QIPM Paper - Improving the Performance of Universities in Transitional Economies

Improving the performance of universities

in transitional economies

Yaroslav Prytula, Lviv Ivan Franko National University, Lviv, Ukraine

Dragana Cimesa, University “Braca Karic”, Belgrade, Serbia

Stuart Umpleby, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

June 3, 2004

Prepared for the annual meeting of the Alliance of Universities for Democracy

Pecs, Hungary, November 2004

Improving the performance of universities

in transitional economies

Yaroslav Prytula, Lviv Ivan Franko National University, Lviv, Ukraine[1]

Dragana Cimesa, University “Braca Karic”, Belgrade, Serbia[2]

Stuart Umpleby, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

Abstract

In the fall semester of 2003 we conducted a Participatory Strategic Planning exercise at The George Washington University with fourteen visiting scholars from the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia. We also included by email over a hundred observers and participants around the world. We did this both to demonstrate the group facilitation methods called the Technology of Participation and to develop plans to guide the improvement of the home universities of the participants. The results suggest several directions for improving the home universities. The suggestions include internal reorganization, introduction of new university structures and services, increasing the efficiency of faculty, staff and students, and influencing the external environment. Using a Quality Improvement Priority Matrix and introducing a new method of priorities ranking, the authors conclude: a) the external environment has a great influence on university performance and can make considerable improvements in a relatively short period of time; and b) small but permanent quality improvements receive more support from faculty and are easier for management to implement than large, rapid changes.

Keywords: university reform, participatory strategic planning, Quality Improvement Priority Matrix, transitional economies.

Introduction

Universities in the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia are well developed. They have good facilities, experienced faculty, and a tradition of excellence in education. But the future is not clear. The transition period that started in the economy in the early 1990s recently reached academia. Presently large changes are occurring in the system of higher education in these countries. The changes are motivated in part by the transition toward a market economy, which requires changes in the labor market and education.

[1])2) Research for this article was supported in part by the Junior Faculty Development Program,

which is funded by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the United States Department of State,

under authority of the Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 as amended, and administered by the American Councils

for International Education:  ACTR/ACCELS.  The opinions expressed herein are the author's own and

do not necessarily express the views of either ECA or the American Councils.

- 1 -

Some of the trends causing change in higher education in all countries are the following:

1. The Internet enables faculty members to exchange ideas and to work on papers together more easily than ever before. Faculty members can now co-author papers with colleagues located in other countries. The World Wide Web makes vast amounts of information quickly available.

2. Low cost international travel enables students and faculty members to experience different countries, to study at other universities, and to attend conferences almost anywhere in the world.

3. Political changes in once closed societies are making new ideas available.

4. A shortage of funds for higher education in many countries is leading universities to charge tuition and to establish endowments. Both of these trends will make universities more sensitive to the concerns and opinions of students.

5. The Bologna process in Europe, which is spreading to other countries, is causing universities to establish common procedures for courses and degrees to make it easier to transfer credits and for students and faculty members to study or teach at other universities.

6. Increasing use of English as an international language is facilitating the sharing of ideas.

7. Quality improvement methods, which have been successful in business and government are increasingly being used to improve the management of universities.

8. More participatory teaching methods are becoming increasingly common. These methods encourage initiative and critical thinking rather than memorization.

9. Service learning as a type of education makes universities more helpful to their surrounding communities and acquaints students with practical problems in organizations and society.

10. The trend toward a knowledge society and economy is sending increasing numbers of people back to universities for further education.

11. Distance education technologies make higher education available to people in their homes or work places.

Method

To help us understand the processes we are facing at our universities and how we might be able to help each other in improving them, we conducted a Participatory Strategic Planning (PSP) activity from October to December 2003. Two groups of people were involved. The first, ‘face-to-face’ group consisted of fourteen visiting scholars from the countries of the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia together with some George Washington University (GWU) faculty members andsome staff members of The World Bank. The second, ‘distance’ group consisted of about 140 Junior Faculty Development Program (JFDP) scholars then in the U.S. on other campuses, and about 100 JFDP alumni who had studied at GWU.

- 2 -

The method we used to guide our discussions is called Participatory Strategic Planning (Institute of Cultural Affairs, 1996). It is part of the Technology of Participation, a set of group facilitation methods developed by the Institute of Cultural Affairs (Umpleby, et al., 2003). These methods can be used with any group of people who share a common interest. They may be residents in a community, employees of a business or a government agency, residents of an apartment building, members of an association, volunteers working with a non-governmental organization, or members of a university department (Umpleby, 1989). A facilitated problem-solving or planning activity involves people in identifying problems as they see them and in devising solutions that they believe will work (Umpleby, 1994).

We had five group discussions on the following topics:

1. “The Focus Question,” the point of reference for all subsequent discussions.

2. "Practical Vision," a picture of the desired future in five to ten years.

3.      "Underlying Contradictions," the obstacles preventing realization of the vision.

4.      "Strategic Directions," strategies for removing the obstacles to achieving the vision.

5.      "Implementation Timeline," the schedule of actions needed to carry out the strategies.

Each step of the PSP process uses the Consensus Workshop method. This method entails five steps:

1. Context -- The facilitator provides background on the method and task.

2. Brainstorm -- The participants write their ideas on cards.

3. Cluster -- The facilitator and participants group the cards according to similar ideas.

4. Name -- The key idea in each cluster is identified.

5. Resolve -- The facilitator asks if the ideas generated are complete and represent a good description.

The Participatory Strategic Planning exercise began with an introductory conversation among the participants. The main goal of our first session was to define a Focus Question to provide direction to the other steps of the planning process. The focus question that emerged from our conversation was, “How can we implement lifelong learning in our societies by improving the performance of university faculty members (and administrators)?" (See Figure 1.) The second session was dedicated to defining a vision. (See Figure 2.) The focus of the third session was finding the contradictions underlying the vision. Hence, if that is the vision that people desire, what is preventing it from happening? What are the obstacles or contradictions? (See Figure 3.) The fourth step was to define strategies to remove the obstacles to achieving the vision. (See Figure 4.) In the last step we created an “implementation timeline.” We defined four quarters in the year 2004. During the first two quarters the participants would still be at universities in the U.S. In the second two quarters they would be at their home universities. So. in the first two quarters the participants would do research and preparation. In the second two quarters they would implement the plans at their home universities. (See Figure 5.)

- 3 -

Use of a ‘distance’ group

We held meetings every two weeks to allow the ‘distance’ group to be involved. Only a few people sent suggestions for the next step in the process. There were about six suggestions for each step from people outside Washington. Nevertheless, several people who did not send suggestions said that they found the exercise interesting and thought-provoking and thanked us for including them in the process. We believe that these comments indicate that a Participatory Strategic Planning exercise that seeks to involve other participants via email can, without much trouble, have a positive effect beyond the immediate group.

Prioritizing actions

We also investigated the relative importance of the Strategic Directions. Since universities in transitional economies have very limited financial, human and management resources, the wise use of these resources is crucial for achieving the results we desire.

We used a Quality Improvement Priority Matrix (Umpleby and Melnychenko, 2002; Umpleby and Karapetyan, 2003) to find the Strategic Directions that are considered most urgent now. Using the same group of local and distant people we made an Internet survey ( QIPM Web Survey Tool ) asking them to evaluate the importance and performance of the Strategic Directions for their home universities using a scale from 0 to 10 (see Tables 1, 2, and 3).

To achieve the most significant social effect it is desirable to implement first the strategy that is very important and at the same time does not show good performance. To find such a strategy we calculated the relative importance of the Strategic Directions using the ratios of average Importance to average Performance. The values of the IP ratios are given in Table 3.

Table 3 implies that it is desirable to start implementing the Strategic Directions with those that relate to obtaining external resources for a university. The less urgent Strategic Directions, according to those surveyed, are the internal improvements and reorganizations. It is worth mentioning that almost all current efforts of governments, local authorities and western organizations tend to focus on those strategies that are at the bottom of Table 3. Instead, the participants in this planning activity feel that there is a great need for more projects linking academic institutions in transitional countries with their local communities, with alumni, with central and local governments, and with international academic institutions.

Our results were not robust. That is, the null hypothesis that all IP ratios are equal returns an F statistic of 1.77 and the hypothesis could be rejected only at the 11% level. Figure 6 shows the IP ratios +/- one standard deviation for each Strategic Direction.

Interestingly, the standard deviations are higher for the issues rated more important. This could be explained by the relative novelty of these concepts for this group of people. The concepts that are known for the group (because of government and western programs) have much less variance. This implies the need for faculty members from transition countries to be more aware of such matters as fundraising, oversight bodies, standardization and quality improvement.

- 4 -

Conclusions

The benefits of group facilitation methods, as noted by Rosabeth Moss Kanter are:

1. The specific plans themselves strategies, solutions, action plans;

2. Greater commitment ability to implement decisions and strategies;

3. More innovation a larger portfolio of ideas;

4. A common framework for decision making, communication, planning, and problem solving;

5. Encouragement of initiative and responsibility. (Spencer, 1989)

We have demonstrated two methods Participatory Strategic Planning and Quality Improvement Priority Matrices -- that we believe can be helpful in improving universities. We believe they can be particularly helpful for universities in transitional societies, since they emphasize participation and data-driven decision-making. Consequently, they stimulate and support local initiative and improve accountability.

References

1. The Institute of Cultural Affairs. (1996). The Technology of Participation, Participatory Strategic Planning Seminar, manual and guide.

2. Spencer, L. (1989). Winning through Participation. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

3. Umpleby, S. (1989). “Methods for Community Development: The Work of the Institute of Cultural Affairs.” (www.gwu.edu/~umpleby/icaweb/). Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.

4. Umpleby, S. (1994). “What is to be Done: Learning Democracy while Improving Organizations,” Cybernetics and Systems, 25(6): 827-836.

5. Umpleby, S. and O. Melnychenko. (2002). “Quality Improvement Matrix: A Tool to Improve Customer Service in Academia,” in J.A. Edosomwan (ed.) Customer Satisfaction Management Frontiers VI: Serving the 21st Century Customer, Fairfax, VA: Quality University Press, pp. 6.1-6.12.

6. Umpleby, S. and A. Karapetyan. (2003). “How a Quality Improvement Priority Matrix Reveals Change in a University Department,” in Russell J. Meyer and David Keplinger (eds.), Perspectives in Higher Education Reform, Volume 12, Alliance of Universities for Democracy, Texas Review Press, pp. 315-322.

7. Umpleby, S., T. Medvedeva, and A. Oyler. (2003). “The Technology Of Participation as a Means of Improving Universities in Transitional Economies.” World Futures, Vol. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 129-136.

- 5 -

Figure 1. Focus Question

- 6 -

Figure 2. Practical Vision

`Focus question: How can we implement lifelong learning in our societies by improving the performance` `of university faculty members (and administrators)?` `Practical Vision question: What do you want to see in place over the next 3-5 years?` `October 24th, 2003`
1. Freedom of choice	2. Free access to information and use of technology in education	3. Thinking in terms of alternative mental models		4. Universities connected to community	5. Academic exchange	6. Faculty financing & incentives
Many sources of funding Education system independent of the will of a few people A continuous university reform process Freedom from whims and fancies of authorities New university (new faculty)	Access to technology Active use of e-mail Access to the global library Creative use of technology and connectivity: a PC for every staff person Free access to the global information system Freedom of moving around the world Free exchange of all information and knowledge Distance on-line education Virtual classes	Development of global awareness in students, faculty and administration New mental models in faculty members Clean and clear mental models not distorted by earlier communist ideology Ability to discuss with older professors Openness and academic discussions of different ideas Free exchange of ideas on campus	Focus on learning rather than degrees Desire and will to change yourself More active feedback No prejudices and stereotypes Faculty work steadily on making improvements University involved in political, economic and social reforms Gender equality Help students construct relevant knowledge and skills	Invite key specialists to engage in activities of real life Collaboration of universities with large public sector companies for R&D and support Policy Research Centers on campus Cooperation of society and university Place students in a job situation Student internships	Broader exchanges on all levels Contacts with colleagues for international discussion of problems Exchange professors between universities and countries	Recognition of higher learning by government & society through awards Incentives for teachers: greater pay (correct incentives) Improved classrooms and teaching equipment

- 7 -

Figure 3. Underlying Contradictions

Focus question: How can we implement lifelong learning in our societies by improving the performance

of university faculty members (and administrators)?

Underlying Contradictions question: What is blocking us from moving toward our vision?

October 31st, 2003

1. Entrenched university practices

2. Overlapping influences in decision making

3. Undeveloped technical infrastructure

4. Discouraging organizational culture

5. Inadequate measurement system

6. No incentives for innovations

7. High transaction costs

8. (State) Universities do not control admission

Fears of junior-level faculty members (dependence)

Not transparent university

Not enough information about sources of funding

Insufficient colla-boration between university and community representatives

Disorganized international contacts

Type of university organization

Traditional university practices

Fragmented faculty efforts

Weak or absent Boards of Directors for schools/faculties

Dependence on decisions by the key authorities

Imbalance in power (faculty vs. administration)

Confusing priorities (tradition or innovation)

Narrow institutional ways of funding

Scarcity of technology

Obsolete technology

No use of web-based programs in teaching (e.g. Blackboard)

Insufficient use of www and email in teaching

Tradition supports top-down rather than bottom-up processes

Misuse of lateral communication (negative comments about colleagues)

Structural inertia

Rivalry rather than mutual support of faculty

Insufficient accreditation oversight

Unwillingness of mid-level decision makers to improve processes

No good performance measurement system for faculty

Weak system for deciding appointment, promotion and tenure

Faculty are not rewarded by institutions for work other than teaching

Low IT knowledge among teachers

Unmotivated professors

Visa and trip cost problem

Excessive bureaucratic obstacles

Government regulations determine student eligibility and university budget

Too many students entering classes

- 8 -

Figure 4. Strategic Directions

Focus question: How can we implement lifelong learning in our societies by improving the performance

of university faculty members (and administrators)?

Strategic Directions question: What innovative practical actions will deal with the contradictions and

move us toward our vision?

December 19th, 2003

1. Make structural changes within a university

2. Improve value added for students

3. Start fundraising

4. Influence external stakeholders

5. Create oversight bodies

6. Improve curriculum and teaching methods

7. Implement standardization and quality improvement

8. Increase proposal writing

Devise a new university policy

Establish an institute for innovation studies

Create a smaller number of colleges within universities

Experiment with new forms of organisation

Have students do projects with clients (service learning)

Coach academic study skills

Solicit prospective students

Find partners for students’ internships and group projects

Improve publicity and outreach to students

Expand private funding of state universities

Create university “advancement” office

Solicit money for research and scholarships

Improve the internal institutional environment

Limit enrollment to best students

Create a lobbying office

Establish boards of directors

Faculty Senate oversight of administration actions (including budget decisions)

Work with international accrediting organizations

Buy web-based programs (like Black-board) to aid teaching

Have training for faculty (for Black-board and distance learning)

Create a center for instructional design and development at home university

Discuss and set guidelines for promotion

Learn to measure learning

Improve curricula

Create internal grants for faculty/students research

Organise workshops on implementing distance learning

Establish program to keep IT equipment up-to-date

Establish a quality improvement program in the university

Make steady incremental improvements

Informally approach other people and start collabo-rating on concrete actions

Use a Quality Impro-vement Priority Matrix (QIPM) to focus efforts

Use process improvement to reduce transaction costs

Establish regular com-munication with university management staff

Create a reward system for innovations

Implement a new measurement system based on standards from high rated universities

Imitate the positive experiences of others

Implement ISO standards

Apply for grants

Participate in grant competitions

Distribute information about international projects/grants to the faculty

- 9 -

Figure 5. Implementation Timeline

`Focus question: How can we implement lifelong learning in our societies by improving the performance` `of university faculty members (and administrators)?` `Implementation Timeline question: What will we do the first year?` `December 19th, 2003`
Strategic Directions	Quarter I	Quarter II	Quarter III	Quarter IV
1. Make structural changes within a university	Study Bologna Declaration	Find out how other universities are changing	Initiate meeting on Bologna requirements	Write an article for a local news paper about BD (how it will influence the community)
1. Make structural changes within a university		Translate or find Bologna Declaration in your native language and distribute it among university faculty	Work closely with sympathetic faculty and decision making administrators to encourage discussion of BD in home university	Write a proposal to establish an Innovation Center in the university
2. Improve value added for students	Talk to enrolment and recruiting officers at host universities	Talk to host university President about Campus Compact	Speak to home university president about creating a Campus Compact	Coordinate rectors at several universities to create a Campus Compact
	Investigate Campus Compact		Find businesses and other partners for student internships and/or group projects	Conduct internships and group projects
				Evaluation and feedback
3. Start fundraising	Talk to “advancement” officers at host universities. Encourage colleagues in other US cities to do the same		Talk to rector about hiring a fundraiser	Hire University or School fundraiser
3. Start fundraising	Create a list of questions to ask fundraisers	Create and maintain a list of home university alumni, and use the names for fundraising
4. Influence external stakeholders	Create a list of stakeholders	Define stakeholders’ roles and involve them	Create plans and programs with stakeholders	Hire university or school lobbyist
4. Influence external stakeholders	Talk to host university lobbyist	Learn how lobbyists work	Talk to rector about hiring a lobbyist	Implementation
5. Create oversight bodies	Contact AACSB (international business school accreditation organisation)	Talk to host school dean and its Board of Advisors	Talk to home university dean about AACSB	Advertise the idea and need for accreditation
	Attend meetings of host school Faculty Senate	Talk to host university President about the role of the Faculty Senate and the Board of Trustees	Describe to home university dean and faculty members how Faculty Senates work in US	Describe to home university dean and faculty members how Boards of Trustees work in US
	Talk to host school Finance Committee chairman about Faculty Senate oversight of university budget	Study the practice of other universities in creating oversight bodies
6. Improve curriculum and teaching methods	Learn about Blackboard	Talk to Blackboard people about cost of using Blackboard at home university	Talk about where to put Instr. Tech. Lab. in home university structure	Write an article about Blackboard in local newspaper
6. Improve curriculum and teaching methods	Gather course evaluation forms as examples	Talk to host university head of Inst. Tech. Lab.	Organize summer schools	Write proposals for funding Blackboard or similar system to different funding bodies, local government and ministry of education (this could be a joint project of all JFDP fellows in a country)
7. Implement standardization and quality improvement	Gather information on university quality improvement processes in US	Learn about ISO criteria and certification	Use QIPM (Quality Improvement Priority Matrix) to start a quality improvement process	Use ToP to do planning with home university department
7. Implement standardization and quality improvement	Talk to people who have worked in quality improvement programs	Study Baldrige Award for education	Find good university examples of use of ISO standards
8. Increase proposal writing	Get the list of possible funding resources	Establish translation services for proposal writers	Start proposal writing workshop series	Organise feedback
		Create proposals (with your advisor/coordinator)	Develop proposals and send them out	Wait for replies
		Talk to people in Office of Sponsored Research about gain sharing from grants	Establish and advertise a system of rewards for successful proposal writers	Push administration to establish a system of reimbursements for resources and expenses used for proposal writing

- 11 -

Figure 6. Strategic Directions with IP ratios and standard deviations

- 12 -

Table 1. Strategic Directions ranked according to importance

	Strategic directions	Importance value
1	Improve curriculum and teaching methods	8.00
2	Increase proposal writing	7.86
3	Start fundraising	7.67
4	Implement standardization and quality improvement	7.57
5	Make structural changes within a university	6.79
6	Improve value added for students	6.50
7	Create oversight bodies	6.46
8	Influence external stakeholders	6.15

Table 2. Strategic Directions ranked according to performance

	Strategic directions	Performance value
1	Improve curriculum and teaching methods	6.50
2	Increase proposal writing	6.00
3	Implement standardization and quality improvement	5.79
4	Make structural changes within a university	5.57
5	Start fundraising	5.46
6	Improve value added for students	5.36
7	Create oversight bodies	4.85
8	Influence external stakeholders	4.58

Table 3. Strategic Directions ranked according to IP ratios

	Strategic Direction	IP ratio
1	Start fundraising	2.89
2	Create oversight bodies	2.01
3	Increase proposal writing	1.61
4	Influence external stakeholders	1.56
5	Implement standardization and quality improvement	1.56
6	Improve curriculum and teaching methods	1.34
7	Make structural changes within a university	1.30
8	Improve value added for students	1.27

- 13 -

Reprinted by permission of the author Stuart Umpleby