The Palestinian university administration in light of business process re-engineering approach

Int. J. Management in Education, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2010 259

Copyright © 2010 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

The Palestinian university administration in light of business process re-engineering approach

Mohammad A. Al-Titi* Al-Quds Open University, P.O. 1750, Ramallah, Palestine Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Mahmoud A. Abu Samra Al-Quds University, P.O. 20002, East Jerusalem, Israel Email: [email protected]

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to identify the reality of the administrative process in the Palestinian universities in the light of Business Process Re-engineering (BPR). A stratified sample was selected randomly from the administrators and faculty members in the Palestinian universities during the academic year of 2006. Researchers used a questionnaire for data collection. The study revealed that estimates of the sample study compared to the realities of Palestinian universities administration were moderate; the estimates (50.9%) of the sample study indicated that Palestinian universities’ administrators have not applied the principles of BPR.

Keywords: Palestinian universities; business re-engineering; administration; educational management.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Al-Titi, M.A and Abu Samra, M.A. (2010) ‘The Palestinian university administration in light of business process re-engineering approach’, Int. J. Management in Education, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.259–278.

Biographical notes: Mohammed A. Al-Titi is an Assistant Professor in Al-Quds Open University. He holds a BA in Teaching Methods from ESF, Palestine, 1993–1997, and MA in Educational Administration from Al-Quds University, 2002–2004. He obtained his PhD in Educational Administration and Planning from Institute of Arab Research and Studies, Cairo, 2004–2007.

Mahmoud A. Abu Samra is an Assistant Professor at Faculty of Educational Science, Al-Quds University in Palestine. He holds a BS in Physics from Yarmouk University, 1977–1980, an MSc in Physics from University of Jordan, 1980–1983, and an MA in Educational Administration from Al-Quds University, 1997–1999. He obtained his PhD in Educational Administration from Khartoum University, 1999–2003.

260 M.A. Al-Titi and M.A. Abu Samra

1 Introduction

University education represents one of the most distinguished educational stages in any society. Interest in and concern for education is one of the most important phenomena of civilised renaissance, since university education is related to a number of important roles which were identified by the World Conference on Higher Education in the 21st Century, held in Paris in 1998: ‘Servicing individuals and society; scientific research; transferring, preserving and producing knowledge and presenting continuing education.’ (UNESCO, 1998, p.14)

Despite the improvements and developments to university education that have been attempted in many societies for the purpose of advancing and linking it to society, there are still many obstacles that prevent university education from accomplishing its goals. From among these obstacles, the increased demand for university education and the lack of financial resources for expansion and renewal of university administrations and academic education have the biggest effect on the level of the graduates and the enhancement of their proficiency. (Association of University Teachers, 1995, p.5).

The era in which we live is characterised by rapid change and innovation; universities today need to revise their educational forms and social structures (hierarchies), aims and behaviours to keep up with the increasing knowledge in the world. Comprehension of new supporting or deterrent factors is necessary in order to diagnose problems and prepare the strategic and objective plans upon which the future of the university is based. Naturally, it is impossible to deal with these present and future challenges by following the patterns of the past or classic administration.

Therefore, the developed countries have introduced modern administrative techniques based on radical and essential change in university institutions, such as instituting Management Re-engineering (MR) or Business Process Re-engineering (BPR), which appeared in the mid 1990s of the last century in the USA. The USA has introduced these into university education for the purpose of facing competitive challenges, reducing cost, balancing the budget and for planning the structure of the university in the 21st century (Grotevant, 2001, p.1).

If that is the case for the developed countries, universities in developing nations are in serious need of re-engineering their administrative and academic processes to face the challenges of the 21st century that threaten to limit their possibilities. For example, the inability to compete, slow response to change and development, outdated models of systems, methods and techniques, out-of-date education technologies and the inability to cope with acquisitive and technical development.

Therefore, it is essential to concentrate on the quality of university education, considered as one of the most important educational stages in a human’s life because it integrates what has been achieved in the basic and the secondary cycles. The achievement of educational aims that society looks for depends on the ability of the educational system to achieve its goals. If the educational and teaching systems in the university manage to build on current trends and knowledge with the required quality, then university education will be able to fulfil its aims, building both the learned individual and a society capable of development in conformity with modern scientific changes and technical development. This will not be achieved, however, unless the educational system develops in general, and its administration in particular. Whenever administrations are able to implement good quality input, the output (consequences) will be of higher efficiency and will be better able to service its communities.

The Palestinian university administration 261

These outputs and their quality will not be achieved unless university administrations re-engineer their organisational structures (hierarchies). University administrations should use specific criteria to improve their ability to administer inputs, outputs and processes, as well as managing internal and external crises and struggles in a manner that insures the university’s progress and development. The administrative development will then contribute to the development of the university environment and society.

Like the rest of the university administrations in the Arab World, the Palestinian University administrations need continuous development to promote efficiency and create change in university policy, hierarchy and in its organisational bodies. This study was therefore instituted, with Palestinian universities chosen in general and university administrations in particular, since Palestinian universities have played a significant role since their establishment in developing quality and quantity of resources in the local society. In particular, human resources have been developed through the educational and training programmes offered by universities in the fields of information technology, engineering and science, as well as on the level of policy, administration, teaching and education. All of this occurred parallel to the efforts of existing institutes and centres either inside or outside the university campus, to serve Palestinian society and to improve its economic and social development.

2 Business process re-engineering

Michael Hammer is considered the first person to use the term ‘re-engineering’. Re-engineering was actually practiced before this term was introduced in 1990. According to James Shampy, ‘re-engineering’ means ‘principle and basic re-thinking’ and the redesign of administrative processes in a radical manner for creating substantial improvement, not gradually marginalised on the criteria of decisive performance such as cost, good quality, service and speed (Hammer, 1999, p.19).

This means that ‘re-engineering’ requires a complete desertion of the classical traditions and norms followed in the institution, and a new start in thinking about the best method by which the required work may be done, as if nothing was previously available. The definition of Hammer and Shampy includes four basic concepts (Suleiman, 2005, p.75).

1 First (basic): This is defined by the following questions: Why is this work done? Why specifically is it done this way? The questions imply an inquiry into the validity of the current method.

2 Second (radical): Getting to the root or origin of things, but not making superficial changes or playing with that which is virtually in its correct place.

3 Third (substantial): Gaining great quantitative progress in performance.

4 Fourth (processes): The work trend relies on process, not on functions, tasks or on individuals.

In term of the previous concept, Mangtly, as mentioned in (Abdul-Muhsin, 2003, p.208) gives ‘re-engineering’ a more detailed definition of the quality of the required processes in this context. On the other hand, he takes into account that the activity of re-engineering does not get its fullness unless it deals with the other related organisational factors, and


influences the processes submitted to re-engineering. On this basis, his definition of re-engineering is ‘the rapid radical redesign for strategic labour processes of the added value for systems, policies and organisational structures that support those strategic processes in order to improve work and productivity of the organisation’.

According to a service brochure by Touche (1995, p.15), re-engineering is a method based on a number of sciences which are used to create substantial change in an institution for the purpose of producing within it principal changes in the development of organisational performance and promotion. Abdul-Muhsin (2003, p.208) defines ‘re-engineering’ as one of the modern administrative developments aimed at producing a rapid radical improvement in labour organisations through re-designing strategic operations, policies, hierarchies, values and supporting hypotheses in a non-traditional manner. Sultan (1996) defines it as a rapid radical re-designing of the strategic processes which has an additional value for work as well as swift change in re-designing the systems, policies and hierarchies which support these processes for the purpose of maximising the flow of work and the achievement of productivity inside the institution.

Obolensky (1995, p.15) defines ‘re-engineering’ as the effort made by an organisation to change its operations and its internal supervision from the vertical hierarchy form (functional classical) to the horizontal form (non-functional) which is based on the method of work and which has a flattened shape, by concentrating on the process that satisfies consumers. Hassan (2001, p.33) defines ‘re-engineering’ as the collection of developed tools and methods as well as the advantages of modern technology in producing the best integration of methods to bring about radical change in all parts of the organisation in order to fulfil the needs of the consumer. Abdul-Múti (2002) defines ‘re-engineering’ as a modern administrative development aimed at producing a rapid radical improvement in university institutions through planning strategic processes, policies, hierarchies, values and supporting unconventional hypotheses.

Studying the previous definitions, researchers conclude the following:

1 Re-engineering processes aim at creating a rapid radical change in institutions through re-planning the strategic operations, policies, hierarchies, values and hypotheses in unconventional ways.

2 Re-engineering is a new technique to promote performance that considers radical and substantial change inside the institution. Furthermore, re-engineering focuses on processes, not on tasks, functions or individuals.

3 Re-engineering cannot be done without taking into account all organisational factors of the processes which have been subjected to re-engineering, and in which the existing hypotheses have been rejected. In addition, we must think differently in order to reach a modern hypothesis that will achieve massive and rapid improvement in the university institution.

4 Re-engineering is done in two directions: the first is intellectual, relying on the existing hypotheses and on looking for different hypotheses; and the second is practical, relying on the benefits of modern technology.

5 BPR in an institution precedes as well as leads to comprehensive quality.

6 BPR leads to consumer satisfaction in regard to the product or service presented.


In addition to the appearance of administrative re-engineering in the labour sector, there were attempts by the workers in this field to move to the domain of teaching. Among them are Drucker and Grestner. Drucker feels that re-engineering which is focused on knowledge has become a necessity to enter the society of knowledge (Ghuneim, 2004).

Therefore, education scholars began to consider BPR as being the model that focuses on the most comprehensive level, represents a reformation of the whole system, and additionally, a research approach through a single conformation.

It can be said that BPR is a systematic change of institutions in general, from which specialists in the university benefited. The advantage is incorporated through determining the concepts of BPR in labour organisations, and shifting them to university administration to correspond with its concepts. Educational processes are the strategic processes and they are of extra value to the client (student). These processes, in addition to the university’s organisational and administrative components, should be managed through the effort of re-engineering.

We can conclude that BPR may be applied as a technique for improving and developing universities when it is based on two aspects: first, revising basic thinking about university organisational hierarchy, and second, concentration on administrative processes, re-planning them with a combination of values and hypotheses in a different way and in a manner that achieves a qualitative shift in the educational output. In addition, BPR occurs in two directions: the first is intellectual, based on the available hypotheses and on searching for different hypotheses. The second is practical, based on the advantages of modern technology as well as on the great importance of Information Technology (IT) in re-engineering the university to get a qualitative shift in performance.

3 Previous studies

The study by Stahlke and James (1996) tries to revise the moral code in this context, then to develop a general framework through which re-engineering teaching and learning in higher education can be produced. The study drew the following conclusions.

We can benefit from BPR in education and in higher education; however, even this needs re-thinking concerning the inner and the outer beneficiaries of the organisation, who can be difficult to specify in higher education. Also, administrative processes of priority in labour organisations may not have the same priority in higher education.

Moreover, applications of BPR, which are effective in labour organisations, may negatively affect the tasks of institutions. The aims and special values of labour organisations address administrative values rather than academic ones. Re-engineering must focus on academic aims and issues such as convenience and efficiency in teaching, learning and research, in order to be useful. Also, BPR must aim further than administrative measurements such as efficiency and advantage. Because of the different types of higher educational institutions, there is no single model for BPR that could be used with all of them.

To make BPR success, we should identify academic priorities for the basic jobs of universities: teaching, learning and research. In brief, BPR puts great importance on infrastructure, operations and internal relations.

Jad al-Rob (1997) pointed out that training is one of the elements of added value needed for organisational change, as well as one of the main requirements for re-engineering. The study also aimed to identify the points of weakness and failure in the classical mode


of training (suffocation), and to re-discover new methods and techniques of training. The study then introduced the attitudes and trends of trainers and trainees towards re-engineering processes at the Suez Canal Corporation, and finally, tried to reach a proper framework for re-engineering training processes at the Corporation. Results reveal the following:

1 Classical training is no longer suitable with the changing requirements of organisations.

2 The BPR is related to human resources training, where it contributes to achieving helpful training aims and finding decisive solutions to the problems of classical training.

Davies’ study (1997) aims at testing the nature and trends of BPR, in addition to discovering how to adopt the reformation movement and how to rebuild hierarchy in education. In addition, the point of view of re-engineering calls for the required radical change in schools to be matched with contemporary social and economic challenges. The study reveals the following results:

1 The main concentration of BPR is in the processes occurring inside the system, including the educational system.

2 Success in BPR leadership requires re-engineering ‘mind-sets’ as well as re-engineering processes.

Allen and Field (1999) tried to identify the possibility of applying BPR as strategic to administering change in the institutions of higher education in the UK, attempting to provide an answer to the following question: How does the systematic culture of higher educational institutions affect the application of re-engineering programmes?

The study adopted the systematisation of a case study, and its tool was personal interviews with those who conducted BPR in five universities in the UK. The most important results demonstrated that the systematic culture and departments of the higher education institutions limit the degree of targeted change by re-engineering projects, and more emphasis is needed on changes in support of teaching and learning. However, further change may achieve less efficient results, especially when applied to administrative services. BPR projects encounter resistance from factors specified in the study, particularly the strength of the academic departments, academic professional status and the laziness inside institutions of higher education, which make radical re-engineering more difficult to apply.

Ibrahim (2000) aims at shedding some light on the general framework of systematic development within changing administrations, as well as introducing the qualities of university administration and the important domains of development that should be focal points. It also focuses on the experiment of administrative change at Al-Munofiyya University, and the lessons accrued from this experiment. The study problem is represented by the challenge of local and universal change facing the various institutions. The concept of universities as institutions productive in research and educational services is a matter that urges these institutions to adjust to these changes through planned and discussed development. Results demonstrate the following:


1 The university’s ability to face challenges on various levels depends on the efforts towards change and on planned development in every aspect of the university’s work.

2 The inefficiency of many development efforts is because of negligence in scientific method and technique in administrative change.

3 It is necessary to provide an administrative leadership that appreciates and believes in change in order to make change programmes a success.

4 The commitment of university supreme administration must be to the correct principles of administration.

Ahmad (2002) proposes a collection of BPR projects to use as a guide in developing the performance of educational organisations. The study problem is crystallised in the following question: How can the performance of educational organisations be developed through the introduction of BPR?

The study relies on the systems approach as a method, whereby analysis and description of the main elements of BPR have been done from the perspective of a moral code of administration. These analyses benefit the development of improved performance in educational organisations. The study reveals that the proposed collection of BPR educational organisations consists of three integrated sub-systems. These are the aims, hierarchy and conduct of performance development. It is worth mentioning that the researcher has divided hierarchy into three elements: organisational culture, leadership and the operation of human resources.

Al-Άtrabi (2004) studied administrative processes in public secondary schools with respect to the problems and hindrances encountered, proposing a vision to improve these processes by using the BPR approach. The study adopted the analytical-descriptive approach. The study sample consisted of employees in the domain of administration at some of the public secondary schools in Al-Qalubiyya Governorate. The most important results of this study are the following.

1 The administration of public secondary schools is suffering from problems in the areas of execution and planning that make the concepts of shared administration in pre-university education mere slogans that are not applicable at the present time.

2 Deterioration of planning was noted in public secondary schools, for example the absence of wise decision-making, not involving teachers in decisions and poor communication between schools and public and local committees.

3 Secondary school administrations evidence resistance to change and reliance on conventional methods of schoolwork rather than embracing international changes in aims and methods.

Gonsalves (2006) introduced the integration of comprehensive excellence and BPR to enrich, support and to increase the competitive power of business administration, because global competition threatens many institutions. The study also addressed drawing up strategies and aims to confront global competition. The study questions focused on the extent of the contribution of comprehensive excellence to the increase in institutions’ competitive abilities, and the contribution of BPR to increase the institutions’ competitive abilities. The questions also focused on the extent of integration in managing business administration processes through Total Quality Management (TQM) and re-engineering,


and whether this provides a more competitive advantage than institutions that are using either TQM or re-engineering only. Most important among the study’s conclusions is that there is a clear advantage in excellence, efficient leadership and an increase in competitive ability in those institutions that applied both methods to changing administrative processes, compared to other institutions.

4 Study problem

Researchers have observed that the development of Palestinian University administrations is essential due to deficiencies noted between the performance of Palestinian and other universities, both Arab and Western, and because of the conspicuous effect of the university administration on the university environment. The study problem is identified by the following two questions:

1 What is the actual situation of the Palestinian University administrations from the viewpoints of both academics and administrators in these universities?

2 To what extent do the Palestinian University administrations apply BPR approach?

5 Hypotheses

The following hypotheses emerged from the study:

1 There are no statistical differences at (α ≤ 0.05) among estimations of study sample individuals in the Palestinian universities towards the situation of university administration due to position.

2 There are no statistical differences at level (α ≤ 0.05) among estimations of study sample members in the Palestinian universities towards the situation of university administration due to university.

3 There are no statistical differences at level (α ≤ 0.05) among estimations of study sample members in the Palestinian universities in the extent to which Palestinian universities have applied BPR approach due to the variables of position and university.

6 Limits of the study

1 Public Palestinian universities in the West Bank: (Beer Zeit, Hebron, Al-Quds, Bethlehem, Al-Najah National, Palestine Polytechnic).

2 Administrators: University presidents, vice presidents of academic affairs, vice presidents of financial and administrative affairs, college deans, deans of student affairs, deans of registration and admission and chiefs of academic departments.

3 Academics: Members of faculty staff who carry certificates of PhD and Masters degrees (professors; associate professors; assistant professors; lecturers).

4 Field study (research approach) had been applied in the first semester of the university academic year 2006.


7 Population and sample

Population of the study consists of the Palestinian University administrations in West Bank: Al-Quds, Hebron, Polytechnic, Bethlehem, Beer Zeit and Al-Najah universities. University presidents, vice presidents, college deans and chiefs of academic departments as well as teaching faculties and administrators from these universities represent the university administrations; there were 1872 members. The sample (285) member was selected randomly according to the variables of university and position. Tables 1 and 2 show the distribution of the sample population members and the sample members according to the variables of the study. Table 1 Distribution of study population and study sample members according to the

position variable

Sample Group Population Number Percentages University President 6 3 50% Vice President 12 8 66% College Dean 55 43 78% Department Chief 85 42 49.4% Faculty Staff 1074 116 14.6% Administrator 642 73 11.4% Total 1872 285 15.2%

Table 2 Distribution of study sample members according to the variables of present position and academic degree

Academic Degree

Professor Associate

Prof. Assistant

Prof. Masters BA or Less Total

University President 2 1 0 0 0 3 Vice President 1 2 4 1 0 8 Dean 10 11 17 5 0 43 Department Chief 3 1 16 19 3 42 Faculty Staff Member 1 1 33 70 11 116

Present position

Administrator 0 1 3 31 38 73 Total 17 17 73 126 52 285

Study questionnaire: Researchers prepared a questionnaire as the study tool, based on educational literature and previous studies. The questionnaire consists of two parts.

Part 1: Measurement of the present situation of Palestinian University administrations. It consists of 65 items on 6 dimensions, regarding application of administrative jobs by the Palestinian University administrations. The dimensions are: planning, organisation and supervision, decision-making, administrative guidance, funding and evaluation.

To answer the items, the scale was established on a decimal basis consisting of ten digits, and is divided into three parts as shown in the following table:


Table 3 Weight scale for estimations of study sample members

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Low degree Average degree High degree

Part 2: Discussion concerning to what extent Palestinian universities administrations apply the BPR. This part consists of 14 items.

The questionnaire was verified by a group of 14 referees chosen from academics and specialists in education and administration. It was also presented to a number of doctors in the Palestinian universities who occupy administrative positions. Arbitrators suggested some modifications and inclusions that have been taken into consideration. Reliability coefficient has been calculated by the means of using Cronbach Alpha coefficient. The total reliability coefficient was 0.97. In addition, using the half-splitting method with the help of coefficient correlation between the two parts, coefficient of reliability amounted to 0.93. Values are educationally acceptable for the purposes of scientific research.

8 Statistical manipulation

Researchers processed data by using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), using Chi-square, one-way ANOVA, t-test and Scheffé Test.

9 Results and discussions

Question one: What is the actual situation of Palestinian University administrations from the viewpoints of academics and administrators in these universities?

To answer this question, arithmetic means and standard deviations for the estimations of the members of the study sample representing the actual situations of Palestinian University administrations have been deduced through the dimensions and items of the study tool, as they are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4 Arithmetic means and standard deviations of study sample estimations for the situation

of Palestinian University administrations

Number Dimension Arithmetic mean Standard deviation 1 Planning 6.78 1.59 2 Organisation & Supervision 6.67 1.49 3 Making Decisions 6.56 1.55 4 Administration Guidance 6.56 1.56 5 Funding 6.53 1.34 6 Evaluation 6.46 1.53 Total Degree 6.58 1.36


Table 5 Arithmetic means and standard deviations of study sample estimations

Item Arithmetic mean Standard deviation University administration works on identifying priorities when plans and projects are applied and implemented. 7.11 3.65

University administration changes aims in accordance with international and local changes. 6.99 1.99

University administration takes into account flexibility when preparing plans to enable it to face future changes. 6.98 1.88

University administration specifies its needs from administrative employees in different specialisations. 6.93 2.25

University administration prepares a comprehensive database for whole fields of work. 6.88 1.91

University works on fulfilling its needs from employees and teachers in different domains. 6.86 2.18

University administration determines work responsibilities for the purpose of producing an efficient leadership that leads the process of development and improvement.

6.84 1.90

Current university funding is sufficient to perform cultural activities and research in the university. 6.32 2.27

University administration evaluates all employees working in the university with the most modern methods. 6.31 2.09

An independent apparatus for observation and for furthering all activities is available in the university. 6.27 2.26

University administration works on achieving aims through coordination between university apparatuses that work with the frame of hierarchy.

6.21 2.27

University administration tries to increase tuition to cope with the real situation of expenses. 6.20 2.27

University administration works on promoting employees’ self-observation through holding seminars, symposia and purposeful lectures that clarify their important performance and roles in the development of the university and its facilities.

6.18 2.32

From Table 4, it is clear that the estimations of the study sample of the actual situation of university administrations were average, according to the scale adopted by researchers. The arithmetic mean of the total grade is 6.58, and the standard deviation is 1.36 according to the decimal scale. The highest of these means is the planning dimension whose value is 6.78, whereas the lowest of these means is the evaluation and observation dimension whose value is 6.46. All values of arithmetic means for the dimensions of university administrations are also within the average degree. The following table shows the arithmetic means and the standard deviations of the study sample estimations for the highest 13 items of the questionnaire.

From Table 5, it is clear that the highest arithmetic mean of study sample estimations for the actual situation of Palestinian University administrations was 7.11 for the item, ‘University administration working on identifying priorities when plans and projects are applied and implemented.’ This is item No. 1 in the questionnaire, Appendix No. 1, whereas the lowest mean was 6.18 for the item, ‘University administration works on


promoting employees’ self-observation through holding seminars and purposeful lectures that clarify the importance of their performance and roles in the development of the university and its facilities.’ This is item No. 6 in the questionnaire.

The values of the arithmetic means for all items in the study tool that indicate the situation of the university administration fell within the average degree. We did not note any item falling within the highest degree, which is the target level in university administrations.

Researchers attribute the falling of the estimations of the study sample within the average range, not within the highest range, to several causes. One of these is the disqualification of university administrators and teachers, both academically and administratively. These administrators lack awareness of the functions and processes of administration, the bases of these processes and how they are applied. In addition, professional bases such as qualifications and rank scale are not used in the selection of university administration. Currently, employees are appointed randomly, not on professional bases, such as experience, efficiency or specialisation, and consequently this leads to deficiency in the work and function of these administrations.

Also, researchers attribute the cases of deficiency to the lack of a neutral or unbiased observation system within the university, which would follow up work, academic and administrative systems, note violations, and then deal with mistakes or flaws. Also contributing to this deficiency is the absence of a real authority that promotes the interests of the homeland as a whole and is concerned with its affairs. The problem may also be attributed to disconnected authority regarding university affairs. The university has a clear vision for identifying priorities; however, the ability of the university to make proper decisions is very low.

Question two: To what extent do Palestinian University administrations apply the (BPR) approach?

To answer this question, frequencies or repetitions of the sample estimations for the implementation of MR approach according to the variables of position and university have been deduced. Table 6 Numbers, frequencies and percentages of sample estimates for administrative

re-engineering approach according to position variable

Position Yes No Total Number 3 – 3 University

President Percentage 100.0% – 100.0% Number 6 2 8

Vice President Percentage 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Number 29 14 43

Dean Percentage 67.4% 32.6% 100.0% Number 22 20 42

Department Chief Percentage 52.4% 47.6% 100.0% Number 41 75 116

Faculty Member Percentage 35.3% 64.7 100.0% Number 39 34 73

Administrator Percentage 53.4% 46.6% 100.0% Number 140 145 285

Total Percentage 49.1% 50.9% 100.0%


From the data of Table 6, and through the answers of the sample members on the application of re-engineering approach according to present position, those who answered with ‘No’ were 145, represented 50.9% out of the total members, whereas those answered with ‘Yes’ were 140, represented 49.1%. The highest percentage was in the favour of university presidents, with a percentage of 100%, and vice presidents with a percentage of 75% out of the sample members. But the percentage of the faculty members who answered with ‘Yes’ was only 35.3%.

Table 7 shows the estimations of the sample study for the extent of the application of administrative re-engineering approach according to the university variable. From Table 7, we see that the biggest percentage affirming the application of administrative re-engineering approach in university administration according to the university variable was for Al-Quds University and Polytechnic University. The greatest percentages from those sample members show that their university administrations apply the approach of administrative re-engineering. On the contrary, the biggest percentages from the sample members of the other universities show the opposite. Researchers investigated the indication of difference through the third null hypothesis. Table 7 Numbers, frequencies and percentages of sample study estimations for administrative

re-engineering approach application according to the university variable

Estimate University

Yes No Total

Number 29 31 60 Hebron

Percentage 48.3% 51.7% 100.0% Number 32 19 51

Al-Quds Percentage 62.7% 37.3% 100.0% Number 36 26 62

Polytechnic Percentage 58.1% 41.9% 100.0% Number 21 26 47

Bethlehem Percentage 44.7% 55.3% 100.0% Number 6 24 30

Birzeit Percentage 20.0% 80.0% 100.0% Number 16 19 35

Al-Najah Percentage 45.7% 54.3% 100.0% Number 140 145 285

Total Percentage 49.1% 50.9% 100.0%

First Hypothesis: There are no significant differences at level (α ≤ 0.05) among estimations of study sample members in the Palestinian universities towards the situation of university administrations attributable to the position variable.

To verify the validity of this hypothesis, the analysis of one-way ANOVA has been applied as shown in Table 8.


Table 8 Results of One-Way ANOVA for differences between estimations of sample members according to position variable

Dimension Difference source

Total of squares

Degree of freedom

Average of squares

Value of calculated differences

Level of statistical indicative

Between groups 6031.636 5 1206.327 Inside groups 68077.466 279 244.005 Planning Total 74109.102 284

4.944 .000

Between groups 5103.165 5 1020.633 Inside groups 64122.147 279 229.828 Organisation &

Supervision Total 69225.312 284

4.441 .001

Between groups 3699.782 5 739.956 Inside groups 59396.162 279 212.889 Making

Decisions Total 63095.944 284

3.476 .005

Between groups 4929.879 5 985.976 Inside groups 63345.033 279 227.043 Administrative

Guidance Total 68274.912 284

4.343 .001

Between groups 3079.995 5 615.999 Inside groups 55250.834 279 198.032 Funding Total 58830.828 284

3.111 .009

Between groups 8982.377 5 1796.475 Inside groups 140218.135 279 502.574 Evaluation Total 149200.512 284

3.575 .004

Between groups 181991.771 5 36398.354Inside groups 2046535.436 279 7335.252 Total Grade Total 2228527.207 284

4.962 .000

From Table 8, there are statistically significant differences at level (α ≤ 0.05) among the estimations of the sample members in the Palestinian universities due to the position variable in fields of study and on the total grade. Therefore, the first null hypothesis is rejected. To find the source of the difference, the Scheffé Test for post-binary comparison is applied as shown in Table 9.

Results of the Scheffé Test for differences due to the position variable show that the differences were between the vice presidents and faculty members, in the favour of vice presidents, whose estimations were higher than those of faculty members. The difference can be attributed to the attempts of vice presidents to prove that they are qualified for the position and that they deserve the trust of the presidents who authorised them to hold these positions. They attempt the best methods to improve their universities and follow up on the latest developments on the administrative level to improve their universities and to lead them towards the best. They also try to prove that their selection to administer universities was based on the trust of the higher administrations, whereas faculty members see the opposite. This difference emphasises the gap between the opinions of the administrators, on one hand, and the faculty members, on the other.


Table 9 Results of the Scheffé Test for post-binary comparison for differences between estimations according to position variable

Dimension Position University President

Vice President Dean

Department Chief

Faculty Member Administrator

Univ. Pres. Vice Pres. 20.469* Dean Dep. Chief Faculty Mem. –20.469* Administrator

Planning

Total Univ. Pres. Vice Pres. 20.431* Dean Dep. Chief Faculty Mem. –20.431* Administrator

Organisation & Supervision


Making Decisions


Administrative Guidance


Funding

Total


Table 9 Results of the Scheffé Test for post-binary comparison for differences between estimations according to position variable (continued)

Dimension Position University President

Vice President Dean

Department Chief

Faculty Member Administrator

Univ. Pres. Vice Pres. 28.571* Dean Dep. Chief Faculty Mem. –28.571* Administrator

Evaluation


Total Grade

Total

Second Hypothesis: There are no significant differences at level (α ≤0.05) among estimations of study sample members in the Palestinian universities towards the situation of university administrations attributable to the university variable.

To verify the validity of this hypothesis, the analysis of one-way ANOVA has been used as shown in Table 10. Table 10 Results of One-Way ANOVA analysis for differences between the estimations of

the sample study according to university variable

Dimension Difference

Source Total of Squares

Degree of Freedom

Average of Squares

Value of Calculated Differences

Level of Statistical Indicative

Between groups 4038.582 5 807.716 Inside groups 70070.520 279 251.149 Planning Total 74109.102 284

3.216 .008

Between groups 4200.171 5 840.034 Inside groups 65025.141 279 233.065 Organisation

& Supervision Total 69225.312 284

3.604 .004

Between groups 3396.331 5 769.266 Inside groups 59199.613 279 212.185 Making

Decisions Total 63095.944 284

3.673 .003

Between groups 2414.125 5 482.825 Inside group 65860.787 279 236.060 Administrative

Guidance Total 68274.912 284

2.045 .073


Table 10 Results of One-Way ANOVA analysis for differences between the estimations of the sample study according to university variable (continued)

Dimension Difference

Source Total of Squares

Degree of Freedom

Average of Squares

Value of Calculated Differences

Level of Statistical Indicative

Between groups 2801.121 5 560.224 Inside groups 55529.707 279 199.031 Funding Total 58330.828 284

2.815 .017

Between groups 5267.304 5 1053.461Inside groups 143933.208 279 515.890 Evaluation Total 149200.512 284

2.042 .073

Between groups 123643.069 5 24728.614Inside groups 2104884.138 279 7544.388Total Grade Total 2228527.207 284

3.278 .007

From Table 10, we find significant statistical differences attributable to the university variable at level (α ≤ 0.05) among the estimations of the sample study, in all domains of study and on the total degree. Therefore, null hypothesis is rejected. To understand the source of the difference, Scheffé Test results were produced as shown in Table 11. Table 11 Scheffé Test results for comparison of differences according to the university variable

Dimension University Hebron Al-Quds

Palestine Polytechnic Bethlehem Birzeit Al-Najah

Hebron Al-Quds –10.312* Polytechnic Bethlehem 10.312* Birzeit Al-Najah

Planning

Total Hebron Al-Quds –11.082* Polytechnic Bethlehem 11.082* Birzeit Al-Najah

Organisation & Supervision


Making Decisions

Total


Table 11 Scheffé Test results for comparison of differences according to the university variable (continued)

Dimension University Hebron Al-Quds

Palestine Polytechnic Bethlehem Birzeit Al-Najah

Hebron Al-Quds –5.623* Polytechnic Bethlehem 5.623* Birzeit Al-Najah

Administrative Guidance


Funding

Total Hebron Al-Quds –13.287* Polytechnic Bethlehem –13.287* Birzeit Al-Najah

Evaluation

Total Hebron Al-Quds 60.924* Polytechnic Bethlehem 60.924* Birzeit Al-Najah

Total Grade

Total

The Scheffé Test shows that the differences were between Bethlehem University and Al-Quds University, in the favour of Bethlehem University. This difference may be due to the fact that Bethlehem University enjoys a foreign administration and has external observation. Besides that, employment in the university is in charge of the ‘Apostolic See’ (Eastern Churches Assembly) in Rome. The university hierarchy of Bethlehem is completely different from the hierarchy of other universities. The university has four vice presidents; each bound to a certain side, and it also has two councils: executive and administrative. Moreover, Bethlehem University cares for its employees. It keeps in contact with them, keeps them abreast of new developments, and contrary to other universities, provides them with experience by means of training inside and outside


the university. Furthermore, Bethlehem University enjoys stable finances, a matter that allows it to concentrate more on the financial side. This encourages employees to search for excellence by means of developmental change.

Third Hypothesis: There are no statistical differences at level (α ≤ 0.05) among estimations of study sample members in the Palestinian universities in the extent to which Palestinian universities have applied (BPR) approach due to the variables of position and university.

To make sure that the differences are statistically significant, Chi-Square Test (χ2) was used, as shown in Table 12.

Table 12 Chi-Square test results (χ2)

Variable χ2 Counted χ2 Tabulated Degrees of Freedom Significant Level

Position 19.284 11.07 5 0.000 University 16.50 11.07 5 0.006

Chi-Square test results show that the differences among the estimations of sample study members are statistically significant. The syllogisms in both cases were less than 0.05. The counted χ2 values were greater than the tabulated values at the syllogism level and at the degrees of freedom. Therefore, null hypothesis is rejected.

This means that there are remarkable differences in the estimations of the sample study for the rate of application of BPR approach to university administrations. This may be attributed to several reasons; one, the lack of an identical vision for work in these universities; the work being carried on randomly and spontaneously because universities have not identified goals; and university administrations’ not yet having introduced administrative re-engineering. This is clarified in the responses of sample members to the question concerning application of the management re-engineering approach.

10 Recommendations

In light of the study results, researchers recommend the following:

1 Palestinian universities must hire qualified people who can employ their experience and qualifications for promoting these universities.

2 Ongoing observation and evaluation of administrative and teaching processes, and assessment of the comprehensive performance of university administrations and the universities as a whole, is essential.

3 Establishing an efficient database system will provide university administrations with information upon which to base their decisions.

4 University leadership must be trained in university development.

5 Internal observation should be established in universities for ongoing monitoring and to emphasise development and promotion.

6 Revising legislation and laws that affect universities will promote innovation as a means to comprehensive development and excellence.


References Abdul-Muhsin, T. (2003) Performance Evaluation of New Entrances to the New World, Institute

of Self-Sufficiency Productivity, Zaqaziq University, Cairo – Dar Al-Fikr Al-Άrabi/Dar Al-Nahda Al-Άrabiyyah.

Abdul-Múti, Y. (2002) ‘A proposed model for re-engineering process application in university education’, Al-Tarbiyya Magazine, Egypt, Year V, Vol. 6, pp.40–65.

Ahmad, S. (2002) ‘Promoting educational organization performance with respect to re-engineering’ – Vision Proposal – Education College, Ein Shams University, Education College Magazine, Vol. 26, Part II, pp.76–105.

Al-Άtrabi, S.A. (2004) Using Administrative Re-engineering Technique to Improve Processes Inside Public Secondary Schools, Master’s Thesis, Al-Zaqaziq University, Banha.

Allen, D.K. and Field, N.F. (1999) ‘Re-engineering change in higher education’, Information Research, Vol. 4, No. 3. Available online at: http://informationr.net/ir/4-3paper 56.html

Association of University Teachers (1995) Higher Education, Preparing for the 21st Century, Spring, UK.

Davies, B. (1997) ‘Re-engineering and its application to education’, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 17, No. 27, pp.173–185.

Ghuneim, A. (2004) Contemporary Administrative Entrances to Modernize Organization, Al-Άsriyya Bookshop, Al-Mansourah.

Gonsalves, G.C. (2006) Business Process Management: Integration of Quality Management and Re-engineering for Enhanced Competitiveness, PhD Dissertation, University of Kentucky, AAT 3063226.

Grotevant, S.M. (2001) Business engineering & process redesign in higher education: art or science? Available online at: http//www.Edu/ir/library.html

Hammer, M. (1999) Results of Re-engineering: The Manner by which Processes-Centralized Organization Changes Work and Life, translated by Translation Department – Publishing House – Afaq Series for Works & Management, Dar Afaq for Excellence & Publishing, Riyadh.

Ibrahim, M. (2000) ‘Change administration for the purpose of a better university administration’, Study case presented to The Modern Trends Conference In Business Administration, 6–7 April 2000, Cairo, Egypt.

Jad al-Rob, S.M. (1997) ‘Proposed frame to re-engineering training processes and developing human resources’, Field study applied to Suez Canal Corporation, Scientific Magazine for Economy and Commerce, Ein Shams University, Vol. 3, pp.25–55.

Obolensky, N. (1995) Practical Business Re-Engineering Tools and Techniques For Achieving Effective Change, Kogan Page, London.

Stahlke, H.F. and James, M.N. (1996) ‘Re-engineering higher education: reinventing teaching and learning’, Cause/Effect, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.44–51. Available online at: http//: www.Educause.edu/ir/library/html/cem9649/.html

Suleiman, H. (2005) Educational Change Management In Public Secondary Schools, Doctoral Thesis, Ein Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.

Sultan, T. (1996) Change Engineering: Radical Change of the Systematic Administration and Application Art, Administrative Engineering Experts Centre, Giza.

Touche, R. (1995) ‘Re-engineering for results management constancy’, Service Brochure cited from Jn. Brownie and D. Sullivan, Re-engineering the Enterprise Conference, 1995.

UNESCO (1998) World Conference on Higher Education in the 21st Century’, Paris, 5–9 October.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228591178_Reengineering_Higher_Education_Reinventing_Teaching_and_Learning?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-a7fa7cc485553a9d5520576676493668-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0OTkyMjkyNztBUzoyMDczOTAyNzc0MTA4MTZAMTQyNjQ1NzEwMzgxNg==





The Palestinian university administration in light of business process re-engineering approach

Documents

Transcript of The Palestinian university administration in light of business process re-engineering approach