Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 2014, 62(6), 1385-1393 | DOI: 10.11118/actaun201462061385

The Conceptual Scheme for Managing University Stakeholders' Satisfaction

David Schüller1, Vít Chlebovský1, Karel Doubravský2, Vladimír Chalupský1
1 Department of Management, Faculty of Business and Management, Brno University of Technology, Kolejní 4, 612 00 Brno, Czech Republic
2 Department of Informatics, Faculty of Business and Management, Brno University of Technology, Kolejní 4, 612 00 Brno, Czech Republic

Universities have to face many changes in the sector of higher education caused by the current dynamic development in this sector. With the decline in state support, increased competition and unfavourable demographic progress, universities are forced to establish and improve their relationships with new and existing stakeholders. Research on relationships among universities and stakeholders has historically focused on the different factors and their influence on improving stakeholder satisfaction with the quality of university services and on strengthening cooperation. Some studies are focused on stakeholders' classification according to their importance for higher education institutions. However, there are fewer scientific studies which concentrate on the intricacies of managing stakeholder satisfaction according to key areas of Universities. This study aims to design a conceptual scheme for managing stakeholder satisfaction depending on the importance of stakeholders in the key fields of Universities. The research was done in three steps. As the first stage, university stakeholders were identified via interview. In the second stage, the following key fields relating to university activities were identified via focus group - education, science and research, premises and technology. In the third stage, the importance of the particular stakeholders was identified for the fields mentioned in the stage two. In order to gain the necessary information, a set interview method was chosen. Native students were identified as the most important stakeholder for the field - education, academic staff as the most important for the field - research and development and enterprises as the most important stakeholder for the field - premises and equipment. The results of the research conducted provided the authors with a convenient base for formulating the conceptual scheme for managing stakeholder universities' satisfaction.

Keywords: universities, stakeholders, satisfaction, management, importance

Published: January 17, 2015  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Schüller, D., Chlebovský, V., Doubravský, K., & Chalupský, V. (2014). The Conceptual Scheme for Managing University Stakeholders' Satisfaction. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis62(6), 1385-1393. doi: 10.11118/actaun201462061385


The original article was already published in issue four of this year. Here, in issue six the same article was erroneously duplicated.


Download citation

References

  1. ANDĚL, J. 2002. Statistické metody. Praha: Matfyzpress.
  2. BJŘRKQUIST, C. 2009. Stakeholder Influence in Higher Education: Old Ideas in New Bottles. Karlstad: Karlstad University.
  3. CZECH MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, YOUTH AND SPORTS. 2006. Budapest-Vienna Declaration on the European Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://bologna.msmt.cz/budapest-viden-2010/budapestsko-videnska-deklarace. [Accessed 20 January 2013].
  4. CRONIN, J. J. and TAYLOR, S. A. 1992. Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3): 55-68. DOI: 10.2307/1252296 Go to original source...
  5. CUBILLO, J. M., SÁNCHES, J. and CERVIÑO, J. 2007. International students' decision-making process. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(2): 101-105. Go to original source...
  6. ČESKO. 1998. Zákon o vysokých školách (zákon č. 111/1998 Sb. ve znění účinném od 1. 7. 2010). In: sbírka zákonů České republiky. Available online: http://www.msmt.cz/file/12768. [Accessed 26 January 2013].
  7. DEARDEN, L., GOODMAN, A. and WYNESS, G. 2012. Higher education finance in the uk. Fiscal Studies, 33(1): 73-105. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-5890.2012.00153.x Go to original source...
  8. FREEMAN, R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
  9. FREEMAN, R. E., HARRISON, J. S. and WICK, A. C. 2007. Managing for Stakeholders. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  10. GRINSTEIN, A. and GOLDMAN, A. 2011. Beyond the final consumer: the effectiveness of a generalist stakeholder strategy. European Journal of Marketing, 45(4): 567-595. DOI: 10.1108/03090561111111343 Go to original source...
  11. GRUBER, T., FUß, S., VOSS, R. and GLÄSER-ZIKUDA, M. 2010. Examining student satisfaction with higher education services: Using a new measurement tool. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2): 105-123. DOI: 10.1108/09513551011022474 Go to original source...
  12. HOPKINS, P. and TODD, L. 2012. Occupying newcastle university: student resistance to government spending cuts in england. The Geographical Journal, 178(2): 104-109. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4959.2011.00436.x Go to original source...
  13. CHEN, S. H. 2009. A performance matrix for strategies to improve satisfaction among fakulty members in higher education. Quality & Quantity, 45(1): 75-89. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-009-9291-2. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-009-9291-2 Go to original source...
  14. KEITH, R. J. 1960. The marketing revolution. Journal of Marketing, 24(3): 35-38. DOI: 10.2307/1248704 Go to original source...
  15. KOTLER, P., WONG, V., SANDRES, G. and ARMSTRONG, J. 2007. Moderní marketing. 4. vyd. Praha: Grada Publishing.
  16. KULA, M. 2008. 'Ni_z zdziesia˛tkuje prywatne uczelnie w całej Polsce', Polska. The Times, August 12. Retrieved from: http://www.polskatimes.pl/artykul/33757,niz-zdziesiatkuje-prywatne-uczelnie-w-calej-polsce,id,t.html.
  17. LESTER, D. 2010. Developing an Effective Instrument for Assessing the Performance of Public University Presidents. New Mexico: The University of New Mexico.
  18. LEVITT, T. 1960. Marketing myopia. Harvard Business Review, 38(4): 45-56. Go to original source...
  19. MATLAY, H. 2011. The Influence of stakeholders on developing enterprising graduates. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 17(2): 166-182. DOI: 10.1108/13552551111114923 Go to original source...
  20. MITCHELL, R. K., BRADLEY R. A. and WOOD, D. J. 1997. Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853-886. [Online]. Accessible at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/259247. [Accessed 2014, August 25]. DOI: 10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105 Go to original source...
  21. NEWMAN, D. M. and PETROSKO, M. J. 2011. Predictors of Alumni Association Membership. Research in Higher Education, 52(7): 738-759. DOI: 10.1007/s11162-011-9213-8 Go to original source...
  22. PARKER, C. and MATHEWS, B. P. 2001. Customer satisfaction: contrasting academic and consumers' interpretations. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19(1): 38-44. DOI: 10.1108/02634500110363790 Go to original source...
  23. PETERSON, R. A. and WILSON, W. R. 1992. Measuring customer satisfaction: fact and artifact. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(1): 61-71. DOI: 10.1007/BF02723476. DOI: 10.1007/BF02723476 Go to original source...
  24. RICHARDSON, G. P. 1996. Modelling for management: simulation in support of systems thinking. Cambridge: Dartmouth Publishing Company.
  25. RAMACHANDRAN, M. T. 2010. Marketing framework in higher education: Addressing aspirations of students beyond conventional tenets of selling products. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(6): 544-556. DOI: 10.1108/09513541011067700. Go to original source...
  26. ŘEPA, V. 2012. Procesně řízená organizace. Praha: Grada Publishing.
  27. SHAO, G. 2009. Towards a Stakeholder Model of Corporate Governance: Evidence from U.S. Media Companies. [Online]. Alabama: Graduate School of the University of Alabama. Retrieved from: http://acumen.lib.ua.edu/u0015_0000001_0000066.
  28. SOJKIN, B., BARTKOWIAK, P. and SKUZA, A. 2012. Determinants of higher education choices and student satisfaction: the case of poland. Higher Education, 63(5): 565-581. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-011-9459-2. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-011-9459-2 Go to original source...
  29. SRIKANTHAN, G. and DALRYMPLE, J. F. 2007. A conceptual overview of a holistic model for quality in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(3): 173-193. Go to original source...
  30. SVĚTLÍK, J. 2009. Marketingové řízení školy. Praha: Wolters Kluwer ČR.
  31. VEUGELERS, R. and CASSIMAN, B. 2005. R & D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23(5-6): 355-379. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.01.008 Go to original source...
  32. VOSS, R., GRUBER, T. and SZMIGIN, I. 2007. Service quality in higher education: The role of student expectations. Journal of Business Research. 60(9): 949-959. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.01.020. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.01.020 Go to original source...
  33. WELCH, M. and JACKSON, P. R. 2007. Rethinking internal communication: A stakeholder approach. Corporate Communications. An Internal Journal, 12(2): 177-198. DOI: 10.1108/13563280710744847 Go to original source...
  34. WONG, M. K. 2004. From expansion to repositioning: Recent changes in higher education in hong kong. An International Journal, 2(1): 150-166. Go to original source...
  35. ZICH, R. 2010. Koncepce úspěchuschopnosti a její pojetí strategie. E a M: Ekonomie a Management, 10(1): 60-74.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.