IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIC
PLANNING, PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND PROCESS MANAGEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS
Sabrina Letícia Couto da Silva
IFRS, UFRGS, Brazil
E-mail: sabrina.silva@poa.ifrs.edu.br
Letícia Canal Vieira
UFRGS, Brazil
E-mail: leticiacvieira@gmail.com
Everson Pinto da Silva
UFRGS, Brazil
E-mail: everson_evis@hotmail.com
Submission: 22/04/2016
Revision: 19/06/2016
Accept: 12/11/2016
ABSTRACT
The processes of Strategic Planning (SP),
Performance Evaluation (PE) and Process Management (PM) for Higher Education
Institutions (HEI) are considered more, than ever, urgent and necessary, acting
as factors of motivation, awareness and exploratory data collection. The
objective of this paper is to identify positive and negative aspects involved in
realization of SP, PE and PM in HEI, through a literature review in online data
bases, which allowed to conduct an exploratory and descriptive study. It was seen
that HEI are considered complex systems in which results has implications on
SP, PE and PM execution. During the literature review process, some barriers have
been identified for its implementation, such as decentralization, departments
autonomy, heterogeneity in the departments operation, data stored in places
that cannot be accessed by everybody, bureaucracy, change resistance,
dissociation between planning and management, as participation lack of
university community in planning process. However, there were also found ways
to overcome these barriers using mainly the organizational commitment among high
management, clear strategy, wide communication and also through the participation
of all stakeholders.
Keywords: Universities; Strategy; Indicators; Management,
Performance Evaluation
1. INTRODUCTION
The increasing costs maintain Higher Education Institutions
(HEI) along with available budgets reduction, are factors that generate
pressure on finding alternatives for supporting HEI activities and maintaining
focus on the triad: teaching, research and extension (GHILIC-MICU et al.,
2011).
Alternatives that allow HEI to be more sustainable and
effective may already be found in companies, several concepts and practices developed
for the business scenario, can be applied in other sectors (SHIRLEY, 1983),
such as strategic planning, performance evaluation and process, project and
change management.
To define Strategic Planning (SP) it is important to be
aware, separately, of the planning and strategy concepts. For Buckland (2009),
strategy can be define as a process in which organizational activities are
managed and aligned with the institution objectives aiming benefits generating to
their stakeholders.
Regarding planning, Rizatti (2005) sets it as a process
that helps human behavior efficient making and rational decisions, in order to
reach institutional objectives. Conventional planning theory states that an
organization must establish goals and objectives and therefore develop a
strategy to reach it (BRYSON, 1988).
In line with that, Goodstein et al. (1993) points out
that SP is a process in which the organization envisions its future and
develops procedures and operations necessary for reach it. Complementarily,
this author also highlights the need for a clear set of goals and objectives
that will provide priorities, as well as a set of guidelines that will orient
management decisions, in a daily basis.
Peleias (1992) defends that although Performance
Evaluation (PE) may have several meanings, due to the sense assigned to the
term evaluation and the context related to performance, to him, evaluating
performance means to judge or to place a concept, considering previous
expectations. Also Pereira (1999) defines evaluation as the act or effect of
value assigning, which can be understood in a qualitative (merit, importance)
or quantitative (measuring) way.
Business Process Management (BPM) is a new organizational
trend that is leaving behind the functional structure (MÜCKENBERGER et al., 2011).
BPM can be defined as a disciplined approach to identify, draw, execute,
document, measure, monitoring, controlling and improving business process,
automated or not, in order to reach results aimed by the organization strategic
goals (ABPMP, 2009).
Process Management (PM) has a life cycle that is composed
by the following steps: planning and strategy, business process analysis,
design and modeling, implementation, monitoring and control, and process
refinement (ABPMP, 2009). Initially, BPM had a focus in industries, however its
use has already reached other contexts, being possible to identify its
application in services, such as hospitals (LAGIOLA et al., 2008), financial
sector (KÜNG; HAGEN, 2007) and higher education institutions (TUCEK; BASL,
2011), scope of this study.
SP, EP and PM in HEI environment are
important because they act as a motivating factor and promote awareness,
allowing the exploratory data collection and methodologies establishment that
will result in overall improvement of the organization performance, making it
viable to achieve its goals.
All things considered, the purpose
of this article is to identify the positive and negative aspects involved in
making SP, PE and PM, through the use of a literature review.
2. METHOD
This study was exploratory and
descriptive, realized through a bibliographic search in the data bases Scielo,
CAPES Periodicals Portal and Web of Science. Articles in Portuguese, English
and Spanish have been researched, approaching the topics of SP, PE and PM in
universities. In the researched databases, a strict selection was done with the
terms ‘strategic planning’, ‘performance evaluation’ and ‘process management’
and its translations for the idioms searched.
A simple search was executed and
also with the Boolean operator AND. It was searched articles that had in the
title, abstract or keywords, the terms mentioned having HEI as a context. In
this way, 49 articles were found, published between 1983 and 2014.
The qualitative analysis of the data
was realized by content analysis, searching for similarities and differences
between the articles, seeking for comprehend better the application and
development of SP, PE and PM in HEI. The aim was to answer the following
research questions:
Q1) Which
are the advantages of realizing SP, PE and PM in HEI?
Q2) Which
are the difficulties in realizing SP, PE and PM in HEI?
Q3) Which are
the elements that facilitate the realization of SP, PE and PM in HEI?
3. STRATEGIC PLANNING IN HEI
The SP helps to reinforce the
leading role in the institution structure (MARQUES, 2013). Rizatti (2005)
affirms that there are additional benefits generated from the act of planning,
such as: members cohesion to accomplish goals; better acceptance of changes,
once all members of organization participate in the planning process; alignment
of global, sectorial and operational plans, as well as elaboration of indicators
for results analysis.
Strategic Planning is important
because it has the capacity of helping organizations and communities, such as
HEI, to anticipate and respond to changes in a wise an effective way. According
to Meyer et al (2012), if universities do not adopt appropriate strategies,
having the participation of an adequate public, losses in competitiveness,
students, resources and prestige may happen, compromising its future.
Universities are characterized as
complex systems due to several aspects defined by Santos (2002), such as
stakeholders variety and quantity, scattered goals, human resources educational
diversity, norms, political pressures and delays in bureaucratic decision
making process. Besides that, terms such as strategic planning, competition,
competitiveness and others, are common in the business context, but do not
appear in HEI context (MARQUES, 2013).
According to Araújo (2013), the main
factors that did not helped to SP institutionalization are: dissociation
between planning and management, not being considered as an important part of
administration; credibility lack in the use of planning instrument for
management problems solution; noninvolvement of academic community in the
planning activity; collegiate bodies and commissions are not encouraged to
think strategically and are basically focused on daily routines.
There are few studies about attempts
to adapt management techniques to university planning. Regarding technical
aspects, considering the SP, tools combined such as Balanced Scorecard (BSC)
and Hoshin Kanri, facilitates the process of strategic management, once they
provide a conceptual systematic structure and organize implementation process
(SERDAR ASAN; TANYAS, 2007).
Especially BSC might be used by HEI
leaders as a tool that allows translation of vision and strategy in to a
performance model that will help on the connection between top management and
operations (MÜLLER, 2001).
Due to the fact that universities
are a complex organization, other difficulties must also be mentioned: it is
hard for a sole group of managers acknowledge students, employees and other
interested parts needs, although it is comprehend that external environment
might have a positive or negative impact in university (PARIS, 2003). Under this
thought line, Meyer et al (2012) explain that management practices in different
organizational contexts builds a complex combination of approaches, requiring
special abilities from an university manager.
The single elaboration of plans does
not mean that its adoption will be reached by the whole university community.
Although the strategic alignment is hard for all institutions, in universities
it becomes harder, due to the existence of complex dual governance models to
insure academic freedom, having a common objective becomes complicated, once
dissimilar interests might be encountered in different faculties (SCHRAN,
2014).
It is important to consider the
characteristics that make HEI different from other organizations, implying an
adaptation of instruments used in SP (BORGES & ARAÚJO, 2002). Apart from
the complexity of the university structure, SP must elucidate its objectives,
strategies, actions and work plans, so that they are actually executed and not
only conceived (ESTRADA, 2001).
Farrant and Fieldner (1996) mentions
that objectives must be created through an institutional SP, started by the
university and that incorporates a wide consult, generating a consensus between
the community members, conducting audit management and internal studies. For that,
authorities and specialists of different sector of HEI must form simultaneous
sessions of planning and budget, as well as meetings with administrative
counsel, so that they can express their opinions and suggestions and questions
(HAMIDI; DELBAHARI, 2011).
In this way, the process of SP in
HEI cannot be done in an isolated way, once it must encompass organization
culture, administration style and the process of responsibility designation
inside of authorities that already exist (MARQUES, 2013). Also, one of the
necessary conditions to achieve SP objectives is the communication quality that
should happen before, during and after its execution (MACHADO, 2008).
4. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IN HEI
The university is an institution of
services and a space where knowledge is generated and disseminated to society,
through activities of research, teaching and extension. If its processes do not
present satisfactory indicators it is necessary to act, in order to improve
(CANTERLE; FAVARETTO, 2008).
Porto and Réginer (2003) believe
that dissemination of concepts and values associated with quality must occur in
parallel with consolidation of evaluation practices: what is not measured will
hardly be managed.
As Marcovitch (1998) defines,
evaluate is not the final step of a process, it should work as a continuous
portrait, necessary to define parameters for university management.
Barbosa et al (2011) analyzed
possible relations between indicators of management for HEI, proposed by the
Brazilian Court Union Accounts, and student’s performance, through the National
Exam of Student's Performance results. These results indicated that some
indicators did have influence in student’s performance, such as the cost per
student, which presented a positive effect on the performance of students that
took the Exam.
Santos (2002) approached the subject
of HEI’s PE using an economic management perspective, highlighting advantages
of establishing a evaluation criterion based on economic results. Also, using
analyzes executed for specialists in HEI’s PE, the author listed main problems
encountered in current models of evaluation adopted by the government,
especially, problems concerning the difficulty in identifying contributions
generated in terms of social benefits and knowledge created, expressed in an
economic value format.
Khoury and Analoui (2004) proposed
an integrated and innovative model for managing PE process of professors in
Palestine public universities. For its construction, several important matters
were emphasized, such as: definition of a clear institutional strategy, wide
participation in goals definition, training for teachers, good communication
between superiors and subordinates and feedback on results reached.
Besides that, it was pointed out
that the lack of proper training – for teachers and managers – might affect the
process of PE, influencing its results. In the Palestine case, barriers that
might hamper this model application are: cultural characteristics, environment
turbulence and the lack of financial resources.
Canterle and Favaretto (2008) also
developed a model for PE in an HEI, introducting aspects present in quality
systems, based in dialogue and collective construction, allowing that PE be
established as the feedback that will guarantee its quality improvement. This
model provides an effective form of acting on quality, in a way that the
university, in its complexity, becomes capable of respond to different society stakeholder’s
interests. The authors also noticed that PE is not fully accepted and valued by
the university.
Chen and Chen (2010) showed that
existent models of PE were inadequate in Taiwan universities, due to the
differences among public and private universities, considering both measurement
criteria and criteria treatment. To solve these problems, a system containing
three dimensions and seven criteria of measurement was proposed by the authors,
making possible to conduct an operational PE and also allowing to proposed
improvements with higher precision. This system offers better support for
financial and budget planning, allowing an adequate evaluation of financial
decisions and supporting budget control initiatives.
Galvão et al. (2011) developed a
global PE model for private universities, taking into account the need of HEI
fulfilling standards that not only allows the achievement of internal goals,
but also the legal standards established by governmental entities. Aspects
regarding external environment, as well as attendance of client’s needs and
ensuring a good workplace, are crucial for organizations survival. In this way,
alignment with strategic objectives stimulates the quest for better results.
The proposed model, although simple
in a first look, becomes complex in HEI due to the diverse structures and the
existence of more than one campuses. In this way, the model proposed by Galvão
et al. (2011) is in accordance with exigencies made by the Brazilian Ministry
of Education, and it might also contribute for improvement and generation of
new models.
Experiences in different countries
have shown many difficulties in PE process implementation in HEI, due to their
complexity, because of its different characteristics from other companies
(NEAVE, 1988; 1998; YONEZAWA, 2008; WOODHOUSE; GOLDSTEIN, 1988; BIGGERI; BINI,
2001).
Among several difficulties, it is
interesting to highlight the ones with operational and political source. It is
also difficult to establish evaluation criteria that do not have imperfections
for institution that have higher commitments, such as forming qualified professional
with a wide knowledge that must perform activities of learning, research and
extension. The appropriated way of measuring these activities still is an open
question (BERTOLIN, 2007; BIGGERI; BINI, 2001; YONEZAWA, 2008).
Lopes (1999) studied institutional
aspects influence in the PE process in HEI and observed a strong participation
of thus aspects in all phases of evaluation process, which generated
incompatibilities between institutional patterns and expectations of community
members (staff, teachers, students).
Also, he observed that public
universities are subject to strong pressures of the institutional environment,
such as Brazilian government policies of evaluation, new courses and research
projects approval process, post-graduation courses and concessions of credit
evaluation, being this one crucial for universities economic maintenance.
Luz (1989) proposed a PE model for
university libraries in Brazil, highlighted the need of defining performance
evaluation indicators. Although it is also not clear which indicators should be
considered in this analysis, it was considered three criteria: user’s opinion,
use of collections and availability of collections.
Considering PE in university
libraries, Das Graças Coletta and Rozenfeld (2007), also point out difficulties
in defining indicators and creating an evaluation manual suitable for any
library. Stubbs (2004) affirms that a library has political reasons to face
regarding those that support it and should show results of success and improvements
obtained to all users and to the general community. The data of PE work as
support to decision making and also as a tool for management.
5. PROCESS MANAGEMENT IN HEI’S
Reasons typically pointed out for
adopting PM in organizations are: documenting relationships between Information
Technology (IT) processes; allowing a more efficient information flux,
exploring in a suitable way time the workers abilities; reducing costs;
assuring quality and efficiency in process (SVENSSON & HVOLBY, 2012;
MÜCKENBERGER et al, 2011; TUCEK; BASL, 2011).
Considering specifically HEI’s,
maintaining intellectual capital is another advantage generated by PM adoption,
once resources such as knowledge, intellectual property and experience, are
strongly present in HEI’s, being possible to affirm that those represent its
higher value (MÜCKENBERGER et al, 2011).
Whereas its use ends up being
affected by HEI’s characteristics, business tools, such as BPM, have potential
to improve analytical capacities of HEI’s such as: decentralization,
departments autonomy, large possibility of heterogeneity in operational
departments conditions, data storage in places that does not allow access of
all employees (Excel files or hard copies) and bureaucratic issues (GHILIC-MICU
et al, 2011; SVENSSON; HVOLBY, 2012; MÜCKENBERGER et al, 2011). These factors
result in loss of process agility and impaired immediate application of
improvements (MÜCKENBERGER et al, 2011).
Brodbeck et al. (2013) conducted a
work in an HEI with the objective of planning and implementing processes
office, developing a methodology consistent with the reality of these
institutions. The authors emphasize that prior to development of the stages, it
was conducted a stage aiming to training employees in BPM and in the software that
was used for modeling processes, making more doable the application. The steps
conducted were: strategic context, modeling and analysis, implementation and
execution. The authors also mentioned that the compromising of managers is
essential for executing the project.
Ahmad et al. (2007) identify
critical success factors for the BPM execution in HEI’s, pointing as critical
the undermentioned:
●
The presence of group
work and culture with focus on quality;
●
Organization systems
must be in accordance with the direction that organization is pursuing;
●
HEI’s must be prepared to manage impacts
generated by change. In this way, it is crucial to involve people that will
suffer these changes impacts. The resistance to change is frequently pointed
out as a bigger difficulty over than the lack of financial resources.
●
Encourage creativity and innovation, being
necessary less bureaucracy, higher participation and more employee decision
autonomy.
●
The use of IT has great value for PM, although
it is necessary to clear understanding of IT integration with departments.
●
Project management is
important for allowing adequate planning and management of PM. It is necessary the
existence of professionals with knowledge in project management, otherwise, it
might not be obtained success, wasting money and/or effort, among other
resources.
●
Existence of adequate
financial resources.
Ghilic-Micu, Mircea and Stoica
(2011) highlight that knowledge is the determinant factor of the performance
that HEI’s will present to the market, being most of its processes related with
employees’ knowledge. This implies that processes have collaborative
characteristics, involving complex iteractions among participants and this
complexity might not be supported by the BMP. Authors suggest the use of different
approaches with BPM such as Case Management, for transposing this limitation.
Case Management has a similar
approach compared with BPM, thus it brings advantages in cases were more
flexibility is demanded, being more focused in collaboration, ideal for
processes not so structured and that are subjected to changes (MARIN et al,
2013). The difference among BPM and Case Management is that BPM has a focus on
processes optimization, aiming to increase finished work.
Observing the Case Management, it is
more focused in optimization of individual cases results, by providing an
integrated set of information and services for workers. The integration of
these two approaches might be suitable for HEI’s case, where BPM might be used
in more rigid processes, while in cases were more complexity can be found, Case
Management might be more suitable.
6. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS ON EP, PE AND PM IN HEI
Considering the realization of EP,
PE and PM in HEI’s, authors present a common vision regarding universities
characteristics that make this processes stronger in other organizations.
HEI’s are considered as complex
systems (GHILIC-MICU et al, 2011; ESTRADA, 2001; NEAVE, 1988; 1998; YONEZAWA,
2008; WOODHOUSE; GOLDSTEIN, 1988; BIGGERI; BINI, 2001) which leads to implications
when EP, PE and PM is executed, being necessary to observe the inherent
singularities in these organizations, promoting adaptations in their
structures.
In EP and PM execution it is
necessary to consider that the highest value of HEI’s is the knowledge, being
necessary a focus on this direction. The PE is the element that will allow
continuous improvement of EP and PM, because it supplies an updated portrait
and more subsides for decision making.
Besides the complexity, other
barriers were identified in the literature that influence on EP, PE and PM
execution, as a whole or only in one of the dimensions. Thus, when it is
considered that these three elements are interconnected, barriers related to
one aspect might generate interferences in others. The barriers founded in
literature were:
• Decentralization;
• Departments' autonomy;
• Operation department's heterogeneity;
• Data stored in places that are not available to all employees;
• Bureaucracy;
• Change resistance;
• Dissociation among planning and management;
• Lack of planning process participation among university community.
Aiming to overcome the barriers
presented, facilitators to the accomplishment of EP, PE and PM were also
identified, in literature, the facilitators which are presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1:
Facilitators to EP, PE and PM.
It is possible to see that
facilitators might have influence on more than one sphere, reinforcing the idea
that EP, PE and PM must act in an integrated manner. It becomes clear that
crucial aspects for a good implementation of EP, PE and PM are: top management
commitment, existence of a clear strategy, good communication and participation
of all actors involved.
This study was purely descriptive
and future research will be necessary to deepen the subject in the context of
higher education institutions.
REFERENCES
AHMAD, H.; FRANCIS, A.;
ZAIRI, M. (2007) Business process reengineering: critical success factors in
higher education. Business Process Management Journal, v. 13, n. 3, p. 451-469.
ARAÚJO, M. A. D. D. (2013) Planejamento estratégico: um instrumental à
disposição das universidades? Revista
de administração pública, v. 30, n. 4, p. 74-a.
ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS
PROCESS MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONALS - ABPMP. (2009) Guia para o gerenciamento de processos de negócio: corpo comum de
conhecimento (BPM CBOK). versão 2.0. Chicago: Association of Business Process
Management Professionals.
BARBOSA, G. D. C.; FREIRE, F. D. S.; CRISÓSTOMO, V. L. (2011) Análise
dos Indicadores de Gestão das IFES e o Desempenho Discente no ENADE. Revista Avaliação, Campinas. Sorocaba,
SP, n. 16, p. 317-344.
BERTOLIN, J. C. (2007) Indicadores em nível de sistema para avaliar o
desenvolvimento e a qualidade da educação superior brasileira. Revista Avaliação, Campinas,
309-331.
BIGGERI, L.; BINI, M. (2001)
Evaluation at university and state level in Italy: need for a system of
evaluation and indicators. Tertiary education and management, v. 7, n. 2, p. 149-162.
BORGES, D. F.; ARAÚJO, M. A. D. D. (2002) Uma experiência de
planejamento estratégico em universidade: o caso do centro de ciências sociais
aplicadas da UFRN. Revista de
Administração Pública, v. 35, n. 4, p. 63-a.
BRODBECK, A. F.; MUSSE, J. I.; SILVA, M. V.; ZIMMERMANN, A. (2013) Implementação de Escritório de Processos em
Organizações Governamentais: o caso de uma Instituição de Ensino Superior.
Workshop de Tecnologia da Informação e Comunicação das Instituições Federais de
Ensino Superior do Brasil. João Pessoa, PB, Brasil.
BRYSON, J. M. (1988) A
strategic planning process for public and non-profit organizations. Long range planning, v. 21, n. 1,
p. 73-81.
BUCKLAND, R. (2009) Private
and Public Sector Models for Strategies in Universities*. British
Journal of Management, v. 20,
n. 4, p. 524-536.
CANTERLE, N. M. G.; FAVARETTO, F. (2008) Proposta de um modelo
referencial de gestão de indicadores de qualidade na instituição universitária.
Ensaio, v. 16, n.
60, p. 393-412.
CHEN, J. K.; CHEN, I. (2010)
A pro-performance appraisal system for the university. Expert
Systems with Applications, v. 37,
n. 3, p. 2108-2116.
DAS GRAÇAS COLETTA, T.; ROZENFELD, H. (2007) Indicadores de desempenho
para bibliotecas universitárias: definições e aplicações sob o ponto de vista
da literatura. Perspectivas em
Ciência da Informação, v. 12, n. 3, p. 129-141.
ESTRADA, R. J. S. (2001) Os rumos do planejamento estratégico nas
instituições públicas de ensino superior. Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Produção (XXI: 2001: Salvador)
Anais... Salvador: Faculdade de Tecnologia e Ciências.
FARRANT, J.; FIELDEN, J. (1996) Strategic Planning in African
Universities. New Papers on Higher
Education, n. 2. Paris: UNESCO.
GALVÃO, H. M.; CORRÊA, H. L.; ALVES, J. L. (2011) Modelo de avaliação de
desempenho global para instituição de ensino superior. Revista de Administração da UFSM, v. 4, n. 3, p.
425-441.
GHILIC-MICU, B.; MIRCEA, M.;
STOICA, M. (2011) Knowledge based economy–technological perspective:
implications and solutions for agility improvement and innovation achievement
in higher education. The AMFITEATRU
ECONOMIC journal, v. 13, n. 30, p. 404-419.
GOODSTEIN, L. D.; NOLAN, T. M.; PFEIFFER, J. W. (1993) Applied Strategic Planning: How to
develop a plan that really works. McGraw- Hill.
HAMIDI, K.; DELBAHARI, V.
(2011) Formulating a Strategy for a University Using SWOT Technique: A Case
Study. Australian Journal of Basic
& Applied Sciences, v. 5, n. 12.
KHOURY, G. C.; ANALOUI, F.
(2004) Innovative management model for performance appraisal: the case of the
Palestinian public universities. Management
Research News, v. 27, n. 1/2, p. 56-73.
KÜNG, P.; HAGEN, C. (2007)
The fruits of Business Process Management: an experience report from a Swiss
bank. Business Process Management
Journal, v. 13, n. 4, p. 477-487.
LAGIOIA, U. C. T.; FALK, J.
A.; RIBEIRO FILHO, J. F.; LIBONATI, J. J.; LOPES, J. E. G. (2008) A gestão por processos gera melhoria de
qualidade e redução de custos: o caso da unidade de ortopedia e traumatologia
do hospital das clínicas da universidade federal de Pernambuco. Revista de Contabilidade & Finanças,
v. 19, n. 48, p. 77-90.
LOPES, F. D. (1999) Teoria institucional e gestão universitária: uma
análise do processo de avaliação institucional na UNIJUÍ. Revista Eletrônica de Administração–READ.
Porto Alegre, v. 5, n. 4.
LUZ, G. (1989) Bibliotecas
universitárias: um modelo de avaliação de desempenho. Bibliotecas
universitárias: um modelo de avaliação de desempenho.
MACHADO, L. E. (2008) Gestão
estratégica para instituições de ensino superior privadas. FGV Editora.
MARCOVITCH, J. (1998) A universidade impossível. Editora
Futura.
MARIN, M.; HULL, R.;
VACULÍN, R. (2013) Data centric BPM and the emerging case management standard:
A short survey. In Business Process
Management Workshops (p. 24-30). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
MARQUES, M. D. C. D. C.
(2013) Strategic Management, Leadership
and Governance of the University in Portugal.
MEYER JR., V.; PASCUCCI, L.;
MANGOLIN, L. (2012) Gestão estratégica: um exame de práticas em universidades
privadas. RAP-Revista de Administração
Pública, v. 46, n. 1, p. 49-70.
MÜCKENBERGER, E.; TOGASHIB, G. B.; DE PÁDUAC, S. I. D.; MIURAD, I. K. (2011)
Gestão de processos aplicada à realização de convênios internacionais
bilaterais em uma instituição de ensino superior pública brasileira. Gestão & Produção, p. 15.
MÜLLER, J. R. (2001) Desenvolvimento
de modelo de gestão aplicado à universidade, tendo por base o Balanced
Scorecard.
NEAVE, G. (1988) On the
cultivation of quality, efficiency and enterprise: an overview of recent trends
in higher education in Western Europe, 1986-1988. European journal of education, p. 7-23.
NEAVE, G. (1998) The
evaluative state reconsidered. European
Journal of education, p. 265-284.
PARIS, K. A. (2003) Strategic planning in the university. UW-Madison
Office of Quality Improvement.
PELEIAS, I. R. (1992) Avaliação de
desempenho: um enfoque de gestão econômica.
PEREIRA, C. A.; OLIVEIRA, A. (1999) Controladoria-Uma
Abordagem da Gestão Econômica GECON. São Paulo: Atlas.
PORTO, C.; RÉGNIER, K. (2003) O
Ensino Superior no Mundo e no Brasil–Condicionantes, Tendências e Cenários para
o Horizonte 2003-2025: uma abordagem exploratória. Brasília:
Ministério da Educação.
RIZATTI, G.; RIZATTI JUNIOR, G. (2005) Importância
do Planejamento para as Universidades. Anais
Colóquio Internacional sobre Gestão Universitária na América do Sul,
Florianópolis, SC, Brasil, 5.
SANTOS, L. P. G. D. (2002) Uma contribuição à discussão sobre a
avaliação de desempenho das instituições federais de ensino superior: uma
abordagem da gestão econômica. Revista
Contabilidade & Finanças, v. 13, n. 28, p. 86-99.
SCHRAM, A. (2014)
Leadership, Strategic Planning and Strategic Management for Higher Education
Institutions in Developing Countries. In World
Business and Economics Research Conference (p. 24-25).
SCHWARTZMAN, S. (1989) Funções
e avaliação do ensino superior. Documento de trabalho do Núcleo de Pesquisas
Sobre Ensino Superior (NUPES). Brasília.
SERDAR ASAN, Ş.; TANYAŞ, M.
(2007) Integrating Hoshin Kanri and the balanced scorecard for strategic
management: The case of higher education. Total
Quality Management, v. 18, n. 9, p. 999-1014.
SHIRLEY, R. C. (1983)
Identifying the Levels of Strategy for a College or University. Long Range
Planning, v. 16,
n. 3, p. 92-98.
STUBBS, E. A. (2004) Indicadores de desempeño: naturaleza, utilidad y
construcción. Ciência da Informação, v.
33, n. 1, p. 149-154.
SVENSSON, C.; HVOLBY, H. H. (2012)
Establishing a business process reference model for Universities. Procedia Technology, n. 5, p. 635-642.
TUCEK, D.; BASL, J. (2011).
Using BPM Principles to Increase the Efficiency of Processes in Higher
Education in the CR. In Proceedings
of the 2nd International Conference on Education and Education technologies
2011 (WORLD–EDU 11,) (p. 299).
WOODHOUSE, G.; GOLDSTEIN, H.
(1988). Educational performance indicators and LEA league tables. Oxford Review of Education, v. 14,
n. 3, p. 301-320.
YONEZAWA, A. (2008). Quality
assessment and assurance in japanese universities: the plight of the social
sciences. Social Science Japan Journal, v. 11, n. 1, p. 69-82.