Search results

To propose an evaluation model for the quality implementations in higher education through an analysis of quality systems and program evaluation using a systems approach.

Theoretical background, research and practice of the quality systems in higher education and program evaluation are analysed in conjunction with the concepts of systems approach. The analysis leads to a systems approach‐based program‐evaluation model for quality implementation in higher education.

The three concepts, quality systems in higher education, program evaluation and systems approach, are found to be consistent and compatible with one another with regard to the goals and organizational structure of the higher education institutions. The proposed evaluation model provides a new perspective for higher education management for the effective and efficient implementation of the quality systems and program improvement.

The implementation of the model in a real university setting is necessary for the clarification of the processes.

The study provides a constructive analysis of higher‐education‐related concepts, and a new dimension of quality systems and program evaluation is developed in the model. The approach comprises three subsystems; “social system”, “technical systems”, and “managerial system”. The evaluation of quality in higher education requires inquiry of the components of the systems.

This paper proposes an innovative evaluation model integrating the systems approach into quality tools. The model is claimed to be the first in integrating the three approaches.

The intent of this article is to broaden one’s understanding of program evaluation methods that are responsive to disability and take into account various approaches to leadership within a special education context. Program evaluations for special education have often been relegated to compliance reviews and results-driven accountability measures. By promoting approaches to leadership that embrace responsive evaluation approaches and are inclusive of stakeholders from often disenfranchised groups, findings may emerge that otherwise might not be visible with traditional approaches.

A synthesis of the evaluation literature from leading journals, books and edited volumes is used to capture salient concepts necessary for understanding the degree to which evaluation and approaches respond to disability and culture. Additionally, the literature on leadership approaches is summarized and presented for the purpose of demonstrating how situational and transitional approaches to leadership may enhance the selection and use of evaluation approaches that are inclusive of and responsive to disability and culture.

From this analysis emerged four over-arching approaches to evaluation, each varying in degree of responsiveness to disability and culture. Further, when examining how evaluation interfaces with leadership, some approaches were found to be better aligned with particular evaluation processes and differed in responsiveness to disability and culture.

To date, little research has been conducted on the interface between leadership and evaluation approaches or on the degree to which leaders' implementation of responsive evaluation approaches results in improved outcomes for students with disabilities and those from underrepresented backgrounds. This article provides a conceptual framework for future research examining the degree to which one’s assumptions about the interface between leadership and responsive evaluation approaches can be demonstrated empirically.

Four recommendations are provided for leaders: the need to employ multiple evaluation methods that align their purposes, questions and methods; the need to recognize the possibilities and limits of evaluation approaches in light of their responsiveness to disability and culture; the utility of situational and transitional approaches to leadership in the evaluation process; and the critical importance of including stakeholders from diverse backgrounds in the evaluation process.

Varied approaches to evaluation in educational settings have been extensively studied and discussed. However, few articles have examined the responsiveness of evaluations to the unique conditions that disability and cultural differences represent. The contribution of this article offers a situated synthesis of approaches to evaluation, specifically contextualized within a leadership framework, to better understand how evaluation approaches impact those with disabilities and cultural differences and the inclusion of broad groups of stakeholders. As such, this article lays the foundation for a comparative international conversation exploring how evaluation and leadership approaches responsively interface with disability and culture through inclusion and enfranchisement of stakeholders.

Evaluation of training is observed more in theory than in practice. The literature contains a great deal of confusion over terminology, with differing approaches to training and development resulting in differing approaches to evaluation and protagonists of alternative schools claiming mutual incompatibility. Reviews the training evaluation literature to clarify concepts and options and argues for a mixed approach. Reports a case study of applying a mixture of evaluation methods drawn different paradigms. Finally, suggests that, while competence‐based approaches offer some advantages in evaluation, they will not resolve the issues addressed.

English social housing providers are increasingly turning to social impact measurement to assess their social value. This paper aims to understand the contextual factors causing this rise in the practice, specifically within this sector; the mechanisms that enable it to be effectively implemented within an individual organisation and the outcomes of successful implementation for individual organisations and more widely across the sector and beyond.

A realist theory-based approach is applied to the study of a small number of social housing organisations and leaders within the sector to explore the use of social impact measurement. The paper addresses three questions: Why is social impact measurement being adopted in this sector? How is it successfully implemented? And what happens (outcomes) when it is successfully implemented? Addressing these questions necessitates deeper insight into the contextual pressures that have brought to the fore social impact measurement within the sector and the beneficial outcomes the practice provides (or is anticipated to provide) to social housing providers. The methodological approach of Realist Evaluation (Pawson and Tilley, 1997, 2004) is used to structure and analyse the empirical data and findings into a programme theory for social impact measurement. Realist Evaluation provides a programme theory perspective, seeking to answer the question “what works, for whom and in what circumstances?”. In this research, the “whom” refers to English social housing providers and the circumstances are the contextual conditions experienced by the sector over the past decade. The programme theory aims to set out the links between the contextual drivers for social impact measurement, the mechanisms that bring about its implementation and the outcomes that occur as a result. Within this, greater detail on the implementation perspective is provided by developing an implementation theory using a Theory of Change approach (Connell et al., 1995; Fulbright-Anderson et al., 1998). The implementation theory is then embedded within the wider programme theory so as to bring the two elements together, thereby creating a refinement of the overall theory for social impact measurement. In turn, this paper demonstrates its importance (the outcomes that it can achieve for organisations and the sector) and how it can effectively be implemented to bring about those outcomes.

Social housing providers use social impact measurement both internally, to determine their organisational priorities and externally, to demonstrate their value to local and national governments and cross-sector partners then to shape and influence resource allocation. The practice itself is shown to be an open and active programme, rather than a fixed calculative practice.

The intensive nature of the research means that only a limited number of cases were explored. Further research could test theories developed here against evidence collected from a wider range of cases, e.g. other types of providers or non-adopters.

The research makes a strong contribution to practice in the form of a re-conceptualisation of how social impact measurement can be shown to be effective, based on a deeper understanding of causal mechanisms, how they interact and the outcomes that result. This is of value to the sector as such information could help other organisations both to understand the value of social impact measurement and to provide practical guidance on how to implement it effectively.

As the practice of impact measurement continues to develop, practitioners will need to be aware of any changes to these contextual factors and consider questions such as: is the context still supportive of impact measurement? Does the practice need to be adjusted to meet the needs of the current context? For instance, the recent tragedy at Grenfell Tower has led to a reconsideration of the role of social housing; a new Green Paper is currently being drafted (Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2018). This may have a number of implications for social impact measurement, such as a rebalancing of emphasis on outcomes relating to environmental improvements, towards outcomes relating to the well-being of tenants.

Existing literature is largely limited to technical guides. This paper links theory-based evaluation to practice contributing to social housing practice.

The evaluation of information systems (IS) is a major concern of business, and a variety of approaches have been developed to tackle the issue. These approaches vary in their use and usefulness, yet few consider or incorporate ethical aspects of the process and the outcomes. A framework for assessing the ethics of information systems evaluation approaches is developed and investigated. It is argued that ethical issues are an important and unavoidable feature of IS evaluation, despite their lack of consideration. A framework is developed that demonstrates that ethical considerations are implicit in the concept of evaluation in terms of its purposes, its processes and its involvement of people. Concludes by considering how evaluation approaches might be extended to include a more substantial ethical content.

The study aims to introduce a cloud-based virtual reality (VR) approach and investigate its applicability and performance in aiding the remote design evaluation process by assessing the clients' convenience perception toward cloud-based VR-aided design evaluation (Cloud-based VR Approach) compared to 3D model-aided design evaluation (3D Model Approach) and rendering images-aided design evaluation (Image Approach).

A multicriteria comparative study was conducted with 26 university students using the “analytic hierarchy process” technique to compare the three approaches applied to home finishing material selection tasks based on the five “service convenience” dimensions, consisting of access convenience, decision convenience, transaction convenience, benefit convenience and post-benefit convenience.

The results indicated that the “Cloud-based VR Approach” was perceived to be more convenient than the “3D Model Approach” and the “Image Approach” based on the aspects of “decision convenience”, “transaction convenience”, “benefit convenience” and “post-benefit convenience”. The only aspect that the Cloud-based VR Approach was comparatively less convenient than the 3D Model Approach and Image Approach for the user was “access convenience”. Overall, the findings showed that the developed Cloud-based VR Approach had more potential than the conventional approaches in aiding the design evaluation process under ongoing social distancing measures requiring designers and clients to work remotely.

The disastrous impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on logistical systems have resulted in massive disruptions to the construction industry worldwide. Various construction activities have been halted and most meetings moved online. Design evaluation conducted between clients and designers is one of the important activities affected by such an impact. Thus, this study presents the Cloud-based VR Approach as an innovative means to maintain essential ongoing activities and meeting of the current design evaluation approach with respect to the social distancing measures.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a holistic approach for supplier evaluation and purchasing order allocation among the ranked suppliers who meet acceptable levels of economic, environmental and social measures.

A mixed research method of case study and analytical approach is adopted in this research. A fuzzy analytical hierarchical process (FAHP) is applied for ranking of suppliers. Supplier ranks are validated using judgements from multiple decision makers. Purchasing order allocation among the ranked suppliers is determined using cost minimization subject to multiple criteria of economic, environmental and social conditions. A cement manufacturing case example demonstrates and validates the proposed approach.

The research shows that both economic and environmental considerations are significant when suppliers are evaluated for sustainable procurement within the best practice of supply management process. Ranking of suppliers, based on experts’ opinions, indicates varying degrees of importance for each criterion. Adoption of sustainable procurement criteria for evaluating supplier in a cement manufacturing organization is explained by three organizational theories including resource-based, institutional and dynamic capabilities theories. Preferred suppliers from FAHP method are confirmed by judgements from multiple decision-makers. The analysis reveals that purchasing order allocation is different when suppliers are evaluated based on their relative importance and overall ranking.

Currently, individual performance measures and decision-makers are selected from a limited set. The purchasing allocation among ranked suppliers, subjected to cost minimization, incorporates environmental objective of acceptable carbon dioxide emission and social perspective of health and safety of workers, and provides a new approach for dual supplier evaluation and purchasing allocation problem in cement industry. Adopting the proposed supplier evaluation and order allocation approach in practice needs to be guided by the operational principles and an overall methodology which is appropriate for the specific industry with sustainability objectives.

This research enables decision-makers to incorporate sustainability analysis in the supplier evaluation as the basis for best practice with an industry-friendly holistic approach. Using organizational theories, the research re-enforces the importance of not only the energy consumption and environmental management systems of environmental dimension as driving forces/factors from Institutional theory perspective, but also pollution controls and prevention as purchasing capabilities from resource-based theory perspective. The proposed approach is expected to motivate decision-makers to consider sustainable perspectives in supplier evaluation and order allocation processes in a global supply chain and can become a benchmarking tool.

Suppliers’ information on health and safety of their truck drivers are used in order allocation, thus emphasizing the importance of social dimension and encouraging better conditions and benchmarking for delivery drivers.

This paper extends the contribution to the literature by providing guidelines for managers to set strategies, benchmarks and policies within broader sustainable supply chain practices and demonstrates the applicability of the approach using a cement-manufacturing scenario in an emerging economy.

This paper aims to address the reporting of validation and evaluation criteria in qualitative management accounting studies, which is a topic of critical debate in qualitative social science research. The objective of this study is to investigate the ways researchers have reported the use of evaluation criteria in qualitative management accounting studies and whether they are associated with certain paradigmatic affiliations.

Building on the work of Eriksson and Kovalainen [Eriksson and Kovalainen (2008) Qualitative Methods in Business Research. London, Sage], the following three approaches are examined: the adoption of classic concepts of validity and reliability, the use of alternative concepts and the abandonment of general evaluation criteria. Content analysis of 212 case and field studies published during 2006 to February 2015 was conducted to be able to offer an analysis of the most recent frontiers of knowledge.

The key empirical results of this study provide partial support for the theoretical expectations. They specify and refine Eriksson and Kovalainen’s (2008) classification system, first, by identifying a new approach to evaluation and validation and, second, by showing mixed results on the paradigmatic consistency in the use of evaluation criteria.

This paper is not necessarily exhaustive or representative of all the evaluation criteria developed; the authors focused on the explicit reporting of criteria only and the findings cannot be generalized. Somewhat different results might have been obtained if other journals, other fields of research or a longer period were considered.

The findings of this study enhance the knowledge of alternative approaches and criteria to validation and evaluation. The findings can aid both in the evaluation of management accounting research and in the selection of appropriate evaluation approaches and criteria.

This paper presents a synthesis of the literature (Table I) and new empirical findings that are potentially useful for both academic scholars and practitioners.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the proposal that curriculum designed for and about enterprise education can be sustained via a cyclical model of evaluation. Such an approach takes into consideration an important aspect of enterprise education which is “context”, a significant aspect overtly linked to the differing subject disciplines offering such curriculum.

The design of this research project was driven by the authors’ suggestion that to evaluate the impact of enterprise education pedagogy different factors to those that are currently prescribed need to be taken into consideration. Current evaluation practice is to take a global, generic approach, often utilising quantitative techniques, but the authors argue that evaluation of enterprise education should consider local, contextual factors only – key contextual factors being subject discipline, along with the lecturer's own context, teaching and learning materials and implicit and explicit notions of enterprise education. The research utilised two different modules and approaches to evaluation: first, a questionnaire designed using module materials such as learning descriptor and module outcomes which produced quantitative data that could be linked directly to the module learning and teaching inputs as well as lecturer's approach; and second, a focus group‐type approach undertaken with students on a completely separate and distinct module returning qualitative data, The former module was explicitly enterprise education and the latter module had a very implicit nature in relation to enterprise education. The students for the latter module were not aware of the enterprise connotation of the module.

The authors’ notion that contextual evaluation has real value was upheld in each case. Both lecturers used the data collected to improve and make productive changes to their module content and teaching and learning materials for the following cohorts of students.

It is the authors’ belief that contextual evaluation offers enterprise education pedagogy the opportunity to be evaluated in a more useful and practical forum, with results not only illustrating the impact on students but also on the module content and how this has been instrumental in the students’ progress.

Those wishing to embed and sustain enterprise education by keeping the topic up to date on an annual basis will find this case study useful and, upon request, may have access to the evaluation methods used by the authors.

Leasing evaluation is a subject that has drawn significant interest in economic circles for many years. The numerous models proposed in the literature have approached the topic from a variety of outlooks and approaches. The contributions made to date, however, all share what would appear to be an unwritten premise: namely, that leasing evaluation logically occurs prior to the start of the leasing relationship. The purpose of this paper is to eliminate this premise, in order to take an in‐progress approach to the evaluation of leasing.

The evaluation approach is based on a model that takes into account both the real factors (the market value of the asset) and the financial aspects of the lease (interest rates on the market). The leasing price is arrived at by taking the sum of: the advantage offered by the leasing, as compared to potential purchase of the asset on the spot market; and the added yield provided by the leasing, as compared to alternative investments.

The paper finds that an in‐progress approach allows measurement of the value of a leasing even if the lessor and the lessee have already decided to initiate the leasing relationship. This approach is called for when one of the parties (the lessor or the lessee) is replaced, as well as in cases where pathological situations lead to the interruption of the relationship, plus instances where it is necessary to carry out estimates for accounting purposes. The need to evaluate the leasing in terms of its different components (real and financial) also emerges from the instructions contained in the IAS17 regarding leasing.

The contribution of the work to the leasing evaluation theme can be identified in a different perspective that can be useful both in a financial point of view and in an accounting one.