ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Original Research

Authors

Bagheri Kerachi   A. (* )
Abbaspour   A. (1 )
Aghazade   A. (2 )
Rahimian   H. (1 )
Mehregan   M.R. (3 )






(* ) Administration & Educational Planning Department, Psychology & Education Faculty, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran
(1 ) Administration & Educational Planning Department, Psychology & Education Faculty, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran
(2 ) Education & Training Department, Psychology & Education Faculty, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran
(3 ) Management Department, Management Faculty, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

Correspondence

Address: 8th Alley, Morvarid Flower St., Otobusrani, Mianrood, Shiraz, Iran. Postal Code: 7169654565
Phone: +987118407748
Fax: +987112713410
bagherikerachi@gmail.com

Article History

Received:  February  5, 2013
Accepted:  May 11, 2013
ePublished:  March 17, 2014

BRIEF TEXT


The impact of industrial concepts on education, are noted in several studies [1]. Organizations that are working according to the mass production concept are common in high concentration, rigidity and relatively automatic processes [2], and production is the main topic of their concentration [3]. The concepts of the mass production were estimated suitable for education and universities [4]. Nowadays, universities encountered a new situation raised from changes in the concept of work, and this new situation requires a different teaching method and new standards [5, 6]. As the paradigm of mass production began to wear out, the characteristics of organizational agility evolved [7-9]. There is no common definition for agility, but rapid adaptation with unknown conditions is a common characteristic noted by researchers [3, 10-20]. There are also several models for development of agility [3, 13, 20-26].

According to studies [26], there are five components for agility in the universities, including agility stimuli, agility capabilities, agility facilitators, agility obstacles and agility consequences.

The aim of this study was to determine the organizational agility components utilization in universities based on agility stimuli, capabilities, facilitators, obstacles and consequences components, from the faculty members’ viewpoints.

The method is descriptive-survey.

The study was performed on the faculty members of the state universities of Fars province during 2012-13 academic years.

The sample size in each university was estimated using Cochran's formula. 310 persons from 1583 faculty members were selected using relative stratified sampling method.

116 items were provided to evaluate variables. To adjust the items, qualitative method was used. A questionnaire was designed based on the Likert’s scale and with 9-items numbers format, in order to obtain opinions of the experts to validate the model. To evaluate the suitability of the model components, 9-item scale was categorized into 1 to 5 (middle and fewer) part which means improper, and 6 to 9 (greater than middle) part which means proper; and frequency of each group was calculated. Most of the interviewees assessed the concepts and variables of the model as proper. The designed instrument was a 116 questions questionnaire in which the variable was graded from 1 to 5 on two separate Likert scales and measured the desired and current status. Information concerning personal data was raised at the head of the questionnaire, containing academic rank, sex, years of teaching, university and status, in the format of closed questions and multiple-choice questions. According to the comments of some management experts and higher education experts about the validity of the questionnaire, last reforms were performed on the text of the questionnaire. The reliability of the questionnaire was determined based on the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The alpha coefficient for the current status was estimated 0.98, as the reliability of the questionnaire.‏ Data were analyzed, using one-sample T (to investigate the possibility of extending the derived average from the use of each component) and One-way ANOVA (to consider the average values’ difference and to consider the difference of the scores in terms of demographic variables) tests.

There was no significant difference between faculty members’ opinion on utilization of organizational agility components according to their sex; but there was a significant statistical difference according to academic rank, teaching experience, university and status. The average scores of the organizational agility components utilization in the universities varied from 1.47 to 2.69, and it was less than mean level for all the components. The average scores of agility components utilization of the in the universities had a statistical significant difference based on capabilities, facilitators, barriers, stimuli and outcomes.

The result of the study, concerning comments of male and female faculty members about applying the organizational agility components, is parallel with many studies [21, 27-29]. The result of the study, concerning faculty members’ opinion according to their academic rank, is parallel with many studies [4, 27-29].

It is suggested that similar research to be conducted nationwide and, also, at non-governmental universities. Also, it is necessary to notice that the process to achieve agility is a continuous and lasting process; therefore, this process has to be repeated continuously.

It is worth to notice that the population of this research was limited to the faculty members of state universities at Fars province, Iran. Therefore, the results cannot be expanded to other state universities and non-governmental universities.

Utilization of organizational agility components in the studied universities is lower than mean level. There is no difference between the faculty members’ opinion about utilization of the organizational agility components according to sex, but there is a difference between the faculty members’ opinion about utilization of the organizational agility components according to academic rank, teaching experience, kind of the university and status.

Non-declared

Non-declared

Non-declared

Non-declared

TABLES and CHARTS

Show attach file


CITIATION LINKS

[1]Peel J, McCary CE. Visioning the little red school house for the 2lst century. Phi Delta Kappan. 1997;78(9):698-705.
[2]Drucker, P. The organization of the future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2004.
[3]Goldman S, Nagel R, Preiss K. Agile Competitors and Virtual Organizations. New York: Nostrand Reinhold; 1995.
[4]Braddock R. Research management in higher education: Overview and conclusion of a debate. High Educ Policy. 2002;15(3):313-30.
[5]Richter J, Godbey G. Toward the agile common wealth: Communions policy for the future worth having. New York: Doubleday Currency; 2009.
[6]Zhang Z, Sharifi H. A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing organizations. Int J Oper Prod Manag. 2000;20(4):496-512.
[7]Cuban L. Why do some reforms persist?. EAQ. 1988;24(3):329-35.
[8]Apple MW. What reform talk does: creating new inequalities in education. EAQ. 1998;24(3):257-71.
[9]Fullan M, Miles T. Organizational development in schools: the state of art. Rev Educ Res. 1980;50(1):121-83.
[10]Iacocca Institute. 1st Century Manufacturing Enterprise Strategy. Ann Indust Rev. 1991;1(1):12-38.
[11]Kumar A, Motwani A. Methodology for assessing time based competitive advantage of manufacturing firms. Int J Oper Prod Manag. 1995;15(2):36-53.
[12]Fliedner G, Vokurka RJ. Agility: Competitive weapon of the 1990s and beyond?. Prod Inv Manag J. 1997;38(3):19-24.
[13]Yusuf YY, Sarhadi M, Gunasekaran A. Agile manufacturing: the drivers, concepts and attributes. Int J Pro Eco. 1999;62(1):33-43.
[14]Dove R. Knowledge management, response ability, and the agile enterprise. EJKM. 1999;3(1):18-35.
[15]Menor LJ, Roth AV, Mason CH. Agility in retail banking: a numerical taxonomy of strategic service groups. MSOM. 2001;3(4):273-92.
[16]Sanbarmurthy V, Zmud W. Steps toward strategic agility guiding corporate transformations. Michigan: Michigan University; 2004.
[17]Ashrafi N, Xu P, Mathiyalakan S, Kuilboer, JP. A framework for implementing business agility through knowledge management systems. Int J Oper Prod Manag. 2005;15(2):116-21.
[18]Raschke RL, David JS. Business process agility. EAQ. 2005;24(3):340-55.
[19]Mates Y, Gundry J, Bradish P. Agile networking: Competing through internet and intranets. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2005.
[20]Mates Y, Gundry J, Bradish P. Agile networking: Competing through internet and intranets. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2005.
[21]Ismail H, sharifi H. A balanced approach to building agile supply chains. Int J Phys Distrib Logis Manag. 2006;36(6):431-444.
[22]Sherehiy B, Karwowski W, Layer J. A review of enterprise agility: Concepts, frameworks, and attributes. Int J Ind Ergon. 2007;37(5):445-60.
[23]Johnson D. The university-private sector interface and the Ontario economy. A background paper for the Ontario Economic Summit, 6-7 October, 2004.
[24]Sharifi H, Zhang Z. Agile manufacturing in practice, Application of a methodology. Int J Oper Prod Manag. 2001;21(5/6):772-94.
[25]Booth CL, Hammer MP. Agility, the future ceramic manufacturing. CESP. 1996;16(1):220-5.
[26]Gunasekaran A. Agile manufacturing: concept and framework, agile manufacturing: the 21st century competitive strategy. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 2001.
[27]Bagherikerachi A. A study of the amount of application of organizational agility indices in the Fars public universities with the aim of developing sustainable model [dissertation]. Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University; 2013. [Persian]
[28]Zare H, Rajaeepour S, Jamshidian M, Molavi H. A study of the amount of application of teaching organization indices in the public universities with the aim of developing sustainable model. Isfahan: University of Esfahan; 2009. [Persian]
[29]Attafar Ali, Bahrami Samani M. The Application of the learning organization indicator in public and Islamic Azad Universitiy of shahrekord. Iranian J High Educ. 2009;1(2009):162-79.[Persian]
[30] Zain M, Rose R, Abdullah I, Masrom M. The relationship between information technology acceptance and organizational agility in Malaysia. Inf Manag. 2005;42(6):829-39.