Main Article Content
University, management decision effectiveness, qualimetric methods, assessment, collaboration, index
Purpose: Management decision in the university is a process of convergent analysis, forecasting and timely resolution of problem situations, aimed at achieving synergetic results. The research studies the advantages and feasibility of using qualimetric methods for evaluating effectiveness of the university’s management decisions.
Methodology: Our proposal is to use the method, based on qualimetric analysis, in assessing the effectiveness of management decisions in the university. The theoretical propositions and the argumentation of the research findings have been grounded with the following general scientific methods system-thinking approach, structural and level-based, logical and economic-based, as well as statistical analysis.
Main Findings: The management decision effectiveness is based on the level of collaboration in decision-making. The degree of collaboration in decision-making is determined by the involvement of various stakeholders in the process. Index of timeliness of a management decision implementation is the ratio of standard time to the actual time spent. The decision is effective if the index value is equal to 1 or exceeds it. Decision efficiency is evaluated based on the quality of its implementation. The integrated indicator of decision-making effectiveness is a combination of values for all four parameters.
Implications/Applications: The practical significance of the research predetermined by the fact that application of this methodology contributes to optimizing the interaction of organizational structures on the management synergy basis, and, as a result, to improving the quality of educational services provided by the university. Using the method of qualimetric analysis raises the level of personnel involvement in the process of managerial decision-making, objectivity and decisions quality.
2. Ayuningrat, M. P. Noermijati, & D. Hadiwidjojo, (2016). Green product innovation’s effect on firm performance of managerial environmental concern and green communication. Journal of Administrative and Business Studies, 2(2), 56-63. https://doi.org/10.20474/jabs-2.2.1
3. Belousov, V. I. Vostroilov, A. V., & Shevchenko, V. Y. (2006). Innovazionnyi universitet: Opyt razvitiya (Innovative university: Experience of development). Univesritetskoe Upravlenie, 5(45), 33-44.
4. Bizon, W. (2016). Stimulating entrepreneurship by introducing behavioural incentives, propensity to use financial instruments in the context of decision makers' personal characteristics and their financial knowledge in Polish SMEs. Journal of Administrative and Business Studies, 2(6), 270-279. https://doi.org/10.20474/jabs-2.6.2
5. Chong, C. Y., & T. S. Lee, (2017). Employee retention and job performance attributes in private institutions of higher education. International Journal of Business and Administrative Studies, 3(5), 158-165. https://doi.org/10.20469/ijbas.3.10001-5
6. Danillayev, D. P. Malivanov, N. N., & Polskiy, Y. F. (2010). Organizaziya uchebnogo processa v sovremennom technicheskom vuze (organization of educational process in modern technical university). Vysshee Obrazovanie Segodnya (Higher Education Today), 6, 16-18.
7. Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. In Translated from the French (Dunod) by Constance Storrs, London, UK: Pitman.
8. Ivanov, A. G., Avdzhyan, G. D., & M. S. Nistotskaya, (2002). World experience and functioning of the university supervisory boards of trustees. University Management, 2(21), 88-92.
9. Kachulyak, G. G. (2009). Structural principles for evaluating the effectiveness of restructuring management decisions. Russian Economic Internet-Journal, 4, 358-364.
10. Kirillov, A. G. (2013). Prozessnyi podhod v upravlenii sovremennym vuzom (Process Approach in the Management of a Modern University). Vestnik Chuvashskogo Pedagogicheskogo Universiteta im Yakovleva (Newsletter of the Chuvash State Pedagogical University named after Yakovlev), 1(77), 77-82.
11. Korotkov, E. M. (2006). Upravlenie kachestvom obrazovaniya (Quality management of education). Akademicheskiy Proekt, 320- 321.
12. Lebedeva, I. A. (2011). Processnyi Podhod v Menedzhmente Kachestva Obrazovaniya v VUZe (Process Approach in the Quality Management of Education in the University).” Molodoy Uchenyi (Young Scientist), 7(1), 91-94.
13. McGregor, D. (1987). The Human Side of Enterprise. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
14. Mizyakina, O. B. (2012). Mesto i rol monitoringa v systeme upravleniya vUZom (The place and role of monitoring in the university management system). Mezhdunarodnyi Zhurnal Ekperimentalnogo Obrazovaniya (International Journal of Experimental Education), 7, 59-60.
15. Mowday, R. T. Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (2013). Employee-organization linkages: the psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. Academic Press.
16. Ran, G. Bing, L., & Zhan-Li, Y. (2011). Research on decision-making effectiveness factors of top management team. in Proceedings from International Conference on Management Science and Engineering, Harbin, China. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMSE.2011.6069985
17. Rensis Likert, (2010). Creator of organizations. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2JHNQtS
18. Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009
19. Rijal, S. (2016). The influence of transformational leadership and organizational culture on learning organization: A comparative analysis of the IT sector Thailand. Journal of Administrative and Business Studies, 2(3), 121-129. https://doi.org/10.20474/jabs-2.3.3
20. Semkin, B. V. (2003). Matrichnaya Schema Upravleniya Krupnym VUZom v Usloviyah Rynkov Truda i Obrazovatelnyh Uslug [Matrix Scheme for Managing Large University in Conditions of Labor Markets and Educational Services.
21. Vikhareva, O. N. (2009). Systema Upravleniya Kachestvom Professionalno-Obrazovatelnyh Uslug (Quality Management System for Professional and Educational Services). Publishing house of the Volga-Vyatka Academy of State Service.