Asia Pacific Education Review (2020) 21:197–209

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09622-z

Benchmarking in Vietnam universities: teaching and research

and revenue efficiencies
Phung Phi Tran1 · Kuo‑Cheng Kuo2 · Wen‑Min Lu3   · Qian Long Kweh4

Received: 7 February 2019 / Revised: 1 October 2019 / Accepted: 10 December 2019 / Published online: 2 January 2020
© Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2020

Abstract
Assessing university resource allocation or misallocation is necessary to understand its impact on research and teaching
productivity. To achieve this insight, this study conducts a two-stage data envelopment analysis to judge the “teaching and
research efficiency” and “revenue efficiency” of 61 universities in Vietnam. We analyze what variables have the most effect
on the efficiencies of the universities through improving results. Moreover, this research applies scale elasticity to distin-
guish the benchmark performance leader among Vietnam universities. Results indicate that universities are more efficient
in terms of “revenue efficiency” than “teaching and research efficiency.” The scale elasticity decomposition findings show
that multidisciplinary universities perform better than those specializing in science and technology and social science and
economics. Finally, the competitive map to performance advancement strategies is exhibited. This map helps the university
management to enhance their efficiencies.

Keywords  Data envelopment analysis · Teaching and research efficiency · Revenue efficiency · Universities · Scale
elasticity

Introduction

Education plays a significant role in national, local, and indi-

vidual levels (Johnes et al. 2017). Forty-seven percent of the
* Wen‑Min Lu American population asserts that higher education is crucial
wenmin.lu@gmail.com to get ahead in life (Vistacollege 2019). Higher education
Phung Phi Tran assumes an essential contribution in national competitive-
tranthiphiphung@tdt.edu.vn ness (Tran and Villano 2017a). Moreover, education impacts
Kuo‑Cheng Kuo economic growth and financial remuneration, which should
kuochengkuo20@gmail.com be considered in the lifelong education premium (Chen
Qian Long Kweh et al. 2018). Universities play an important role on national
qlkweh@gmail.com development by providing excellent education to citizens
(Lu 2012). Evaluation of higher education, particularly
1
Department of International Business, Faculty of Business university performance, is a common practice for several
Administration, Ton Duc Thang University, 19 Nguyen Huu
Tho Street, Tan Phong Ward, District 7, Ho Chi Minh City, countries as a means of improving higher education quality
Vietnam (Martín 2006).
2
Department of International Trade, Chinese Culture Techniques that enable educational performance assess-
University, 55, Hwa‑Kang Road, Yang‑Ming‑San, ments should be utilized in the fields of teaching, research,
Taibei 11114, Taiwan and administration to improve current educational systems
3
Department of Financial Management, National Defense (Altamirano-Corro and Peniche-Vera 2014). However, the
University, No. 70, Sec. 2, Zhongyang North Rd., Beitou, execution of the current mechanism of university autonomy
Taibei 112, Taiwan continues to present shortcomings, decreasing the effec-
4
Faculty of Management, Canadian University Dubai, 1st tiveness of the autonomy of tertiary education institutions
Interchange, Sheikh Zayed Road, P.O. Box 117781, Dubai, (Hien 2017). The parallel existence of universities in piloting
United Arab Emirates

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

198
autonomy and non-autonomy complicates the educational
management system. University managers should, there-
fore, conduct detailed performance benchmarking analysis
of resource allocation and competitive advantage on opera-
tional styles in intense competition (Lu 2012).
According to the competitiveness report of 138 selected
nations, Vietnam was ranked 60th in terms of higher educa-
tion and training (Schwab 2016). This ranking raised con-
cerns not only as to whether Vietnam universities are opera-
tionally efficient but also whether dependent elements are
impacting their work efficiencies (Tran and Villano 2017b).
Vietnam universities are more productive when the same
inputs lead to a greater output. In Vietnam, both public and
private universities are controlled under the same legal cir-
cumstances and financial management mechanisms. Accord-
ing to Finance Newspaper, Vietnam’s annual budget for edu-
cation is approximately 20% of the total budget, which is
equivalent to 5% of the GDP and even higher than those of
more economically developed countries such as Singapore
(3%), Hong Kong (3.5%), Thailand (3.8%), Malaysia (5.1%),
and South Korea (5.2%) in 2011 (Nga 2017). Such statistics
reveal that the government’s spending plans on education
support public universities, although the universities are
admonished to depend entirely on the government’s regula-
tions from the perspectives of expenses and revenues.
Hien (2010) looked into related investigations on the
research performance of 11 East and Southeast Asian coun-
tries to identify the gaps among these nations in their levels
of economic development, and the findings were used as
basis to upgrade research effectiveness and reshape sci-
ence and higher education (HE) system in Vietnam. Using
data from 50 universities and 50 colleges, Tran and Vil-
lano (2017a) approved a two-stage semi-parametric DEA to
evaluate the efficiency of higher education institutes (HEIs)
and research the impacts of factors on their performance.
Tran and Villano (2015) also integrated DEA-based dynamic
network model to test dynamic changes inefficiencies in
116 Vietnam public colleges. Nonetheless, the identifica-
tion performance of these methods is extensively dependent
on black box wherein the focus of inspection is on inputs
and outputs, and what goes outside the box is normally dis-
regarded. Thus, full classification of the aforementioned
methods is difficult using only the traditional DEA model.
Furthermore, data are outdated compared to the current situ-
ation because of new regulations arising from revolution.
To address these challenges, an effective detection method
should be considered.
This study thus considers three important objectives
and makes corresponding contributions. The first objec-
tive concerns estimating the performance of Vietnam uni-
versities through a two-stage structure including “teaching
and research efficiency” and “revenue efficiency” by using
decomposing technical efficiency in two-stage network DEA
13
P. P. Tran et al.
(Chen et al. 2009) for evaluating the operating universities’
performance. The first study to use this new method to eval-
uate and benchmark Vietnam universities is that of Sahoo
et al. (2014). The proposed method aims to sift through
allocative inefficiency, which can emerge because of any
sub-stage decision as to how much of intermediate factors
are applied and considered by managers in the higher edu-
cation sector. Most of the real-life production technology
square measure are multi-stage in nature, and the sources of
accelerating returns are the sub-technologies (Sahoo et al.
2014). Therefore, estimating the size economies of univer-
sities is imperative not only for the network technology but
also for the sub-technologies.
The second contribution of this study is the use of
resource utilization inefficiency analysis to assist university
managers not only to determine the network size economies
but also to find their sources to enhance productivity fur-
ther. The intermediate stage supports the decomposition of
technical efficiency (TE) and scale elasticity (SE) decom-
position into specific SEs. This implies the need to analyze
which variables have the most effect on the effectiveness of
universities through improvement results. In addition, this
study provides significant insights that can affect adminis-
tration policies at the university level, such as proposing for
managers to use a competitive map to boost efficiency. By
using a competitive map, universities can gain more inputs
on dispensing their resources. The map is often regarded as
a work device for operational improvement. An important
concern within the law enforcement agency analysis is to
create distinction within the model (Liu et al. 2009).
Third, to rank and acknowledge the truthfulness of role
models within the education sector, we applied scale elas-
ticity in two-stage network DEA (Sahoo et al. 2014). Such
approach can distinguish the benchmark performance leader
in teaching and research and revenue stages. Based on the
benchmarking analysis, universities can gain significant
insights that can help develop their core competitive advan-
tages and make the best possible outcomes. Moreover, ineffi-
cient universities can learn from benchmark universities and
figure out better strategies. The paper also provides future
reference for government finance supervision organizations
in selecting excellent universities for endowed manage-
ment. In addition, the concluding remarks include policy
implications.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section
“Literature review” reviews related previous studies. To fur-
ther distinguish the efficient universities, section “Research
methodology” presents the research design and sample selec-
tion criteria. Section “Empirical analysis results” discusses
the empirical results. Finally, section “Concluding remarks”
concludes with a summary of research contributions.
Benchmarking in Vietnam universities: teaching and research and revenue efficiencies 199
Literature review
Overview of Vietnam universities
In 1975, after the war, Vietnam’s higher education followed
the same subsidy model as that of other socialist countries
(Chanh 2015). At this stage, the quality of higher education
is almost unchallenged. Students are considered elite and
carefully selected from the beginning with rigorous screen-
ing rates. With the socio-economic reform in Vietnam since
1986, Vietnam’s higher education system has been imple-
menting many innovations (Nguyễn 2006). Since 2004,
higher education has been aiming to train 400 students per
10,000 people to catch up with various countries around the
world. However, many graduates or graduate students exhib-
ited poor quality. As a result, the number of unemployed
graduates with bachelor’s and master’s degrees increased
to 26,000 from the second to fourth quarter of 2015 only
(Quang 2016).
Based on Times Higher Education rankings in 2018, no
Vietnam university was included in the top 350 universities
in Asia due to weakness in various aspects such as research
capacity, degree of influence on policies, curricula, teaching
staff, and facilities (Hoa 2018). The weakness of the Viet-
namese university system can also be attributed to lack of
liberal education. Universities lack autonomy with regard to
management despite arguments that Vietnam must maintain
a different education system. Most importantly, the Vietnam-
ese lack the spirit for serious learning to acquire knowledge
(Trung 2016).
In general, Vietnam’s higher education has achieved vital
growth within the numbers of institutions, enrollments,
and research activities after 20 years of reform since 1997.
According to statistics of Vietnam Ministry of Education
and Training (MOET), the total number of lecturers and
professors in 2016 increased by 4.6% compared with that in
the previous year. Despite the 0.48% increase in enrolling
students, the number of graduating students decreased by
13.68% due to several factors such as lack of quality devel-
opment, outdated quality assurance, and lack in quantity
and quality of teaching staff. The ratio of students to faculty
remains 24:1, that is, the ratio of doctoral students to lec-
turers increased from 20 to 22% (MOET 2017). Methods
for teaching, learning, and assessing learning outcomes in
tertiary education are lagging, and the professional capacity
of graduates do not meet occupational requirements, which
imply the many inadequacies in the education system, such
as equipping the students with creativity and life skills for
practical living.
Application of DEA in universities
In the past, various researchers embraced DEA to assess uni-
versity performance because it is a notable non-parametric
method broadly assigned in operations research to assess the
efficiency of universities. In the extant literature on higher
education, selecting between the input and output orienta-
tion to examine and measure the efficiency of HEIs using the
DEA methodology depends on the specific research context.
Some studies utilize the output orientation to maximize
outputs, given the prevailing inputs (Ahn et al. 1988; Breu
and Raab 1994; Johnes and Johnes 1995; Agasisti et al.
2012; Kuah and Wong 2013; Fu and Huang 2009; Fernando
and Cabanda 2007). On the contrary, other researchers used
the input orientation to minimize input resources and obtain
the target outputs. (Chu Ng and Li 2000; Korhonen et al.
2001; Avkiran 2001; Castano and Cabanda 2007; Duh et al.
2014; Sav 2012; Tran and Villano 2017a). Higher education
not only applies multiple inputs to provide a diversity of
outputs but also has multiple divisions as well.
Flegg et al. (2004) conducted DEA to inspect the spe-
cialized productivity of 45 UK colleges. Turner (2005)
inspected the act of standardization colleagues utilizing an
“association table” approach. The examination contended
that using DEA to deal with benchmarking considers the
acknowledgment of assorted tasks, which is more suit-
able for UK colleges. Johnes (2006) used DEA to gauge
the effectiveness of financial management on UK colleges.
Casu and Thanassoulis (2006) set up a DEA system to rec-
ognize works on prompting cost-productive focal managerial
administrations in UK colleges from 1999 to 2000. Kao and
Hung (2008) used DEA to survey the relative proficiency of
the scholastic divisions at National Cheng Kung University
in Taiwan. Their findings revealed whether a department
uses resources efficiently and if their efficiency breaks down
where change is required. Bayraktar et al. (2013) measured
the efficiency of quality management applied on public and
private universities in Turkey. They found that public uni-
versities were particularly successful in controlling quality
management practices for excellent teaching and research
performance. Thanassoulis et al. (2017) combined DEA
and analytical hierarchy process to suggest an integrated
approach to higher education teaching judgment.
In spite of the fruition of different studies exploring the
managing performance of educational institutions, perfor-
mance assessment for Vietnam public and private univer-
sities are rarely examined through a two-stage production
structure. Utilizing the standard DEA using the black box
model does not consider the internal structure of HEIs that
connects multiple activities from varied divisions in the pro-
duction procedure. Moreover, the standard DEA neglects
assessment of divisional efficiency. Previous works never (1)
synchronously used decomposing TE in two-stage network
13

200
Fig. 1  Two-stage production
processes for universities Full-time Teachers
Administration
Assistant Manpower
Facilities
Academic
Papers and
Projects
DEA to assess the operating performance of universities, (2)
proposed decomposition of network SE approach to analyze
what variables have the most effect on the effectiveness of
universities through improving results, and (3) applied SE in
two-stage network to rank and recognize the suitable models
in the education sector.
Research methodology
Two‑stage production processes for universities
To assess the performance of universities, this research
proposes a two-stage network process to design two perfor-
mance models, namely “Teaching and Research Efficiency”
and “Revenue Efficiency.” As shown in Fig. 1, “Teaching
and Research Efficiency” (Stage-1) estimates the university’s
ability to transform teaching and research inputs including
full-time teachers, administration assistant manpower, and
facilities into three outputs including academic papers and
projects, enrolling students, and graduated students. In other
words, the inputs: “full-time teachers, administration assis-
tant manpower, and facilities” may mean attractions and
ultimately production into “academic papers and projects,
enrolling students, and graduated students.” “Revenue Effi-
ciency” (Stage-2) gauges the university’s ability to improve
returns from tuition and grants from a revenue perspective.
Specifically, this stage examines whether a higher number
of students and research projects would mean the ultimate
revenue and grants for the universities. The inputs/interme-
diates/outputs used in this research are defined as follows:
• Full-time teacher (x1) is determined as total professors
(full-, associate-, and assistant professors), lecturers, and
experts.
13
P. P. Tran et al.
Stage 1
Teaching and Research
Efficiency
Enrolling Graduated
Students Students
Stage 2 Revenue from Tuition
Revenue Efficiency
Grants
• Administration support manpower (x2) is composed of
administration staff such as educational administration,
student affairs, general affairs, accountant, librarians,
secretary, and security personnel.
• Facilities (x3) is composed of a unit area, with a stand-
ard international square meter (m2) such as classrooms,
library, laboratory, and experimental zone.
• Academic papers and projects (z1) refer to the total
amount of articles published in journals, conferences,
and projects, which have been used in measuring the
research capability of Vietnam universities.
• Enrolling students (z2) refers to the total number of stu-
dents who applied and entered courses in the present
year.
• Graduated students (z3) refers to the total number of stu-
dents who graduated in the present year.
• Revenue from Tuition (y1) is composed of tuition and
minor revenue.
• Grants (y2) includes the total of teaching and research-
subsidized grants and other subsidies.
Data collection
According to Statista, in 2016, there are 235 universities,
colleges, institutes, and university divisions in Vietnam. In
this paper, we focus on benchmarking universities that are
with available data in their respective 2016 annual reports
and publicity reports. Having also checking related statistics
with the Vietnamese Ministry of Education, after which give
us the maximum possible number of decision-making units
(DMUs), we analyzed 61 universities (public and private)
in Vietnam. Each university is treated as a DMU in DEA
analysis. Data are extracted from the 2016 annual report
of each university and three-publicity report. Information
on academic papers and projects is extracted from scien-
tific research department annual statistics report. Table 1
Benchmarking in Vietnam universities: teaching and research and revenue efficiencies 201

Table 1  Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients

Variables Input variables Intermediate variables Output variables
x1 x2 x3 z1 z2 z3 y1 y2

Panel A: descriptive statistics

 Mean 558.6 289.1 55,357 193.5 2865.3 2505.6 1,599,922.6 116,143.3
 Min 85 21 6330 0 166 146 6736 72
 Max 2540 2056 6,437,000 2106 10,850 29,459 788,096 1,020,446
 Std. Dev 451.6 335.7 91,470.9 374 2346.7 3872.9 154,417.6 172,816.7
Panel B: Pearson correlation
 x1: full-time teacher (person) 1.000
 x2: administration assistant manpower (person) 0.799 1.000
 x3: Facilities ­(m2) 0.731 0.565 1.000
 z1: Academic papers and projects (number) 0.646 0.613 0.671 1.000
 z2: enrolling students (person) 0.727 0.645 0.495 0.472 1.000
 z3: graduated students (person) 0.620 0.809 0.313 0.323 0.740 1.000
 y1: revenue from tuition (VND$ million) 0.819 0.586 0.618 0.532 0.596 0.383 1.000
 y2: grants (VND$ million) 0.796 0.831 0.579 0.625 0.717 0.799 0.532 1.000

provides descriptive statistics and correlation analysis,
indicating positive correlation coefficients in teaching and
research efficiency model between the chosen three input/
intermediate/output. Moreover, Cooper (2001) stated that
when employing the DEA model, the number of DMUs
should be no less than triple of the total number of input/
intermediate/output factors investigated. In this research,
the number of universities is 61, which is ten times higher
than the number of inputs and outputs considered. Therefore,
the developed DEA model, which was executed through the
General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) integrated
development environment, possesses high construct valid-
ity. In this table, we can recognize that number of gradu-
ated students is higher than enrolling students are. Because
enrolling students firstly are students that are recruited in
the fall of previous year. Graduated students means students
will graduate in the mentioned year. Second, Vietnam uni-
versity system has three principal types of university such
as sciences and technology, social science and economics,
and multidisciplinary. The total study time of each type is
different (4–5 years). Third, some universities have in-ser-
vice education system and second degree system. It leads to
uneven graduation.
Measuring efficiency using a two‑stage network
DEA model
DEA evaluates efficiency using a non-parametric produc-
tion function according to the concept of the frontier pro-
duction function proposed by Farrell (1957). However, the
conventional models of Charnes et al. (1978) and Banker
et al. (1984) neglect the complete process of production and
therefore cannot explain the management information of
each stage within an organization. This assessment leads to
a black box system. The overall efficiency of an organiza-
tion is not evaluated using solely a single stage but rather
through multiple stages (Seiford and Zhu 1999; Kao and
Hwang 2008; Premachandra et al. 2012; Galagedera et al.
2016). In this regard, network DEA model can be devel-
oped to study a complete production process and the effects
of financial activities on the process within an organization
(Färe and Grosskopf 2000). Liu and Lu (2012) extended the
single-stage network-based ranking method to examine the
rank of efficient DMUs, suggested a benchmarking unit for
factors, and identified the advances of each efficient unit.
The relational model designed by Kao and Hwang
(2008) can be employed to assess the performance of each
division in a two-stage production process and be further
extended to network DEA (Kao 2009). However, the rela-
tional model should only be applied under the acceptance of
constant returns to scale (CRS). The Slacks Based Measure
(SBM) was first introduced to network DEA for evaluating
DMUs performance (Tone and Tsutsui 2009). This measure
employs the probability of no proportional changes in the
input and output items in efficiency evaluations and consid-
ers the importance of each division through the weighting
method, evaluating the overall efficiency and that of each
department. Chen et al. (2009) proposed the additive effi-
ciency decomposition approach to two-stage production
model; the overall efficiency is the weighted sum of each
stage’s efficiency. This approach can be applied under the
assumption of CRS and variable returns to scale (VRS).
Cook et al. (2010) extend this approach to network DEA
and examine the weighted result of each division.
To account for the allocative inefficiency (Sahoo et al.
2014), the present study thus used two-stage network DEA

13

202 P. P. Tran et al.

(Chen et al. 2009) to evaluate the teaching and research, as indicates that the additive structure holding the multipliers
well as revenue efficiency. Related mathematical equations for the intermediate factors (produced as inputs and outputs)
are elucidated as follows: ( are the same. Using optimal multipliers from (1), we ( can
In the first stage, p outputs zdj , d = 1,(… , p are produced acquire input-oriented(TE of)the university in N N
) )
k TE VRS TEk
by n units of universities using m inputs xij , i = 1, … , m  ; in and the stages TES1 S1
and TES2 S1
as
) ( )
VRS TEk VRS TEk
stage two, the outputs formed in the first stage change into (∑s )/(∑m )
inputs, which
( are also named ) as intermediates, to produce
TENk =
r=1
u∗r yrk − 𝜔∗1 − 𝜔∗2
i=1
v∗i xik
s outputs yrj , r = 1, … , s  . vi is the multiplier for input i  ; (∑p )/(∑m )
TES1 (2)
∗ ∗ ∗
wd is the multiplier for intermediate measure d  ; ur is the k
= w
d=1 d
zdj − 𝜔 1
v
i=1 i
x ij
multiplier for output r. The technical efficiency (TE) of a net- (∑s )/(∑p )
TES2 = u∗r yrj − 𝜔∗2 w∗d zdj
work university can be estimated either in input-oriented or k r=1 d=1
output-oriented manner. We established the following input-
One can express TEN,t as the result of three terms. The
oriented VRS-based ) network DEA model for estimating the
k
first two terms defining the TEs in the stages ) VRS and
( SETE
S1
input TE TEN,t of the university k as
(
VRS
TEVRS . The third term exhibits an index Ik showing
S2
s
∑ whether the decision regarding the using of observed inter-
TENk = Max ur yrk − 𝜔1 − 𝜔2 (1) mediate factors as intermediate methods is optimal. The
proposed TE decomposition is shown below.
r=1

��s ����m �
TENk = u∗r yrk − 𝜔∗1 − 𝜔∗2 v∗i xik
r=1 i=1
∑p ∗ ∑s
�∑s �∑s �
w ∗
d=1 d dk
z − 𝜔 1
u ∗
r=1 r rk
y − 𝜔∗2 u∗ yt − 𝜔∗1 − 𝜔∗2
r=1 r rk
u∗ y − 𝜔∗2
r=1 r rk
= ∑m ∗ ⋅ ∑p ⋅ �∑p �∑p
w∗ z
�
v x w∗ z − 𝜔∗1 w∗ z
i=1 i ik d=1 d dk
� �∑p
d=1 d dk d=1 d dk (3)
1 − TE1S2 𝜔∗1
�
w∗ z
d=1 d dk
=TES1
k
⋅ TES2 k
⋅ k
� �∑p �
1 − 𝜔∗1 w∗ z
d=1 d dk
=TES1
k
⋅ TES2
k
⋅ IkSE

m
∑ IkSE is proxy for allocated inefficiency, in which case
vi xik = 1, (1.1) IkSE > (<)1 . Allocative inefficiency arises below the VRS
i=1
specification, yet vanishes under the CRS specification.
p m Therefore, one can illustrate that retaining the “same weight”
assumption on zdk as outputs and inputs as the VRS specifi-
∑ ∑
wd zdj − vi xij − 𝜔1 ≤ 0, (j = 1, … , n) (1.2)
d=1 i=1 cation is not ample to reject allocative inefficiency. Alloca-
tive inefficiency may be a broader conception that features
s
∑ p
∑ inefficiencies arising from any potential sub-optimal deci-
ur yrj − wd zdj − 𝜔2 ≤ 0, (j = 1, … , n) (1.3) sion as to how much zdk to turn out and consume in the
r=1 d=1 light of adjusting prices IkSE = 1 when TES2
k
= 1 meaning that
there is no allocative inefficiency in the use of observed zdk .
vi , wd , ur ≥ 0; 𝜔1 , 𝜔2 ∈ free. Note that optimal multipliers obtained from (1) may not be
distinctive, implying that TES1k and k do not seem unique.
TES2
Liang (2008) assumed the same weights on zd as an excel-
In line with Kao and Hwang (2008), assuming that TES1 k is
lent planning between the two stages based on the CRS spec-
more important, we first assumed the maximum value of
ification. Constraints (1.2) and (1.3) correspond to stages
k via
TES1
TES1VRS
and TES2VRS
 , respectively, whose particular inter-
cept multipliers are 𝜔1 and 𝜔2 , i.e., TENVRS is additive. This

13
Benchmarking in Vietnam universities: teaching and research and revenue efficiencies 203

Table 2  Technical efficiency decomposition and upper bound of scale elasticity estimates results
Total Research and teaching effi- Revenue efficiency
ciency
TE SE RTS TE1 RTS TE2 RTS
IRS DRS CRS IRS DRS CRS IRS DRS CRS

Mean
 Multidisciplinary 0.407 3.861 29 6 2 0.462 33 2 2 0.461 13 14 10
 Sciences and Technology 0.399 3.732 11 1 0 0.500 11 1 0 0.459 4 7 1
 Social Science and Economics 0.463 1.935 11 1 0 0.498 11 1 0 0.661 4 8 0
 Total 0.423 3.176 51 8 2 0.487 55 4 2 0.527 21 29 11

TE technical efficiency, SE scale efficiency, RTS returns to scale, IRS increasing return to scale, DRS decreasing return to scale, CRS constant
return to scale
∑p ( )
TES1
k = Max d=1
wd zdk − 𝜔1 Let its optimal solution vector be 𝛽k∗ , 𝜆∗j , 𝛾j∗ , z̃∗dk  . The
m
∑ inefficient university k demands to be planned onto the net-
vi xik = 1, work frontier by using the following formula:
i=1
s
(6)
( ∗
xik = 𝛽ik∗ xik − s−k , z̃∗dk , y∗rk = yrk + s+k ,
)
∑
ur yrk − 𝜔1 − 𝜔2 = TENk
r=1
(4) where s−k and s+k are respectively input and output slacks
p m
∑ ∑ under (5). Following Baumol (1982), Sahoo et al. (2014)
wd zdj − vi xij − 𝜔1 ≤ 0, (j = 1, … , n)
d=1 i=1
defined the input-oriented Returns to Scale (RTS)1 of the
∑s p
∑ university k in TENk  , TES1
k  , and k .
TES2
ur yrj − wd zdj − 𝜔2 ≤ 0, (j = 1, … , n) m
�
∗ ∑m ∗
r=1 d=1
� 𝜕F N (⋅) �s 𝜕F N (⋅) 𝛽k i=1 vi xik
𝜀Nik ∗ ∗
, z̃dk , y∗rk
� �
xik ≡− xik yrk = ∑s
𝜕xik r=1 𝜕yrk u∗ y
vi , wd , ur ≥ 0; 𝜔1 , 𝜔2 ∈ free. i=1 r=1 r rk
𝛽h∗
To determine the returns to scale of network university = .
𝛽h∗ + 𝜔∗1 + 𝜔∗2
k , we applied model (5) to obtain the projection for the inef-
(7)
ficient university k . TENk uses 𝜆j and 𝛾j as intensity weights
Note that in (7), 1, due to (1.1) and
∑m
to form a linear combination of n universities. v∗ x =
i=1 i ik
𝜔2 . Based
on duality, the aim
∑s ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
u
r=1 r
y rk = 𝛽 k
+ 𝜔 1
+
TENk = Min 𝛽h function values of (1) and (5) are the same, for instance
𝛽k∗ = r=1 u∗r yrk + 𝜔∗1 + 𝜔∗2 . Based on (7), the input-oriented
∑s
s.t.
n
∑ network is increasing returns to scale (IRS) (i.e., 𝜀Nik (⋅) > 1)
xij 𝜆j ≤ 𝛽k xik , (i = 1, … , m), if (𝜔∗2 + 𝜔∗2 ) < 0 in all optimal solutions, constant (CRS)
j=1 (i.e.,𝜀Nik (⋅) = 1 ) if (𝜔∗2 + 𝜔∗2 ) = 0 in all optimal solutions,
∑n
and decreasing (DRS) (i.e.,𝜀Nik (⋅) < 1 ) if (𝜔∗2 + 𝜔∗2 ) > 0 in all
zdj 𝜆j − z̃dk ≥ 0, (d = 1, … , p), optimal solutions. Following the same method, RTS in TES1
j=1 k
n
and TEkS2 can be determined.
∑
𝜆j = 1, (sub − technology 1)
j=1 (5)
n
∑
zdj 𝛾j − z̃dk ≤ 0, (d = 1, … , p),
j=1
n
∑
yrj 𝛾j ≥ yrk , (r = 1, … , s),
j=1
n
∑
𝛾j = 1, (sub − technology 2)
j=1
1
  RTS explains what happens as scale effects change when inputs are
𝛽h ≤ 1, 𝜆j , 𝛾j ≥ 0, z̃dk ∈ free. variable in a production function. Three possibilities exist: increasing,
constant, and decreasing RTS.

13

204
Empirical analysis results
Analyzing teaching and research and revenue
efficiencies
Table 2 demonstrates overall efficiency results and rankings
of 61 Vietnam universities. The mean score of teaching
and research and revenue efficiencies are 0.487 and 0.527,
respectively. The findings indicate that revenue efficiency
has higher values than teaching and research efficiency for
these 61 universities. This outcome proposes that all pol-
icy staffs of these universities should prioritize improving
their teaching, increasing the number of staff and facilities,
and improving research skills as proven by the number of
research papers and projects, enhancement in recruitment
activities and operational efficiency, and improvement
in the quality and number of graduates. Our untabulated
results show a total of 33 inefficient universities in teach-
ing and research stage and revenue stage. These universities
should reallocate their input resources to decrease their input
waste if they are to become more efficient in teaching and
research management and revenue management. For exam-
ple, the revenue-inefficient universities should reconsider
their amount of published papers and projects as well as the
quantity of enrolling and graduated students to improve their
resource utilization.
We also explored how efficiency scores differ based on
principle types of a university. There are three types of
Vietnam universities in terms of disciplinary focus: sci-
ences and technology, social science and economics, and
multidisciplinary. Table 2 uncovers that on average, multi-
disciplinary universities exhibited better efficiency than both
sciences and technology and social science and economics.
For instance, 29 multidisciplinary universities maintain an
increasing return to scale, whereas sciences and technol-
ogy and social science and economics universities (11 both)
exhibit increasing return to scale. The reason for this result
is that the need for choosing multidisciplinary universities
has been cultivated in Vietnam’s education sector recently.
Moreover, we analyzed the results of returns to scale for
universities. From Table 2, 11 (in the revenue stage) and two
(in the research and teaching stage) universities work at the
constant returns to scale. Approximately 56.9% of Vietnam
universities are encountering returns to scale with decrease
in revenue performance stage. Only 6.5% of the universities
indicate decreasing returns to scale in research and teach-
ing stage. This result further reveals that universities are
confronting a highly competitive environment in revenue
stage and a low competitive environment in teaching and
research stage. Twenty-one universities experience increase
in returns to scale in the revenue stage and 55, in the research
and teaching stage.
13
P. P. Tran et al.
These results reveal that some universities operated under
increasing returns of universities (IRS). The sources of IRS
remain although sub-stage for universities exhibits decreas-
ing and/or constant returns. For instance, RTS exhibiting
IRS for An Giang University (AGU) is due to IRS in Stage-1
even though CRS prevails in Stage 2. Similarly, RTS exhib-
iting IRS for VNU is precisely due to IRS in Stage 1 even
though DRS prevails in Stage-2. Multidisciplinary universi-
ties generally exhibit efficiency in teaching and research yet
show decreasing returns to scale in the revenue stage, sug-
gesting that multidisciplinary universities have obtained the
managerial know-how to operate a university productively.
Nonetheless, they still have not reached their optimal level.
Sciences and technology universities are technically inef-
ficient in terms of revenue but show increasing returns to
scale in the teaching and research stage, implying that these
universities still have to work to achieve scale efficiency.
Generally, the number of publications, enrolling students,
and graduated students among universities should be viewed
to earn revenue of scale in the education sector.
Resource utilization inefficiency analysis
University management must evaluate the number of out-
puts that can be increased and/or the magnitude of inputs
that can be preserved by inefficient teaching and research
performance. This implies reduction in particular inputs for
a university to operate and improve efficiency in teaching
and research. Moreover, the growth in output can lead to
decreased levels of resource inputs. Table 3 presents the
results of resource utilization inefficiency analysis for 56
inefficient teaching and research universities. For each ineffi-
cient teaching and research university, we also distinguished
the inefficiency in terms of specific outputs and inputs. The
results suggest that the mean potential increase in annual
academic papers and projects represent more than 200%
improvement. The average potential increment of enrolling
students is 32% improvement. As for graduate students, the
average potential increase is at 15%. The average potential
reduction in the number of full-time teachers, number of
staffs, and all facilities are also listed in Table 3. If the num-
ber of administration support manpower is better handled
and the number of enrolling students is increased, resource
utilization efficiency can be promoted in inefficient universi-
ties. We recommend that these universities utilize these two
areas to upgrade their performance.
For deep understanding, insights into the resource utili-
zation analysis need to be reviewed. Clearly, AGU should
increase the number of academic papers and projects, enroll-
ing students, and graduate students by 7%, 49%, and 53%,
respectively. The AGU can achieve one of its goals in its
current output level even if one of the following inputs is cut
off: 21% for full-time teachers, 12% for administration staff,
Benchmarking in Vietnam universities: teaching and research and revenue efficiencies 205

Table 3  Resource utilization University Input Output

inefficiency analysis
Full-time teacher Administration Facilities Academic Enrolling Graduated
(x1) assistant man- (x3) papers and students students
power projects (z2) (z3)
(x2) (z1)

AGU​ − 0.79 − 0.88 − 0.79 − 0.07 − 0.49 − 0.53

VNU 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CTU​ − 0.82 − 0.82 − 0.84 − 0.81 − 0.63 − 0.60
VNUHCM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HUMG − 0.82 − 0.82 − 0.82 − 0.65 − 0.67 − 0.71
UDN − 0.77 − 0.77 − 0.89 − 0.75 0.88 2.05
HCMUT − 0.58 − 0.15 − 0.61 − 0.13 0.09 0.50
PTIT − 0.87 − 0.87 − 0.87 9.85 − 0.74 − 0.80
UTC​ − 0.85 − 0.85 − 0.85 − 0.41 − 0.85 − 0.84
VU − 0.78 − 0.78 − 0.87 − 0.45 − 0.58 − 0.47
QNU − 0.79 − 0.79 − 0.79 12.44 − 0.80 − 0.81
NTU − 0.81 − 0.81 − 0.96 0.73 − 0.76 − 0.68
VLU − 0.78 − 0.84 − 0.54 − 0.91 − 0.86 − 0.85
HCMIU − 0.46 − 0.84 − 0.59 − 0.92 − 0.50 0.27
NUCE − 0.82 − 0.82 − 0.82 0.16 − 0.33 − 0.46
UEH − 0.77 − 0.86 − 0.77 − 0.59 − 0.73 − 0.70
UIT − 0.28 − 0.75 − 0.22 − 0.80 − 0.66 − 0.22
UTEHY − 0.76 − 0.76 − 0.76 − 0.82 − 0.54 − 0.53
DTU − 0.84 − 0.91 − 0.84 − 0.97 − 0.82 − 0.76
HSU − 0.68 − 0.68 − 0.68 1.92 − 0.85 − 0.86
IUH − 0.88 − 0.88 − 0.90 − 0.13 − 0.76 − 0.69
UTE − 0.80 − 0.80 − 0.80 − 0.86 − 0.54 − 0.49
HUPH − 0.06 − 0.45 − 0.59 − 0.17 3.70 3.28
TTN − 0.67 − 0.70 − 0.67 − 0.91 − 0.42 − 0.45
NTTU​ − 0.90 − 0.96 − 0.88 0.00 0.04 1.00
HPU − 0.50 − 0.68 − 0.29 − 0.14 − 0.89 − 0.89
TUAF − 0.63 − 0.97 − 0.52 − 0.71 − 0.87 − 0.86
DLU − 0.73 − 0.73 − 0.73 − 0.54 − 0.80 − 0.73
HPU2 − 0.67 − 0.67 − 0.67 1.59 − 0.41 − 0.41
EPU − 0.71 − 0.71 − 0.71 5.31 0.30 0.52
TNUT − 0.70 − 0.70 − 0.70 − 0.49 − 0.88 − 0.89
DCMUSSH − 0.81 − 0.82 − 0.81 1.07 − 0.74 − 0.59
DTHU − 0.69 − 0.82 − 0.68 − 0.59 − 0.12 0.04
HUC − 0.33 − 0.68 − 0.33 3.51 − 0.48 − 0.35
SGU − 0.59 − 0.59 − 0.71 − 0.88 − 0.08 − 0.20
HCMUL − 0.61 − 0.61 − 0.69 0.55 − 0.68 − 0.69
HAUI − 0.80 − 0.75 − 0.75 − 0.49 − 0.35 − 0.33
HUP − 0.29 − 0.93 − 0.23 − 0.69 − 0.10 − 0.18
TLU − 0.50 − 0.50 − 0.81 0.12 0.00 0.12
HOU − 0.70 − 0.86 − 0.70 − 0.07 − 0.80 − 0.80
HVTC − 0.80 − 0.80 − 0.80 1.17 − 0.76 − 0.77
HUAF − 0.62 − 0.82 − 0.62 0.10 − 0.24 − 0.27
UEBVNU 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HUFLIT − 0.68 − 0.68 − 0.82 − 0.88 − 0.70 − 0.66
NEU − 0.61 − 0.33 − 0.44 − 0.30 − 0.36 1.13
US − 0.82 − 0.82 − 0.83 − 0.93 − 0.50 − 0.50
HDU − 0.79 − 0.79 − 0.79 1.51 − 0.70 − 0.55

13

206 P. P. Tran et al.

Table 3  (continued) University Input Output

Full-time teacher Administration Facilities Academic Enrolling Graduated
(x1) assistant man- (x3) papers and students students
power projects (z2) (z3)
(x2) (z1)

COU − 0.72 − 0.65 − 0.82 0.31 − 0.87 − 0.86

FTU − 0.76 − 0.76 − 0.76 − 0.38 − 0.69 − 0.69
VNAM − 0.68 − 0.68 − 0.68 1.78 1.34 4.02
HUIFA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
DAU − 0.57 − 0.57 − 0.57 2.28 2.17 3.26
PXU 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
PDU − 0.44 − 0.44 − 0.44 44.82 − 0.36 − 0.38
THP − 0.77 − 0.88 − 0.74 − 0.48 − 0.90 − 0.79
VNUHUS − 0.63 − 0.91 − 0.62 − 0.99 0.24 0.26
HPMU − 0.73 − 0.73 − 0.73 58.80 − 0.50 − 0.26
BVU − 0.37 − 0.04 − 0.30 − 0.82 − 0.65 − 0.62
QBU − 0.49 − 0.78 − 0.50 0.21 − 0.32 − 0.21
DNTU − 0.56 − 0.42 − 0.62 7.50 − 0.58 − 0.40
TDMU − 0.76 − 0.76 − 0.76 − 0.50 − 0.34 − 0.47
Mean − 0.62 − 0.67 − 0.63 2.22 − 0.32 − 0.15

Fig. 2  Competitive map of
Vietnam universities

or 21% for facilities. The findings present that decreasing the
amount of slack for this university can lead to more efficient
utilization of resources.
Competitive map for Vietnam universities
To distinguish the relative positions of 61 Vietnam universi-
ties and help enhance their performance, a competitive map
is produced by combining teaching and research efficiency
and revenue efficiency. In Fig. 2, the horizontal axis of the
map presents teaching and research efficiency and the verti-
cal axis presents revenue efficiency. Considering the overall
score in 2016, 61 universities in Vietnam can principally be
classified into six regions.
Region A: Universities with the highest competitive-
ness and fastest growth include VNU, VNUHCM, HUIFA,
UEBVNU, PXU, and HUPH. The universities have scores
of revenue efficiency and teaching and research efficiency
over 0.9. At present, these universities are working under the
perfect condition and are enhancing quickly, implying that
they are on the right track, that is, to focus both on teaching
and researching skills to address internal weakness.
Region B: Universities with low competitiveness in rev-
enue efficiency and fast growth in teaching and research

13
Benchmarking in Vietnam universities: teaching and research and revenue efficiencies 207
efficiency include BVU, VNUHUS, and UIT. These univer-
sities have research and teaching efficiency score above 0.9
and revenue efficiency score lower than 0.4. These results
imply efficient teaching and research capacity despite scor-
ing averagely. These universities can still learn from bench-
mark universities and seek new breakthroughs to develop
its revenue performance and maintain their competitive
advantage.
Regions C and D: Universities with medium competi-
tiveness and fast growth include NEU, HUC, and HCMUT.
These universities have research and teaching efficiency
between 0.6 and 0.9 and revenue efficiency of less than 0.6.
In contrast with universities in region C, those in region D,
including HUP and HPU, have revenue efficiency lower than
0.8 and research and teaching efficiency between 0.6 and 0.9.
At present, these universities have an average level of teach-
ing and research efficiency. This implies that the competitive
advantage of these universities expand gradually because
they are upheld by sufficient resources. Furthermore, they
concentrate only on the general prospect revenue. They have
persistently learned from benchmark universities, learned
research and teaching strategies, and reduced the number of
facilities, teachers, and members of the faculty.
Region E: Universities with low competitiveness in
teaching and research efficiency and fast growth in revenue
efficiency include NTTU, VNAM, DAU, TLU, DNTU, and
PDU. These universities have revenue efficiency higher than
0.9 and teaching and research efficiency of less than 0.6.
These universities are required to have a bright prospect but
clearly lag behind the rest of the universities in terms of
overall research and teaching efficiency. Hence, it is recom-
mended that they enhance their internal administration to
focus on long-term teaching and research strategies.
Region F: Universities with low competitiveness and
moderate pace of process include almost all universities.
These universities have teaching and research efficiency
score and revenue efficiency score of less than 0.6 and 0.8,
respectively. These universities show low intensity and slow
pace of progress and need to conquer the shortcomings by
learning from benchmarks, wisely enhancing internal staff
structures, and re-estimating interest of teaching to map out
students’ beliefs and promote facilities. Gradually, they shall
be able to keep up with other universities and build up their
competitive advantages.
Concluding remarks
Assessment of university performance is generally specified
in previous research, and DEA is commonly use. However, a
few imperative views have not yet been analyzed. From the
point of view of research methods, traditional DEA mod-
els are one-stage models and neglect intermediate factors
or connection activities (Lu 2012). In the literature of edu-
cational research, the idea of a two-stage model has not
been discussed extensively. To evaluate university perfor-
mance, the present study builds a two-stage network struc-
ture containing “Revenue Efficiency” and “Teaching and
Research Efficiency” using the scale elasticity decomposi-
tion approach. Basing on the results of the scale elasticity
of two-stage network DEA, we ranked and identified the
leaders among the analyzed universities from teaching and
research and revenue perspectives. From a holistic perspec-
tive, this paper further suggests a direction for university
managers to advance their working efficiencies and promptly
withdraw strategies.
The results are as follows. First, universities showing
superiority in revenue efficiency contrasted to teaching and
research efficiency, suggesting that all politicians should
concentrate on improving the quality of faculty teaching,
increasing the number of administration staff, and restoring
facilities. Inefficient universities (54%) need to reallocate
their input resources to reduce input waste and consequently
become more efficient in teaching and research management
and revenue management. In relation to the link between effi-
ciency score and disciplinary focus of universities, including
sciences and technology, social science and economics, and
multidisciplinary, we found that multidisciplinary universi-
ties carry out better than the other two. Moreover, the results
of returns to scale for universities indicate that universities
are running into an immensely competitive environment in
revenue stage and an unremarkably competitive environ-
ment in teaching and research stage. The outcomes of our
research can be supplementary for other research related to
benchmarking university performance. Future research can
incorporate the testing of performance by applying dynamic
network DEA. Such an approach will provide a perspective
from the dynamic multidimensional university performance.
We also assumed that the models and methods used in this
paper can be applied to other related research in different
industries.
References
Agasisti, T., Catalano, G., Landoni, P., & Verganti, R. (2012). Evalu-
ating the performance of academic departments: An analysis of
research-related output efficiency. Research Evaluation, 21(1),
2–14.
Ahn, T., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1988). Some statistical and
DEA evaluations of relative efficiencies of public and private
institutions of higher learning. Socio-Economic Planning Sci-
ences, 22(6), 259–269.
Altamirano-Corro, A., & Peniche-Vera, R. (2014). Measuring the insti-
tutional efficiency using DEA and AHP: The case of a Mexican
university. Journal of Applied Research and Technology, 12(1),
63–71.
13

208
Avkiran, N. K. (2001). Investigating technical and scale efficiencies of
Australian universities through data envelopment analysis. Socio-
Economic Planning Sciences, 35(1), 57–80.
Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for
estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment
analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.
Baumol, W. J. (1982). Applied fairness theory and rationing policy.
The American Economic Review, 72(4), 639–651.
Bayraktar, E., Tatoglu, E., & Zaim, S. (2013). Measuring the relative
efficiency of quality management practices in Turkish public and
private universities. Journal of the Operational Research Society,
64(12), 1810–1830.
Breu, T. M., & Raab, R. L. (1994). Efficiency and perceived quality
of the nation’s “top 25” National Universities and National Lib-
eral Arts Colleges: An application of data envelopment analysis
to higher education. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 28(1),
33–45.
Castano, M. C. N., & Cabanda, E. C. (2007). Performance evaluation
of the efficiency of Philippine Private Higher Educational Institu-
tions: application of frontier approaches. International Transac-
tions in Operational Research, 14(5), 431–444.
Casu, B., & Thanassoulis, E. (2006). Evaluating cost efficiency in
central administrative services in UK universities. Omega, 34(5),
417–426.
Chanh (2015). Education in South Vietnam 1954–1975 on the path
of construction and development. Retrieved from https​://khoav​
anhoc ​ - ngonn ​ g u.edu.vn/home/index ​ . php?optio ​ n =com_conte​
nt&view=artic ​ l e&id=5227%3Agia ​ o -dc-min-nam-vit-nam-
1954-1975-tren-con-ng-xay-dng-va-phat-trin&catid​=115%3Agia​
o-dc&Itemi​d=189&lang=vi.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the effi-
ciency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational
Research, 2(6), 429–444.
Chen, J., Zhang, Y., & Yin, Z. (2018). Education premium in the online
peer-to-peer lending marketplace: Evidence from the big data in
China. The Singapore Economic Review, 63(01), 45–64.
Chen, Y., Cook, W. D., Li, N., & Zhu, J. (2009). Additive efficiency
decomposition in two-stage DEA. European Journal of Opera-
tional Research, 196(3), 1170–1176.
Chu Ng, Y., & Li, S. K. (2000). Measuring the research performance
of Chinese higher education institutions: An application of data
envelopment analysis. Education Economics, 8(2), 139–156.
Cook, W. D., Zhu, J., Bi, G., & Yang, F. (2010). Network DEA: Addi-
tive efficiency decomposition. European Journal of Operational
Research, 207(2), 1122–1129.
Cooper, W. W., Li, S., Seiford, L. M., Tone, K., Thrall, R. M., & Zhu,
J. (2001). Sensitivity and stability analysis in DEA: Some recent
developments. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 15(3), 217–246.
Duh, R.-R., Chen, K.-T., Lin, R.-C., & Kuo, L.-C. (2014). Do internal
controls improve operating efficiency of universities? Annals of
Operations Research, 221(1), 173–195.
Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (2000). Network DEA. Socio-Economic
Planning Sciences, 34(1), 35–49.
Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Jour-
nal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General), 120(3),
253–290.
Fernando, B. I. S., & Cabanda, E. C. (2007). Measuring efficiency and
productive performance of colleges at the University of Santo
Tomas: A nonparametric approach. International Transactions in
Operational Research, 14(3), 217–229.
Flegg, A., Allen, D., Field, K., & Thurlow, T. (2004). Measuring the
efficiency of British universities: A multi-period data envelopment
analysis. Education Economics, 12(3), 231–249.
Fu, T.-T., & Huang, M.-Y. (2009). Performance ranking and manage-
ment efficiency in colleges of business: A study at the department
level in Taiwanese universities. In D. Lee (Ed.), Productivity,
13
P. P. Tran et al.
efficiency, and economic growth in the Asia-Pacific region (pp.
197–215). New York: Springer.
Galagedera, D. U., Watson, J., Premachandra, I., & Chen, Y. (2016).
Modeling leakage in two-stage DEA models: An application to
US mutual fund families. Omega, 61, 62–77.
Hien, P. D. (2010). A comparative study of research capabilities of East
Asian countries and implications for Vietnam. Higher Education,
60(6), 615–625.
Hien, T. D. (2017). Renovating public higher education autonomy
mechanism in the period of 2015–2017: Results and policy rec-
ommendations. Retrieved from https​://tapch​itaic​hinh.vn/nghie​
n-cuu--trao-doi/trao-doi-binh-luan/doi-moi-co-che-tu-chu-giao-
duc-dai-hoc-cong-lap-giaid​oan-20152​017-ket-qua-va-kien-nghi-
chinh​-sach-13332​7.html.
Hoa, M. N. (2018). Where is Vietnam University standing? Retrieved
from https​: //tuoit​r e.vn/dh-viet-nam-dang-dung-o-dau-20180​
21008​51425​07.html.
Johnes, J. (2006). Measuring teaching efficiency in higher education:
An application of data envelopment analysis to economics gradu-
ates from UK Universities 1993. European Journal of Operational
Research, 174(1), 443–456.
Johnes, J., & Johnes, G. (1995). Research funding and performance
in UK university departments of economics: A frontier analysis.
Economics of Education Review, 14(3), 301–314.
Johnes, J., Portela, M., & Thanassoulis, E. (2017). Efficiency in
education. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 68(4),
331–338.
Kao, C. (2009). Efficiency decomposition in network data envelopment
analysis: A relational model. European Journal of Operational
Research, 192(3), 949–962.
Kao, C., & Hung, H.-T. (2008). Efficiency analysis of university depart-
ments: An empirical study. Omega, 36(4), 653–664.
Kao, C., & Hwang, S.-N. (2008). Efficiency decomposition in two-
stage data envelopment analysis: An application to non-life insur-
ance companies in Taiwan. European Journal of Operational
Research, 185(1), 418–429.
Korhonen, P., Tainio, R., & Wallenius, J. (2001). Value efficiency
analysis of academic research. European Journal of Operational
Research, 130(1), 121–132.
Kuah, C. T., & Wong, K. Y. (2013). Data Envelopment Analysis mod-
eling for measuring knowledge management performance in
Malaysian higher educational institutions. Information Develop-
ment, 29(3), 200–216.
Liang, L., Wu, J., Cook, W. D., & Zhu, J. (2008). Alternative secondary
goals in DEA cross-efficiency evaluation. International Journal
of Production Economics, 113(2), 1025–1030.
Liu, J. S., & Lu, W. M. (2012). Network-based method for ranking of
efficient units in two-stage DEA models. Journal of the Opera-
tional Research Society, 63(8), 1153–1164.
Liu, J. S., Lu, W. M., Yang, C., & Chuang, M. (2009). A network-
based approach for increasing discrimination in data envelopment
analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(11),
1502–1510.
Lu, W.-M. (2012). Intellectual capital and university performance in
Taiwan. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1081–1089.
Martín, E. (2006). Efficiency and Quality in the Current Higher Educa-
tion Context in Europe: An application of the data envelopment
analysis methodology to performance assessment of departments
within the University of Zaragoza. Quality in Higher Education,
12(1), 57–79.
MOET (2017). Higher education statistics for the 2016–2017 school
year. Retrieved from https​://www.moet.gov.vn/thong​-ke/Pages​/
thong​-ko-giao-duc-dai-hoc.aspx?ItemI​D=5137.
Nga, D. T. (2017). State investment in education and train-
ing: Current situation and some proposals. Retrieved
from https ​ : //t apch ​ i t aic ​ h inh.vn/nghie ​ n -cuu-trao-doi/
Benchmarking in Vietnam universities: teaching and research and revenue efficiencies 209
dau-tu-cua-nha-nuoc-cho-giao-duc-dao-tao-thuc-trang​-va-mot-
so-de-xuat-13091​8.html.
Nguyễn. (2006). Education in South Vietnam before 1975. Santa Ana,
CA: Lê Văn Duyệt Foundation.
Premachandra, I., Zhu, J., Watson, J., & Galagedera, D. U. (2012).
Best-performing US mutual fund families from 1993 to 2008: Evi-
dence from a novel two-stage DEA model for efficiency decompo-
sition. Journal of Banking & Finance, 36(12), 3302–3317.
Quang (2016). 225,000 bachelors of unemployment and the cost of a
sluggish education. Retrieved from https​://giaod​uc.net.vn/giao-
duc-24h/22500​0-cu-nhan-that-nghie​p-va-cai-gia-phai-tra-cua-
mot-nen-giao-duc-i-ach-post1​65246​.gd.
Sahoo, B. K., Zhu, J., Tone, K., & Klemen, B. M. (2014). Decom-
posing technical efficiency and scale elasticity in two-stage net-
work DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(3),
584–594.
Sav, G. T. (2012). Four-stage DEA efficiency evaluations: Financial
reforms in public university funding. International Journal of
Economics and Finance, 5(1), 24.
Schwab, K. (2016). The Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017.
Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (1999). Profitability and marketability of
the top 55 US commercial banks. Management Science, 45(9),
1270–1288.
Thanassoulis, E., Dey, P. K., Petridis, K., Goniadis, I., & Georgiou,
A. C. (2017). Evaluating higher education teaching performance
using combined analytic hierarchy process and data envelopment
analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 68(4),
431–445.
Tone, K., & Tsutsui, M. (2009). Network DEA: A slacks-based meas-
ure approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 197(1),
243–252.
Tran, C. D. T., & Villano, R. A. (2015). Measuring efficiency of
Vietnamese public colleges: An application of the DEA-based
dynamic network approach. International Transactions in Opera-
tional Research., 25, 683–703.
Tran, C. D. T., & Villano, R. A. (2017a). An empirical analysis of the
performance of Vietnamese higher education institutions. Journal
of Further and Higher Education, 41(4), 530–544.
Tran, C. D. T., & Villano, R. A. (2017b). Input Rigidities and Per-
formance of Vietnamese Universities. Asian Economic Journal,
31(3), 253–273.
Trung, X. (2016). Mr. Tran Duc Canh pointed out the “spearhead” and
“prison” sector in higher education. Retrieved from https​://giaod​
uc.net.vn/giao-duc-24h/ong-tran-duc-canh-chi-ra-nganh​-mui-
nhon-va-mui-tu-trong​-giao-duc-dai-hoc-post1​66809​.gd.
Turner, D. (2005). Benchmarking in universities: League tables revis-
ited. Oxford Review of Education, 31(3), 353–371.
Vistacollege. (2019). The Importance of Higher Education in the 21st
Century. Retrieved from https​://www.vista​colle​ge.edu/blog/resou​
rces/highe​r-educa​tion-in-the-21st-centu​ry/.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13