Theeravadee Thangkabutra



The Success Indicators for the Computer Center in Higher Education Institutions

pdf PDF


This paper proposed the success indicators and the measurement model of the computer center in higher education institutions (IMOCC). The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) concepts were used to develop the IMOCC. The research finding the IMOCC included eight sub components; two factors and four perspectives (Input factors; financial, customer, internal process and learning & development perspectives, Output; financial, customer, internal process and learning & development perspectives). The factor loading of success indicators for the operations of computer center (CC) in higher education institutions were output and input factor components, respectively. The IMOCC was fit to the empirical data (χ 2 = .021; df = 3; P = .999; GFI = 1.00; AGFI = .999; RMR = .000937). The IMOCC is measure with eight indicators which are tool for measure performance of CCs to enable the organization to identify their own strategies plans.


Indicator, Measurement, Balanced Scorecard, Performance, Organization


[1] Buytendijk, F., The Five Keys to Building a High-Performance Organization (Gartner Group). Business Performance Management Magazine, February, 34-46. 2006.

[2] Nils-Goran, O., Roy, J. and Wetter, M., Performance Drivers: A Practical Guide to Using the Balanced Scorecard. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. 2003.

[3] Pandey, I. M., Balanced Scorecard: Myth and Reality. VIKALPA, 30 (1), January-March, 51- 68. 2005.

[4] Morisawa, T., Nomura Research Institute Building Performance Measurement Systems with the Balanced Scorecard Approach. Japan. 2002.

[5] Hoque, Z., James, W., Linking Balanced Scorecard Measures to Size and Market Factors: Impact on Organizational Performance. Journal of Management Accounting Research,12, 1-16.2000.

[6] Malina, A. M., and Selto, H. F., Communicating and Controlling strategy: An Empirical Study of the Effectiveness of the Balanced Scorecard. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 13, 47-89. 2001.

[7] Zarinpoush, F., Project Evaluation Guide for Nonprofit Organizations. Imagine Canada, University Avenue, Ontario Cannada. 2006.

[8] Ritchie, W. J. and Kolodinsky, R. W., Nonprofit organization financial performance measurement: An evaluation of new and existing financial performance measures. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13 (4), 367-381. 2003.

[9] McNamara, C., Authenticity Consulting, LLC Organizational Performance Management. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 2008.

[10] TIPS., Performance Monitoring and Evaluation. Unpublished manuscript, USAID Center for Development Information and Evaluation. 1996.

[11] Seel, B. and Richey, RC., AECT. Instructional Technology the Definition and Domains of the field. Washington DC. 1994.

[12] Lovell, C. A. K, Walters, L. C., Wood, L. L., Stratifield models of education production using modified DEA and regression analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 329-351. 1994

[13] Abbot, M. and Doucouliagos C., The efficiency of Australia universities: a data development analysis. Economics of Educational Review, 22 (1), 89-97. 2003.

[14] Bititci, U. S.; Carrie, A. S.; and McDevitt, L., Integrated performance measurement systems: an audit and development guide. The TQM Magazine, 9, 46-53. 1977.

[15] Worthington A. C., Frontier Efficiency Measurement in Health Care: A Review of Empirical Techniques and Selected Applications. Medical Care Research and review, 61 (2), 1-36. [online], 2004.

Cite this paper

Theeravadee Thangkabutra. (2016) The Success Indicators for the Computer Center in Higher Education Institutions. International Journal of Education and Learning Systems, 1, 37-42


Copyright © 2016 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article.
This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0