Business School’s Performance Management System Standards Design

Abstract

This paper aims to compare various Performance Management Systems for business school in order to find the strengths of each standard as inputs to design new model of PMS. There are many critical aspects and gaps notified for new model to improve performance and even recognized that self evaluation performance management is not well developed in school toward a competitive education market. The exploratory study and comparative study methodology were used to develop a conceptual model based upon literature review. An exploratory study approach was used to investigate the way in which PMS actually evolve within business school institution, while comparative study was done to determine relationship among PMS based on literature review and secondary data. Based on information gathered about several standards applied for business school, hopefully, there will be a valuable opportunity to create new PMS model that could cover every weaknesses and strengths that each standard had, and the new model will manage business school performance more comprehensively as well.

Are Pakistani Business Schools Fulfilling the Requirements of Pakistan’s Growing IT Industry?

“…Some systems are international such as EQUIS (The European Quality Improvement System); AACSB (The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business); and ABEST21 (The Alliance on Business Education and Scholarship for Tomorrow a 21stcentury organization); whereas there are systems that cater to national needs such as Indonesia's BAN-PT (Badan Akreditasi Nasional Perguruan Tinggi) (Azis, Simatupang, Wibisono, & Basri, 2014) and Pakistan's FRUCE (Faculty, Research, Use of Technology, Corporate Office, and Extracurricular Activities) model (Kolachi & Mohammad, 2013). PMS are essential steps that help business schools define their goals, select a strategy to attain them, and also help them to measure the outcome of their performance (Azis, Simatupang, Wibisono, & Basri, 2014). Bhanbhro (2015) is of the view that Pakistan's quality assurance for higher education is only gauging such components that are relatively easy to determine.…”

Measuring Supply Chain Performance of Knitting Industry

“…Literature Review Whitten et al (2012) and Zhang & Okoroafo (2015) pointed the performance of supply chain will indicate the ability to produce right on time a number of appointed goods with the right standard and maximize the overall value generated (Chopra and Meindl, 2013:15) or minimizing the total supply chain cost (Harlandet al, 1999). That's why the performance of the supply chain should be measured (Hausman, 2004) and it needs the appropriate indicator (Leonczuk, 2016; for having an excellent performance (Azis et al, 2014) as well as comparing its current position with last year achievement and the competitors. Those researchers deal with knitting industry goals in achieving high supply chain performance.…”

B-School’s Readiness Standards for Encountering Asean Economic Community

“…There are two objectives of this process, including: providing good quality education and preparing for external evaluation, while the targets of this process are performing its own educational quality assurance, support sustainable quality enhancement, present a clear and comprehensive profile, based on self-review and strength, weakness, opportunity and threat (SWOT) analysis concerning its own performance, thus enabling continuous self-improvement. 20 Accordingly, the development of present performance standards describes the various kinds of quality assurance system and usually integrated with national or international agency. While the external assessments based on self-evaluation and accreditation standards from agencies such as AACSB, EQUIS, ABEST21, and for Indonesia context there is an accreditation from The National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education.…”

“…8 9 However, based on real situation in Indonesia, the institution of higher education is facing lots of obstacles in graduating student with those above characteristics or skills, due to standards incongruity; 10 11 various frameworks; blurred vision, strategies, and incompact fundamental foundation in managing institution performance; 12 13 and the failures of self evaluation and fuzziness of benchmarking processes, [14][15][16][17][18][19] likewise these issues has been on solemn agenda for last twenty years. 20 Furthermore, in line with it, although quality assurance has long been considered as one of main pillars for higher education development in four ASEAN countries, i.e., Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand, the level of quality development among countries in this region is still quite diverse. 21 Hereinafter the necessity of having appropriate standards becomes crucial for higher education institution in general, especially for b-school in Indonesia.…”