European Financial and Accounting Journal 2008, 3(3):62-78 | DOI: 10.18267/j.efaj.84

Measuring the Effectiveness and Innovative Capability: Case Lahti University Consortium

Sanna Pekkola1, Juhani Ukko2
1 Sanna Pekkola - researcher; Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Technology Management, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lahti Unit, Saimaankatu 11, FI-15140 Lahti, Finland;.
2 Juhani Ukko - project manager; Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Technology Management, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lahti Unit, Saimaankatu 11, FI-15140 Lahti, Finland;

The aim of this study is to create a measurement system for evaluating the effectiveness and innovative capability of the Lahti University Consortium. The Lahti University Consortium is a network university, which was established by four Finnish universities and offers services provided by departments of these universities. The empirical evidence of the study is based on interviews carried out in six organisations. The result of the study represents an evaluation matrix, which measures the effectiveness and innovative capability of the Lahti University Consortium. The evaluation matrix consists of four sectors and five dimensions. The study also reveals several challenges faced in designing and implementing a performance measurement system for the Lahti University Consortium.

Keywords: Effectiveness, Innovative capability, Public sector
JEL classification: I23

Published: October 1, 2008  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Pekkola, S., & Ukko, J. (2008). Measuring the Effectiveness and Innovative Capability: Case Lahti University Consortium. European Financial and Accounting Journal3(3), 62-78. doi: 10.18267/j.efaj.84
Download citation

References

  1. Adcroft, A. - Willis, R. (2005): The (un)intended outcome of public sector performance measurement. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 2005, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 386-400. Go to original source...
  2. Bendheim, C. - Graves, S. (1998): Determining best practice in corporate-stakeholder relations using data envelopment: an industry level study. Business and Society, 1998, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 306-339. Go to original source...
  3. Charles, D. - Benneworth, P. (2002): Regional Contribution of Higher Education a Benchmarking Approach to the Evaluation of the regional Impact of a HEI. Newcastle Upon Tyne, Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, University of Newcastle, 2002.
  4. Cooke, P. - Gómez Uranga, M. - Etxebarria, G. (1997): Regional Innovation Systems: Institutional and Organisational Dimensions. Research Policy, 1997, vol. 26, no. 4-5, pp. 475-491. Go to original source...
  5. Greiling, D. (2005): Performance measurement in the public sector: the German experience. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 2005, vol. 54, no. 7, pp. 551-567. Go to original source...
  6. Hassan, D. (2005): Measuring performance in the healthcare field: a multiple stakeholders' perspective. Total Quality Management, 2005, vol. 16, no. 8-9, pp. 945-953. Go to original source...
  7. Harmaakorpi, V. (2004): Building a Competitive Regional Innovation Environment - The Regional Development Platform Method as a Tool for Regional Innovation Policy. (Doctoral dissertation series 2004/1). Lahti, Helsinki University of Technology Lahti Center, 2004.
  8. Harmaakorpi, V. (2006): Regional Development Platform Method (RDPM) as a Tool for Regional Innovation Policy. European Planning Studies, 2006, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 1085-1104. Go to original source...
  9. Harmaakorpi, V. - Tura, T. (2008): Verkostoja palveleva innovaatiopolitiikka. In: Harmaakorpi, V. - Melkas, H. (eds.): Innovaatiopolitiikkaa järjestelmien välimaastossa. Acta-sarja nro 200. Helsinki, Suomen Kuntaliitto, pp. 149-158.
  10. Kaplan, R. S. - Norton, D. P. (1992): The Balanced Scorecard - Measures That Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, 1992, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 71-79.
  11. McAdam, R. - Hazlett, S.-A. - Casey, C. (2005): Performance management in the UK public sector: Addressing multiple stakeholder complexity. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 2005, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 256-273. Go to original source...
  12. Miles, M. B. - Huberman, A. M. (1994): Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, Sage, 1994.
  13. Neely A. - Adams, C. - Crowe, P. (2001): The performance prism in practice. Measuring Business Exellence, 2001, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 612. Go to original source...
  14. Pekkola S. - Ukko J. - Rantanen, H. (2007): Linking rewards to performance measurement: Challenges in the private and public sector. In: 4th Conference on Performance Measurement and Management Control: Measuring and Rewarding Performance in Nice. Brussels, EIASM, 2007.
  15. Pekkola, S. - Ukko, J. - Rantanen, H. (2008): Innovaatiokyvykkyyden mittaaminen Päijät-Hämeessä. Kirjassa Harmaakorpi, V. - Melkas, H. (eds.) Innovaatiopolitiikkaa järjestelmien välimaastossa. Acta-sarja nro 200, Helsinki, Suomen Kuntaliitto, 2008, pp. 225-235.
  16. Poranen, A. (2006): Yliopistokeskusten rahoitusselvitys: selvitys yliopistokeskusten rahoituksesta sekä rahoituksen kehittämislinjoista. Kajaani, Oulun yliopisto, 2006.
  17. Rantanen, H. - Kulmala, H. - Lönnqvist, A. - Kujansivu, P. (2007a): Performance measurement systems in the Finnish public sector. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 2007, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 415-433. Go to original source...
  18. Rantanen, H. - Levä, K. - Pekkola, S. (2007b): Performance measurement implementation in a knowledge-based public organisation. International Journal Business and Systems Research, 2007, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 343-353. Go to original source...
  19. Riggs, J. L. (1984): The Objective Matrix: A versatile and Proven Method to Achieve Accountability and Motivation through Productivity Measurement. In: 4th World Productivity Congress in Oslo, Oslo, World Confederation of Productivity Science, 1984. Go to original source...
  20. Romijn, H. - Albaladejo, M. (2000): Determinants of Innovation Capability in Small UK Firms: An Empirical Analysis. Queen Elizabeth House Working Paper Series no. 40. Oxford, University of Oxford, 2000.
  21. Teece, D. - Pisano, G. (1998): The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. In: Dosi, G. - Teece, D. - Silverberg, G. (eds): Technology, Organization, and Competitiveness: Perspectives on Industrial and Corporate Change. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1987, pp. 17-66. Go to original source...
  22. Tura, T. - Harmaakorpi, V. (2005): Measuring Regional Innovative Capability. In: 45th Congress of the European Regional Science Association. Amsterdam, ERSA, 2005.
  23. Tura, T. - Harmaakorpi, V. (2008): Lahden alueen innovaatiopolitiikka. In: Harmaakorpi, V. - Melkas, H. (Eds.): Innovaatiopolitiikkaa järjestelmien välimaastossa. Acta-sarja nro 200, Helsinki, Suomen Kuntaliitto, pp. 159-171.
  24. Ukko, J. - Tenhunen, J. - Rantanen, H. (2008): The Impacts of Performance Measurement on the Quality of Working Life. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 2008, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 86-98. Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits 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.