This research explores the suitability of system-based simulation analysis for higher education (HE) policy-planning. A dynamic system model of the Finnish university funding system covering bachelor-level students is presented. The results show that the model captures the nature of the current funding system, which can be considered a zero-sum game, where the funding an individual university can only be improved at the cost of others. Based on the simulations, it seems that in the Finnish HE system increasing the importance of target time graduations in the funding model would favour the small universities. The generalizability of the used model´s and methods’ suitability outside the Finnish context is evaluated and discussed.
AdamE (2020) ‘Governments base performance-based funding on global rankings indicators’: a global trend in higher education finance or a global rankings literature fiction? A comparative analysis of four performance-based funding programs. International Journal of Educational Development76: 102–197.
2.
Al HallakLAyoubiAMoscardiniA, et al. (2019) A system dynamic model of student enrolment at the private higher education sector in Syria. Studies in Higher Education44(4): 663–682.
AslGSPZendehAB (2014) Strategic plan compilation using system dynamics modeling: case study of a university. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues7(4): 277–292.
5.
AuranenONieminenM (2010) University research funding and publication performance—an international comparison. Research Policy39(6): 822–834.
6.
BarberPLópez-ValcárcelBG (2010) Forecasting the need for medical specialists in Spain: application of a system dynamics model. Human Resources for Health8: 1–9.
7.
BarlasYDikerV (2000) A dynamic simulation game (UNIGAME) for strategic university management. Simulation & Gaming31(3): 331–358.
8.
BirtaLGArbezG (2013) Modelling and Simulation. London: Springer.
9.
BuckleRACreedyJ (2018) The impact on research quality of performance-based funding: the case of New Zealand’s PBRF scheme. Agenda. A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform25(1): 25–48.
10.
CasperCAHenryMS (2001) Developing performance-oriented models for university resource allocation. Research in Higher Education42: 353–376.
11.
ChecchiDMalgariniMSarloS (2019) Do performance based research funding systems affect research production and impact?Higher Education Quarterly73(1): 45–69.
12.
ChowCLeungC (2016) Reshaping Universities for Survival in the 21st Century: New Opportunities and Paradigms. The United Arab Emirates: Bentham Science Publishers.
13.
CosenzFBianchiC (2013) Designing performance management systems in academic institutions: a dynamic performance management view. In: ASPA Conference 2013.
14.
DahlanSMYahayaNA (2010) A system dynamics model for determining educational capacity of higher education institutions. In: 2010 Second International Conference on Computational Intelligence, Modelling and Simulation, pp. 285–290. IEEE.
15.
DandagiSBhushiUBagodiV, et al. (2016) Strategic management of technical university: structural equation modelling approach. Journal of Modelling in Management11(1): 75–90.
16.
de BoerHJongbloedBBenneworthP, et al. (2015) Performance-based Funding and Performance Agreements in Fourteen Higher Education Systems. Enschede: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies.
17.
FrancesCAlstyneMVAshtonA, et al.1994. Using System dynamics technology to improve planning and budgeting for higher education: results in Arizona and Houston, Texas. In: 1994 International System Dynamics Conference.
18.
FrølichNKalpazidouSEvanthiaRM (2010). International Journal of Educational Management24(1): 7–21.
19.
GalbraithPL (1998) System dynamics and university management. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society14(1): 69–84.
20.
GalbraithPL (2010) System dynamics: a lens and scalpel for organisational decision making. Insight23(2): 96–123.
21.
GeunaAMartinBR (2003) University research evaluation and funding: an international comparison. Minerva41(4): 277–304.
22.
Gomez DiazM (2012) Unintended Effects of Changes in NIH Appropriations: Challenges for Biomedical Research Workforce Development. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
23.
HazelkornE (2011) Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World Class Excellence. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
24.
HovmandPSAndersenDFRouwetteE, et al. (2012) Group model building ‘scripts’ as a collaborative planning tool. Systems Research and Behavioral Science29(2): 179–193.
25.
IshikawaTOhbaHYokookaY, et al. (2013) Forecasting the absolute and relative shortage of physicians in Japan using a system dynamics model approach. Human Resources for Health11: 1–10.
26.
JongbloedB (2001) Performance-based Funding in Higher Education: An International Survey. Clayton, Australia: CEET, Monash University.
27.
JongbloedBde GayardonA (2023) Does performance-based funding work?International Higher Education113: 30–31.
28.
JonkersKZacharewiczT (2016) Research Performance-Based Funding Systems: A Comparative Assessment. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
29.
KennedyMClareC (1998) Some issues in system dynamics model building to support quality monitoring in higher education. Information management and modelling group. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference.
30.
KivistöJPekkolaEKujalaE (2021) Selvitys Yliopistojen Sisäisistä Rahoitusmalleista. Osa 1: Yliopistojen Sisäiset Rahoitusmallit. Helsinki: Professoriliitto/The Finnish Union of University Professors.
31.
MathiesCKivistöJBirnbaumM (2020) Following the money? Performance-based funding and the changing publication patterns of Finnish academics. Higher Education79(1): 21–37.
32.
McCardle KeurentjesMHRouwetteEAVennixJA, et al. (2018) Potential benefits of model use in group model building: insights from an experimental investigation. System Dynamics Review34(1-2): 354–384.
Ministry of Education and Culture (2021c) Higher education institutions, science agencies, research institutes and other public research organisations. Available:https://okm.fi/en/heis-and-science-agencies (accessed 1 May 2021).
Ministry of Education and Culture (2021e) Steering, financing and agreements of higher education institutions, science agencies and research institutes. Higher Education and Research. Available:https://okm.fi/en/steering-financing-and-agreements (accessed 1 May 2021).
40.
Ministry of Education and Culture (2021f) The Finnish education system. Available:https://okm.fi/en/education-system (accessed 1 May 2021).
41.
OECD (2020) Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available: DOI: 10.1787/69096873-en.
42.
OECD (2023) The future of Finland’s funding model for higher education institutions. OECD Education Policy Perspectives. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available: DOI: 10.1787/3d256b59-en.
43.
ÖnselNBarlasY (2011) Modeling the dynamics of academic publications and citations. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Washington, DC. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society.
44.
OyoBWilliamsDBarendsenE (2008) A system dynamics tool for higher education funding and quality policy analysis. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society.
45.
PölönenJPylvänäinenEAsparaJ, et al. (2021) Self-evaluation report of the Finnish quality classification system of peer-reviewed publication channels. Publication Forum 2010–2020.
46.
PruvotEBClaeys-KulikALEstermannT (2015) Strategies for Efficient Funding of Universities in Europe. In: The European Higher Education Area: Between critical reflections and future policies. Cham: Springer, 153–168.
47.
RobledoLFSepulvedaJArcherS (2013) Hybrid simulation decision support system for university management. In: Winter Simulations Conference (WSC), pp. 2066–2075. IEEE.
48.
RouwetteEAVennixJAMullekomTV (2002) Group model building effectiveness: a review of assessment studies. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System dynamics Society18(1): 5–45.
49.
RouwetteEAVennixJAFellingAJ (2009) On evaluating the performance of problem structuring methods: an attempt at formulating a conceptual model. Group Decision and Negotiation18(6): 567–587.
50.
SalmiJ (2015) Evidence-based Policies in Higher Education: Data Analytics, Impact Assessment and Reporting [overview Paper]. European: Between Critical Reflections and Future Policies, pp. 807–813.
51.
ScottR (2018) Group Model Building: Using Systems Dynamics to Achieve Enduring Agreement. Singapore: Springer.
52.
ScottR (2019) Explaining how group model building supports enduring agreement. Journal of Management and Organization25(6): 783–806.
53.
SeuriAVartiainenH (2018) Yliopistojen rahoitus, kannustimet ja rakennekehitys. Kansantaloudellinen Aikakauskirja114.
54.
SivertsenG (2016) Data integration in scandinavia. Scientometrics106: 849–855.
55.
SivertsenGAagaardK (2017) The effects of performance-based research funding systems. R-QUEST policy brief2: 1–4.
56.
StermanJD (2001) System dynamics modeling: tools for learning in a complex world. California Management Review43(4): 8–25.
57.
StermanJD (2006) Learning from evidence in a complex world. American Journal of Public Health96(3): 505–514.
58.
StraussLMBorensteinD (2015) A System dynamics model for long-term planning of the undergraduate education in Brazil. Higher Education69(3): 375–397.
van KersbergenRJvan DaalenCEMezaCC, et al. (2015) The impact of career and funding policies on the academic workforce in The Netherlands. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Delft University of Technology.
62.
VanderbySACarterMWLathamT, et al. (2014) Modelling the future of the Canadian cardiac surgery workforce using system dynamics. Journal of the Operational Research Society65(9): 1325–1335.
VokuevaO (2017) Model-based university management: system dynamics approach. Master’s Thesis. Lappeenranta: LappeenrantaUniversity of Technology. School of Business andManagement. Available:https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2017121155595
67.
ZacharewiczTLeporiBRealeE, et al. (2019) Performance-based research funding in EU Member States—a comparative assessment. Science and Public Policy46(1): 105–115.
68.
ZainiRMPavlovOVSaeedK, et al. (2017) Let's talk change in a university: a simple model for addressing a complex agenda. Systems Research and Behavioral Science34(3): 250–266.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
