Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Farhangian University, Sari, Mazandaran, Iran.

2 2. Department of Management, Islamic Azad University, Aliabad Katoul Branch, Iran

Abstract

Abstract
Introduction
The current study seeks to develop the Productivity Measurement Model (PMM) at Farhangian University to maximize the use of resources, manpower, facilities, reduce production costs, expand markets and increase employment.
Methodology
In the qualitative phase, using an exploratory data collection, the participating team including academic experts in different fields of humanities including the directors of Farhangian University (n=50), were selected by a non-probability (purposive) manner and the snowball method to develop and validate the PMM. Fifteen interviews were conducted with university faculty members until theoretical saturation was reached. To rank and fit the PMM, a questionnaire consistent with the findings of the qualitative section was sent to the academic staff at random. The validity and reliability indices of the questionnaires were calculated by experts; factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha-test of 0.70 were all confirmed. Out of 274 questionnaires distributed, 221 complete questionnaires were returned used as the basis for statistical analysis.
Findings
After conducting interviews and reviewing previous research, indicators related to productivity measurement by content analysis method (142) and interviews with experts (34) were identified and finally by Delphi method 138 indicators in the areas of "design, planning and resource development" "Education", "Research and Technology" and "Student, Cultural and Social" were approved. In the quantitative phase, the structural equation model was used for validation.
Discussion
Considering that all productivity measurement indicators in Farhangian University have been approved using confirmatory factor analysis in each field, the indicators in the field of research and technology with a path coefficient of 0.977 have a value of t, higher than 1.96. The coefficient of determination of this index is 95.4% of the productivity measurement and it has the first rank and the indicators of the student, cultural and social field with a path coefficient of 0.947 have a value of t, higher than 1.96. The coefficient of determination of this index (89.7%) explains the productivity measurement and is in the second place, and the indicators of the field of education with a path coefficient of 0.937 have a value of t, higher than 1.96. The coefficient of determination of these indicators of 87.9% explains the productivity measurement and has the third rank and the coefficient of determination of this index of 87.7% explains the productivity measurement and ranks fourth among other factors. After determining the productivity indicators, calculations related to productivity indicators and factors affecting productivity changes can be determined.

Keywords

Abdollahi, H. (2012). Challenges of Measuring the Educational Efficiency amongthe University Faculty Members, Educational Measurement. (3)7, 134-142. [Persian]
Afrareh, A. (2011). Manpower productivity. Tehran: Public Management Training Center. [Persian]
Aghajani, H.A., Kia Kojouri, D., & Yahyatabar, F. (2014). Performance Appraisal of Islamic Azad University Branches of Mazandaran Province Using Data Envelopment Analysis, Journal of Operational Research and Its Applications (Journal of Applied Mathematics), 4(10), 111-125. [Persian]
Atkinson-Grosjean, J., & Grosjean, G. (2000). The Use of performance models in higher education: a comparative international review. http://lst-iiep.iiep-unesco.org/cgi-bin
Boobie, B. (2009). Evaluating the efficiencies of university faculities: Adjusted data envelopment analysis. Australia; Conference Paper for Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand (Afaanz).
Brandak, M. (2008). Measuring research productivity in technical and engineering universities. Proceedings of the first higher education seminar in Iran. By the effort of Mehdi Forghani. Volume 1 of Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University Press. [Persian]
Dabbagh, R., & Javaherian, L. (2016). Productivity of educational units in Iran's comprehensive public universities, Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 2(22), 99-123. [Persian]
Dabbagh., R, & Baradaran Shoraka. H. (2010). A study of the efficiency and productivity of twenty-four comprehensive public universities in Iran, Quarterly, Iranian Higher Education, 2(2), 1-33. [Persian]
Finn R., & Kjell, O. (1999). Efficiency and productivity of Norwegian colleges, Memorandum, Department of Economics, University of Oslo, No. 1999, 11, http://hdl.handle.net/10419/63167.
Franke, N. (2009). Measuring public service assessment and accountability to ourselves and other. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(4), 499-506.
Heydari, M., Dolatabadi Ghorbani, M., Dolatabadi Ghorbani, D., & Hashemi, S. A. (2017). Evaluate the performance of universities using the balanced scorecard model. First International Conference on Business and Organizational Intelligence. New management paradigms. [Persian]
Heydarinejad, S., Mozaffari, S. A. A., & Humiliated, A. (2007). Evaluating the efficiency of physical education faculties and departments of public universities using the mathematical model of data envelopment analysis. Journal of Olympic, 14(2), 7-17. [Persian]
Hosseinzadeh, M. (2009). Evaluating the performance of higher education centers in Sistan and Baluchestan province. Available at www.imi.ir.
Mehmandoost, M., Roshan, A., & Hosseinzadeh Seljuqi, F. (2015). Investigating the efficiency index of the country's executive customs after the establishment of a comprehensive intelligent customs system. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Mathematics and its applications. Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science. University of Sistan and Baluchestan.
Itagaki, M., Pile-Spellman, J. (2005). Factors Associated with Academic Radiology Research Productivity. Journal of Radiology, 237(3), 774–780.
 Jabbarzadeh, Y. (2013). Determining the effective Indicators in Measurement of the Employees’ effectiveness Case Study of Inspection of NAJA. Journal of Supervision and Inspection, 24, 55-72. [Persian]
Johnes, G. (2012). Costs and industrial structure in Contemporary British higher education. Economic Journal, 34(107), 727-737.
Mohammadi Moghadam, Y. (2008). Productivity Indices in University of Law Enforcement Sciences Journal of Research Police Science, 9(4), 184-201. [Persian]
Mousa Khani., M., Haghkhah, D., & Hassanzadeh, R. (2010). Provide a conceptual framework for evaluating university performance, Quarterly Journal of Educational Leadership & Administration, 3(3), 145-161. [Persian]
Mousa Khani., M, Vadodi Mofid., B. & Hamidi, N. (2007). Development of a model for evaluating efficiency and productivity growth in higher education centers of Islamic Azad University in region 2 of the country, Journal of Researcher, 3(1/6), 53-34. [Persian]
Rezaei, M., & Noroozi Chakoli, A. (2015). The Identification and Accreditation of the Research Productivity Evaluation Indicators of Iran universities, Journal of Academic Librarianship and Information Research. 2(49), 237-213. [Persian]
Shayan, M. (2006). Factors affecting the productivity of the higher education system in manpower training, practical ways to improve manpower productivity, Journal of Rahyaft. 16(38), 105-117. [Persian]
Weistroffer, H., Roland, S., Michael, A., Canavos, G. C., & Fuhs. F. P. (2011). A merit pays allocation model for college faculty based on performance quality and quantity. Journal of Economics of Education Review, 20(1), 41-49.
Yazdi, E., Ahmadi, Y. (2011). Measuring the productivity of higher education institutions by Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Education Strategy Med Science. 4(3), 129-136. URL: http://edcbmj.ir/article-1-175-fa.html.