University Efficiency criteria as a scientific and Educational corporation in the Knowledge Economy

The paper’s subject is the model of a university as a scientific and educational corporation. The researcher understands it as the central element of an innovative ecosystem that functions according to the principle of the continuous production cycle. This cycle includes generating new knowledge, transforming that knowledge into new human capital, creating technological solutions, and showing and confirming the practical applicability of the corresponding technologies. The study’s goal is to create a framework of criteria and indicators to evaluate a scientific and educational corporation’s performance. This framework will assess how completely, quickly, and coherently the corporation functions, while also highlighting its role as an ecosystem integrator within the university. The relevance of this research stems from its connection to existing university evaluation methods, including monitoring by the Russian Ministry of Education and Science, accreditation, and international rankings. The core focus of these systems is on university resource and process metrics, neglecting their role in the full knowledge lifecycle for today’s economy. Given the circumstances, we need to create an evaluation model. This model should view the university not as separate educational and research parts, but as one integrated system for science, education, and innovation. The research methodology combines theories of the entrepreneurial university, portfolio management, and the ecosystem approach. The researcher uses methods of theoretical analysis and synthesis, a comparative analysis of existing university evaluation systems, induction, and the author’s own conceptualization of performance criteria and indicators. The scientific innovation lies in the suggested method for evaluating a research and educational corporation. This method includes criteria and indicators that show the university’s scientific, educational, and entrepreneurial outcomes. These are organized according to the continuous production cycle and the corporation’s institutional framework. The outcomes are the author’s suggested six criteria and twenty- three indicators, organized by production cycle elements, covering the effectiveness of knowledge generation, human capital quality, technology transfer intensity, demonstration infrastructure development, ecosystem position, and financial/managerial sustainability. The conclusion is that this system facilitates a shift in university evaluations, moving from evaluating separate indicators like research output and student numbers, R&D volume, to assessing their development as integrated entities producing innovation.

1. Guba K. S. Quality of higher education: A review of international practice. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz = University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2019;23(3):94-107. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.15826/umpa.2019.03.022

2. Evdokimov S. Y. Accreditation as a system for assessing the quality of educational activities. Mir nauki = World of Science. 2017;5(4):39. (In Russ.).

3. Grigorash O. V., Baguta N. A. Methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of university educational activities. Vysshee obrazovanie segodnya = Higher Education Today. 2024;6:11-16. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18137/RNU.HET.24.06.P.011

4. Romanov E. V. Evaluation of the efficiency of Russian universities: Do we need to change the paradigm? Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2021;23(6):84-125. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2021-6-83-125

5. Kudryavtseva I. S., Kozorez D. A., Rumakina A. V. Evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of university activities in the context of digital transformation. Kachestvo i zhizn’ = Quality and life. 2023;2:10-14. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.34214/2312-5209-2023-38-2-10-14

6. Burton R. Clark. Creation of entrepreneurial universities: Organizational directions of transformation. Transl. from English by A. Smirnov. Moscow: Publishing House of the State University of Higher School of Economics; 2011. 237 p. (In Russ.).

7. Gumerova G. I., Shaimieva E. Sh. Entrepreneurial Model vs Humboldt University model: Institutionalization of university entrepreneurship. Methodology of the process. Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie. Elektronnyj vestnik = Public Administration. E-journal (Russia). 2026;114:192-206. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.55959/MSU2070-1381-114-2026-192-206

8. Cooper R. G., Edgett S. J., Kleinschmidt E. J. Portfolio management of new products. 2nd ed. NY.: Basic Books; 2002. 400 p.

9. J. Kent Crawford. Project management maturity model. Second edition. NY.: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC; 2007. 235 p.

10. Adner R. Ecosystem as a structure: an effective strategy construct. Journal of Management. 2017;43(1):39-58. DOI:10.1177/0149206316678451

11. Yakobidis M. G., Sennamo S., Gaver A. Towards the theory of ecosystems. Journal of Strategic Management. 2018;39(8):2255-2276. DOI:10.1002/smj.2904

12. Akberdina V. V., Vasilenko E. V. Innovation ecosystem: Review of the research field. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoj teorii = Russian Journal of Economic Theory. 2021;18(3):462-473. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31063/2073-6517/2021.18-3.10

13. Granstrand O., Holgersson M. Innovative ecosystems: A conceptual overview and a new definition. Technovation. 2020;90-91:102098. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2019.102098