The role of performance indicators in calculating the cost of academic services

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
1 Ph.D. student in accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University
2 Professor of Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University.
3 Associate Professor of Industrial Management, Allameh Tabataba'i University
4 Associate Professor of Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University
Abstract
Financing higher education is one of the main concerns of science and technology policy makers. Due to the increasing limitations of the public budget of the government, it is necessary to use new methods of financing in this area. One of the available methods for financing universities is the service purchase method, which requires accurate calculation of the price of services provided by universities. The main purpose of this article is to "design a model for calculating the price of university services" and the main question is what is the "appropriate model for calculating the price of university services"? According to the available literature, first the initial model was designed and then 30 semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 30 experts in various fields of higher education. Expert opinions were extracted using content analysis method and based on that, the final model was presented to calculate the cost of academic services. The resulting model indicates that in order to calculate the price of university services, in addition to the "financial dimension", which is only concerned with student education activities and is calculated based on the per capita student model, another dimension of university services called "brand and identity" that observes On research and technology activities, social and international should also be considered. This dimension includes components such as "international status and prestige", "national status and prestige" and "position of the university in the higher education system".
Keywords

  • Burke, T., and Hayward, D., (2000). Performance indicators and social housing in Australia. Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University of technology, Melbourne.
  • Wu, H-Y., Chen, J-K., Chen, I-S., & Zhuo, H-H. (2012). Ranking universities based on performance evaluation by a hybrid MCDM model. International Journal of Educational Development.
  • Orr, D. (2005). Can performance-based funding and quality assurance solve state vs market conundrum? Higer Education Policy, 18
  • ISO/IEC 27001:2013
  • Preira, C.A., Araujo, J.F. & Taylor, M., (2018). The Brazilian higher education evaluation model: SINAES sui generis? International Journal of Educational Development.
  • Binsardi, A., Ekwulugo, F. (2003). International marketing of British education: Research on the students' perception and the UK market penetration.Market Intelligence & Planning, 21, 318–327
  • Chen, L. (2008). Internationalization or international marketing? Two frameworks for understanding international students choice of Canadian universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. 18 (1), 1-33.
  • Mourad, M., Ennew, C., & Kortam, W. (2011). Brand equity in higher education. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 29 Iss 4 403 – 420
  • Brunzel, D.L. (2007). Universities sell their brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management. 16 (2), 152-163.
  • Paden, N. and Stell, R. (2006). Branding option for distance learning programs:managing the effect on university image. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 3 (8), 45-54
  • Gomez, L. (2014). The Importance og university social responsibility in hispanic America: A Responsible trend in developing Countries, In Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability: Emerging Trends in Developing Economies. Published online: 08 Oct 2014; 241-268
  • Research Excellence Framework 2014: The results (December 2014).
  • Oecd, (2008), Handbook on Constructing composite Indicators: Methodology and user Guide”/ www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.