Research on Evaluation Method of Organization s Performance Based on Comparative Advantage Characteristics

Transcription

1 Vol.1, No.10, Ar 01,.67-7 Research on Evaluation Method of Organization s Performance Based on Comarative Advantage Characteristics WEN Xin 1, JIA Jianfeng and ZHAO Xi nan 3 Abstract It as under the guidance of big unification thought to araise organizational erformance in traditional methods, in hich the same standards are adoted and the characteristics of different organizations aren t considered. A ne evaluation method as ut forard, in hich comarative advantage characteristic of different organizations as considered. The method as verified in an alication examle. And some analytical conclusions can be used to offer decision suort for national relevant deartments. Key ords: organization s erformance, evaluation method, comarative advantage characteristic Available online.bmdynamics.com ISSN: INTRODUCTION The high erformance is the goal that an organization ursues. A rational and scientific method of erformance evaluation, not only can carry out effective measurement to the ast organization s erformance, but also hel to offer decision suort to imrove and otimize the erformance for the future. Hoever, it is all under the guidance of big unification thought to araise organizational erformance in traditional methods, in hich the same standards are adoted and the characteristics of different organizations aren t considered. So, traditional methods of erformance evaluation don t deviate from comrehensive araisal through getting eight coefficients. That is to say, the eight coefficients are unified in a certain comarative range and can t be changed because of different organizations. So there is no advantage characteristic hich reflects different organizations. If the erformance is araised according to this, the organizational cometitive advantage ill be difficult to cultivate and simlification of organizational develoment model ill occur. Therefore, comarative advantage characteristic is considered in the model of erformance evaluation in this aer, hich hels to guide organization to cultivate cometition advantage constantly and imrove erformance level continuously through erformance evaluation. So-called comarative advantage characteristic is most advantageous to the individual s characteristic of organization under certain standards ithin a secific range. EVALUATION MODEL OF ORGANIZATION S PERFORMANCE BASED ON COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE CHARACTERISTICS The Procedure of evaluation method of organization s erformance First, the rocedure of this method is given as follos: Ste1: Choose the araised target of organization s erformance and its caacity of samle. Ste: Set u the evaluation index system of organization s erformance. Ste3: Collect and ut the erformance data in order. Ste4: Set u and solve the evaluation model of organization s erformance based on comarative advantage characteristic. Ste5: Offer the decision suort to otimize organization s erformance for relevant deartments. The structure of the model It is assumed that the evaluation indexes are given as x ( x 1, x,, x ).Meanhile, it is suosed that the greater the index is, the better it is. (Sometimes, secondary level indexes are designed according to the 1School of Management, Shenyang University of technology, Shengyang, Liaoning, P.R..China, enxin9901@16.com Business Administration School of Northeastern University, Shenyang, Liaoning P.R..China Business Administration School of Northeastern University, Shenyang, Liaoning P.R..China

2 Vol.1, No.10, Ar 01,.67-7 need.) The values of n organization s erformance are noted as x1, x,, xn after being standardized. The maximum value of each obect can be concluded as x i max { xi}, i1,,,, then e can get the ideal 1n result x ( x,,, 1 x x ). If 1,,, are eight coefficients, e ill adot the distance beteen actual result and ideal result as the function of erformance evaluation under the mode of double-norm: d (, ) ( ) x x i xixi (1) i1 It is easy to kno that the smaller the distance is, the better the organization s erformance is. Hoever, the eight coefficient is unified and can t be changed because of different organizations in function (1), hich can t reflect comarative advantage characteristic among different organizations. On the basis, comarative advantage characteristic is considered in the model (). So the imroved evaluation model of organization s erformance in allusion to is: min{ d ( x, x )} min{ ( ) i xi xi } i1 () Where i 1, i 0, i 1,,, i1 The comarative advantage characteristic indicated in model () is mainly that the eight coefficient ( ) is confirmed according to the angle hich is the most favorable to. So the eight coefficient is different in allusion to different organization s erformance. Meanhile, the otimal solution ( ) is not confirmed artificially but gained by erformance data of araised organization, hich shos the method is imersonal and obective. Generally, there are to roblems in existing methods. On one hand, the method of confirming the eight coefficient is too comlicated; on the other hand, there are many ersonal factors hich cause many uncertainties. So there are many disutes in existing methods. Identification of the validity of the model We have a conclusion of model (): if the otimization roblem () has an otimal solution ( ), hich is strictly greater than zero, making d (, ) { min (, X X d X t X )} 1 t n, then the erformance of organization to be estimated is effective. Identification by contradiction: As to the otimization roblem (), if the otimal solution ( ) ( ) ( ) ( 1,,, m ) 0 and d ( X, X ) min { d ( X t, X )}, it is suosed that x is not effective. According 1 t n to the definition, there is another estimated organization s erformance x 0 hich makes X0 X,and there is at least one onderance hich makes > tenable. Because of the characteristic of ideal results, there existing X X 0 ( ) ( ) X, thus, ( ) ( i xi xi0 i xi xi), i 1,,, m, and at least one strict in equation exists. Thus, d (, ) (, X X d X 0 X ).This is contradictory to the existing conditions d (, ) { min (, X X d X t X )} 1 t n.the identification ends. Solving the model and dealing ith the result As to the model (), the course of solving is as folloing: if there exists ideal results in an araised obect, the summation of corresonding eight coefficients is equal to 1 and others are equal to 0. Otherise, it is solved according to formula (3).

3 Vol.1, No.10, Ar 01,.67-7 ( i ), 1 ( ) i,,, x i x i 1 here, 1. i1( x i x i ) (3) If ( ) is the otimal solution of model (), according to the angle hich is the most favorable to, the erformance of n organizations searately ill be as folloing: d ( x, ) ( )( ) t x i xi x (4) i ( ) i1 Where t 1,,..., n Arranged by ascending criterion, the smaller the value of (4) is, the better the erformance is. It is rescribed as folloing: According to the arranging result of (4), if the rank is in the first 5%, the organization s erformance ill be considered as remarkable comarative advantage characteristic; if the rank is beteen 5% and 0%, the organization s erformance ill be considered as comarative advantage characteristic in a certain extent; if the rank is in the last 80%, the organization s erformance ill be considered as being short of comarative advantage characteristic. APPLICATION EXAMPLE The ne method of erformance evaluation ill be verified as an examle of 9 research universities in this art. Because the evaluation index system of organization s erformance is not the emhasis of this aer, an existing evaluation index system is adoted, hich is noted as x ( x1, x,, x4) (number of doctorate aarded, number of thesis included by SCI, number of atent authorized, number of first class disciline).according to the method ut forard in this aer, the erformances of 9 research universities are araised by the tool of MatLab as follos. Insert table 1-4 here ANALYSIS OF APPLICATION EXAMPLE We can conclude from Tab.3 and Tab.4 that: 1) From the asect of otimal configuration of resources, each university should maximize recourses avail under the limitation of resources. In Tab.3, each university has a set of value arameters (eight ( ) coefficient ) hich shos its comarative advantage characteristic. The bigger the value arameter is, the more remarkable the comarative advantage characteristic is. For examle, university 4 s value arameters are (0.489,0.079,0.06,0.370), hich shos that its comarative advantage characteristics are doctor cultivation and construction of first class disciline. If organizations erformances can be araised from the angle hich is the most favorable to them, it ill be beneficial to excavate and fully dislay their strong characteristic. The analysis shos us enlightenments as follos: the ne method of erformance evaluation accords ith the thought of human center management and hels to form the luralism of the develoment model of the university under different advantage characteristics. ) Among the 9 chosen universities, the erformances of university 1//7/8 ossess remarkable comarative advantage characteristics. So the government should encourage and suort the develoment attern of these universities in order to excavate the advantage characteristics of each university and encourage the universities to run secial schools. Whereas, e can get a conclusion from Tab.4 that university 8 ossesses remarkable comarative advantage characteristic only hen being araised from the angle hich is the most favorable to itself. It shos that the develoment mode of university 8 can t be acknoledged by other universities. On the contrary, as to university 7, its

4 Vol.1, No.10, Ar 01,.67-7 erformance ossesses comarative advantage characteristic in most cases, hich shos that it not only makes full use of its advantage characteristic but also its develoment mode is acknoledged by others. 3) Among the 9 chosen universities, the erformance of university 4 ossesses the comarative advantage characteristic in a certain extent, because the erformance of university 1 is better even if being be araised from the angle hich is the most favorable to university 4. So university 4 should set university 1 as its learning ost. The analysis shos us enlightenments as follos: the ne method of erformance evaluation is not only obective and fair but also brings ost effect. The government should also suort such kind of university as 4 ith olicy and resources. 4) Among the 9 chosen universities, the erformances of university 3/5/6/9 are lack of comarative advantage characteristic. So e should analyze if there are roblems in their value troism or develoment mode. If there are, e should adust it in time; If there are not, it ill sho that this kind of universities are still lack of comarative advantage characteristics and should set others ho ossess remarkable comarative advantage characteristics as learning ost. 5) There are there asects mentioned in the ne method of erformance evaluation, hich are remarkable comarative advantage characteristic, comarative advantage characteristic in a certain extent, being short of comarative advantage characteristic. This is a comarative concet in a secific range. 9 universities are chosen as a research samle in the alication examle. When the number of samle is changed, some analytical conclusions may change. The analysis shos us enlightenments as follos: The evaluation result is a comarative one in a certain scoe and the number of samle should be confirmed according to the actual situation of erformance evaluation. CONCLUSION On the basis of analyzing the limitation of traditional methods of erformance evaluation, a ne evaluation method of Organization s Performance has been ut forard in this aer, in hich the comarative advantage characteristic is considered. Taking 9 research universities as an examle, the method has been verified subsequently. From the result of erformance evaluation, 5 universities ossess the comarative advantage characteristic and others lack. The analytical results can be used to offer decision suort for national relevant deartments. Based on identifying the comarative advantage characteristic, some other questions are aid close attention to. For examle, ho many main develoment modes are there in the comarative range? Which mode does the araised organization belong to? Ho is the osition under the mode it belongs to? So, the folloing ork involves ho the comarative advantage characteristics in different modes ill be integrated availably to realize learning among organizations. We ll try to adot attern recognition to solve this question in the future study. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This ork as suorted by the Science Foundation of Ministry of Education of China( Grant No. 10YJC6307) REFERENCES Skibniesk M and Chao Lichung, Evaluation of advanced construction technology ith AHP method, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 118, no. 3, , 199. Paul CN, Ho decision makers evaluate alternatives and the influence of comlexity Management Science, vol. 44, no. 8, , Yingluo Wang, System engineering: Theory, Methodology and Alications, Beiing: Higher Education Press, 199. Peiliang Gu, System Analysis and Coordination, Tianin: Press of Tianin University, Xinan Zhao, Theory and Methodology of System Analysis, Shenyang: Press of Northeastern University, G. Q. Chen and M. Ma, Studies on the rocess model of organizational learning (in Chinese), Journal of Management Science, vol. 3, no. 3,. 15 3, 000

5 Vol.1, No.10, Ar 01,.67-7 Tab.1 Primitive erformance data I X 1 X X 3 X Data recourses: 1) The number of doctorate aarded comes from statistics of graduate school office of ministry of education. Total u from 1998 to 00. ) The number of thesis included by SCI comes from htt://.library.fudan.edu.cn/service/statistics.htm. Total u from ) The number of atent authorized comes from statistics comilation of high school(1999, 000, 001). 4) The number of first class disciline comes from center of graduate education and develoment in ministry of education. Tab. Performance data after normalization I X1 X X3 X Tab.3 value arameters solved by model () I

6 Vol.1, No.10, Ar 01,.67-7 Tab.4 The result of erformance ranks Angle Rank Note: stands for ossessing remarkable comarative advantage characteristic; stands for ossessing comarative advantage characteristic in a certain extent; stands for being short of comarative advantage characteristic.