Higher education modernization new instruments: structural dynamics analysis

This study completes the series of articles devoted to modern tools for the modernization of higher education. The paper presents the author's approach to the model of a balanced system of university performance indicators. The effects of the multidisciplinary activities of the university are indicated, interconnected by directed cause-and-effect relationships that make it possible to track their interaction. It is proposed to use a systematic approach as a base one, which includes three stages: decomposition of the system, selection of indicators for analysis and synthesis of generalized indices. To analyze the structural dynamics of the university, a balanced scorecard (BSC) has been developed. This system includes four perspectives demonstrating various aspects of university development: «Training and Development», «Internal Business Processes», «External Business Processes», «Finance». The principles for selecting indicators for analysis are based on their reliability, necessity and sufficiency. Modern approaches to building a balanced scorecard are presented. A technical analysis of BSC indicators is given, which is based on solving the problem of converting indicators to a dimensionless form and synthesizing generalized indices that can be used to compare universities based on economies of scale. For dynamic analysis of the system, the slope coefficient of the linear trend of the distribution of normalized indicators and generalized indices over time is used. In addition, the coefficient of determination of the linear trend is studied, which shows the level of balance in the development of the university. A new method of comparative analysis of the structural dynamics of universities, in contrast to previously existing ones, makes it possible to take into account the effectiveness of the activities of diversified universities based on the totality of the effects of scale, dynamics and balanced development. To verify the model, open data from monitoring higher educational institutions in Russia, carried out by the Ministry of Science and Education of the Russian Federation, was used. The model was tested at two large universities and can be used to solve specific management problems at universities.

Keywords: university management, balanced scorecard, generalized index, linear trend, coefficient of determination.

References

  1. A. V. Rechkalov, A. V. Artyukhov, G. G. Kulikov. Logical-semantic definition of the digital twin of the production process//Rossiyskiy tekhnologicheskiy zhurnal [Russian Technological Journal]. 2023. Vol. 11. № 1. P. 70-80. doi: 10.32362/2500-316X-2023-11-1-70-80.
  2. I. A. Mandych, A. V. Bykova. Difficulties and prospects for the development of high-tech projects in the era of digital transformation of the economy//Rossiyskiy tekhnologicheskiy zhurnal [Russian Technological Journal]. 2021. Vol. 9. № 2 (40). P. 88-95. doi: 10.32362/2500-316X-2021-9-2-88-95.
  3. A. Caro-Gonzalez, L. Ferreira-Lopez. Universities in transition: the «6i» model for strategic management. Ekonomicheskiye i sotsial'nyye peremeny: fakty, tendentsii, prognoz [Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast]. 2020. Vol. 13. № 1. P. 217-230. doi: 10.15838/esc.2020.1.67.13.
  4. Y. Bao, Y. Su, C. H. Noble. Determinants of new product development speed in China: A strategy tripod perspective//Technovation. Vol. 106. 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102291.
  5. I. A. Mandych, A. V. Bykova, O. B. Geiman. Features of assessing the investment attractiveness of high-tech projects//Rossiyskiy tekhnologicheskiy zhurnal [Russian technological journal]. 2022, Vol. 10. № 2 (46). P. 75-86. doi: 10.32362/2500-316X-2022-10-2-75-86.
  6. V. Strielkovski, E. N. Korneeva, A. A. Sherstobitova, A. Yu. Platitsyn. Strategic management of the university in the context of digitalization: the experience of the world's leading universities//Integratsiya obrazovaniya [Education Integration]. 2022. Vol. 26. № 3 (108). P. 402-417. doi: 10.15507/1991-9468.108.026.202203.402-417.
  7. S. A. Zaichenko, T. E. Kuznetsova, V. A. Rud. Features of interaction between Russian enterprises and scientific organizations in the innovation sphere//Forsayt [Foresight]. 2014. Vol. 8. № 1. P. 6-22. doi: 10.17323/1995-459x.2014.1.06.23.
  8. N. I. Komkov. Scientific and technological development: limitations and opportunities//Problemy prognozirovaniya [Problems of forecasting]. 2017. № 5 (164). P. 11-21. https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=32236986.
  9. T. V. Bolshunova. Social technology for managing the interaction of a university with stakeholders as a tool to increase competitiveness//Vestnik universiteta [Bulletin of the University]. 2019. № 6. P. 161-167. doi: 10.26425/1816-4277-2019-6-161-167.
  10. R. S. Kaplan, D. P. Norton. The Balanced Scorecard — Measures that Drive Performance//Harvard Business Review. 1992. Vol. 70 (1). № 1. P. 71-79. https://hbr.org/1992/01/the-balanced-scorecard-measures-that-drive-performance-2.
  11. R. S. Kaplan, D. P. Norton. Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System//Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb, 1996. https://hbr.org/2007/07/using-the-balanced-scorecard-as-a-strategic-management-system.
  12. P. R. Niven. Sbalansirovannaya sistema pokazateley — shag za shagom: Maksimal'noye povysheniye effektivnosti i zakrepleniye poluchennykh rezul'tatov [Balanced Scorecard — Step by Step: Maximizing Efficiency and Consolidating Results]. Dnepropetrovsk: Balance Club, 2003. 328 p.
  13. M. Brown. Sbalansirovannaya sistema pokazateley: na marshrute vnedreniya [Balanced scorecard: on the route of implementation]. Moscow: Alpina Business Books, 2005. 226 p.
  14. M. A. Vaikok. Balanced system of indicators for assessing the effectiveness of an industrial enterprise//Aktual'nyye voprosy sovremennoy nauki [Actual issues of modern science]. 2014. № 38. P. 206-213. https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=22734496.
  15. M. Meyer. Evaluation of business efficiency/Russian translation: A. O. Korsunsky. Moscow: Vershina, 2004. 272 p.
  16. E. Neely, K. Adams, M. Kennerly. Prizma effektivnosti: Karta sbalansirovannykh pokazateley dlya izmereniya uspekha v biznese i upravleniya im [Efficiency Prism: A Balanced Scorecard for Measuring Business Success and Management]. Dnepropetrovsk: Balance Club, 2003. 328 p.
  17. A. Gershun, M. Gorsky. Tekhnologii sbalansirovannogo upravleniya [Balanced management technologies]. Moscow: Olimp-Business, 2006. 416 p.
  18. A. Abofaied. Evaluation of Bank’s Performance by using Balanced Scorecard: Practical Study in Libyan Environment//International Journal of Business and Management. 2017. Vol. V. № 1. P. 1-14. doi: 10.20472/BM.2017.5.1.001.
  19. B. Agyeman, J. Bonn, C. Osei. Using Balanced Scorecard for Managing Performance in Selected Ghanaian Banks//International Journal of Business and Management. 2017. Vol. 12. № 12. P. 204-211. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v12n12p204.
  20. Z. Radnor, B. Lovell. Defining, justifying and implementing the Balanced Scorecard in the National Health Service//International Journal of Medical Marketing, 2016. Vol. 3.№ 3. P. 174-188. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jmm.5040117.
  21. B. Kollberg, M. Elg. The practice of the Balanced Scorecard in health care services//International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 2011. Vol. 60. № 5. P. 427-445. doi: 10.1108/17410401111140374.
  22. P. U. Anuforo, H. Ayoup, N. Saidu. Balance Scorecard Implementation Challenges in Institution of Higher Learning: Overview of Prior Studies//American International Journal of Sosial Science Research. 2018. Vol. 2. № 2. P. 1-11. doi: 10.46281/aijssr.v2i2.173.
  23. V. G. Matveikin, S. I. Tatarenko, B. S. Dmitrievsky, I. S. Panchenko. Building a system of indicators to assess the effectiveness of a science-intensive production system//Vestnik Tambovskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Tambov State Technical University]. 2009. Vol. 15. № 2. P. 278-284.
  24. O. A. Zabbarova, I. A. Gusynina. The system of performance indicators as a tool for controlling business processes in high-tech industries//Ekonomicheskiy analiz: teoriya i praktika [Economic analysis: theory and practice]. 2011. № 44 (251). P. 12-22.
  25. E. M. Bilalova, P. M. Kichikhanova. Application of the balanced scorecard system in the university (on the example of the Dagestan State University)//Fundamental'nyye issledovaniya [Fundamental research]. 2016. № 2-3. P. 472-476.
  26. V. G. Khalin, G. V. Chernova. Evaluation of the quality of management of a Russian university for the implementation of a specific goal//Upravlencheskoye konsul'tirovaniye [Management Consulting]. 2019. № 4(124). P. 50-60. doi: 10.22394/1726-1139-2019-4-50-60.
  27. E. A. Davydenko. The evolution of the balanced scorecard concept: from the origins to the digital enterprise//Kreativnaya ekonomika [Creative Economy]. 2018. Vol. 19. № 2. P. 457-472. doi: 10.18334/rp.19.2.38773.
  28. V. K. Senchagov, S. N. Mityakov. Using the index method to assess the level of economic security//Vestnik Akademii ekonomicheskoy bezopasnosti MVD Rossii [Bulletin of the Academy of Economic Security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia]. 2011. № 5. P. 41-50.
  29. S. N. Mityakov. Modernization of higher education: new challenges to the economic security of the country//Razvitiye i bezopasnost' [Development and security]. 2022. № 2 (14). P. 4-24. doi: 10.46960/2713-2633_2022_2_4.
  30. Informacionno-analiticheskie materialy po rezul'tatam provedenija monitoringa dejatel'nosti obrazovatel'nyh organizacij vysshego obrazovanija [Information and analytical materials based on the results of monitoring the activities of educational institutions of higher education]. https://monitoring.miccedu.ru/?m=vpo.

Authors