Examination of the Best Practices in Administrative and Organizational

1

• Examination of the Best Practices in
  Administrative and Organizational
• Functions of the Greek Universities

2
Research Team

• George Tsiotras, Professor,
• Secretary General of the Region of Central
  Macedonia, Greece
• Katerina Gotzamani, Lecturer
• Project Director
• Antigoni Papadimitriou, Researcher
• Elias Dinas, Researcher
• Athanasios Tsadiras, PhD, Researcher

3

• Maria Koemtzi, researcher
• April 2004- June 2005
• Efi Kapassakali
• Administrative Assistant

4
Further goals of this research
Investigation of current application
Development of evaluation Criteria
Identification of Best Practices
Design and Implementation of a database of Best
Practices
5
Project framework

• Catalog of Greek universities and a presentation
  of the selected administrative and organizational
  functions
• Record of the current situation of the chosen
  administrative and organizational functions
• Evaluation of the applied procedures
• Collection and analysis of the information
• Development of the data base
• Results of the research project

6
Chosen organizational and administrative functions
Information Technology Center
Library
Research Committee
Department of Public and International Relation
Careers Office
7
Defining the evaluation criteria

• Education Criteria for Performance Excellence
• by the Baldrige National Quality Program (2004)
• EFQM Excellence Model Higher Education Version
• by Sheffield Hallam University in collaboration
  with EFQM (2003)
• Academic Scorecard
• evaluation of academic organizations (balanced
  scorecard)

8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
EVALUATION CRITERIA
QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE
Financial and other resources Leadership
Customers-Users Strategy
Personnel User satisfaction
Processes (function-specific) Personnel
Society Processes
Other data (not included in previous categories) Resources
12
BEST PRACTICES

• Quantitatively high performing practices
• High score achievements in qualitative factors

13
Pilot study

• Problems
• reluctance by most functions head officers to
  participate in the project in the form of
  evaluation so as to record best practices was
  observed
• questionnaire related comprehension difficulties
  during completion by the representatives

14

• Solutions
• - Development of second qualitative
  questionnaire which accompanies the interviews
• - identify and record best, good, or effective
  practices

15
Looking for best practices

• These practices are not directly associated with
  the terminology (definition) of best practices,
  as these are found in the literature, but they
  are based on the personal experience of the
  participants and the experience and subjective
  judgement of the research team

16
Comments from the 1st International Conference

• Professor Brent Ruben, Rutgers University USA
  and
• Professor Al Shagana Kadim, Sheffield Hallam
  University, UK
• this project is a challenge for the research
  team

17
Project Schedule
Phase 2
Phase 1

July 2004- October 2004 Investigation of
current practices
March 2004- June 2004 Catalog of Greek
Universities Presentation of the selected
administrative and organizational functions

Phase 7 NOV- DEC 2006 Results of the Research
Project
Phase 3
Phase 5
Phase 4
Phase 6
March 2005- Jun 2005 Best Practices from
foreigner Universities
Nov. 2004- Feb.2005 Development of evaluation
Criteria
Jul. 2005- Jun 2006 Pilot study, Collection
analysis of selected data
July- Oct 2006 Development of the Database
18
Geographical distribution of the Greek
Universities
19
1. National and Kapodistrian University of
Athens, 1837, 2. National Technical University of
Athens (Metsovio), 1836, 3. Athens University of
Economy and Business, 1920, 4. Pantion
University, 1927, 5. Agriculture University of
Athens, 1920, 6. University of Piraeus, 1938, 7.
Athens School of Fine Arts, 1837, 8. Harokopio
University, 1929, 9. Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, 1925, 10. University of Macedonia,
1948, 11. University of Patras, 1964, 12.
University of Ioannina, 1964, 13. Democritus
University of Thrace, 1973, 14. University of
Crete, 1973, 15.Technical University of Crete,
1977, 16. University of the Aegean, 1920, 17.
Ionian University, 1984, 18. University of
Thessaly, 1984, 19. University of Western
Macedonia, 2002, 20. University of Peloponnese,
2000, 21. University of Continent Greece,
2003 Source A. Papadimitriou, Quality
Assurance in Greek Higher Education, Ph. D.
Dissertation, University of Macedonia,
Thessaloniki, Greece, in process.
20
Preliminary DATA ANALYSIS

• For the above reasons the first questionnaire was
  regarded as not appropriate for the use of
  evaluating and identifying of best practices and
  it will only be used for an explorative recording
  of the current quality management practices in
  the specific academic functions services

21
Data analysis

• Leadership
• Strategy
• Personnel
• Processes
• Resources
• User Satisfaction

22
Data collection until Jan. 2006
Library 11
Research Committee 4
Information Technology Center 5
Careers Office 4
Department of Public and International Relation 3 27
23
Population

• Administrators 24
• Faculty 3

• Library
• Research Committee
• Information Technology Center
• Careers Office
• Department of Public and International Relation

• Library
• Research Committee
• Information Technology Center
• Careers Office
• Department of Public and International Relation

24
Scale - items

• 1) leadership

25
Leadership (app. imp. rates) scales distribution
26
2) Strategy
27
Strategy (app. imp. rates) scales distribution
28
User Satisfaction

• Q6Do you apply a comparative evaluation method
  for Users Satisfaction in relation to the
  satisfaction provided by corresponding
  Model-Services (Benchmarking) imp3.78/app.2.2
• Q7Do you establish relationships (eg.
  collaborations with corresponding Services of
  other Educational Institutions) aiming to satisfy
  the Service Users? imp 3.54/app2.56

29
User satisfaction (app. imp. Rates) scales
distribution
30
Personnel
31
Personnel (app. imp. rates) scales distribution
32
Processes

• Q3Do you apply specific measurement indicators
  for the control and improvement of procedures?
  imp4.1/app2.5
• Q4Do you apply some official procedures
  evaluation method? imp4/app2.5

33
Processes (app. imp. rates) scales distribution
34
Resources

• Q4 Do you apply programs of mutual development
  and instruction (eg. mutual exchanges)
  imp3.6/app2.1

35
Resources (app. imp. Rates) distribution
36

• Scale reliability
• Table1 Scale reliability Reliability
  coefficients (Cronbachs a) of six criteria

37

• Table 2 Descriptive statistics from EFQM
  variables (importance application)

38
Average scores (app. imp. rates)

• In general, mean responses are greater for
  importance rates rather than for application rates

39
Average scores (app. imp. rates)

• In general, application scales show more
  variability than importance scales (as was also
  indicated by each criterion histogram)

40
Are these Differences statistically significant?

• Table 3 Resutls from difference of means tests
  (two-tailed) between the key EFQM
• variables.
• In most cases (9/15), they are not.

41
Correlation between the six criteria

• Table 4 Pearson correlations between the 6
  criteria
• As it was expected, all criteria are
  intercorelated (imp. Rates) although greater
  correlation is observed between User satisfaction
  personnel/processes
• Table 5 Correlation between importance and
  application rate

42
Questions , comments and suggestions are
welcomed

• THANK YOU
• 
  antigoni_at_uom.gr
• hntinas_at_uom.gr