DFDF DF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/340259045
Organizational Agility Assessment for Higher Education Institution
Article · February 2020

DOI: 10.36872/LEPI/V51I1/301050
CITATIONS READS
17 2,965
2 authors:
Shalini Menon Ma Suresh

Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham
12 PUBLICATIONS 226 CITATIONS 118 PUBLICATIONS 1,715 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Lean and Agility in Healthcare Operations View project
COVID 19 View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ma Suresh on 24 April 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera Volume 51 (1): 561-573
The Lepidoptera Research Foundation. March 2020
ISSN 0022-4324 (print) ISSN 2156-5457 (online)
Organizational Agility Assessment for Higher Education Institution

SHALINI MENON1 AND M. SURESH2*
1
Amrita School of Business, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, India.
2*
Amrita School of Business, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, India.
2*
drsureshcontact@gmail.com
Abstract.
Organizational agility is characterized by the flexibility and ease with which an organization restructures
and modifies its practices and processes when faced with unprecedented changes in its environment.
Assessing agility would help institute realize its current position. This study intends to assess the agility of
a higher education institution using multi-grade fuzzy method. The overall organizational agility index was
computed 6.19 which indicate that the institute is agile but has scope to improve. Importance Performance
Analysis (IPA) was conducted to identify and understand the improvement areas and suggestions were
made to help management reformulate strategies and enhance agility.
Keywords. Agility in Higher Education, Higher Education Institution, Organizational Agility
Assessment, Multi-grade Fuzzy.
Received: 01 February 2020

Accepted: 28 February 2020
DOI: 10.36872/LEPI/V51I1/301050
561
INTRODUCTION
Higher education compared to its industrial counterpart has been less agile. Higher education has been
complacent with its achievements and has shown very little change over the years. But the recent changes in the
higher education environment have left higher education sector rethinking. Technological developments and its
use in higher education, new competencies and skills demanded by the industry, changing student demographics
and expectations have been posing challenges for institutions of higher education. The flexibility and ease with
which the institutions are able to respond to these changing environmental dynamics would help them strive and
thrive in this competitive world. Responding to change may require making modifications to the existing practices
and processes (Mukerjee, 2014), reconfiguring and realigning resources (Raschke, 2010). Implementing agile
practices and processes would serve the purpose if it contributes to the effective functioning of the organization.
Therefore to asses organizational agility (OA) and validate the results,the research has applied multi-grade fuzzy
method.Although there have been studies that have assessed agility in manufacturing sector, agility assessment in
higher education has not been carried out so far. This gap has provided the motivation to pursue this study. The
following questions will be addressed in this study-
RQ1: How to measure organizational agility of a higher education institution?
RQ2: What are the attributes that can facilitate agility of a higher education institution?
RQ3: How to address the weak attributes in order to enhance agility?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Agility is a continual process by which the firms embrace change (Conboy and Fitzgerald, 2004).
According to Zhang and Shariff (2000) agile enterprise possess the ability to sense, perceive and anticipate
changes in the external environment and convert these changes into opportunities that are in favor of the
organization. An agile organization is characterized by fewer levels of hierarchy, less formalization, and
decentralized decision making (Alavi et al., 2014; Dove and Willis, 1996). Such organizations encourage
distributed leadership and support self –organizing/ cross- functional teams breaking departmental barriers
encouraging lateral communication, participation, employee empowerment, and social interactions facilitating
learning and innovation, collaborative and collective decision making (Olson and Eoyang, 2001; Tolf et al., 2015;
Ford and Radholf, 1992; Freidman and Friedman, 2018; Strode et al., 2009; Montes et al., 2005; Awasthy and
Gupta, 2012).
Higher education being hub of knowledge creation should strive continuously in promoting a culture that
provides opportunities for continuous learning infused in every day work across organizational levels, promotes
inquiry and dialogue, and facilitates collaborative and collective thinking wherein employees share a common
vision that is in sync with the organization‘s vision (Boyce, 2003; Awasthy and Gupta, 2012; Voolaid and
Ehrlich, 2017; Veisi, 2010).
562
Sherehiy (2008) and Ragin-Skorecka (2016) have pointed the main components of agility as people,
intangible resources and organizational culture. The knowledge, skills and competencies possessed by individuals
need to be translated into collective learning and to channelize employee capabilities in the right direction
innovative HR practices and strategies need to be formulated. Right training and development (Rogers, 2000;
Elanga and Imran, 2013; Nijssen and Paauwe, 2012; Shafer et al., 2001) can develop and hone skills and new
capabilities of workforce (Anantharam and Nenkervis, 2013; Qin and Nembhard, 2015) enhancing productivity,
profitability and sustainability of organizations.
Technological changes have made ICT literacy imperative (Breu et al., 2002).Technology in higher
education has facilitated connecting with the stakeholders for continuous feedback (Kamat and Sardessai, 2012;
Shariffi and Zhang, 2001) facilitating timely sensing and responding to the changes in the environment
(Chakravarthy et al. 2013; Lu and Ramamurthy 2011). IT infrastructure has led to automation of administrative
work , has facilitated sharing, disseminating and storing academic research and can be an effective tool supporting
and facilitating teaching learning process (McCully and McDaniel, 2007; Philbin, 2015; Keengwe et al., 2009;
Chakravarty et al., 2013). Apart from training for new capabilities organizations need to frame innovative reward
system (Shafer et al., 2001; Dyer and Shafer, 2003; Crocitto and Youssef, 2003; Muduli, 2016), provide
autonomy at work (Sherehiy et al., 2007; Sherehiy and karwowski, 2014) and include employees in decision
making process building trust and commitment among them (Muduli, 2016; Berraries et al., 2014). Vasyakin et
al. (2016) called educational institutes as self- organized systems that apart from being the centers of knowledge
and learning also are known for maintaining relationships with internal and external stakeholders.
A number of researches have emphasized on change in the employees attitude and mindset crucial for
organizations in embracing change, in the process of unlearning and learning new abilities, and developing
resilient workforce (Sherehiy, 2008; Ripatti, 2016; Boyatzis et al., 2002; Caza and Brower, 2015; McLoughlin
and Lee, 2010). Change can be effective in an environment that supports communicating the change to employees
in advance, preparing them by providing required training and development reducing resistance and securing their
support. Involving employees in decision making and promoting collegial relationship facilitates mutual respect
for coworkers and trust in the management and leaders (Keup et al., 2001; Furco and Moely, 2012).
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
To assess the organizational agility of an institute of higher education the following steps were followed:
The study started with literature review of organizational agility and agility assessment that helped
identify the enablers, criteria and attributes that can influence agility in an organization. Academic experts were
contacted initially and personally interviewed for 40-60 minutes. The expert opinions helped in developing the
models feasibility and validity. Opinions were incorporated and a revised model was developed. This was
followed by selection of the institute for conducting the study. Five experts were interviewed as in case of
563
research conducted by Vinodh and Prasanna (2011) and Elnadi and Shehab (2016). A structured questionnaire
consisting of 23 questions and a likert scale of 10 point was used to collect data from faculty members of the
institute. The choice of faculty members was based on years of service and those in leadership positions. The
performance rating provided by the respondents was utilized to determine the organizational agility of the institute
using multi-grade fuzzy approach. This method was preferred as the method makes it possible to convert
linguistic expressions into numerical values which otherwise are difficult to interpret. The method makes it
possible to analyze and present the result in linguistic terms. A number of researchers have used this method to
measure agility assessment predominantly in manufacturing sector (Vinodh and Aravindraj, 2015; Vinodh et al.,
2012; Vinodh et al., 2010). Almutairi et al.(2019) applied the method to assess leanness of supply chain in
healthcare organization.
The next step involved identifying the weak and strong attributes and for this Importance Performance
Analysis model was used. Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) was introduced by Martilla and James (1977).
The IPA model enables graphical representation of both weightage and performance rating in the same graph. The
performance rating is represented on the x-axis and the weightage on the y-axis. IPA is an effective technique that
helps identify the weak attributes and help practitioners reformulate their strategies crucial for customer
satisfaction (Tzeng and Chang, 2011).The graph consists of four quadrants:
a) Quadrant I (Q-I): The attributes that according to the respondents are crucial for the success of the
organization but the performance of these attributes have been poor. Organization needs to concentrate in
this area and make efforts to maintain and leverage resources.
b) Quadrant II (Q-II): The attributes in this quadrant are equally important and the performance of these
attributes has been good. The organization needs to keep up the good work
c) Quadrant III (Q-III): The attributes in this quadrant are considered to be of less importance and are low on
performance. Organizations need not concentrate on these attributes
d) Quadrant IV (Q-IV): The attributes that have low importance but are relatively high on performance.
These attributes may be considered unnecessary and hence is quadrant is given the name possible to kill.
CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR ASSESSING ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTION
The conceptual model developed consists of three levels. At level one is the 3 enablers, level two consists
of 8 criteria and the third level consists of 23 attributes. Enablers are the core drivers of organizational agility and
in this study market forces, internal practices and processes and human resource management were identified as
the enablers of agility. The enablers were further subcategorized into criteria and each criterion into attributes
(Table 1). The model is a comprehensive model for organizational agility assessment for higher education
institutions.
564
Table 1. Conceptual model for organizational agility assessment

S. No. Enablers Criteria Attributes
Ability to sense change (L111)
Sensing and responding to the
Responding to change by redesigning practices
environmental changes (L11)
and processes (L112)
1 Market forces (L1)
Industry- academia collaborations (L121)
Partnering with stakeholders (L12) Collaboration with students, alumni, parents,
regulatory and accreditation bodies (L122)
Flatter hierarchical structure (L211)
Roles and responsibilities of employees (L212)
Organisational structure (L21) Employee involvement (L213)
Self- organized teams/ cross functional teams
(L214)
Communication and flow of information (L221)
Inquiry and dialogue (L222)
Internal practices and Organisational culture (L22)
2 Feedback system (L223)
processes (L2)
Collaboration and team learning (L224)
Continuous learning (L231)
Organisational learning and Shared vision (L232)
knowledge management (L23) Knowledge creation, sharing, storing and
disseminating (L233)
IT infrastructure and capabilities (L241)
Adoption of IT/ICT (L24)
ICT in education and research (L242)
Competent faculty (L311)
Training for new capabilities (L312)
Agile workforce (L31)
Human resource Autonomy at work (L313)
3
management (L3) Novel and innovative reward system (L314)
Readiness to change (L321)
Change management (L32)
Employees as agents of change (L322)
CASE STUDY
About the institution
College XYZ is in the 65th year of imparting education to students in India. The college offers 13
undergraduate programmes and 16 graduate programmes. The total student strength is around 2000 and teacher
strength 132. The college was conferred autonomous status in the recent past and since then is in the process of
revamping its operations and practices.
Assessment of agility using multi-grade fuzzy
The organizational agility index of the institution is represented by L. The equation for OA index is given
by
L = W × R, where R denotes the overall assessment factor and W the overall weight (Vinodh and
Chintha, 2011; Sridharan and Suresh, 2016;Ganesh and Suresh, 2016).
565
The assessment has been divided into five grades since the entire agility factor involve fuzzy
determination. L = {10, 8, 6, 4, 2}.
If the index value lies in the range 8–10, the organization would be considered as‗extremely agile‘
‗Agile‘ if it is in the range of 6-8
‗Generally agile‘ in the range 4-6
‗Not-agile‘ when in the range 2-4 and
Less than 2 represent ‗extremely not-agile‘.
Five senior faculty members participated in the assessment process by rating the performance of the case
college and five experts were consulted from different college for securing weights for enablers, criteria and
attributes (Table 2).
Table 2. Contains the weights and performance rating from experts
Li Lij Lijk R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 Wijk Wij Wi
L111 5 7 10 5 8 0.48
L11 0.4794
L112 10 8 10 5 8 0.52
L1 0.2735
L121 2 7 5 7 3 0.5
L12 0.5205
L122 4 7 6 8 7 0.5
L211 2 7 4 5 6 0.2280
L212 2 8 7 2 8 0.2631
L21 0.2564
L213 1 7 3 3 6 0.2631
L214 1 6 5 3 8 0.2456
L221 2 7 8 4 8 0.2590
L222 1 7 10 5 4 0.2530
L22 0.25
L2 L223 1 7 5 5 10 0.2530 0.4056
L224 3 7 9 6 9 0.2349
L231 4 7 9 7 7 0.3543
L23 L232 2 7 8 6 3 0.3149 0.2371
L233 3 7 9 8 5 0.3307
L241 4 9 10 5 8 0.4943
L24 0.2564
L242 4 9 8 7 7 0.5056
L311 9 8 10 10 9 0.2545
L312 5 8 10 6 8 0.2666 0.5128
L31
L313 2 8 10 4 5 0.2606
L3 0.3207
L314 2 8 5 1 6 0.2181
L321 2 7 8 4 5 0.5057 0.4871
L32
L322 2 8 6 6 7 0.4942
Primary assessment calculation
The calculation pertaining to the criterion ―sensing and responding to the environmental changes‖ is
shown as follows. Weights for the criterion ―sensing and responding to the environmental changes‖ are W11=
[0.48, 0.52]
Assessment for the performance of ―sensing and responding to the environmental changes‖ criterion is
given below
R11=
566
Index for the criterion is given by

L11 = W11 ×R11
L11 = [7.6, 7.52, 10, 5, 8]
The indexes for all the other criteria of agility assessment were calculated usingthe principle mentioned
above.
L12 = [3, 7, 5.5, 7.5, 5.]
L21 = [1.49, 7.02, 4.77, 3.19, 7.02]
L22 = [1.73, 7, 7.98, 4.97, 7.72]
L23 = [3.04, 7, 8.69, 7.01, 5.08]
L24 = [4, 9, 8.98, 6.01, 7.49]
L31 = [4.58, 8, 8.90, 5.40, 7.04]
L32 = [2, 7.49, 7.01, 4.99, 5.99]
Secondary assessment calculation
The calculation for the enabler ―market forces‖ is given below

Weights concerning ―market forces‖ enabler are given as W1 = [0.48, 0.52]
Assessment for the performance of the enabler ―market forces‖ is given as follow
R1 =
3 7 5.5 7.5 5
The index for the enabler ―market forces‖ is given below
L1 = W1 ×R1
L1 = [5.21, 7.24, 7.66, 6.30, 6.44]
The indexes for all the other enablers of OA assessment were obtained using the same principle
mentioned above.
L2 = [2.56, 7.51, 7.58, 5.26, 6.86]
L3 = [3.32, 7.75, 7.98, 5.20, 6.52]
Tertiary assessment calculation
The assessment value for the case of higher education institution has been calculated as follows
Complete weight W = [0.27, 0.41, 0.32]
Complete assessment vector R = [ ]
Agility index L =W × R
L = [3.53, 7.52, 7.74, 5.53, 6.64]
567
The final organizational agility index is the average of L =6.19

Classification of agility attributes using IPA
The matrix below shows performance rating on the x-axis and importance weights on the y-axis (Figure
1). The matrix is divided into four quadrants with a thick line dividing the x-axis at the mean value 6.05 and the y-
axis at the mean value 8.4. IPA model reveals the following areas that require improvement: Roles and
responsibilities of employees, Employee involvement, Autonomy at work, Communication and information flow,
Change management strategies and Industry and academia collaborations. These attributes fall in the first
quadrant. Quadrant II consists of attributes that are important and are performing well. These attributes are the
strengths of the institution. This quadrant consists of the following attributes: collaboration with stakeholders
other than industry, continuous learning, IT infrastructure and capabilities, ICT in education and research, and
training for new capabilities. Quadrant III attributes are flatter hierarchical structure, self- organized teams/ cross
functional teams breaking department silos, inquiry and dialogue, feedback system, shared vision, innovative and
novel reward system. Quadrant IV attributes are sensitive to change, responding to change by redesigning
practices, collaboration and team learning, knowledge creation, sharing, storing and disseminating, competent
faculty.
9.2 Q-I Q-II
9 L213 L212 L231 L242
8.8 L241 L312
L221
Importance 
8.6 L121 L321 L313 L122

L322
8.4 L214 L222 L223 L233 L311
8.2
8 L232
L224
7.8 L211 L112
7.6
7.4
7.2 L314 L111
7
6.8 Q-III Q- IV
4. 4. 6. 7. 8.
4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2 7.4 7.8 8 8.2 8.6 8.8 9 9.2
2 4 2 6 4
Performance ratings 
Figure 1. Attributes categorization of IPA
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ON THE CASE STUDY
The organizational agility index for the college under study was computed to be 6.19 which impliesthat
the institute is agile. According to the IPA model certain practices and processes need immediate attention by the
management in order to strive for extreme agility.
The institution despite of having competent faculty has not been able to leverage the potential of its
employees. To leverage and channelize the potential of the employees it is crucial that the management rethinks
and invests in strategies that motivate human resource. Ambiguity regarding the roles and responsibilities needs to
568
be addressed. The goals and expectations should be made clear to the employees and this is possible only if there
is a robust and open communication between the management and employees. Communication and flow of
information keeps the faculty informed. The institute should support a culture that encourages two- way
communication. A staff portal and regular meetings can be platforms for passing information, for inquiry and
dialogue. Making employees accountable and responsible for certain tasks provides them with an opportunity to
innovate and prove their mettle. Distributed leadership can encourage decentralization of decision making
inculcating trust and commitment in employees. Management should explore more ways of collaborating with the
industry. Apart from strengthening internships, collaborative projects, research, talks by industry experts on
campus, institute can also explore fund raising from industry and technology partnerships in bringing teaching
learning innovations. One of the areas that call for attention is the change management strategy on which the
college scores less. To overcome this conscious efforts have to be made to develop and enhance skills and
capabilities of the employees before introducing change. The employees need to be informed well ahead of time
and should be involved in the change process to secure their support and readiness to embrace change.
CONCLUSION
Higher education institutions have been facing changes in the environment and to stay competitive,
colleges and universities need to leverage their resources and act proactively to capitalize on these changes.
Organizational agility assessment would help the institutions recognize its current position, identify gaps and
prepare for improvement. Multi-grade fuzzy approach was used to assess agility and the case was assessed
―agile‖. IPA approach was used to identify the gaps that require attention and improvement measures were
suggested.
REFERENCES
[1] Alavi S, Abd.Wahab D, Muhamad N, Arbab Shirani B (2014). Organic structure and organisational
learning as the main antecedents of workforce agility. International Journal of Production
Research 52(21): 6273-6295.
[2] Almutairi AM, Salonitis K, Al-Ashaab A. (2019). Assessing the leanness of a supply chain using multi-
grade fuzzy logic: a health-care case study. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 10(1): 81-105.
[3] Ananthram S, Nankervis A (2013). Strategic agility and the role of HR as a strategic business partner: an
Indian perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 51(4): 454-470.
[4] Awasthy R, Gupta RK (2012). Dimensions of the learning organization in an Indian context.
International Journal of Emerging Markets, 7(3): 222-244.
[5] Breu K, Hemingway CJ, Strathern M, Bridger D (2002). Workforce agility: the new employee strategy
for the knowledge economy. Journal of Information Technology 17(1): 21-31.
569
[6] Berraies S, Chaher M, Yahia KB (2014). Employee empowerment and its importance for trust, innovation
and organizational performance. Business Management and Strategy 5(2): 82-103.
[7] Boyatzis RE, Stubbs EC, Taylor SN (2002). Learning cognitive and emotional intelligence competencies
through graduate management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education 1(2): 150-162.
[8] Boyce ME (2003). Organizational learning is essential to achieving and sustaining change in higher
education. Innovative Higher Education 28(2): 119-136.
[9] Caza A, Brower HH (2015). Mentioning the unmentioned: An interactive interview about the informal
management curriculum. Academy of Management Learning & Education 14(1): 96-110.
[10] Chakravarty A, Grewal R, Sambamurthy V (2013). Information technology competencies, organizational

agility, and firm performance: Enabling and facilitating roles. Information systems research, 24(4): 976-
997.
[11] Conboy K, Fitzgerald B (2004). Toward a conceptual framework of agile methods: a study of agility in
different disciplines. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM workshop on Interdisciplinary software
engineering research: 37-44.
[12] Crocitto M, Youssef M (2003). The human side of organizational agility. Industrial Management & Data
Systems 103(6): 388-397.
[13] Dove R, Wills D (1996). Transforming faculty into an agile workforce. To improve the academy 15(1):
195-207.
[14] Dyer L, Shafer RA (2003). Dynamic organizations: Achieving marketplace and organizational agility
with people. CAHRS Working Paper Series: 27.
[15] Elnaga A, Imran A (2013). The effect of training on employee performance. European journal of
Business and Management, 5(4): 137-147.
[16] Elnadi M, Shehab E (2016). A multiple-case assessment of product-service system leanness in UK

manufacturing companies. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of
Engineering Manufacture 230(3): 574-586.
[17] Friedman HH, Friedman LW (2018). Does Growing the Number of Academic Departments Improve the
Quality of Higher Education? Psychosociological Issues in Human Resource Management 6(1): 96-114.
[18] Ford RC, Randolph WA (1992). Cross-functional structures: A review and integration of matrix
organization and project management. Journal of management 18(2): 267-294.
[19] Furco A, Moely BE (2012). Using learning communities to build faculty support for pedagogical
innovation: A multi-campus study. The Journal of Higher Education 83(1): 128-153.
[20] Ganesh J, Suresh M (2016). Safety practice level assessment using multigrade fuzzy approach: A case of
Indian manufacturing company. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence
and Computing Research (ICCIC) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
570
[21] Kamat V, Sardessai S (2012). Agile practices in higher education: A case study. In 2012 Agile India: 48-
55. IEEE.
[22] Keengwe J, Kidd T, Kyei-Blankson L (2009). Faculty and technology: Implications for faculty training
and technology leadership. Journal of Science Education and Technology 18(1): 23-28.
[23] Keup JR, Walker AA, Astin HS, Lindholm JA (2001). Organizational Culture and Institutional
Transformation. ERIC Digest. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED464521.pdf (accessed on 1st March,
2020).
[24] Lu YK, (Ram) Ramamurthy K (2011). Understanding the link between information technology capability
and organizational agility: An empirical examination. MIS quarterly 35(4): 931-954.
[25] Martilla JA, James JC (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of marketing 41(1): 77-79.
[26] McCully MS, McDaniel EA (2007). College Transformation through Enabling Agility. Issues in
Informing Science & Information Technology 4: 704-712.
[27] McLoughlin C, Lee MJ (2010). Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International
exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology 26(1): 28-43.
[28] Montes FJL, Moreno AR, Morales VG (2005). Influence of support leadership and teamwork cohesion on
organizational learning, innovation and performance: an empirical examination. Technovation 25(10):
1159-1172.
[29] Muduli A (2016). Exploring the facilitators and mediators of workforce agility: an empirical
study. Management Research Review 39(12): 1567-1586.
[30] Mukerjee S (2014). Agility: a crucial capability for universities in times of disruptive change and
innovation. Australian Universities' Review, The 56(1): 56.
[31] Nijssen M, Paauwe J (2012). HRM in turbulent times: how to achieve organizational agility? The
International Journal of Human Resource Management 23(16): 3315-3335.
[32] Olson EE, Eoyang GH (2001). Facilitating organization change. Lessons from Complexity Science. ISBN
10-7879-5330-X.
[33] Philbin SP (2015). Exploring the application of agile management practices to higher education
institutions. In Proceedings of the International Annual Conference of the American Society for
Engineering Management: 1-1.
[34] Qin R, Nembhard DA (2015). Workforce agility in operations management. Surveys in Operations
Research and Management Science 20(2): 55-69.
[35] Ragin‐Skorecka K (2016). Agile enterprise: a human factors perspective. Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 26(1): 5-15.
[36] Raschke RL (2010). Process-based view of agility: The value contribution of IT and the effects on
process outcomes. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 11(4): 297-313.
571
[37] Rogers DL (2000). A paradigm shift: Technology integration for higher education in the new millennium.
AACE Journal 1(13): 19-33.
[38] Ripatti J (2016). Towards agile workforce–case study research in three companies, Master‘s Thesis, Aalto
University School of Business.
[39] Shafer RA, Dyer L, Kilty J, Amos J, Ericksen J (2001). Crafting a human resource strategy to foster
organizational agility: A case study. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the
School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human
Resources Management 40(3): 197-211.
[40] Sharifi H, Zhang Z (2001). Agile manufacturing in practice-Application of a methodology. International

Journal of Operations & Production Management 21(5/6): 772-794.
[41] Sherehiy B (2008). Relationships between agility strategy, work organization and workforce agility.
University of Louisville.
[42] Sherehiy B, Karwowski W, Layer JK (2007). A review of enterprise agility: Concepts, frameworks, and
attributes. International Journal of industrial ergonomics 37(5): 445-460.
[43] Sherehiy B, Karwowski W (2014). The relationship between work organization and workforce agility in
small manufacturing enterprises. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 44(3): 466-473.
[44] Sridharan V, Suresh M (2016). Environmental sustainability assessment using multigrade fuzzy—A case
of two Indian colleges. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and
Computing Research (ICCIC): 1-4. IEEE.
[45] Strode DE, Huff SL, Tretiakov A (2009). The impact of organizational culture on agile method use.
In 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences: 1-9. IEEE.
[46] Tolf S, Nyström ME, Tishelman C, Brommels M, Hansson J (2015). Agile, a guiding principle for health
care improvement? International journal of health care quality assurance 28(5): 468-493.
[47] Tzeng GH, Chang HF (2011). Applying importance-performance analysis as a service quality measure in
food service industry. Journal of technology management & innovation 6(3): 106-115.
[48] Vasyakin BS, Ivleva MI, Pozharskaya YL, Shcherbakova OI (2016). A Study of the Organizational
Culture at a Higher Education Institution [Case Study: Plekhanov Russian University of Economics
(PRUE)]. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 11(10): 11515-11528.
[49] Veisi H (2010). Organizational Learning in the Higher Education Institutions (A Case Study of
Agricultural and Natural Recourses Campus of University of Tehran). International Online Journal of
Educational Sciences 2(1): 21-36.
[50] Vinodh S, Aravindraj S (2015). Benchmarking agility assessment approaches: a case study.
Benchmarking: An International Journal.
[51] Vinodh S, Chintha SK (2011). Leanness assessment using multi-grade fuzzy approach. International
Journal of Production Research 49(2), 431-445.
572
[52] Vinodh S, Devadasan SR, Vasudeva Reddy B, Ravichand K (2010). Agility index measurement using
multi-grade fuzzy approach integrated in a 20 criteria agile model. International Journal of Production
Research 48(23): 7159-7176.
[53] Vinodh S, Madhyasta UR, Praveen T (2012). Scoring and multi-grade fuzzy assessment of agility in an
Indian electric automotive car manufacturing organisation. International Journal of Production
Research 50(3): 647-660.
[54] Vinodh S, Prasanna M (2011). Evaluation of agility in supply chains using multi-grade fuzzy approach.
International Journal of Production Research 49(17): 5263-5276.
[55] Voolaid K, Ehrlich Ü (2017). Organizational learning of higher education institutions: the case of
Estonia. The Learning Organization 24(5): 340-354.
[56] Zhang Z, Sharifi H (2000). A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing organisations.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 20(4): 496-513.
573
View publication stats

DFDF DF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DFDF DF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Organizational Agility Assessment for Higher Education Institution

Article · February 2020

Shalini Menon Ma Suresh

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lean and Agility in Healthcare Operations View project

COVID 19 View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Organizational Agility Assessment for Higher Education Institution

Received: 01 February 2020

Table 1. Conceptual model for organizational agility assessment

About the institution

Index for the criterion is given by

The calculation for the enabler ―market forces‖ is given below

Complete assessment vector R = [ ]

The final organizational agility index is the average of L =6.19

8.6 L121 L321 L313 L122

[10] Chakravarty A, Grewal R, Sambamurthy V (2013). Information technology competencies, organizational

[16] Elnadi M, Shehab E (2016). A multiple-case assessment of product-service system leanness in UK

[40] Sharifi H, Zhang Z (2001). Agile manufacturing in practice-Application of a methodology. International

View publication stats

You might also like