4.6 Article

Preventive Risk Management of Resource Allocation in Romanian Higher Education by Assessing Relative Performance of Study Programs with DEA Method

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 14, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su141912527

关键词

DEA; higher education; study programs; risk; efficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Risk management is crucial in organizations. This study evaluates the efficiency of study programs in Romanian higher education using the DEA method and finds that the inefficiency of study programs is relatively persistent. Higher education institutions should focus on improving the quality and attractiveness of study programs.
Risk management is a key activity in every organization. The identification and evaluation of all risks in higher education institutions lead to the continuous monitoring of investments in people, high technology, and innovation. This paper evaluates the relative efficiency of study programs in Romanian higher education using the DEA method. This study is based on 38 study programs from a public university in Romania, using a traditional DEA approach: CRS-DEA and VRS-DEA models, with an output orientation for three academic years (2016-2019). To avoid distortions in the efficiency scores, we decided to implement the bootstrap method to correct DEA efficiencies. The results show that only four study programs were efficient during this period under the CRS-DEA approach, and eight study programs were efficient under the VRS-DEA model. According to scale efficiency and the bootstrap method, the results also showed that four study programs were efficient during the period analyzed. Finally, we observed that the inefficiency of study programs is relatively persistent (89%), compared with efficient DMUs (11%). Based on these findings, higher education institutions should consider the possibility of increasing the quality of study programs correlated with the degree of attractiveness of various programs in the current socio-economic environment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据