INTRODUCTION:

Aware of the rapid development of technology in various sectors, and its multidisciplinary implications on the role of Lebanese private universities in adapting to the demands of globalization, and despite the institutional constraints facing these universities, they must respond to current and future challenges as part of the globalization process. It is clear that these institutions can no longer be dissociated from recent technological and scientific developments, and as a result, they are becoming places of progress and dissemination of knowledge, driving economic and social development, on the international scene.

This requires graduates to be able to survive in a competitive environment that changes according to the needs of supply and demand in the marketplace. This change is often more rapid than that of training programs and skills standards, requiring a quality of adaptation that currently exceeds the baggage acquired during their academic apprenticeships. This makes it imperative to implement serious changes: permanent adaptation of training courses to market needs, quality assurance and accreditation of higher education, evaluation processes at all levels, career management, professional integration of graduates, research and its involvement with the market, reforms to be carried out linked to applied study systems, application of information and communication technologies at all levels (teaching and administrative work), organization of seminars, colloquia and congresses, international relations and conventions. This would entail organizational change, with a reform of teaching and administrative work in general, followed by a high cost in terms of the budgets involved, especially as the operating budgets of these establishments are essentially based on student enrolments. All these issues, as well as scientific research, require educational institutions to possess the financial and human resources necessary for their implementation, a situation that is not evident.

In this article, we analyze in detail the organization of university governance and the extent to which IT tools and data are used in decision-making. To this end, we conducted a survey of major universities in Lebanon from Technology Cooperation Agreement for Research and Education consortium (TechCARE), using a semi-structured interview format. The results show that the mode of governance has not evolved towards new technologies based on artificial intelligence and data mining. Finally, the last paragraph confirms the past in governance and the need to use new technologies for decision-making, based on artificial intelligence and the analysis of data recorded by the information system.

LITERARY MAGAZINES:

Risks:

The permanent and multidimensional evolution within universities generates multiple risks according to the international colloquium of the Groupement international des Secrétaires généraux des Universités francophones "Gro16"¹held at the Université de Moncton in Canada from August 23 to 27, 2016: Financial and accounting risks, psychosocial risks, political and reputational risks, legal risks. However, risks related to new technologies must be taken into consideration at the same level of importance and requirement as the previously mentioned risks.

What's more, private universities in Lebanon rely essentially on the income generated by tuition fees. The State is almost absent in this field. So there is always a financial concern to ensure that the establishment continues to operate smoothly.

Added to this, analyzing the situation in Lebanon in june 2021, the worldbank declares that Lebanon's universities are subject to the cumulative crises that have beset Lebanon in recent years (the influx of Syrian refugees, the political, economic and financial crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic and the explosion in the port of Beirut), which will probably lead to a reduction in the funds available for education, putting even more pressure on the academic sector in the years to come ²

Governance:

Risk management and control must be based on "good" governance. But the first thing to do when describing governance is to deplore the unanimity of its definition.

According to Hirsch and Weber in 2001 "Wer01" ³, governance refers to "the formal and informal exercise of authority within the framework of laws, policies and rules that articulate the rights and responsibilities of various actors, including the rules by which they interact".In other words, governance encompasses "the framework with in which an institution pursues its goals, objectives and policies in a coherent and coordinated manner", it answers the following questions: "Who is responsible and what are the sources of legitimacy for the executive decisions taken by the various players? "

This definition was adopted by the European Union in 2008 in the study on The governance of higher education in Europe⁴ and by the International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) UNESCO Pre-Conference in Dakar on November 14, 2012: "Governance in higher education - What policies with what effects? "Mic12" ⁵

At the International Association of University Professors and Lecturers (IAUPL) conference in Marrakech in 2017 ⁶, Ibrahim CHITOU points out that "a poor governance structure is a source of organizational inertia, generating functional entropy".

Michaela Martin adds: "Governance reforms must therefore adapt management structures and procedures to a system that has become more complex and diversified. She concludes that "it is often a question of better distributing decision-making power between the various levels of the administrative chain. In this context, it is necessary to introduce more decentralized management by strengthening decision-making power at the central university level, sometimes to the detriment of the autonomy of schools and faculties. " "Mic12" ⁵

Decision-making power at private universities in Lebanon varies from university to university. In his April 2016 article⁷ "Governance models in Arab universities", Professor Adnan El Amine describes three governance models:

The commercial model: the word "private" indicates that the university has an owner who is most often the chairman of the board of directors. The main aim is to increase revenues while ensuring the satisfaction of students and their parents; in other words, to increase student numbers and minimize teaching and administrative costs. This is usually achieved at the expense of research and, in some cases, the quality of teaching.

The community model: Religious bodies establish universities. The founder and therefore owner appoints the President. He, as head of the system, combines all powers; he is assisted by vice-rectors, directors of general services of the central organization and by a restricted council. Together, they form the Rectorate, which centralizes all powers. The President has great influence over everyone and everything.

The autonomous model: Autonomous universities are not affiliated to any social body and are not-for-profit. The supreme authority is the Board of Trustees, made up of public figures, academics and businessmen of different nationalities. It appoints the President and Deans, ratifies the budget and establishes the academic regulations and administrative procedures.

The information system:

Whatever the governance model adopted, those in charge of academic institutions need tools that materialize rules and procedures, and provide information on daily, half-yearly and annual activities and reports. Yves Chevaliers states "Che09"⁸ that university's strategic information system needs to be accompanied by a technocratic, centralizing and secure vision, supported by dashboards, indicators and identifiers, designed for control and self-monitoring. This requires transparent communication and the storage of data, information and intelligence in a common environment.

Albert Gueissaz states in an article ⁹ that in an institution of higher education, there are three main components to the organization of this structure: Students, Teachers and Administration. All the players involved in this structure, i.e. students, teachers-researchers, employees and other internal structures (faculties, schools, laboratories, etc.), as well as external partners, produce data which, together with their processing methods, make up what is known as the structure's information system, notice Frédérique Peguiron and Odile Thiery. "Fré05" ¹⁰

The decision-making tool:

The Global Information System generates a lot of data and information (Big Data), which makes the work of the various players complex and at high risk of generating errors and misinterpretations of the available data. As a result, university managers at all levels of the academic, administrative and financial hierarchy become subject to situations that are difficult to manage, with the result that the development and brand image previously reported are totally disrupted. In fact, managers are drowning in the mass of information provided, and can no longer fully meet the requirements of the objectives set. Al Blake states¹¹ that selecting and grouping information with the aim of processing it at the right time becomes almost impossible, making it difficult to find "the right information at the right time".

The solution to this type of situation is to group information according to its nature and present it in an appropriate way, following a rhythm corresponding to the work of the manager in question. Jeffrey A. Seybert explains "Jef09"¹²dashboards are generated automatically, containing the indicators needed for work control and decision-making. These tables need to be up-to-date and easy to read. In some situations, predefined scenarios are set up for decision-making based on the indicators collected. This would fall within the scope of automata or even artificial intelligence, according to Microsoft¹³

The information system described above can therefore be enhanced by a management module providing performance indicators, dashboards, modeling, situation simulation and decision-making based on predefined scenarios. This becomes a Decision Support Information System (DSI) according to Michelle and Patrick Gillet "Pat13"¹⁴.

METHODS:

a) Survey of Lebanese universities:

To take stock of university governance in Lebanon, we conducted a survey of the major private universities in Lebanon forming the Technology Cooperation Agreement for Research and Education consortium (TechCARE the National Research and Education Network NREN in Lebanon).

Through semi-structured interviews, we were able to establish the governance profile of each university and the performance indicators adopted and measured. We were thus able to identify a high degree of similarity in their organizational and decision-making structures, as well as similar practices in the use of their indicators. Beyond the different "models" mentioned above, management and decision-making methods and tools are not far apart. As for the indicators adopted, their use is limited to a cyclical "reporting" of their activities and a targeted "evaluation" of some of them, without reaching the higher level of strategic extrapolation or leverage for long-term change.

b) The questionnaire:

Divided into 2 main parts, it covers all aspects of governance on the one hand, and all performance indicators on the other.

The first part, devoted to governance, is subdivided into many sections, focusing mainly on: policy guidelines and the functioning.

The second part, devoted to performance indicators, is subdivided into five main sections: research, teaching, international relations, budget and financing, and finally student life and its environment.

RESULTS:

In the first part of this report, we noted that governance arrangements in universities are played out from two angles: there is a clear divergence between official arrangements and the real play of power. We have thus been able to highlight fairly similar, if not identical, general structures, but very specific variations in the competencies of the supreme administrative councils, and the pivotal role played by the Presidents of these councils as orchestral conductors.

In the second part, our analysis of the indicators reveals a dual aspect of reliability, on the one hand, but above all under-utilization, or limited utilization, on the other.

Part 1: governance and management tools:

a) The policy guidelines:

The universities affirmed:

Draw up and regularly adjust medium-term strategic development plans, generally five-year plans.

Ensure sound administrative and financial management of the institution.

The two statements are closely linked. In this respect, we need to distinguish between non-profit institutions of the "autonomous" model and those of the "community" model, on the one hand, and private institutions of the "commercial" model, on the other.

The former sees themselves as entrusted with a mission of public order, as much for the education of the younger generation as for research and other activities in the service of the nation. With this in mind, on the one hand, the range of training courses is designed to cover all fields, and on the other, new courses are added as needs arise, even if the number of students has to be reduced. Financial concerns and budgetary control are becoming increasingly important for the sake of continuity.

The latter tend to subordinate their activities to more mundane considerations of profit and loss. This is why the courses of study offered are the most sought-after and popular.

b) The code of procedures and an information system :

Our first approach was to enquire about the existence of a code of procedures and the detailed structure of the information system in each of the target universities. This request was prompted by the fact that management control on the one hand, and the requirements of the quality approach and international recognition on the other, required the managers of these universities to draw up a "code of procedures" governing all aspects of the institution's operations, down to the smallest detail. Similarly, the information system was supposed to reflect the real life of the institution and give a perfect picture of it, according to these same requirements, or perhaps more so, because of the vital need for management to know all the data on the activities of its members and to archive its history.

However, it became clear to us that access to these two tools was not in the public domain, and that we had to make do with what the managers we interviewed were willing to tell us about them. It also became clear to us, through our interviews with these managers, that far from the ideal we had assumed, the various procedural codes, although actually existing and applied, varied in content from one institution to another, and contained more or less significant loopholes concerning one or other aspect of the institution's operation.

Without going into too much detail, it is impossible to draw conclusions from the survey:

All aspects of human resources management, but more specifically staff recruitment and career development, as well as the status of teaching staff and the various types of assignment: teaching and tutoring, research and publication, external missions, etc.

Study regulations, curriculum development and modifications, Accounting and management control

As for the information system, we were unable to consult it. We had to content ourselves with consulting the web interfaces of these systems, which only concerned data made available to the public. Overcoming these reservations, we tried to go as far as we could in the interviews we conducted, and we were able to see what we had already written in our introduction: that the system was only used for "reporting" purposes, and at most for "evaluation" only, with no other ambition. We shall analyse the content of these information systems in greater depth when we come to the second part, devoted to performance indicators.

c) Lateral control of two sides:

The actual audit by a recognized external auditing firm.

The requirements of international reputation and recognition, through accreditations and/or rankings by international bodies, which play a dual normative and regulatory role.

d) Relationships between the various components and the decision-making process:

The survey revealed an overall pattern that is virtually the same in all universities, with a bottom-up movement of proposals from the bottom up to the top of the hierarchy, with a view to decision-making which then takes a reverse, top-down route to implementation. This more or less coherent back-and-forth movement is intended to respect the skills and experience of people in the field, endorsed by the management team. But the survey revealed deviations from this pattern, when hierarchical considerations and viewpoints sometimes radically alter the suggestions put forward by these committees.

e) Committees:

There are two types of committee. Permanent, "specialized" or "thematic" committees with a limited mandate (1 to 2 years). They are called upon throughout their term of office either to propose projects, or to give an opinion on a project. Ad hoc" committees are set up on a temporary basis to help or advise management in dealing with unforeseen situations.

The areas of competence of each committee are defined at the time of its creation, and all aspects of university activity are concerned: academic, administrative and organizational affairs, budgetary and financial matters, research, student life, citizenship and social involvement, ethics, international relations, communications, information technology and security, and so on.

For the composition of these committees, management calls on people in the field, mostly academic or administrative managers belonging to the institution. Few outsiders are invited to sit on them.

The role of these committees is advisory, with no decision-making powers delegated to them. At most, they are entrusted with the task of following up decisions once they have been taken at board or management level. But even from this point of view, the "control" of these committees is highly theoretical, as there is no formal constraint procedure they can impose in the event of non-compliance with decisions, and their role is always limited to reporting these hyatus to the next level, perhaps proposing a possible adjustment solution!

f) The Board of Directors:

Whatever the name adopted, this is the highest body in the hierarchy and the official place of decision-making, the supreme legislative power. At a few universities, there are two supreme boards, one for academic matters and the other for administrative matters. At the other universities, the same council rules and legislates on both types of issues. The Council confers authority and enforceability on decisions. The minutes and reports of its meetings are the reference for all activity within the university. Theoretically, decisions are collegial, and this collegiality lends a democratic stamp to the decision-making process. In practice, however, and in certain situations, the Board is content either to endorse "proposals" put forward by the President and his team, or to reject them.

g) Management teams:

The President or Rector and his team

Deans and faculty councils

General services: social services, human resources, sports, IT, finance, accounting, purchasing, etc.

h) Out-of-sync communication:

Internal communication at a slow pace: despite the diversity of media such as memos, newsletters, periodical magazines, e-mails, websites, minutes of meetings and many others, information has had difficulty in being faithfully transmitted in both directions from top to bottom or vice versa, and this gets worse with the multitudes of management teams, and as a consequence, members of the university community are sensitive to any rumor and readily lend themselves to passing on any type of information according to the Arab telephone model. This is mainly due to the lack of a homogeneous communication system that clarifies the source of each piece of information, without there being any contradictions between the different governing bodies. This is a fruitful managerial tool.

Competitive external communication: universities are very sensitive to their brand image in the marketplace, and implement aggressive communication strategies according to their market position and target clientele.

i) A framework of auditing and international recognition:

Internal control is used to detect flaws in the management system and thus propose adjustments to procedures and regulations in force to remedy them, as well as to monitor fraud and misuse.

External control is used for two main purposes: the first is to certify activities and information produced to external bodies such as national authorities or national and international partner organizations, and the second is to help endorse and implement internal decisions.

On the one hand, accreditation serves to enhance the university's reputation in a competitive world, and on the other, to establish an internal process of self-evaluation and continuous improvement.

Part 2: Performance indicators and indices:

With the development of IT tools, the use of performance measurements has taken off. Increasingly complex and detailed, dozens of indices have been developed and introduced over the years to measure and assess the smooth running and degree of performance of the institution at all macro and micro managerial levels.

Paradoxically, it soon became apparent that the use of indicators was a real challenge: when they were positive, they could bring them to the fore and expose them to the public; when they were negative, on the other hand, it was in their interest to conceal them. The practice soon became established: only those indicators that could be considered to have a positive value in the eyes of management were published. On the other hand, indicators which, in their view, could reduce the reputation of their institution were either concealed or left out altogether. In the remainder of this article, we'll look at the main indices measured, as well as the indicators that are lacking.

We have tried to group our survey questions on performance indicators related to the different activities of each of the targeted universities around the main axes: research, teaching, partnerships and external relations, budget and finance, working environment and university ranking.

We won't dwell on the rationale behind such a division, as its aim is simply to collect as many indicators as possible in order to analyze their use and their power of induction on the institution's strategy and policy.

a) Research:

In this section, we have reviewed:

Researchers: ratio of teachers to researchers, ratio of foreign teachers to teachers, number of current PhD students, number of theses defended, number of students involved in research projects.

Research projects: number of current projects, number of past research projects, specific fields, local and international partners, budget and funding sources, monitoring and control of execution.

Publication of research results: number, channels, percentage of publications by researcher and by discipline.

This information is regularly updated in the information system. In general, university research should not update us in the discipline, but update the discipline. Research should advance knowledge and ask questions for which the answers don't yet exist. But we have found that it is mainly used for university rankings, teacher evaluation and relations with society and the market. It is worth noting that there is a strong tendency to separate teaching departments from research entities. This raises the question of the governance, dynamism and supervision of these multiple entities, laboratories, groups, centers, units or institutes.

b) Teaching:

In this part of the questionnaire, questions were asked about:

Teachers: number, teacher-student ratio, doctorate-teacher ratio, foreign teacher-teacher ratio, etc.

Teaching: disciplines and fields, mutualization of courses, matching of training to market needs, evaluation of teaching, continuing education, etc.

Significant and usable percentages can be extracted from the information system, such as the ratio of PhD holders or foreign missionary lecturers to all lecturers. On the other hand, there are no indicators of whether or not training in certain sectors is in line with employers' requirements, or of their degree of satisfaction. When asked about this, the answer is nothing short of satisfactory: a few sporadic contacts have taken place at different times between certain academic managers and those in charge at professional orders and unions. These contacts tended to:

Adjusting the number of students admitted to the training courses concerned according to the degree of need, congestion or saturation of the national job market, on the one hand;

And to redesign training programs in line with the skills and new technicalities in demand.

But these meetings were never formalized, and the measures were never codified. The main argument put forward to justify such a failure was that the correlation between training provision and market needs was a purely rhetorical question, in a country where market trends are hard to pin down, where the state itself undertook no studies on the subject, and where the majority of graduates were destined to immigrate to other countries with more promising job opportunities and higher remuneration for their services.

Similarly, while all universities measure the degree of student satisfaction with a teacher, no measures have been integrated into their information systems for a peer evaluation of the teacher, as advocated by certain international standards.

The subject became even more thorny when it came to evaluating teaching content. Syllabi, course objectives and content descriptions are well laid out in information systems, but we found overlap and repetition of certain content, despite the fact that courses are divided into units that are intended to be coherent and complementary, and a lack of automatic synchronization between the knowledge constituting the content of the diploma itself and the skills acquired in the so-called "professionalizing" courses of the continuing education departments.

c) Partnerships and International relations:

In this section, the main indicators highlighted concerned:

The number of agreements that each university has forged with external partners, both in Lebanon and internationally, whether universities, research centers or laboratories.

Number of outgoing and incoming students.

These indicators are used extensively in the university's branding and marketing. We note, however, that internships that students are obliged to complete with private companies, NGOs or educational institutions are not always listed under partnership agreements. They may or may not appear in the information system, and may or may not be recorded as performance indicators.

d) Budget and Finance:

In this area, we came up against the difficulty of obtaining precise information, as the subject is considered taboo by all institutions. However, we were able to make the following observations:

If we had to classify the areas according to the degree of depth of their measurements and performance indicators, which all the universities in the consortium wanted to push down to the last detail, it is certainly the block of financial and accounting indicators that would come first. The concern to establish a solid long-term financial position has always been a priority for those in charge of governance, who have experienced multiple periods of crisis and have been confronted with continuous inflation.

And yet, despite this concern for financial security, no university has ventured to institute strict analytical accounting. Instead, they have all opted - at least according to the responses to the questionnaire - for general accounting, which makes it easier to conceal certain aspects of expenditure and cash flow. A provisional budget is drawn up at the beginning of the financial year, but overruns during the year are commonplace. An annual balance sheet is published at the end of each financial year, but adjustments to individual items are not uncommon. Internal auditing is perfunctory, and external control makes do with certain adjustments. In some universities, the consolidation of the different budgets of the various components of the institution into a single overall budget helps to eradicate certain abuses. Ultimately, the paradox of performance indicators specific to financial and accounting control is that they are for internal use and not really intended for external exploitation.

The only measures that are actually published and used are those relating to financial aid funds and the ever-deficient research funds. These are the two niches through which all universities are rushing to claim more funding from the natural and legal persons likely to support them.

e) Work environment:

In the "working environment" section, we tried to identify the degree of satisfaction of the three categories of university population:

In the case of students, the aim was to identify, on the one hand, the attractive factors of their life on campus:

The quality of relations with the administration: welcome and information, financial assistance, psychological support, etc.

Activities of all kinds, sporting, cultural, artistic, etc., including political and civic service activities.

But we also felt it was important to measure the universities' ability to ensure the future integration of their students into the job market, through the bodies responsible for professional integration, alumni associations, and any activities likely to facilitate competitive employability for students: job forums, intramural job interviews, etc.

The degree of satisfaction of administrative staff was measured by the existence and evaluation of certain criteria: ongoing training, retirement plans, internal sharing and communication meetings, festivities and ritual celebrations, etc.

On the other hand, the annual staff performance appraisal, common to all universities, was unevenly exploited. Reward measures (raises, promotion and reclassification) or sanctions (transfer, demotion, dismissal, etc.) were often the result of an amalgam of various more or less objective considerations by the hierarchy rather than the strict evaluation procedure carried out by human resources departments!

Another important point to note is that none of the targeted universities had an employee union capable of defending their demands and rights. Traditionally, the hierarchies of the target universities would use a covert and roundabout veto against any structure likely to reduce their room for manoeuvre and absolute authority in terms of personnel management.

As for teaching staff, satisfaction indexes are only partially and occasionally measured, in order to mark out certain decisions and avoid institutionally evoking the factors that are said to discourage teaching staff, such as salary, research requirements and available resources.

f) University Ranking:

We have noticed a growing awareness of the importance of this issue, despite the limited resources available. And the most popular ranking is the QS ranking of the Arab world and its influence on the Lebanese market.

DISCUSSION:

A university's information system generates an ever-increasing amount of data, which is not really used to develop decision-support systems. Metrics are generally used for activity reporting, and in some cases to evaluate entities or individuals. And it's really rare to see them used for extrapolation and the setting or adjustment of medium- and long-term policies. This may be due to work overload or a lack of enthusiasm, and therefore a lack of focus.

In order to help these managers, make the most of the measures taken from the IS, they will need to be equipped with a decision-support system that will present and study the different hypotheses that decision-makers will pose. The evolution of governance and the transformation of universities will take a long time, not to say that it is not on the agenda. To alleviate this problem, we need to focus on governance tools based on artificial intelligence.

Current technologies based on deep learning algorithms can implement simulation and prediction models of future situations by analyzing the data generated by the information system. In principle, after an analysis of existing data relating to a specific topic, we can select the information useful for a chosen deep learning algorithm, to form the prediction system and thus decision support. The following questions can be addressed with a Decisions Support System:

Students drop out: the main financial resources come from tuition fees, so any loss of a student would cost the university an average of $30,000, not to mention its reputation and ranking, and would put the student's future at risk, or at the very least the loss of his or her investment. A system for predicting which students are likely to drop out can be put in place to provide the relevant managers with a list of these students, so that they can put in place the necessary measures to help them and prevent them from dropping out. To confirm this, we have succeeded in developing a system that gives excellent predictions¹⁵

Universities ranking: it is the result of the performance of universities in several activities, and the objective of each university is to be at the top of the ranking. But Lebanese universities, with their limited resources compared to others, should choose their actions carefully to better target the performance of certain parameters used in a university ranking. To this end, a ranking prediction system would be a good tool for choosing precise actions to be taken. The system should automatically extract important data from the university's information system, as well as public data from other universities. It then calculates and predicts scores for all indicators, and compares them with other universities (or internally between faculties). A dashboard automatically visualizes all the results obtained and simulates data changes to indicate the best plan for positively impacting the university's or faculty's ranking.

Determining the long-term viability of certain specialties.

Hiring teachers based on projected enrolments.

Linking financial aid awards to the likelihood of students' academic performance could channel aid more effectively.

Improving the recruitment process could prevent some staff losses.

The impact of applicants' admission requirements on their academic performance could prevent some failures.

Orienting candidates according to the results obtained by their predecessors would help to better select specialties.

Early identification of students in difficulty, to avoid failure in their studies.

Equipping students with an application enabling them to better choose their UEs, or at least to warn them of their level in relation to certain UEs.

This non-exhaustive list may rise other questions that remain dormant until now.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

The authors have no conflicts of interest regarding this investigation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the members of the Technology Cooperation Agreement for Research and Education consortium (TechCARE) who contributed to the successful completion of the survey.

REFERENCES:

1. (GISGUF) Gidsgduf. Colloque 2016 à Moncton. Groupement international des secrétaires généraux des universités francophones. August 23-26, 2016. http://www.gisguf.org/index.php/colloque-2016-a-moncton/.

2. World Bank. Foundations for Building Forward Better: An Education Reform Path for Lebanon. Washington 2021.

3. Hirsch WZ and Weber LE. Governance In Higher Education: The University in a State of Flux. London: Economica; 2001.

4. Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture and Eurydice. Higher education governance in Europe: Policies, structures, funding and academic staff. Brussels 2008.

5. Martin M. La gouvernance dans l’enseignement supérieur: Quelles politiques avec quels effets. Dakar: UNESCO; 2012.

6. Michel G et al. Regards dynamiques et critiques de la gouvernance des universités. Marrakech - Paris: International Association of University Professors and Lecturers; 2017.

7. Elamine A. Les Modèles De Gouvernance Des Universités Arabes. Lebanese army. April 2016. https://www.lebarmy.gov.lb/fr/content/les-mod%C3%A8les-de-gouvernance-des-universit%C3%A9s-arabes.

8. Chevalier Y. Système d’information et démocratie à l’université. Quadrani. Mai 2009:55-66.

9. Gueissaz A. Informatisation et dynamique des relations entre administratifs, enseignants et étudiants dans les établissements universitaires. Sociétés contemporaines. 1997:33-55.

10. Peguiron, F and Thiéry, O. Système d’information stratégique dédié à l’environnement universitaire. Hal open science. January 2005. https://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_00001462/document.

11. Blake A. Finding Insight in an Ocean of Data. Ellucian. april 5, 2017. https://www.ellucian.com/assets/emea-ap/white-paper/whitepaper-emea-finding-insight-ocean-data-ovum.pdf.

12. Seybert J. An Introduction to Dashboards in Higher Education. zogotech. 2009. http://www.zogotech.com/demoFiles/presentations/intro_to_dashboards_in_higher_ed.pdf.

13. Microsoft. Intelligence artificielle: tout ce qu’il faut savoir. Microsoft. February 9, 2008. Available at: https://experiences.microsoft.fr/business/intelligence-artificielle-ia-business/comprendre-utiliser-intelligence-artificielle/.

14. Gillet P. and Gillet M. Les outils du système d'information, facteur clé de succès ou d'échec dans l'évolution des organisations: le cas des universités. Gestion et management public. March 2013:55-77.

15. Mouchantaf N. and Chamoun M. Predicting Student Dropout with Minimal Information. Iraqi Journal of Science. October 2023:5265–5279.

Received on 06.05.2024 Modified on 24.05.2024

Asian Journal of Management. 2024;15(3):219-226.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5763.2024.00034