The research objective was to develop public universities key performance indicators. Qualitative research and interviews were employed with each public universitys senior executive and quality assessors. The sample group was selected by the office of the public sector development commission and Thailands public universities can be separated into three groups based on their quality assessment score: 1) the high scoring group, 2) the moderate scoring group, and 3) the low scoring group. The results showed that the high scoring group had set a clear strategic context such as vision, mission, core values and corporate goals. In the case of the moderate scoring group it was found that some sections of the strategic context, such as the vision and mission, had already been defined, but corporate goals were yet to be determined. The strategic context was not clear and remained inactive for the low scoring group. In additional, each public university should establish two different sets of key performance indicators; first, a common key performance indicator which is aligned with the public university mission to enhance macro education, and which can be separated by five assessment perspectives as follows: 1) to produce graduates, 2) to promote and expand the universitys research, 3) to provide academic services, 4) to preserve and promote the arts, culture and heritage, and 5) to manage the university. The second specific key performance indicator should be aligned with the universitys strategic context, especially its vision and goals.
Key Performance Indicators vs Key Intangible Performance Among Academic Staff: A Case Study of a Public University in Malaysia
