A system evaluation theory analyzing value and results chain for institutional accreditation in Oman

Paquibut, Rene Y.

doi:10.1108/qae-06-2016-0030

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With each new publication, the utility of SET in addressing limitations associated with traditional theory-driven evaluation approaches in evaluating systems is being established (Paquibut, 2018). Although SET was intended for evaluating modern day systems, the think tank believes there is merit in examining the utility of the SET principles in evaluating programs, particularly those involving interventions into complex social systems involving multiple agencies using a placed-based or collective impact approach (Bellefontaine & Wisener, 2011; Burstein & Tolley, 2011; Dillman & Peck, 2012; Doherty & Eccleston, 2016; Kania & Kramer, 2011; Nichols, 2013).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reworks: A robust system efficiency measure

Renger

Keogh²,

Hawkins³

et al. 2018

Evaluation Journal of Australasia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article reports on the inaugural Australian-American system evaluation summit convened in Wyoming, USA, focusing on the application of system evaluation theory (SET). The think tank noted SET’s efficiency principles and published illustrations are emergency response sector specific and pondered whether efficiency measures could be identified for systems targeting complex social problems. The article describes how the think tank used the concept of system waste as a springboard to identify reworks as a universal system efficiency measure. Reworks were defined as repeating all or part of a system standard operating procedure (SOP) or adding additional steps to the SOP to satisfy externalities to the primary purpose. The article then describes the think tank conclusions regarding the utility of reworks as a proxy measure for the four SET factors influencing system efficiency: training, information technology, leadership and culture. The think tank concludes with a discussion of the cautions evaluators should observe when interpreting reworks.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reworks: A robust system efficiency measure

Renger

Keogh²,

Hawkins³

et al. 2018

Evaluation Journal of Australasia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…OAAA (2016, p. 110) introduced the approach-deploy-result-improve (ADRI) approach to self-assessment to the HEIs in Oman, which is an analysis tool that facilitates the review of how change (to meet standards) is planned and implemented, and how results are reviewed to improve the next cycle of planning. ADRI works well with the strategic management framework (Paquibut, 2017) which essentially fits the purpose of the "refreezing" stage for as long as its use is sustained. Accreditation is a periodic exercise and as such requires the sustained application of strategic management and the ADRI.…”

Section: Refreezingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Managing organizational change to meet the research–teaching nexus standard

Paquibut

Naamany

2019

IJEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Higher education institutions (HEIs) worldwide are required to acquire accreditation for the sake of their academic reputation at the institutional as well as programs levels. Meeting the requirements of standards established by accrediting bodies can be daunting for HEIs undergoing accreditation for the first time. Drastic organizational change is required to overhaul and implement systems to meet the requirements of quality standards. HEIs in the Sultanate of Oman are determined to acquire and maintain institutional accreditation from the Oman Academic Accreditation Authority (OAAA). The purpose of this paper is to describe how a HEI has undergone organizational change to meet the requirement of the research–teaching nexus standard using Lewin’s and McKinsey 7-S change management models. Design/methodology/approach This is a qualitative research which made use of primary and secondary data. The primary data were collected through focus group discussions and workshops, and documents analysis while internet resources were used for secondary data. The dimensions of the research–teaching nexus were determined through review of the literature which became the basis for evaluating the HEI’s practices in the area. Lewin’s and McKinsey 7-S change management models were combined to provide the conceptual framework for describing the process of change the HEI undertook. Findings Lewin’s and McKinsey 7-S change management models allowed for a systemic and systematic perspective of the change required for the HEI to meet the research–teaching nexus standards and acquire institutional accreditation. The HEI documented its practices, conducted an evaluation and instituted the changes in the dimensions of the research–teaching nexus and the supporting 7-S elements. As final result, the HEI was granted institutional accreditation. Research limitations/implications This is a case study of the experience of an HEI in the Sultanate of Oman in its effort to acquire institutional accreditation from the OAAA. However, this case study can provide insights to a larger audience of institutions in Oman and within the Gulf region (or even outside the region) that are in the process of going through a similar experience. For those who have already undergone a similar exercise, this case study can provide a valuable comparison. Practical implications The practical experience of the HEI in the Sultanate of Oman can provide valuable lessons/insights to those in the praxis of educational management and quality assurance in education. Social implications Quality in education is a social issue. HEIs are pressured to acquire and maintain accreditation as evidence of quality. The case study provides the larger audience a perspective of how much effort HEIs place in this aspect. Originality/value This paper documented the experience of an HEI in the Sultanate of Oman. This is the first paper describing an HEI’s change process in a country which is also implementing a new academic accreditation system. In this paper, two change models – Lewin’s and McKinsey’s 7-S – were integrated to provide a more comprehensive perspective in analyzing organizational change. Review of the literature has shown that these two models have not been used together in one paper, providing novelty to otherwise “classic” models. This paper should be valuable to HEIs pursuing accreditation. It is a “universal” knowledge that acquiring accreditation is a major goal of all HEIs worldwide. The described process of organizational change should be insightful to those who are responsible for steering this process with the goal of acquiring accreditation. Educational leaders at the forefront and center of the change process should find in this paper a valuable reference material, providing a systemic and systematic view of the change they have to lead in order to acquire the much-coveted accreditation. Faculty, staff and students of HEIs can be advocates or sources of resistance. This paper should provide better understanding of the process of change and how they, as stakeholders, benefit from it. Finally, students of educational management and leadership should find this paper as a useful case study for class discussion.

show abstract