CONGESTION IN THE NEW BRITISH UNIVERSITIES : A FURTHER ANALYSIS(<Special Issue>Operations Research for Performance Evaluation)

Abstract

The focus of this paper is on the problem of congestion, which refers to a situation where the use of a certain input has increased by so much that output has actually fallen. This problem is explored using the methodological framework proposed by Färe et al. Annual data are examined for a sample of 41 new British universities in the period 1995/6 to 2003/4. These former polytechnics were granted university status in 1992. A widespread problem of congestion is identified. The results reveal that the order in which technical efficiency is decomposed into scale efficiency, congestion efficiency and pure technical efficiency makes a noticeable difference to the amount of congestion identified. The results also clearly indicate that an excessive number of undergraduate students is the largest single cause of congestion in these new universities. The paper concludes by considering the results from the alternative approach to the measurement of congestion formulated by Cooper et al.

A Non-Radial Input Relaxation Model Approach for Evaluating Input Congestion in Data Envelopment Analysis

“…DEA is also used to identify where improvements may be made in the management of congestion and to estimate input decreases and output increases that may be made after managerial inefficiencies in managing congestion are eliminated. In DEA literature, several DEA researchers (for example, Asgharian, Khodabakhshi and Neralic (2010); Jahanshahloo et al (2012); Cooper et al (2001aCooper et al ( ), (2001cCooper et al ( ), (1996; Cherchye et al (2001); Flegg and Allen (2008); Sueyoshi (2003); Wei andYan (2004), (2009). and anymore) pay attention to the issue of input congestion as severe form of inefficiency.…”

Drivers of efficiency in higher education in England

“…More recently, DEA has been applied at the HEI level to produce measures of efficiency for all HEIs in the sector (Athanassopulos and Shale, 1997;Flegg et al, 2004;Glass et al, 2006;Johnes, 2006;Allen, 2007a, 2007b;Johnes, 2008;Flegg and Allen, 2009;. These studies differ in terms of the time period covered, model specification (i.e.…”

“…In some cases, DMUs may be given a fixed quantity of resources and asked to produce as much output as possible. In this case, an output orientation would be more appropriate; hence, many studies 54 have conformed to an output-orientation framework (Beasley, 1990;Glass et al, 1997Glass et al, , 2007Tomkins and Green, 1998;Dyson, 2000;Sarrico and Dyson, 2004;Flegg et al, 2004Flegg et al, , 2007Johnes, 2006Johnes, , 2008Johnes, , 2010Johnes, , 2012Flegg and Allen, 2009;. Essentially, one should select the orientation according to which quantities (inputs or outputs) the managers have most control over (Coelli et al, 2005).…”

“…The level of aggregation is a variant dimension since there are distinguishable levels of analysis 113 according to the available data or the desired outcome. Most of the UK HE studies tend to focus on the institutional level of analysis (Johnes, 1998(Johnes, , 1999Izadi et al, 2002;Sarrico and Dyson, 2004;Flegg et al, 2004;Turner, 2005;Emrouznejad and Thanassoulis, 2005;Glass et al 2006;Johnes, 2006aJohnes, , 2006bJohnes, , 2006cJohnes, , 2008Johnes, , 2012Flegg and Allen, 2007;Johnes and Johnes 2009;Flegg and Allen, 2009). However, there are studies that aim to analyse departments.…”