2009) 57:813-828
DOI 10.1007/sl0734-009-9197-x
Abstract This research paper is a pilot study that investigated the suitability of adoptin
automated balanced scorecard for managing and measuring the performance excellence
academic staffs in the higher education setting. A comprehensive study of related litera
with requirements elicited from the target population in a selected premier university
Malaysia through document analysis, interviews and survey questionnaires provided
foundation for the system development. By adopting the balanced scorecard, the prop
system provided a means for top down alignment of organisational objectives while creatin
medium of communication between the lecturers and management. Though the met
suggested in this study primarily focuses on the academic staff, it addresses the lack
representative form of performance measurement for lecturers that accommodates the com
plexities of the profession while providing the potential adoption of an unconventional met
to encourage excellence and development amongst all levels of employees in the indust
Introduction
In Malaysia, public institutions of higher education have come under public scrutiny for
failing to improve or at least sustain international rankings with regards to offering
M. T. Ijab
e-mail: cpb314@yahoo.com
H. P. Soo
e-mail: hpsoo0912@um.edu.my
Ê Springer
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
814 High Educ (2009) 57:813-828
While there has been extensive research on the adoption of BSC for measuring the
performance of an organisation, to date little research has been conducted on the
employment of the model for measuring the performance of individual staff in non-profit
oriented agencies (Chen et al. 2006), especially in a higher education context where the
various job scopes of the teaching staff are complex and diverse (Storey 2002). In this
study, the scorecard will be evaluated for its effectiveness on measuring the performance of
and managing academic staff through the development of the e-balanced scorecard (e-
BSC) prototype. By adopting the BSC's basic structure, the e-BSC enables the academic
staff to set targets (start of the year), monitor and track personal performance (year-round)
and evaluate individual achievements (year-end), thereby promoting performance planning
as well as endorse a balanced performance management and measurement at the faculty
level.
£l Springer
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
High Educ (2009) 57:8 1 3-828 8 1 5
Literature review
Performance
Prior to recommending new methods to improve performance, the difference between the
terms performance management and PM has to be clarified. Often there is a misunder-
standing of the meaning of each resulting in both being used interchangeably (Radnor and
McGuire 2004). PM can be literally described as a means of assessing the achievements of
an individual, group or an organisation with regards to meeting set objectives through
statistical evidence which can come in the form of financial data, market share, or even the
assets one possess. Customary, PM was often linked to achieving favourable financial
expansion where metrics formed for measurement relied heavily on monetary gains
(Bipath 2007).
On the other hand, performance management is described as activities and processes
that provide the environment for PM where relevant actions and communication with
respect to the performance achieved are made. As clearly described by the Gartner group
(Geishecker 2002), 'performance management is an umbrella term. It comprises all pro-
cesses, methodologies, metrics and technologies that enterprises use to measure, monitor
and manage business performance'. In other words, performance management can be said
to be the practices that create the culture for excellence and procedures that assess progress
unlike PM which are only measures for performance (Armstrong 2000). Armstrong further
describes performance management as being both tactical and integrated simultaneously
where it strategically attempts issues that concern the whole picture with respect to
performance.
According to Lebas (1995), performance management occurs prior to PM, where the
latter supports the former. Figure 1 was derived to illustrate PM as the subset or the yolk of
performance management where the separation of both elements is deemed impossible as
PM provides the supporting justifications for actions taken in performance management.
Alternatively, some may think that PM can be independent without performance man-
agement. However, the independence of PM would not produce any beneficial effect if
corresponding actions in performance management with regards to the performance
achieved is not executed.
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
816 High Educ (2009) 57:813-828
4Q Springer
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
High Educ (2009) 57:813-828 817
It is often misunderstood that large student number intakes, high graduation rates, state of
the art facilities and good scholastic rankings best represent the quality of education offered
in a university (Stewart and Carpenter-Hubin 2001). To date, educational institutions are
still judged based on similar measures which should only be used as external performance
indicators of how well the institution is doing compared to others. External indicators are
targeted towards a particular audience, namely the students and parents, education ministry
and potential sponsors to uphold image management in maintaining a favourable reputation.
Excellent external indicators may not necessarily indicate that an institution is successful
internally. In reality, such management style would not add well towards the achievement of
long term objectives of most higher education institutions (Umashankar and Dutta 2007).
Instead, to ensure a healthy culture, the institution has to ensure that internal performance
measures are linked to the corporate goals that attempt to improve the organisation's
operations and not simply competing with peer institutions (Hamid et al. 2007). Similarly,
the management in higher education should focus on internal measures according to the
nature of work of the staff and link them to the strategic goals of the organisation which
attempt to solve external pressures and consequently resulting in academic excellence.
Typically internal performance measures are identified based on the nature of work of
the faculty members, administrators and so on. To encourage excellence, these measures
should also be connected to organisational goals to ensure long term objectives of the
institution are achievable (Hamid et al. 2008). Well linked performance measures would
not only guarantee desired results, it would also give a competitive edge to an organisation
over others. It is important to realize that equal emphasis should be given to both external
and internal performance measures. Neglecting either one category or overemphasizing on
one aspect may result in undesirable consequences. Placing higher importance on internal
measures only may result in the failure to acknowledge the influence of a dynamic envi-
ronment to continually sustain in the industry. On the other hand, extreme emphasis on
external measures may cause the organisation to overlook the fact that the staff are an
intellectual asset. In such a situation, valuable employees may be lost as a consequence.
The evolution of the BSC began in 1990 when a study, "Measuring Performance in the
Organisation of the Future", on 12 companies by the Nolan Norton Institute was conducted
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
818 High Educ (2009) 57:813-828
4y Springer
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
High Educ (2009) 57:813-828 819
Some have the perception that the BSC may not be suitable for the academic industry and
may be more appropriate for profit-oriented organisations. As mentioned earlier the
scorecard can be personalised to attend to the needs of the organisation. In a similar
manner, the Rossier School of Education at University of Southern California used the
BSC to gauge the effectiveness of its academic programme (Sutherland 2000 cited by
Umashankar and Dutta 2007). Other examples of universities worldwide that have adopted
the BSC are University of Edinburgh, University of Southern California, Ohio State
University, University of California, University of Akron and so on (Walker and Ains-
worth 2007; Balanced Scorecard Institute 1998-2008; Karathanos and Karathanos 2005;
Umashankar and Dutta 2007).
With the introduction of technology as aids for teaching, especially during the 1990s, the
job of an educator has grown in complexity to involve not only disseminating knowledge
but to keep oneself up to date with new knowledge (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin
1995) while conducting research on new discoveries besides giving pastoral care to stu-
dents. With such diversity, it is difficult to put into words, how the education profession
can and should be measured. Nevertheless, instead of using a common PM system for all
staff in a higher education institution, one should be especially dedicated to academic staff
to take into account the rich complexities of the job (Storey 2002).
Methodology
This study used numerous fact finding methods to obtain further information and
requirements for the proposed system. Primary data was obtained by: (1) document
analysis on the selected university's official strategic planning documents; (2) in depth
interviews with the Strategic Planning Unit (SPU) and several faculty deans pertaining to
the university's strategic planning process; (3) observations on the current staff PM system;
and (4) cross-sectional survey was conducted on a sample of lecturers to collect feedbacks
from the potential users of the proposed system.
Since this is a pilot research on providing new means of measuring the performance of
lecturers in higher education, only one faculty from the premier university was selected to
observe the requirements of and the response to the system. A judgment sample of 20
lecturers from the selected faculty who currently hold or previously held positions of head
of departments or have served at least 3-5 years were chosen to participate in the survey.
In contrast to random sampling, judgement sampling, sometimes called non-probability
sampling or purposive sampling, involves selecting specific respondents for a survey based
on the discretion of the researcher. In judgement sampling, the participants are chosen
based on certain characteristics that need to be possessed to ensure accurate responses are
obtained (Fraenkel and Wallen 1990; Marshall 1996). In this research, the participants had
to have served a minimal number of years to be familiar with the practices and expecta-
tions from the university. Besides that, responses from the current and previous head of
^ Springer
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
820 High Educ (2009) 57:8 1 3-828
To substantiate the study, a user acceptance test was conducted with 17 potential end users
of the system comprising a mixture of lecturers and the dean of the selected faculty,
members of the human resource department, representative from SPU, IT personnel and a
BSC expert. A questionnaire was prepared with several questions as listed in Fig. 8, which
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
High Educ (2009) 57:8 1 3-828 82 1
au
et
I
U
en
CQ
Ô Springer
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
822 High Educ (2009) 57:81 3-828
^ Springer
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
High Educ (2009) 57:8 1 3-828 823
£) Springer
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
824 High Educ (2009) 57:8 1 3-828
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
High Educ (2009) 57:813-828 825
Table 1 e-BSC
evaluation descriptive statistics '
system Qu
Ql 2 5 4.12 .781
Q2 3 5 3.82 .636
Q3 3 5 4.06 .659
Q4 3 5 4.00 .791
Q5 1 5 4.00 1.061
Q6 3 5 3.71 .772
Q7 3 5 3.59 .795
Q8 2 5 4.06 .827
^ Springer
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
826 High Educ (2009) 57:8 1 3-828
This paper presented the research and development of the e-BSC designed to specially
measure and manage the performance of academic staffs in the higher education setting.
The system provides a new method for aligning the objectives of individual lecturers to the
organisational goals while offering a way for the individuals to plan goals and take cor-
rective actions ahead of time. The main significance of the system can be seen as top level
objectives are clearer and expectations from individuals are better understood while pro-
viding an improved means of communication between the staff and the management. With
comprehensible targets, performance excellence is not impossible. Note however, that this
initial version of the e-BSC was designed based on the job scopes of the academic staff in
the selected university and therefore has to be customised if used in a different institution
of higher education. As it has been noted, there is still room for improvement where
functionalities to address detailed needs can be fulfilled to further enhance to system.
Nevertheless, based on the results, the e-BSC has exhibited to be effective and its structure
is suitable for academic staff performance management and measurement and could
potentially be used for all levels of staff in a similar context.
Acknowledgments This research is fully funded by the Research University Grant FR 199/2007 A. Sincere
gratitude to the research team members and everyone who are giving their undivided support and assistance
to this project.
References
Aguinis, H., & Pierce, C. A. (2008). Enhancing the relevance of organisational behaviour by embracing
performance management research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 139-145. doi:
10.1002/job.493.
Armstrong, M. (2000). Performance Management: Key strategies ana practical guidelines yina ea.j.
London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Azizan, H. (2007). Ready for the big leap. The Star Newspaper. 18 November, http://thestar.com.my/
news/story. asp?file=/2007/l 1/1 8/education/19484775&sec=education.
Balanced Scorecard Institute. (1998-2008). Balanced scorecard adopters. http://www.balancedscorecard.
org/BSCResources/AbouttheBalancedScorecard/BalancedScorecardAdopters/tabid/1367Default.aspx
Ballantine, JM Levy, M., & Powell, P. (1996). Against Taylor-made solutions: lntormation systems strategy
in a learning organisation. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Special Interest Group on Computer
Personnel Research Annual conference on Computer personnel research. 11-13 April 1996, Denver,
Colorado, United States. ACM: NY, USA. 36-48.
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
High Educ (2009) 57:8 1 3-828 827
4y Springer
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
828 High Educ (2009) 57:813-828
£} Springer
This content downloaded from 202.94.83.196 on Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:25:08 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms