【作者】 张旭；

【导师】 赵群；

【作者基本信息】 中国医科大学 ， 社会医学与卫生事业管理， 2010， 硕士

【摘要】 目的以学校教育资源的投入与教研室的教学和科研产出为依据,建构高等医学院校教育资源配置与绩效评价机制是学校坚持科学发展观,实现公平与效率发展目标的前提。目前,多数高等医学院校实施的绩效评价重点是科研和教学产出,而很少考虑教育资源的投入水平。由于高等医学院校的院系部之间,尤其是教研室之间的教育资源配置差异甚大,仅参考科研和教学产出的绩效评价方法对于教育资源投入不足的弱势教研室而言有失公平。尤其是这种绩效评价方法同教师的职称晋升和经济效益挂钩时,负面效应就更为突出,甚至可以使绩效评价偏离科学管理目标。缺乏投入价值取向的绩效方法不能建立有效的教育资源利用约束机制以及提高学校教育资源利用效率。公平包括起点公平,过程公平和结果公平,起点公平更为重要。因此,建立以投入和产出相结合的绩效评价方法是高等医学院校实现公平与效率发展目标的有效路径。由于教研室的教育资源投入与教学和科研产出具有种类多以及量纲不一致等特点,使传统的单维绩效评价方法受到了限制。而数据包络分析法(data-envelopment analysis DEA)是解决多种投入和多种产出的一种绩效评价方法。因此,本研究旨在以教研室的教育成本核算为基础,探讨数据包络分析法在高等医学院校教研室层面相对效率评价中的应用,为高等医学院校建立教育资源利用约束机制和教职员工激励机制提供依据。材料与方法一、对象以2003年、2005年和2007年该医科大学校部地区64个教研室的教育资源投入和科研教学产出为研究对象。二、方法(一)资料来源从该医科大学计财处、设备处、人事处、房产科、实验动物部、研究生院、教务处和科研处等单位收集2003年、2005年和2007年教育资源投入和绩效产出相关资料。(二)建立教育资源投入和产出指标体系本研究通过文献法确立了三级指标体系共有54个指标(见附表1)[12],在此基础之上通过专家法并结合该医学院校的实际情况,经过筛选、细化及相关性分析建立了适合该院校教研室效率评价的指标体系。投入指标包括：学生指导津贴、房屋折旧费、设备折旧费、设备购置费、药品材料费、实验动物费、工资和教研室员工人数。产出指标包括：教学时数、科研经费数、论文数。对所收集到的数据按教研室类别进行整理和归类,通过Excel软件建立指标数据库。(三)效率评价方法1.DEA评价方法：本研究通过文献法和专家法确定效率评价指标体系,应用DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis,简称DEA)方法进行分析,得到各个教研室的整体有效性数值,根据相关数值评价教研室教育资源利用的情况。2.标杆分析法：标杆分析(benchmarking)是通过连续不断地比较分析,帮助主体寻求基准、确认目标、跟踪学习并超越自己竞争目标的过程。标杆分析的目的是寻找差距,成为最好。本文借鉴标杆分析的思想,尝试利用DEA评价方法筛选标杆教研室和无效教研室,为提高教育资源利用效率提供依据。3.确定标杆学习对象：有效的决策单元(效率值为100%)并不都是标杆学习对象,其中分为强势效率单元和边缘有效单元。强势有效单元存在于许多效率参考集中,除非有特殊原因,否则均可保持其稳定的有效性。边缘有效单元的效率值虽然为100%,但是不曾出现在其它受评价单元的参考集中,某些因素稍有变动如政策的变动等,它的效率值就很可能达不到100%。结果一、该医科大学64个教研室2003年整体效率分析结果2003年该医科大学校部地区64个教研室的平均整体效率值为63.63%,整体有效(整体有效值=100%)的教研室共有23个,占全部教研室的34.94%。5个教研室(7.8%)的效率值分布在[80%,100%)接近整体有效,16个教研室的整体效率值分布在(0,40%]。二、该医科大学64个教研室2005年整体效率分析结果2005年该医科大学校部地区64个教研室的平均整体效率值为58.07%,整体有效(整体有效值=100%)的教研室共有16个,占全部教研室的25.00%。2(3.125%)个教研室的效率值分布在[80%,100%)接近整体有效,23个教研室的整体效率值分布在(0,40%]。其中2003年评价中的非有效教研室U1、U4、U8、U10、U12、U19、U49、U50、U51、U60上升到有效教研室的行列。三、该医科大学64个教研室2007年整体效率分析结果2007年该医科大学校部地区64个教研室的平均整体效率值为44.94%,整体有效(整体有效值=100%)的教研室共有16个,占全部教研室的25.00%。2(3.125%)个教研室的效率值分布在[80%,100%)接近整体有效,36个教研室的整体效率值分布在(0,40%]。其中2005年中的非有效教研室U5、U26、U27、U33、U45、U55上升到有效教研室的行列。四、确定标杆决策单元集合根据有效决策单元是否存在其他参考集合中出现的特点,可将决策单元DMU分为四类：Ⅰ组为强势有效单元集合；Ⅱ组为边缘有效单元集合；Ⅲ组为边缘非有效单元集合和Ⅳ组为明显非有效单元集合。2003年评价结果在Ⅰ组中的教研室有18个,占总数的28.13%。Ⅱ组中的教研室有5个,占总数的7.813%。Ⅲ组中的教研室有5个,占总数的7.813%。Ⅳ组中的教研室有36个,占总素的56.25%；2005年在Ⅰ组、Ⅱ组、Ⅲ组、Ⅳ组中的教研室分别为10个(15.63%)、9个(14.06%)、6个(9.38%)、39个(60.94%)；2007年在Ⅰ组、Ⅱ组、Ⅲ组、Ⅳ组中的教研室分别为13个(20.312%)、6个(9.38%)、6个(9.38%)、39个(60.94%)。把Ⅰ组中的教研室作为标杆学习对象。五、标杆教研室与明显非有效教研室在投入指标与产出量指标方面的比较2003年在投入指标中,房屋折旧、设备折旧和设备购置明显无效教研室约是标杆学习对象的2倍并且存在明显差异(P<0.05),而其它项差异并不明显(P>0.05)；产出指标中标杆教研室平均值均高于明显无效教研室平均值并存在明显差异(P<0.05)。2005年在投入指标中,房屋折旧、药品材料和实验动物明显无效教研室的平均值均远远高于标杆教研室的平均值存在明显差异(P<0.05),其它项差异不明显(P>0.05)；在产出指标中,教学学时数和论文数高于明显无效教研室(P<0.05)。2007年在投入指标中,指导津贴、房屋折旧、药品材料和实验动物等明显无效教研室的均值均远远高于标杆教研室的均值(P<0.05)；在产出指标中,教学学时数明显无效的教研室是标杆教研室的1.8倍(由于增加了新的课程安排),科研经费明显无效教研室的均值仅是标杆教研室1/5存在明显差异(P<0.05)。六、2003年、2005年和2007年总体投入与产出指标比较在投入指标中,学校总成本逐年递增；在产出方面,中文论文数量、科研经费数逐年平稳递增,发表SCI论文数量快速增加；教学学时数根据实际情况的调整略有下降。结论1、基于DEA分析方法对高校教研室的相对效率进行综合评价,可以很直观地为管理者指出无效教研室效率低下的原因,对于高等医学院校加强教研室建设和资源有效配置具有很好的应用价值。2、将标杆分析方法与DEA分析方法结合,能够指出无效教研室的改进方向及进一步确定具体的改进量,提高了研究结果的应用性。更多还原

【Abstract】 ObjectiveDepending on input of university’s educational resources and output of teaching and research of teaching and research sections, to build educational resources allocation and performance evaluation system of Medical Universities, are a presupposition of university adhereing to the scientific development concept, realizing the objective of fairness and efficiency development. At present, the performancce evaluations of most of the Medical universities focus on output of scientific research and education, underestimating the input of education resources. Due to the differences of the educational resources arrangement between universities, especially between teaching and research sections are huge, the performance evaluation methods which only referenced scientific research and educational output are lack of fairness for the teaching and research sections whose educational resources input are short. Especially when these performance evaluation methods are connected to teacher’s promotion and economic benefits, the negative effects are more obvious, they may even result the performance evaluation deviating the scientific management target. The performance evaluation methods which are lack of value orientation could not build a restraint mechanism of effective utility of educational resources, and enhance the utility efficiency of educational resources.Fair includes starting point fair, process fair and result fair, of which the starting point fair is the most important fair. So building a performance evaluation method that combines input and output is an effective way for the Medical universities to realize the target of fair and efficiency development.Due to the characteristics of different kinds and dimensional inconsistency of input of educational resources of teaching and research sections and output of teaching and scienfic reseach, which limit the utility of traditional one-dimensional performance evaluation method. Date-envelopment analysis (DEA) is a performance evaluation method that could solve diffenent kinds of input and output. This study bases on educational cost accounting of teaching and reseach sections, explores the application of DEA in the comparative efficency evaluation of teaching and research sections level of High Medical Universities, and aims to supply basis for Medical universities to build a restriant mechanism of educational resources utility and staff incentive methanism.Materials and study method1. search subjectsEducational resources of Medical University’s 64 teaching and research sections.2. search method(1) Data sourceThe data are sourced from Planning & Finance Department, Equipment Department, Human Resource Department, Real Estate Department, Laboratory Animals Department, Graduate School, Academic Affairs Department, Scientific Research Department and other relevant departments of Medical University. The research periods are 2003,2005 and 2007.(2) Establishing input and output indicatorsThis research establishes 54 indexes in three degrees system through documents method (See attached Form 1),on this basis, through experts method and combines the actual conditions of the Medical Universitity, after screening, detailed and correlated analysis, estalished an index system that appropriate for efficiency evaluation of teaching and research sections of the university.Input indicators:guide allowance, housing depreciation, equipment depreciation, equipment purchase, medicine materials, experimental animals, wages, the number of people in teaching and reseach sections; Output indicators:teaching hours, reseachi funding, the number of papers.All the data is sorted, classified through Excel software to eastablish indicators database accroding to the classificaton of teaching and research sections,.(3) Efficiency Evaluation methods1) DEA analysis methods:The research determines the efficiency evaluation index system through document method and expert method, analyses through DEA (Date Envelopment Analysis) method to obtain the total effective date of each teaching and research sections, and then evaluates the educational resources utility condtions of the teaching and research sections according to related data.2) Benchmarking analysis:Through continuous comparative analysis, to help the principal find benchmarks, identify targets, track learing and surpass the competition goals. The purpose of benchmarking analysis is to find the gap for being the best. This article uses benchmarking analysis idea for reference, builds and improves the ineffective resource utility of teaching and research sections, to improve their resource utilization efficiency and finally reach the optimal.3) Determine benchmark study subject:the effective determine units (efficiency value is 100%) are not all benchmark study subjects, they could classified into powerful efficiency units and edge effciency units. The powerful effective units exist in efficiency reference group, it can maitain its stable effectiveness unless there are special reasons. Although the effeciency value of the edge effective units is 100%, it does not exist in reference units of the evaluated units, if any factors change a little, such as political change, its efficiency value may less than 100%.Result1. Efficiency analysis result of 64 teaching and research sections of Medical University in 2003In 2003, the average value of overall efficiency of 64 teaching and research sections of Medical University is 63.63%, the number of overall effective (overall RMS is 100%) teaching and research secions is 23, accouts for 34.94% of all teaching and research sections. The efficiency values of 5 (7.8%) teaching and research sections are found in [80-100%], which are close to overall effectiveness, and the overall efficiency values of 16 teaching and research sections are found in [0-40%].2. Efficiency analysis result of 64 teaching and research sections of Medical University in 2005In 2005, the average value of overall efficiency of 64 teaching and research sections of Medical University is 58.07%, the number of overall effective (overall RMS is 100%) teaching and research secions is 19, accouts for 29.69% of all teaching and research sections. The efficiency values of 6 (9.38%) teaching and research sections is found in [80-100%], which are close to overall effectiveness, and the overall efficiency values of 23 teaching and research sections are found in [0-40%]. The non-effective teaching and research sections U1、U4、U8、U10、U12、U19、U49、U50、U51、U60 of 2003 rose to the ranks of effective ones.3. Efficiency analysis result of 64 teaching and research sections of Medical University in 2007In 2007, the average value of overall efficiency of 64 teaching and research sections of Medical University is 44.94%, the number of overall effective (overall RMS is 100%) teaching and research secions is 16, accouts for 25.00% of all teaching and research sections. The efficiency values of 2 (3.125%) teaching and research sections is found in [80-100%], which are close to overall effectiveness, and the overall efficiency values of 36 teaching and research sections are found in [0-40%]. The non-effective teaching and research sections U5、U26、U27、U33、U45、U55 of 2005 rose to the ranks of effective ones.4. Determine the collection of benchmark decision unitsAccording to the charateristic of whether the effective decision units exist in other reference collections, the decision units could be devided into four categories:Group I: strong effective units collection; GroupⅡ:edge effective units collection; GroupⅢ: edge non-effective units collecion; GroupⅣ:obviously non-effective units collection. There are 18 teaching and reseach sections of 2003 in GroupⅠ, accounts for 28.13% of the total; 5 in GroupⅡ, acocunts for 7.813% of the total; 5 in GroupⅢ, acocunts for 7.813% of the total; 36 in Group IV, account for 56.25% of the total; The number of teaching and research sections of 2005 in GroupⅠ, GroupⅡ, GroupⅢand GroupⅣare 10 (15.63%),9 (14.06%),6 (9.38%) and 39 (60.94%) separately; The number of teaching and research sections of 2007 in GroupⅠ, GroupⅡ, GroupⅢand GroupⅣare 13 (20.312%),6 (9.38%),6 (9.38%) and 39 (60.94%) separately. The teaching and research sections in GroupⅠare benchmark learning objects.5. Compare the benchmark teaching and research sections with obviously non-effective teaching and research sections in the aspects of input indicators and output indicators.In the input indicators of 2003, housing depreciation, equipment depreciation and equipment acqiusition of obviously non-effctive teaching and research sections are twice of the benchmark learning objects(P<0.05), the other indicators are almost the same(P>0.05); In the aspect of output indicators, the benchmark teaching and research sections are all higher than the average of obviously non-effective teaching and research sections(P<0.05).In the input indicators of 2005, the average of housing depreciation, drug materials and experimental animals of the obviously non-effctive teaching and research sections are much higher than that of the benchmark learning objects(P<0.05), the other indicators are almost the same(P>0.05); In the aspect of output indicators, the teaching hours and papers number of the benchmark teaching and research sections are higher than the non-effective ones(P<0.05).In the input indicators of 2007, the average of guidance allowance, housing depreciation, drug materials and experimental animals of the obviously non-effctive teaching and research sections are much higher than that of the benchmark learning objects(P<0.05); In the aspect of output indicators, the teaching hours of the obviously non-effective teaching and research sections is 1.8 times of that of the benchmark ones (due to the increase of new curricula), the research funding of the obviously sections is one fifth of that of the benchmark sections(P<0.05).6. Compare the overall input and output indicators of 2003,2005 and 2007In the input indicators, the total cost of university increased every year; In the aspect of output, the Chinese paper number and scientific research funding increased steadily year by year, the number of published SCI papers increased rapidly; The teaching hours declined slightly according to actual situation.Conclusion1. Comprehensive evaluating the relative efficiency of teaching and research sections of universites based on DEA analysis method could clearly point out the reason of inefficient of invalid teaching and reseach sections, which also supplies application value for Medical universities to strengthen the teaching and research sections biulding and allocating resources effecively.2. Combine the benchmarking analysis with DEA could point out the improvement direction of invalid teaching and research sections, and further identify specific improvement, which enhancing the application of the research results.更多还原