1. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SETTING AMONG PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES IN MALAYSIA: A LESSON TO LEARN By : Sharul Effendy Janudin Jamal @ Nordin Yunus Mohamad Ali Roshidi Ahmad Faculty of Management and Economic Sultan Idris Education University, Malaysia Ayu Rita binti Mohamad Faculty of Education and Social Sciences Universiti Selangor, Malaysia

2. Introduction The higher education capacity in Malaysia has grown from the formation of the country’s first university, Universiti Malaya in 1961, to the 2007 enrolment of 942,200 students in 20 public universities, 32 privates’ universities and university colleges, four branches campuses of international universities, 21 polytechnics, 37 public community colleges and 485 private colleges. As a platform to move forward, The National Higher Education Action Plan 2007-2010 is a stepping stone towards promoting long-term objectives of human capital development contained in the National Higher Education Strategic Plan. The ultimate aim is to empower Malaysian higher education in order to meet the nation’s developmental needs and to build its stature both at home and internationally.

3. Therefore seven strategic thrusts have been outlined (Malaysia Ministry of Higher Education, 2007): Widening access and enhancing equity Improving the quality of teaching and learning Enhancing research and innovation Strengthening Institution of higher education Intensifying Internalization Enculturation of lifelong learning Reinforcing the Higher Education Ministry’s delivery system

4. Statistics of Higher Education of Malaysia 2010 Level of Study Enrolment Public HEI Enrolment Private HEI 2009201020092010 PHD146691771822783804 Masters44880496761337214038 Bachelors272012274690198760220299

5. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The aim of this paper is to highlights the strategic performance measurement setting used by the public and private university in Malaysia. In addition, it also discusses the factors affect strategic performance measurement system among Malaysian universities.

6. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT The last 20 years has witnessed a revolution in performance measurement (Neely & Bourne, 2000). This reformation has been driven by changes in business environment, which has led to the recognition that conventional measures do not present a complete of organizational performance (Anderson & McAdam, 2004). Non-profit organizations like public university have no survival pressure and external competition is limited. Therefore each university should establish its core competitiveness that based on its mission and vision and also its current resources and competitive conditions. Thus different strategic themes will produce different strategic targets and the resulting.

7. In their study on performance measurement indicators among Taiwan university, 18 dimensions of performance indicators were used (Chen, Wang, & Yang, 2009). There are: School reputation Development target and characteristics Academy exchangeAdministration resource Teaching resourcesCurriculum planning Graduate’s career planningResearch results Social responsibilityTeaching quality Student retention rateFaculty resources Financial resourcesFinancial donations Student qualityTutorship result Continuous education servicesStudents structure

8. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION Performance Measure System (PMS) plays an important role in developing corporate strategy and performance evaluation (Ukko, Tenhunen, & Rntanen, 2007) in order for the organization to be more competitive in the global economy and this reflect higher education industry According to Tang & Zairi (1998), the core functions of a university are basically teaching, research and scholarship. These core functions must be stated in university’s daily operational and performance measurement indicator should have the following functions: 1.Control and measure education quality; 2.Provide information to education policy decision makers; 3.Provide references for education resources management and allocation; and 4.Provide each department with indicators of performance management

9. Basically there are two primary objectives of measurement: to assist in universities in improving education quality; and to help universities meet customer demands and achieve their responsibilities. Johnes (1996) believed that university’s performance can be measured through four categories of output: 1.output from teaching activities 2.output from research activities 3.output from consulting services 4.output of cultural and social activities

10. FINDINGS 70 sets of questionnaires distributed to the respondents and only 57 sets were returned to the researcher. Only 53 sets used for the purpose of analysis due to the incompleteness of 4 sets of questionnaires. 25 of respondents are working in public university while 28 are working with private university Job TitleNo Associate Professor2 Senior Lecturer23 Lecturer26 Tutor2 Total53 No of Years Involve in Management Position Less than 2 years11 2 – 4 years26 4 to 8 years9 More than 8 years7 Total53

11. Table 2: Steps of performance measurement system in universities Steps of performance measurement system in universities Mean Public University Private University Clearly define the university’s mission statement.3.75863.6071 Identify the university’s strategic objectives using the mission statement as a guide. 3.62073.4286 Develop an understanding of each functional area’s role in achieving the various strategic objectives. 3.65523.4286 For each functional area, develop global performance measures capable of defining the university’s overall competitive position to top- management. 3.17243.3571 Communicate strategic objectives and performance goals to lower level in the university. Establish more specific performance criteria at each level. 3.24143.2500 Assure consistency with strategic objectives among the performance criteria used at each level. 3.37933.2500 Assure the compatibility of performance measures used in all functional areas. 3.55173.1786 Use the performance measurement system.3.65523.1786 Periodically re-evaluate the appropriateness of the established performance measurement system in view of the current competitive environment. 3.37933.0714

12. Table 3: Factors affected performance measurement system in universities Public UniversityPrivate University MeanRankMeanRank Use of performance measurement system 3.758613.39294 Type of organizational structure 3.620723.42862 Management commitment 3.586233.46431 Systematic use of quality frameworks 3.551743.21439 Purpose and benefits of using performance measurement system 3.551753.35715 Structured approach to performance measurement design 3.517263.32147 Focus on appraisal and rewards 3.448373.178610 Team maturity 3.413883.32146 Strategy deployment 3.310393.28578 Business process view 3.2069103.42863

13. HYPHOTHESES ( T-TEST) NoHyphothesesNote 1There is no significant difference on steps of performance measurement system use by public university and private university Fail to Reject T (55) =.396, p > 0.05 2There is no significant difference on factors affected performance measurement system between public university and private university Fail to Reject T (55) =.363, p > 0.05

14. CONCLUSIONS This research support the idea for each university to develop its distinguishing characteristics by following its long term plan. Although there are many higher learning institutions in Malaysia, the different visions and missions should not be barriers to apply the BSC and this “educational business model” should also be helpful for them to enhance their educational quality because the basic educational purposes are the same. The perspectives of the BSC can be developed from five perspectives: 1. Growth and development2. scholarship and research 3. Teaching and learning4. service and outreach 5. Financial resources