Measuring the relative efficiency of quality management practices in Turkish public and private universities

Journal of the Operational Research Society

Volumn 64, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 1810-1830

  Bayraktar, E ^a   Tatoglu, E ^a   Zaim, S ^b  

^a BAHCESEHIR UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b MARMARA UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Data envelopment analysis; Public and private universities; Quality management; Stochastic frontier analysis; Turkey

Indexed keywords

BENCHMARKING; COST EFFECTIVENESS; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; EFFICIENCY; QUALITY MANAGEMENT; STOCHASTIC SYSTEMS;

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS; PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES; QUALITY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES; STOCHASTIC FRONTIER ANALYSIS; STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES; STRUCTURAL EFFICIENCIES; TEACHING AND RESEARCHES; TURKEY;

QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 84888863503     PISSN: 01605682     EISSN: 14769360     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/jors.2013.2     Document Type: Article

References (92)

1. Abbott M and Doucouliagos C (2003). The efficiency of Australian universities: A data envelopment analysis. Economics of Education Review 22(1): 89-97
2. Ahire SL and Golhar DY (1996). Quality management in large vs. small firms. Journal of Small Business Management 34(2): 1-11
3. Ahire SL, Golhar DY and Waller MA (1996). Development and validation of TQM implementation constructs. Decision Sciences 27(1): 23-56
4. Ahn T, Charnes A and Cooper WW (1988). Some statistical and DEA evaluations of relative efficiencies of public and private institutions of higher learning. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 22(6): 259-269
5. Aigner DJ, Lovell CAK and Schmidt P (1977). Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier function models. Journal of Econometrics 6(1): 21-37
6. Anderson JC, Rungtusanatham M and Schroeder RG (1994). A theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method. Academy of Management Review 19(3): 472-509
7. Archibald RB and Feldman DH (2008). Graduation rates and accountability: Regressions versus production frontiers. Research in Higher Education 49(1): 80-100
8. Avkiran NK (2001). Investigating technical and scale efficiencies of Australian universities through data envelopment analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 35(1): 57-80
9. Banker RD, Charnes A and Cooper WW (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 30(9): 1078-1092
10. Barros CP (2005). Performance measurement in tax offices with a stochastic frontier model. Journal of Economic Studies 32(6): 497-510
11. Barros CP and Peypoch N (2009). An evaluation of European airlines' operational performance. International Journal of Production Economics 122(2): 525-533
12. Battese GE and Corra GS (1977). Estimation of a production frontier model: With application to the pastoral zone of eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 21(3): 169-179
13. Bayraktar E, Tatoglu E and Zaim S (2008). An instrument for measuring the critical factors of TQM in Turkish higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 19(5-6): 551-574
14. Bayraktar E, Gunasekaran A, Koh SCL, Tatoglu E, Demirbag M and Zaim S (2010). An efficiency comparison of supply chain management and information systems practices: A study of Turkish and Bulgarian small-And medium-sized enterprises in food products and beverages. International Journal of Production Research 48(2): 425-451
15. Beasley JE (1990). Comparing university departments. Omega 18(2): 171-183
16. Birnbaum R and Deshotels J (1999). Has the academy adopted TQM? Planning for Higher Education 28(1): 29-37
17. Black SE and Porter LJ (1996). Identification of the critical factors of TQM. Decision Sciences 27(1): 1-21
18. Breu TM and Raab RL (1994). Efficiency and perceived quality of the nation's 'top 25' national universities and national liberal arts colleges: An application of data envelopment analysis to higher education. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 28(1): 33-45
19. Brockett PL and Golany B (1996). Using rank statistics for determining programmatic efficiency differences in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 42(3): 466-472
20. Calvo-Mora A, Leal A and Roldan JL (2005). Relationship between the EFQM model criteria: A study in Spanish universities. Total Quality Management 16(6): 741-770
21. Campbell C and Rozsnyai C (2002). Quality assurance and the development of course programmes. Papers onHigher Education, Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES
22. Casu B and Thanassoulis E (2006). Evaluating cost efficiency in central administrative services in UK universities. Omega 34(5): 417-426
23. Cave M, Hanney S and Kogan M (1991). The Use of Performance Indicators in Higher Education: A Critical Analysis of Developing Practice. 2nd edn, Jessica Kingsley Publishers: London
24. Charnes A, Cooper WW and Rhodes E (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2(6): 429-444
25. Chen YH and Lin WT (2009). Analyzing the relationships between information technology, inputs substitution and national characteristics based on CES stochastic frontier production models. International Journal of Production Economics 120(2): 552-569
26. COHE (2007). The Strategy of Turkish Higher Education. Publication No: 2007-1, Bilkent: Ankara
27. COHE (2010). The Higher Education System in Turkey. Bilkent: Ankara
28. Colbert A, Levary RR and Shaner MC (2000). Determining the relative efficiency of MBA programs using DEA. European Journal of Operational Research 125(3): 656-669
29. Collier T, Johnson AL and Ruggiero J (2011). Technical efficiency estimation with multiple inputs and multiple outputs using regression analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 208(2): 153-160
30. Cook WD (2004). Qualitative data in DEA. In: Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Zhu J (eds) Handbook on Data Envelopment Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell, M.A.
31. Cook WD and Zhu J (2005). Modeling Performance Measurement: Applications and Implementation Issues of DEA. Springer: USA
32. Cooper WW, Seiford LM and Tone K (2000). Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, M.A.
33. Csizmadia TG (2006). Quality Management in Hungarian Higher Education. CHEPS/UT: The Netherlands
34. Demirbag M, Tatoglu E, Tekinkus M and Zaim S (2006). An analysis of the relationship between TQM implementation and organizational performance: Evidence from Turkish SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 17(6): 829-847
35. Demirbag M, Tatoglu E, Glaister KW and Zaim S (2010). Measuring strategic decision making efficiency in different contexts: A comparison of British and Turkish firms. Omega 38(1-2): 95-104
36. Diana T (2010). Can we explain airport performance? A case study of selected New York airports using a stochastic frontier model. Journal of Air Transport Management 16(6): 310-314
37. Doyle JR, Arthurs AJ, Green RH, McAulay L, Pitt MR and BottemleyMA (1996). The judge, the model of the judge, and the model of judged as judge: Analyses of the UK 1992 research assessment exercise data for business management studies. Omega 24(1): 13-28
38. Eckles JE (2010). Evaluating the efficiency of top liberal arts colleges. Research in Higher Education 51(3): 266-293
39. EUA (European Universities Association) (2011). http://www .eua.be/eua-membership-And-services/Home/members-directory .aspx, accessed 17 January 2011
40. Farrell MJ (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A. General 120(3): 253-281
41. Flynn BB, Schroder RG and Sakakibara S (1994). A framework for quality management research and an associated measurement instrument. Journal of Operations Management 11(4): 339-366
42. Forker LB and Mendez D (2001). An analytical method for benchmarking best peer suppliers. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 21(1/2): 195-209
43. Grant D, Mergen E and Widrick S (2002). Quality management in US higher education. Total Quality Management 13(2): 207-215
44. Grant D, Mergen E and Widrick S (2004). A comparative analysis of quality management in US and international universities. Total Quality Management 15(4): 423-438
45. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL and Black WC (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis. 4th edn, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
46. Johnes G and Johnes J (1993). Measuring the research performance of UK economics departments: An application of data envelopment analysis. Oxford Economic Papers 45(2): 332-347
47. Johnes G, Johnes J and Thanassoulis E (2008). An analysis of costs in institutions of higher education in England. Studies in Higher Education 33(5): 527-549
48. Johnes J (2006a).Measuring teaching efficiency in higher education: An application of data envelopment analysis to economics graduates from UK universities 1993. European Journal of Operational Research 174(1): 443-456
49. Johnes J (2006b). Data envelopment analysis and its application to the measurement of efficiency in higher education. Economics of Education Review 25(3): 273-288
50. Kanji GK and Tambi AMBA (1999). Total quality management in UK higher education institutions. Total Quality Management 10(1): 129-153
51. Kanji GK, Tambi AMBA and Wallace W (1999). A comparative study of quality practices in higher education institutions in the US and Malaysia. Total Quality Management 10(3): 357-371
52. Kao C and Hung HT (2008). Efficiency analysis of university departments: An empirical study. Omega 36(4): 653-664
53. Kaynak H (2003). The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management 21(4): 405-435
54. Kodde DA and Palm FC (1986). Wald criteria for jointly testing equality and inequality restrictions. Econometrica 54(5): 1243-1248
55. Korpela J, Lehmusvaara A and Nisonen J (2007). Warehouse operator selection by combining AHP and DEA methodologies. International Journal of Production Economics 108(1-2): 135-142
56. Lin C, Madu CN, Kuei CH and Lu MH (2004). The relative efficiency of quality management practices: A comparison study on American-, Japanese-, and Taiwanese-owned firms in Taiwan. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 21(5): 564-577
57. Liu FF and Wang P (2008). DEAMalmquist productivity measure: Taiwanese semiconductor companies. International Journal of Production Economics 112(1): 367-379
58. Liu JS, Lu LYY, Lu WM and Lin BJY (2013). Data envelopment analysis 1978-2010: A citation-based literature survey. Omega 41(1): 3-15
59. Mancebon MJ and Muniz MA (2008). Private versus public high schools in Spain: Disentangling managerial and programme efficiencies. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59(7): 892-901
60. Materu P (2007). Higher education quality assurance in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank Working Paper No. 124, Washington, DC: The World Bank
61. McMillan ML and Datta D (1998). The relative efficiencies of Canadian universities: A DEA perspective. Canadian Public Policy-Analyse de Politiques 24(4): 485-511
62. MeeusenWand Van den Broek J (1977). Efficiency estimation from Cobb-Douglas production functions with composed error. International Economic Review 18(2): 435-444
63. Mizikaci F (2003). Quality systems and accreditation in higher education: An overview of Turkish higher education. Quality in Higher Education 9(1): 95-106
64. Narasimhan R, Talluri S and Das A (2004). Exploring flexibility and execution competencies of manufacturing firms. Journal of Operations Management 22(1): 91-106
65. Ng YC and Li SK (2000). Measuring the research performance of Chinese higher education institutions: An application of data envelopment analysis. Education Economics 8(2): 139-156
66. Norman M and Stoker B (1991). Data Envelopment Analysis: The Assessment of Performance. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester
67. Nunnally JC (1978). Psychometric Theory. 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill: New York
68. OECD (2008). OECD Territorial Reviews: Istanbul, Turkey. OECD Policy Review OECD Publishing: Paris
69. Owlia MS and Aspinwall EM (1997). TQM in higher education-A review. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 14(5): 527-543
70. Prajogo DI and Sohal AS (2006). The relationship between organization strategy, total quality management (TQM) and organization performance-The mediating role of TQM. European Journal of Operational Research 168(1): 35-50
71. Rahman S and Bullock P (2005). Soft TQM, hard TQM, and organisational performance relationships: An empirical investigation. Omega 33(1): 73-83
72. Ramanathan R (2003). An Introduction to Data Envelopment Analysis: A Tool for Performance Measurement. Sage Publications: New Delhi
73. Reichmann G and Sommersguter-Reichmann M (2006). University library benchmarking: An international comparison using DEA. International Journal of Production Economics 100(1): 131-147
74. Sadikoglu E and Zehir C (2010). Investigating the effects of innovation and employee performance on the relationship between total quality management practices and firm performance: An empirical study of Turkish firms. International Journal of Production Economics 127(1): 13-26
75. Sahney S, Banwet DK and Karuness S (2004). A SERVQUAL and QFD approach to total quality education: A student perspective. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 53(2): 143-166
76. Saraph JV, Benson GB and Schroeder RG (1989). An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision Sciences 20(4): 810-829
77. Sarrico CS and Dyson RG (2000). Using DEA for planning in UK universities-An institutional perspective. Journal of the Operational Research Society 51(7): 789-800
78. Seo D and Shin J (2011). The impact of incentive regulation on productivity in the US telecommunications industry: A stochastic frontier approach. Information Economics and Policy 23(1): 3-11
79. Seymour D (1991). TQM on campus: What the pioneers are finding. AAHE Bulletin 44(3): 10-18
80. Sila I (2007). Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lens of organizational theories: An empirical study. Journal of Operations Management 25(1): 83-109
81. Stevens PA (2005). A stochastic frontier analysis of English and Welsh universities. Education Economics 13(4): 355-374
82. Swink M, Talluri S and Pandejpong T (2006). Faster, better, cheaper: A study of NPD project efficiency and performance tradeoffs. Journal of Operations Management 24(5): 542-562
83. Tabak BM and Tecles PL (2010). Estimating a Bayesian stochastic frontier for the Indian banking system. International Journal of Production Economics 125(1): 96-110
84. Tang KH and Zairi M (1998). Benchmarking quality implementation in a service context: A comparative analysis of financial services and institutions of higher education. Part III. Total Quality Management 9(8): 669-679
85. Taylor B and Harris G (2004). Relative efficiency among South African universities: A data envelopment analysis. Higher Education 47(1): 73-89
86. Thanassoulis E, Kortelainen M, Johnes G and Johnes J (2011). Costs and efficiency of higher education institutions in England: A DEA analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society 62(7): 1282-1297
87. Thursby JG and Kemp S (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy 31(1): 109-124
88. Vazzana G, Elfrink J and Bachmann DP (2000). A longitudinal study of total quality management processes in business colleges. Journal of Education for Business 76(2): 69-74
89. Yang H (2010). Measuring the efficiencies of Asia-Pacific international airports-Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Computers & Industrial Engineering 59(4): 697-702
90. Zhang Z, Waszink A and Wijngaard J (2000). An instrument for measuring TQM implementation for Chinese manufacturing companies. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 17(7): 730-755
91. Zhu J (2003). Imprecise data envelopment analysis (IDEA): A review and improvement with an application. European Journal of Operational Research 144(3): 513-529
92. Zink ZL and Schmidt A (1995). Measuring universities against the European Quality Award criteria. Total Quality Management 6(5/6): 547-562