Applying Public Sector Scorecard and Technology Acceptance Model on Higher Education Performance Management in Developing Countries - A SEM Analysis

Article Sidebar

PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.28924/2291-8639-23-2025-260
Published: Oct 29, 2025
Cite as:
Pham Quang Huy, Vu Kien Phuc, Applying Public Sector Scorecard and Technology Acceptance Model on Higher Education Performance Management in Developing Countries - A SEM Analysis, Int. J. Anal. Appl., 23 (2025), 260.

Main Article Content

Pham Quang Huy, Vu Kien Phuc

Abstract

Despite the widespread application of the Public Sector Scorecard (PSS) in several countries, the intention to embrace this management framework varies significantly across these regions. This study aims to investigate the factors affecting PSS adoption in a developing country to provide a comprehensive understanding of the uptake. A quantitative methodology utilizing a cross-sectional survey, based on a questionnaire derived from previous research and administered to employees at public universities (PUs), was analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling. The findings of this study may assist PUs' administrators in implementing a suitable framework to assess and monitor organizational performance, allocate resources, formulate strategies, and enhance service delivery for users and stakeholders. Furthermore, it could provide references for policymakers in pursuing effective strategies for PU control.

Article Details

References

  1. H. Orth, N. Carrasco, M. Schwertner, U. Weidmann, Calibration of a Public Transport Performance Measurement System for Switzerland, Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 2351 (2013), 104–114. https://doi.org/10.3141/2351-12.
  2. H.C. Beyle, S.D. Parratt, Public Attitudes and Government Efficiency, Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 199 (1938), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271623819900104.
  3. E.B. Rosa, Expenditures and Revenues of the Federal Government, Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 95 (1921), 1–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271622109500101.
  4. D. Carlucci, G. Schiuma, F. Sole, The Adoption and Implementation of Performance Measurement Process in Italian Public Organisations: The Influence of Political, Cultural and Rational Factors, Product. Plan. Control (2014), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2014.906678.
  5. M. Celere, G.H.D.S. Mendes, G.M.D. Ganga, R.A. Martins, Performance Measurement and Its Impact on Brazilian Public Academic Libraries, J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci. 51 (2019), 579–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617742452.
  6. A. Johnsen, What Does 25 Years of Experience Tell Us About the State of Performance Measurement? Public Money Manag. 25 (2005), 9–17.
  7. W.V. Dooren, G. Bouckaert, J. Halligan, Performance Management in the Public Sector, Routledge, 2010. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2299.9682.
  8. P. Serdyukov, Innovation in Education: What Works, What Doesn’t, and What to Do about It?, J. Res. Innov. Teach. Learn. 10 (2017), 4–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007.
  9. K. Nasreen, M.T. Afzal, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats in Higher Education: A SWOT Analysis of Allama Iqbal Open University Islamabad (Pakistan), Asian Assoc. Open Univ. J. 15 (2020), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-11-2019-0052.
  10. I. Wakkee, P. Van Der Sijde, C. Vaupell, K. Ghuman, The University’s Role in Sustainable Development: Activating Entrepreneurial Scholars as Agents of Change, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 141 (2019), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.013.
  11. N. Angiola, P. Bianchi, L. Damato, Performance Management in Public Universities: Overcoming Bureaucracy, Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 67 (2018), 736–753. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2017-0018.
  12. C.D.T.T. Tran, R.A. Villano, An Empirical Analysis of the Performance of Vietnamese Higher Education Institutions, J. Further Higher Educ. 41 (2017), 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1135886.
  13. M. Fooladvand, M.H. Yarmohammadian, S. Shahtalebi, The Application Strategic Planning and Balance Scorecard Modelling in Enhance of Higher Education, Procedia – Soc. Behav. Sci. 186 (2015), 950–954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.115.
  14. R. Borst, C. Lako, M. De Vries, Is Performance Measurement Applicable in the Public Sector? A Comparative Study of Attitudes among Dutch Officials, Int. J. Public Admin. 37 (2014), 922–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.944988.
  15. S. Van Thiel, F.L. Leeuw, The Performance Paradox in the Public Sector, Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 25 (2002), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2002.11643661.
  16. C. Hood, Gaming in Targetworld: The Targets Approach to Managing British Public Services, Public Admin. Rev. 66 (2006), 515–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00612.x.
  17. P. Dahler-Larsen, Constitutive Effects of Performance Indicators: Getting beyond Unintended Consequences, Public Manag. Rev. 16 (2014), 969–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.770058.
  18. Å. Johnsen, J. Vakkuri, Is There a Nordic Perspective on Public Sector Performance Measurement?, Financ. Account. Manag. 22 (2006), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0267-4424.2006.00404.x.
  19. S. Modell, Performance Management in the Public Sector: Past Experiences, Current Practices and Future Challenges, Aust. Account. Rev. 15 (2005), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2005.tb00304.x.
  20. T.H. Poister, G. Streib, Performance Measurement in Municipal Government: Assessing the State of the Practice, Public Admin. Rev. 59 (1999), 325. https://doi.org/10.2307/3110115.
  21. M. Arnaboldi, I. Lapsley, I. Steccolini, Performance Management in the Public Sector: The Ultimate Challenge, Financ. Account. Manag. 31 (2015), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12049.
  22. K. Fryer, J. Antony, S. Ogden, Performance Management in the Public Sector, Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 22 (2009), 478–498. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550910982850.
  23. C. Hood, R. Dixon, What We Have to Show for 30 Years of New Public Management: Higher Costs, More Complaints, Governance 28 (2015), 265–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12150.
  24. G. Bouckaert, B.G. Peters, Performance Measurement and Management: The Achilles’ Heel in Administrative Modernization, Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 25 (2002), 359-362. https://doi.org/10.2307/3381129.
  25. I. Lapsley, New Public Management: The Cruellest Invention of the Human Spirit?, Abacus 45 (2009), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.2009.00275.x.
  26. R.N. Anthony, D.W. Young, Management Control in Nonprofit Organizations, McGraw-Hill, 1999.
  27. M. Barlage, A. Van Den Born, A. Van Witteloostuijn, L. Graham, Estimating Public Performance Bias through an MTMM Model: The Case of Police Performance in 26 European Countries, Policy Stud. 35 (2014), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2013.875154.
  28. Z. Keser Ozmantar, T. Gedikoglu, Design Principles for the Development of the Balanced Scorecard, Int. J. Educ. Manag. 30 (2016), 622–634. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2015-0005.
  29. P. Henman, Performing the State: The Socio-Political Dimensions of Performance Measurement in Policy and Public Services, Policy Stud. 37 (2016), 499–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2016.1144739.
  30. A.A. Amirkhanyan, H.J. Kim, K.T. Lambright, The Performance Puzzle: Understanding the Factors Influencing Alternative Dimensions and Views of Performance, J. Public Admin. Res. Theory 24 (2014), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut021.
  31. Y. Zheng, W. Wang, W. Liu, J. Mingers, A Performance Management Framework for the Public Sector: The Balanced Stakeholder Model, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 70 (2019), 568–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2018.1448247.
  32. A.K. Narayan, An Ethical Perspective on Performance Measurement in the Public Sector, Pac. Account. Rev. 28 (2016), 364–372. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-02-2016-0024.
  33. M. Moullin, Improving and Evaluating Performance with the Public Sector Scorecard, Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 66 (2017), 442–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-06-2015-0092.
  34. D.P. Moynihan, S.K. Pandey, The Big Question for Performance Management: Why Do Managers Use Performance Information?, J. Public Admin. Res. Theory 20 (2010), 849–866. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq004.
  35. M. Franco, M.C.S. Bourne, Are Strategic Performance Measurement Systems Really Effective: A Closer Look at the Evidence, in: Proceedings of the EurOMA Conference, INSEAD, Paris, (2004), pp. 163-74.
  36. P.D.L. Julnes, M. Holzer, Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation, Public Admin. Rev. 61 (2001), 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00140.
  37. F.D. Davis, Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology, MIS Quart. 13 (1989), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
  38. F.D. Davis, R.P. Bagozzi, P.R. Warshaw, User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models, Manag. Sci. 35 (1989), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.
  39. L.G. Wallace, S.D. Sheetz, The Adoption of Software Measures: A Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Perspective, Inf. Manag. 51 (2014), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.12.003.
  40. E.B. Swanson, Measuring User Attitudes in MIS Research: A Review, Omega 10 (1982), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(82)90050-0.
  41. R.G. Smith, A. Farquhar, The Road Ahead for Knowledge Management: An AI Perspective, AI Mag. 21 (2000), 17-40. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v21i4.1528.
  42. R.H. Chenhall, Management Control Systems Design within Its Organizational Context: Findings from Contingency-Based Research and Directions for the Future, Account. Organ. Soc. 28 (2003), 127–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00027-7.
  43. A. Ferreira, D. Otley, The Design and Use of Performance Management Systems: An Extended Framework for Analysis, Manag. Account. Res. 20 (2009), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2009.07.003.
  44. P. Garengo, U. Bititci, Towards a Contingency Approach to Performance Measurement: An Empirical Study in Scottish SMEs. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 27 (2007), 802–825.
  45. D.C. Hayes, The Contingency Theory of Managerial Accounting, Account. Rev. 52 (1977), 22-39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/246029.
  46. C.D.T.T. Tran, G.E. Battese, R.A. Villano, Administrative Capacity Assessment in Higher Education: The Case of Universities in Vietnam, Int. J. Educ. Dev. 77 (2020), 102198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102198.
  47. A.I. Coste, A.T. Tudor, Service Performance - Between Measurement and Information in the Public Sector, Procedia – Soc. Behav. Sci. 92 (2013), 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.662.
  48. S.P. Osborne, Z. Radnor, G. Nasi, A New Theory for Public Service Management? Toward a (Public) Service-Dominant Approach, Amer. Rev. Public Admin. 43 (2013), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012466935.
  49. M. Moullin, Delivering Excellence in Health and Social Care, Open University Press, Buckingham, (2002).
  50. J. Ridley, L. Jones, User and Public Involvement in Health Services, Partners in Change, SHS Trust, Edinburgh, (2002).
  51. P. Barden, A New Prescription for NHS Performance, Financ. Manag. 33 (2004), 22-24.
  52. J. Alford, Defining the Client in the Public Sector: A Social‐Exchange Perspective, Public Admin. Rev. 62 (2002), 337-346.
  53. M.B. Sanger, From Measurement to Management: Breaking through the Barriers to State and Local Performance, Public Admin. Rev. 68 (2008), S70-S85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00980.x.
  54. P.R. Niven, Balanced Scorecard Step-by-Step for Government and Non-Profit Agencies, Wiley, Hoboken, (2003).
  55. L. Kloot, J. Martin, Strategic Performance Management: A Balanced Approach to Performance Management Issues in Local Government, Manag. Account. Res. 11 (2000), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1006/mare.2000.0130.
  56. Å. Gornitzka, I.M. Larsen, Towards Professionalisation? Restructuring of Administrative Work Force in Universities, Higher Educ. 47 (2004), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000020870.06667.f1.
  57. J.-S. Chiou, C.-C. Shen, The Antecedents of Online Financial Service Adoption: The Impact of Physical Banking Services on Internet Banking Acceptance, Behav. Inf. Technol. 31 (2012), 859–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2010.549509.
  58. D.J. Kim, D.L. Ferrin, H.R. Rao, A Trust-Based Consumer Decision-Making Model in Electronic Commerce: The Role of Trust, Perceived Risk, and Their Antecedents, Decis. Support Syst. 44 (2008), 544–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001.
  59. H.W. Kim, Y. Xu, S. Gupta, Which Is More Important in Internet Shopping, Perceived Price or Trust?, Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 11 (2012), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2011.06.003.
  60. Y. Chen, C. Chang, Enhance Green Purchase Intentions: The Roles of Green Perceived Value, Green Perceived Risk, and Green Trust, Manag. Decis. 50 (2012), 502–520. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211216250.
  61. R. Salehzadeh, J.K. Pool, Brand Attitude and Perceived Value and Purchase Intention toward Global Luxury Brands, J. Int. Consum. Mark. 29 (2017), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2016.1236311.
  62. C. Flavián, M. Guinalíu, R. Gurrea, The Role Played by Perceived Usability, Satisfaction and Consumer Trust on Website Loyalty, Inf. Manag. 43 (2006), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.01.002.
  63. S.M. Ather, F.A. Sobhani, Managerial Leadership: An Islamic Perspective, IIUC Stud. 4 (1970), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.3329/iiucs.v4i0.2688.
  64. V. Khan, M.H. Hafeez, S.M.H. Rizvi, et al. Relationship of Leadership Styles, Employees Commitment and Organization Performance (A Study on Customer Support Representatives), Eur. J. Econ. Finance Admin. Sci. 49 (2012), 133-143.
  65. S.M. Bethel, Making the Difference: Twelve Qualities That Make You a Leader, Berkley Publishing Group, New York, (1990).
  66. S. Chang, M. Lee, A Study on Relationship among Leadership, Organizational Culture, the Operation of Learning Organization and Employees’ Job Satisfaction, Learn. Organ. 14 (2007), 155–185. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470710727014.
  67. R.T. Frambach, H.G. Barkema, B. Nooteboom, M. Wedel, Adoption of a Service Innovation in the Business Market: An Empirical Test of Supply-Side Variables, J. Bus. Res. 41 (1998), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00005-2.
  68. R. McLeod, Leading for a Purpose -Managerial Leadership and Strategic Performance in Public Organisations, Institute of Policy Studies Working Paper, Victoria University of Wellington, (2007).
  69. A. Grobelna, M. Sidorkiewicz, A. Tokarz-Kocik, Job Satisfaction among Hotel Employees: Analyzing Selected Antecedents and Job Outcomes. A Case Study from Poland, Argum. Oecon. 2 (2016), 281–310. https://doi.org/10.15611/aoe.2016.2.11.
  70. L.K. Johnsrud, Measuring the Quality of Faculty and Administrative Worklife: Implications for College and University Campuses, Res. Higher Educ. 43 (2002), 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014845218989.
  71. K. Szelągowska-Rudzka, Human Resources Management in Higher Education Institutions in Poland, Management 22 (2018), 208–225. https://doi.org/10.2478/manment-2018-0015.
  72. K.A. Russell, G.H. Siegel, C.S. Kulesza, Counting More, Counting Less: Transformations in the Management Accounting Profession, Strat. Finance, 81 (1999), 39-44.
  73. R.R. Dolphin, Internal Communications: Today’s Strategic Imperative, J. Mark. Commun. 11 (2005), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/1352726042000315414.
  74. P.Q. Huy, V.K. Phuc, Does Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility Drive Better Organizational Performance through Integration with a Public Sector Scorecard? Empirical Evidence in a Developing Country, Processes 8 (2020), 596. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8050596.
  75. S.A. Sivo, X. Fan, E.L. Witta, J.T. Willse, The Search for “Optimal” Cutoff Properties: Fit Index Criteria in Structural Equation Modeling, J. Exp. Educ. 74 (2006), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.74.3.267-288.
  76. A.M. Gadermann, M. Guhn, B.D. Zumbo, Estimating Ordinal Reliability for Likert-Type and Ordinal Item Response Data: A Conceptual, Empirical, and Practical Guide, Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 17 (2012), 3. https://doi.org/10.7275/N560-J767.
  77. F.D. Davis, User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts, Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 38 (1993), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022.
  78. F. Liu, X. Zhao, P.Y.K. Chau, Q. Tang, Roles of Perceived Value and Individual Differences in the Acceptance of Mobile Coupon Applications, Internet Res. 25 (2015), 471–495. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-02-2014-0053.
  79. C. Flavián, M. Guinalíu, Consumer Trust, Perceived Security and Privacy Policy: Three Basic Elements of Loyalty to a Web Site, Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 106 (2006), 601–620. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570610666403.
  80. C.C. Koske, W. Muturi, Factors Affecting Application of Balanced Scorecard: A Case Study of Non-Governmental Organizations in Eldoret, Strat. J. Bus. Change Manag. 2 (2015), 1868-1898.
  81. A. Radhakrishna, R.S. Raju, A Study on the Effect of Human Resource Development on Employment Relations, IUP J. Manag. Res. XIV (2015), 28-42. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2692430.
  82. J.G. Covin, D.P. Slevin, A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior, Entrep. Theory Pract. 16 (1991), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879101600102.
  83. B.J. Jaworski, A.K. Kohli, Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences, J. Mark. 57 (1993), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700304.
  84. Z. Awang, A Handbook on SEM for Academicians and Practitioners: The Step-By-Step Practical Guides for the Beginners, Bandar Baru Bangi: MPWS Rich Resources, (2014).
  85. Z. Awang, SEM Made Simple: A Gentle Approach to Learning Structural Equation Modelling, Bandar Baru Bangi: MPWS Rich Resources, (2015).
  86. Z. Awang, A. Afthanorhan, M. Mohamad, M.A.M. Asri, An Evaluation of Measurement Model for Medical Tourism Research: The Confirmatory Factor Analysis Approach, Int. J. Tour. Policy 6 (2015), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTP.2015.075141.
  87. A.S.M.M. Hoque, Z. Awang, K. Jusoff, et al. Social Business Efficiency: Instrument Development and Validation Procedure using Structural Equation Modelling, Int. Bus. Manag. 11 (2017), 222-231.
  88. J.P. Peter, Construct Validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Marketing Practices, J. Mark. Res. 18 (1981), 133-145. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150948.
  89. J.F. Hair, R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, W.C. Black, Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall, (1998).
  90. M.A. Memon, H. Ting, T. Ramayah, et al. A Review of the Methodological Misconceptions and Guidelines Related to the Application of Structural Equation Modeling: A Malaysian Scenario, J. Appl. Struct. Equ. Model. 1 (2017), i–xiii. https://doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.1(1)01.
  91. V. Kannan, Just in Time, Total Quality Management, and Supply Chain Management: Understanding Their Linkages and Impact on Business Performance, Omega 33 (2005), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2004.03.012.
  92. R.B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press, New York, (2010).
  93. D. Gefen, D. Straub, M.-C. Boudreau, Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 4 (2000), 1–79. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.00407.
  94. J.F. Hair, W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, et al. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, Pearson Education Inc., New Jersey, (2010).
  95. S.T. Ponis, P.A. Papanikolaou, P. Katimertzoglou, et al. Household Food Waste in Greece: A Questionnaire Survey, J. Clean. Prod. 149 (2017), 1268–1277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.165.
  96. A.H. Segars, V. Grover, Re-Examining Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis, MIS Quart. 17 (1993), 517-525. https://doi.org/10.2307/249590.
  97. L. Hu, P.M. Bentler, Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives, Struct. Equ. Model. 6 (1999), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
  98. B.M. Byrne, Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 2001.
  99. I. Balabonienė, G. Večerskienė, The Aspects of Performance Measurement in Public Sector Organization, Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 213 (2015), 314–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.544.
  100. W. Hu, Y. Ge, Q. Dang, et al. Analysis of the Development Level of Geo-Economic Relations between China and Countries along the Belt and Road, Sustainability 12 (2020), 816. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030816.
  101. C. Moxham, Performance Measurement: Examining the Applicability of the Existing Body of Knowledge to Nonprofit Organisations, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 29 (2009), 740–763. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570910971405.