Assessing the Performance of Public Research Universities Using NSF/NCES Data and Data Envelopment Analysis Technique Professional File

This Professional File explores the use of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) as a multi-dimensional and multi-criterion tool for assessing and benchmarking the performance of public research universities. Using readily available national databases such as the annual institutional surveys conducted by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NSES), our study examines the research and instructional efficiency of public research universities. The value of this new assessment method is justified by the integration of theories from two disciplines: organizational assessment of educational institutions (i.e., Gaither, 1995; Gaither, Nedwek, and Neal, 1994; Ewell, 1988) and the resource-based perspective of strategic management (i.e., Barney, 1991, 1992; Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). The DEA as a tool for obtaining multivariate performance indices has been used extensively to study the performance of public and service-oriented organizations. The DEA’s mathematical formulation for measuring university performance can be verbally stated as: find a multivariate ratio, which (1) characterizes each university in terms of its outcomes and resources, and (2) provides an ordering, from most effective to least effective, of universities with similar resources, missions, and environmental constraints, but different levels of outcomes. The analyses presented herein progress from simple three-variable models to a full-blown model with multiple variables for an integrative assessment of university performance. Using the DEA method, this study examines the research and instructional outcomes of public Research I universities and performs a focused analysis of The Ohio State University. The results of this study demonstrate how DEA can be explored as an alternative approach to improve the methodological sophistification of performance measurement tools in higher education. While research results in this study are preliminary in nature, our findings show great promise that DEA can be used by university decision-makers to assess their strategic positions and to locate key areas for improvement.

[1]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[2]  Lawrence L. Martin,et al.  Comparative Performance Measurement: A Primer on Data Envelopment Analysis , 1999 .

[3]  Frederick S. Hillier,et al.  Introduction of Operations Research , 1967 .

[4]  James W. Altschuld,et al.  Assessing the Effectiveness of Research Organizations , 1995 .

[5]  Abraham Charnes,et al.  Measuring the efficiency of decision making units , 1978 .

[6]  Haksever Cengiz,et al.  Measuring Value in MBA Programmes , 1998 .

[7]  J. Barney.  Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[8]  Henrik P Minassians,et al.  Linking State Resources to Campus Results: From Fad to Trend--The Fifth Annual Survey. , 2001 .

[9]  Rodney H. Green,et al.  Self and peer appraisal in higher education , 1994 .

[10]  Mark W. Lipsey,et al.  Evaluation: A Systematic Approach , 1979 .

[11]  P. Schoemaker,et al.  Strategic assets and organizational rent , 1993 .

[12]  N. Diamond,et al.  The Rise of American Research Universities: Elites and Challengers in the Postwar Era , 1997 .

[13]  E. Boyer.  Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate , 1990 .

[14]  Thomas R. Sexton,et al.  The methodology of data envelopment analysis , 1986 .

[15]  Gerald H. Gaither.  Measuring Up: The Promises and Pitfalls of Performance Indicators in Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 5. , 1994 .

[16]  Cláudia S. Sarrico,et al.  Data envelopment analysis and university selection , 1997 .

[17]  Peter Karmel,et al.  Public Policy and Higher Education , 2001 .

[18]  Ra Bell,et al.  The search for appropriate benchmarking partners: A macro approach and application to corporate travel management , 1994 .

[19]  Anand Desai,et al.  Technical issues in measuring scholastic improvement due to compensatory education programs , 1990 .

[20]  J. Wholey.  Evaluation and effective public management , 1983 .

[21]  Anand Desai.  Data envelopment analysis: A clarification , 1992 .

[22]  Zilla Sinuany-Stern,et al.  Academic departments efficiency via DEA , 1994, Comput. Oper. Res..

[23]  Jill Johnes,et al.  Measuring the Research Performance of UK Economics Departments: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis , 1993 .

[24]  Debasish Datta,et al.  The Relative Efficiencies of Canadian Universities: A DEA Perspective , 1998 .

[25]  Abraham Charnes,et al.  Programming with linear fractional functionals , 1962 .

[26]  Chiang Kao.  Evaluation of junior colleges of technology: The Taiwan case , 1994 .

[27]  Michael Quinn Patton,et al.  Utilization-Focused Evaluation , 1979 .

[28]  R. Green,et al.  AN EXPERIMENT IN THE USE OF DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS FOR EVALUATING THE EFFICIENCY OF UK UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENTS OF ACCOUNTING , 1988 .

[29]  Richard H. Silkman,et al.  Measuring efficiency : an assessment of data envelopment analysis , 1986 .