PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SETTING AMONG PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES IN MALAYSIA
Non-profit organizations like university have no survival pressure and external competition is limited. Therefore each university should establish its core competitiveness based on its mission and vission, and also its current resources and competitive conditions. Thus, different strategic themes will produce different strategic tragets and result. The aim of this paper is to highlight the strategic performance measurement setting used by the public and private universities in Malaysia. In addition, it also disucsses the factors that affect strategic performance measurement system among Malaysian universities. This research will also support the idea for each university to develop its distinguishing characteristics by following its long term plan.
Ayoup, H. (2009). Observational assessment of the balanced scorecard strategic alignment process.. A study of a utility company. Paper presented at the International Management Accounting Conference 5, Kuala Lumpur.
Bruijn, H. d. (2002). Performance measurement in the public sector: strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(7), 578 - 594.
Chen, S.-H,, Wang, H.-H., & Yang, K.-.J. (2009). Establishment and application of performance measure indicators for universities. The TQM Magazine, 21(3), 220 - 235.
Greiling, D. (2006). Performance measurement: a remedy for increasing the efficiency of public services. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55(6), 448 - 465.
Johnes, J. (1996). Performance assessment in higher education in Britain European Journal of Operational Research, 89(1), 18 -33.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard - Measure that drive performance. Harvard Business Review,
70(1), 71 - 79.
Kaplan, R S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from performance to strategic management: Part 1.
Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 87 - 104.
Kennerly, M., & Neely, A. (2002). A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 22(ll), 1222 - I245.
Kloot, L. (1999). Performance measurement and accountability in Victorian local government. The International Journal of
Public Sector Management, 12(7), 565 - 583.
Kloot, L., & Martin, J. (2000). Strategic performance management: A balanced approach to performance management issues in local government, Management Accounting Research, 11, 231 - 251.
Malaysia Ministry of Higher Education (2007). National Higher Education Plan 2007-2010.
Malhotra, N. (1993) Marketing research: an applied orientation. Prentice Hall.
McDevitt R., Giapponi, C., & Solomon, N. (2008). Strategy revitalization in academe : A balanced scorecard approach.
International Journal of Educational Management, 22(I), 32 - 47.
Najmi, M., Rigas, J., & Fan, I.-S. (2005). A framework to review performance measurement systems Business Process
Management Journal 11(2), 109 - I22.
Neely, A. (1999). The performance measurement revolution: why now and what next. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 19(2), 205 - 228.
Neely, A., & Bourne, M. (2000). Why measurement initiatives fail. Measuring Business Excellence, 4(4), 3 - 6.
Russell R. (2003). The international perspective: Balanced scorecard usage in Europe Harvard Business School Publishing.
Schalkwyk, J. C. v. (1998). Total quality management and the performance measurement barrier. The TQM Magazine, 10(2),
124 - 131.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: a skill building approach (4 ed.): John Wiley and Sons Inc,
Tang, K. H., & Zairi, M, (1998) Benchmarking quality implementation in a service context : a comparative analysis of financial
services and institution of higher education: Part II. Total Quality Management, 9(7), 539-552.
Ukko, J., Tenhunen, J., & Rntanen, H. (2007). Performance measurement impacts on management and leadership:
perspectives of management and employees. International Journal of Production Economics, 110, 39 - 51.