Education Quarterly Reviews
Published: 26 March 2021
Investigation of Performance Indicators in the Strategic Plans of Public Universities in Turkey
Ali Özdemir, Lütfü Çakır
Marmara University (Turkey), Istanbul Commerce University (Turkey)
Download Full-Text Pdf
Keywords: Higher Education, Performance Indicators, Strategic Planning
The purpose of this study is to develop performance indicators in line with these goals and objectives in the light of domestic and foreign literature by examining the strategic goals and objectives in the strategic plans of public universities in Turkey. Within the scope of the research, firstly strategic plans of many universities operating at home and abroad were examined and a performance indicator pool consisting of 300 criteria was created in the light of the strategic plans of 11 different universities selected by purposeful sampling. Also Reports of the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) and Ministry of Development on strategic planning were examined. In the second stage, expert opinion was received from 2 faculty members working in the field of education management, and the 300 item list was reduced to 45 performance indicators under 6 main strategic dimensions. In the third and final stage of the research, performance indicators were classified according to their importance by using AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) method, which is a multi-criteria decision-making technique. The AHP study was carried out with 10 academics who had scientific studies in the field of strategic planning and worked in university administration. Finally, the performance indicators created for each strategic dimension are listed according to their criterion weights.
Altun, Y. (2019). Türkiye’de temel kamu hizmetlerinde performans göstergelerinin değerlendirilmesi: adalet, içişleri, maliye, milli eğitim ve sağlık bakanlığı örnekleri [Evaluation of the performance indicators in basic public services in Turkey: justice, interior, finance, education and health ministry national samples]. (Master thesis). Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara.
Ankara University, (2020). Strateji geliştirme daire başkanlığı dış paydaş memnuniyeti anketi. [Strategy development department external stakeholder satisfaction survey]. Retrieved on June 1, 2019, from
Arif, M., & Smiley, F. M. (2004). Baldrige theory into practice: a working model. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(5), 324-328.
Aydın University, (2020). Paydaş memnuniyeti politikası[Stakeholder satisfaction policy]. Retrieved on December 5, 2019, from
Burke, J. C., & Minassians, H. P. (2002). Measuring down and up: The missing link. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2002(116), 97-114.
Conlon, M. (2004). Performance indicators: Accountable to whom? Higher Education Management and Policy, 16, 41–48.
Karakaya, G. (2019). Yerel yönetimlerde kurumsal risk yönetimi uygulamalarının analitik hiyerarşi süreci (AHP) modeli ile incelenmesi: istanbul büyükşehir belediyesi (İBB) örneği [Analysis of corporate risk management practices in local governments with an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) model: an example of istanbul metropolitan municipality]. (Doctoral thesis). Istanbul Commerce University, Istanbul.
Kueng, P. (2000). Process performance measurement system - a tool to support process-based organizations. Total Quality Management,11(1):67–85.
Moogan, Y. J. & Baron, S. (2003). An analysis of student characteristics within the student decision making process. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(3), 271-287.
Mutluer, K. M., Öner, E. & Kesik, A. (2005). Bütçe hukuku[Budget law]. Bilgi University Publications: Istanbul.
Önder, G., & Önder, E. (2018). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri [Multi-criteria decision making methods] In B. F. Yıldırım (Ed.) ve E. Önder (Ed.), Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci [Analytical Hierarchy Process]. 2nd Edition, Bursa: Dora Publishing.
Özdemir A. & Tüysüz F., (2017). An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy ANP based balanced scorecard approach: application in turkish higher education institutions. Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic & Soft Computing. Volume 28, Number 2-3 (2017) p. 289-310.
Parmenter, D. (2010). Key performance indicators (KPI): Developing, implementing, and using winning KPI’s. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Pfeffer, J. & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous halftruths, and total nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based management, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Saaty, T. L., (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Soutar, G. & Turner, J. (2002). Students’ preferences for university: A conjoint analysis. The International Journal of Educational Management, 16(1), 40-45.
Tayyar, N., Akcanlı, F., Genç, E., & Erem, I. (2014). BİST’e kayıtlı bilişim ve teknoloji alanında faaliyet gösteren işletmelerin finansal performanslarının analitik hiyerarşi prosesi (ahp) ve gri ilişkisel analiz (gia) yöntemiyle değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of financial performance of companies operating in the field of informatics and technology registered in BIST with analytical hierarchy process (ahp) and gray relational analysis (gia) method], Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi [Journal of Accounting and Finance], (61), 19-40.
Terkla, D. (2011). The most common performance indicators for institutions and their boards. Trusteeship. January/February 19(1), 1-5.
YÖDEK, (2007). Yükseköğretim akademik değerlendirme ve kalite geliştirme komisyonu raporu [Higher education academic evaluation and quality improvement commission report]. Retrieved on June 8, 2019, from
Yüksel, A. (2014). Türkiye’de devlet üniversitelerinde uygulanan performans esaslı bütçeleme sisteminin vakıf üniversitelerine uygulanabilirliği ve veri zarflama analizi ile fakültelerin etkinliklerinin ölçülmesi [The feasibility of performance-based budgeting system in the state universities to private universities in Turkey and measurement of the effectiveness of faculties with data envelopment analysis]. (Doctoral thesis), Başkent University, Ankara.