فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی در آموزش عالی
تصمیم‌گیری‌های استراتژیک مالی در دانشگاه‌های جامع دولتی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار دانشگاه علوم و فنون هوایی شهید ستاری
2 استاد دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی دانشگاه تهران
3 استاد دانشکده روانشناسی وعلوم تربیتی دانشگاه تهران
4 دانشیار گروه اقتصاد آموزش‌عالی و بررسی‌های نیروی انسانی، مؤسسه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی آموزش عالی
چکیده
یافته‌های تجربی و تحلیل‌های نظری مؤید آن است که تصمیم‌گیری‌های استراتژیک مالی با توجه به اثر سیاستگذاری و جهت دهنده رفتارهای سازمانی اهمیت بسیاری دارند. هدف این پژوهش بررسی فرایندهای تصمیم سازی و تصمیم‌گیری‌های استراتژیک مالی در دانشگاه تهران بود. برای جمع‌آوری اطلاعات از روش‌های پژوهش کیفی استفاده شد. جامعه آماری کلیه کارشناسان و مدیران درگیر در فرایندهای تصمیم سازی و تصمیم‌گیری شامل هیئت رئیسه، معاونت‌ها، مدیران کل و رؤسای دانشکده ها بودند. برای جمع‌آوری اطلاعات از روش مصاحبه نیمه ساختار یافته و برای انتخاب نمونه‌های مصاحبه از روش نمونه‌گیری هدفمند و به طور مشخص از روش گلوله برفی استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد که، مهم‌ترین مسئله استراتژیک مالی دانشگاه تهران نبود استقلال مالی است. همچنین فرایندهای تصمیم گیری غیرعلمی به ویژه توجه کم به بحثهای داغ علمی در جلسات تصمیم گیری، نبود نظام هوشمند پشتیبان تصمیم‌گیری، اطلاعات ناقص و توجه ضعیف به کارهای کارشناسی موجب کارآمدی و اثربخشی پایین تصمیمات استراتژیک مالی شده است. اگر چه دانشگاه به تنوع‌بخشی در تأمین منابع مالی توجه داشته است، سیاست‌های اتخاذشده در زمینه تأمین مالی با وضعیت مطلوب فاصله دارد و بخش عظیمی از درآمدهای اختصاصی دانشگاه از فعالیتهای آموزشی و از طریق توسعه پردیسهای خودگردان، دوره های شبانه و دوره های مجازی تأمین می شود. تخصیص منابع بدون توجه به عملکرد واحدها و بر اساس هزینه سرانه دانشجو، به صورت سنتی و بر اساس روندهای گذشته و چانه‌زنی انجام می‌شود و از بودجه‌ریزی عملیاتی استفاده نمی شود. به منظور بهبود وضعیت موجود پیشنهاد می‌شود دانشگاه تهران در سازکارهای تأمین و تخصیص خود تجدیدنظر و برای راه‌اندازی سامانه هوشمند پشتیبان تصمیم‌گیری اقدام کند و برگزاری دوره‌های دانش افزایی در زمینه اقتصاد و مالیه آموزش عالی را در دستور کار خود قرار دهد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
Strategic financial decision making in comprehensive public universities
نویسندگان [English]
- Hassan Mahjub 1
- Aboualghasem Naderi 2
- Seyed Kamal Kharazi 3
- Yagoub Entezari 4
1 Shahid Sattari Aeronautical University of Science and Technology,
2 Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Tehran University
3 Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Tehran University
4 Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education
چکیده [English]
Experimental results and theoretical analysis confirms that financial strategic decisions due to the effect of the policy and organizational behavior is very important. The aim of this paper was to study financial strategic making decision and decision-making processes at University of Tehran. Data was collected through qualitative research methods. The population of the study was all the experts and administrators involved in making decision and decision-making processes, including the Board of Executives, Vice Executives, Directors and Deans. In order to collect information, semi-structured interviews, purposive sampling and snowball technique were applied. The results showed that the most important strategic financial issue of University of Tehran is absence of financial independence. In addition, lack of sufficient attention to heated scientific debates in the decision-making meetings, lack of decision support system, incomplete information and poor attention to expert works are other reason for inefficiency and low effectiveness of strategic financial decisions at the university. Although the university has focused on diversification in funding, the financing policies are far from favorable condition and the large part of non-government revenues are provided by educational activities through development of university self- governing campuses and evening and online courses. Allocation of resources is done regardless of the performance of the units and is based on cost per student, past trends and bargaining. In addition, the operational budgeting is not used. To improve the existing situation, it is recommended that the University of Tehran review it's funding and allocation mechanisms and to launch an intelligent decision support system. Putting training courses in economics and finance in higher education on the agenda is also recommended.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Strategic financial decision making
- financing higher eeducation
- Financial allocation
- University
- Economics of university
- University of Tehran
2. Albrecht, D., & Ziderman, A. (1992). Funding mechanisms for higher education: Financing for stability, efficiency and responsiveness. World Bank Discussion Papers 153, the World Bank, Washington D.C.
3. Ashmos, D.P., Duchon, D., & Nc, D.R.R. (1998). Participation in strategic decision-making: The role of organizational predisposition and issue interpretation. Decision Sciences, 8, 25-51.
4. Bazerman, M.H. (2005). Judgment in managerial decision-making. 6th ed., Wiley, New York: NY.
5. Barr, N. (2004). Higher education funding. Oxford Reviw of Economic Policy, 20(2), 264-283.
6. Beach, L.R., & Connolly, T. (2005). The psychology of decision-making: People in organizations. 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
7. Birnbaum, R. (2010). How universities work. Translation by Hamid Reza Arasteh. Tehran: Publications Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education.
8. Chabotar, K.J. (2010). What about the rest of Us: Small colleges in financial crisis. Change, 42 (4), 6-13.
9. Corner, P.D., Kinicki, A.J., & Keats, B.W. (1994). Integrating organizational and individual information processing perspectives on choice. Organization Science, 5(3), 294-308.
10. Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don't. New York, NY: Harper Business.
11. Druzdzel, M.J., & Flynn, R.R. (2002). Decision support systems. Decision systems laboratory school of information sciences and intelligent systems program. University of Pittsburgh.
12. Duncan, W. (1989). Great ideas in management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13. Entezari, Y., & Mahjub, H. (2013). Selecting appropriate mechanism and method for allocation of public funds in higher education. Quarterly Journal of Research and Plannig in Higher Education, 19 (2), 49-68.
14. Fiegenbaum, A., Hart, S., & Schend, D. (1996). Strategic reference point theory. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 219-35.
15. Forgas, J.P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The aect infusion model. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (1), 39-66.
16. Frolich, N., et al. (2010). Funding systems for higher education and their impacts on institutional strategies and academia; A comparative perspective. International Journal of Educational Management, 24, 17-21.
17. Geiger, R.L. (2010). Impact of the financial crisis on higher education in the United States. International Higher Education, 59, 9-11.
18. Geuna, A. (1998). Changes in the rationale for university funding: Are there negative unintended consequences?. University of Sussex.
19. Geuna, A., & Martin, B.R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, XLI, 277-304.
20. Hambrick, D.C., & Mason, P.A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as are flection on its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.
21. Harman, G. (1999). Vouchers or student centered funding?. The 1996-1998 Australian review of higher education financing and policy. Higher Education Policy, 12, 219-235.
22. Hamidizadeh, M.R. (2008). Navel decision making. Tehran: National Defense University Press (in Persian).
23. Harison, E.F. (1999). Models of decision making. Management Decisions, 31, 27-33.
24. Harnisch T.L. (2011). Performance-based funding: A re-emerging strategy in public higher education financing, American Association of State Colleges and Universities. A Higher Education Policy Brief.
25. Hebel, S. (2010). State cuts are pushing public colleges into peril. Chronicle of Higher Education, 61(27), 1, A18.
26. Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (2008). Educational admiration: Research, theory and practice. New York: McGraw Hill.
27. Jencks, C. (1970). Education vouchers: A report on financing elementary education by grants to parents. Washington, DC: Center for Policy Studies.
28. Jennings, D., & Wattam, S. (1994). Decision making: An integrated approach. Londan: Pitman.
29. Jongbloed, B., & Koelman, J. (2000). Vouchers for higher education? A survey of the literature. Hong Kong University Grants Committee.
30. Jongbloed, B., & Vossensteyn, H. (2001). Keeping up performances: An international survey of performance-based funding in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 23(2), 127-145.
31. Johnstone, D.B., & Marcucci, P.N. (2010). Financing higher education worldwide: Who pays? Who should pay? Johns Hopkins University Press.
32. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision sunder risk. Econometrical, 47(2), 263-91.
33. Kaiser, Vossensteyn & Koelen (2001). Public funding of higher education - A Comparative.
34. Khademolqorani, Sh., & Zeinal Hamadani, A. (2013). An adjusted decision support system through data mining and multiple criteria decision-making procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 73, 388- 395.
35. Lee, D., Newman, P., & Price, R. (1999). Decision making in organization. London: Financial Times Management.
36. Liefner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46 (4), 469-89.
37. March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. (1993). Organizations revisited. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2 (3), 299-316.
38. Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits in our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
39. Naderi, A. (2009). Education finance. University of Tehran Press (in Persian).
40. Naderi, A. (2012). Cognitive economics: A new approach to explaining economic decisions. Journal of Planning and Budgeting,18 (2), 99-125.
41. OECD. (2007). Funding systems and their effects on higher education systems. International Report, Education Working Paper No. 6.
42. Pranivicene, B., & Puraite, A. (2010). The financing methods of higher education system. Jurisprudence, 4 (122), 335-356.
43. Reed, S.K. (2006). Cognition: Theory and applications, (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
44. Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior (3rd Ed.). New York: The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan.
45. Schwenk, C.R. (1984). Cognitives implification processes in strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 111-28.
46. Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
47. Steffensen, M., Rogers, E.M., & Speakman, K. (2001). Spin-offs from Research Center at a Research University. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 93-11.
48. Thorn, K., Lauritz, H.N., & Jette, S.J. (2004). Approaches to results-based funding in tertiary education identifying finance reform options for chil. World Bank Policy Research Working, Paper 3436.
49. Toma, J.D. (2010). Building organizational capacity: Strategic management in higher education. Blaltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
50. Tversky, A. (1982). Remarks on the study of decision making in decision making: An interdisciplinary inquiry. Boston: Kent.
51. West, E. (1997). Education vouchers in practice and principle: A survey. The World Bank Research Observer, 12 (1), 83-103.
52. Witte, J.F. (1996). The politics of private school choice in America. Paper Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, 8-12 April, New York City.
53. Zhang, M. (2000). Differential or flat? A comparative study of tuition policies in the world. A Consultant Report to the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong, University Grants Committee of Hong Kong.
)