Performance in Public Management: Comparing Efficiency, Effectiveness and Effectiveness Between Brazilian Federal Universities / Desempenho na Gestão Pública: Comparação de Eficiência, Eficácia e Eficácia Entre Universidades Federais Brasileiras

Alexandre Rodrigues Santos; Daniel Felipe Victor Martins; Evangelina da Silva Sousa; Airton Junior Vieira Santos

<page>

<par>

<line> Centro Unv*rsitário Santo Agostinho </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> www*.fsanet.com.*r/revista </line>

<line> I*SN Impresso: 180*-6356 ISSN *letrô*ico: 2317-2983 </line>

<line> Perf*rmance in Public Management: Com*a*ing Effic*en*y, Effe**iveness and Ef**ctiveness </line>

<line> B*tween Brazi*ian F*d*ral Unive*sities </line>

<line> Desem**nho n* Gestão Pú*lic*: Compa*a*ão de Ef*ciência, Eficácia e E*ic*cia Entre </line>

<line> Unive***dades Fed*rais Brasileir*s </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Alexand*e Rodrigues *antos </line>

<line> Doutor em A*mi*istração pela U*iversida*e F*deral da **raíba </line>

<line> a*sa*tospi@hotma*l.**m </line>

<line> Daniel *elipe Victor Mar*i*s </line>

<line> Doutor e* Administra*ão pela Universid*de d* Fortaleza </line>

<line> Doutora em Ad*inistração pela Universidade *ederal do Ceará </line>

<line> Airton Junio* V*era S*ntos </line>

<line> Mestr*ndo em Ad**n*stração Pública pela Un*versi*a*e Federal ** P*auí </line>

<line> *irton@uf*i.edu.br </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> End**eço: Alex*ndre Ro*rigues Sa*tos </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> U*iversida*e Federa* do Pia*í, Ministr* *etrônio P*rtela, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Ininga 6*049*5* - Teresina, PI - Brasil </line>

<line> E*i*or-Chef*: Dr. Tonn* *erley *e Alencar </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Endereço: Da*iel Fe**pe Victor Martins </line>

<line> Rodrig*es </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Unive*sidade Federal Rural de P*rnamb*c*, Codai. Rua </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *om Manoel *e Me*e*ros, *ois Irmãos, 52*71-900 - </line>

<line> Artigo recebid* em 26/04/20*3. Úl*i*a </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Recife, PE - Brasil </line>

<line> re*ebida em 15/*5/2**3. Aprov*do em 1*/05/202*. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Evangelina da Si*va S*usa </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Universida*e Federal do Piau*, C**tr* de Educaç*o </line>

<line> Avaliado p*lo s*stema Tripl* Review: Des* Review a) </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Aberta e a Distância. *ua *la*o BilacCentro64001280 - </line>

<line> pelo *ditor-*hef*; e b) Double Blind Review </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> (a*aliação c*ga por dois avaliadores da áre*). </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Endereço: </line>

<line> **rton Junior Viera Santos </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Univ*r**da*e Federa* *o Pi*uí, *i**stro Petr*nio Po*tela, </line>

<line> Rev*são: Gramati*a*, Normat*va e de Formatação </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Ininga *4*4*550 - Teresin*, PI - Brasil </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> A. R. San*o*, *. F. *. M**tins, E. S. Sousa, *. J. V. Santos </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> ABSTR*CT </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *he ai* of this p*esent wor* to is </line>

<line> co*pare the performance in </line>

<line> public manage**nt among </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Brazil*an federal universities, *r*m indica*ors, which *e*l *ith the levels of efficiency, </line>

<line> e*ficacy a*d *ffectiveness extra*ted dir*c*ly from the performance m*nag*ment repor*s o* the </line>

<line> Federa* Court of Au*itors. C*n*uc**ng t*e *e**arch, se*ond*r* *ata *omp*i*ing a *nive*se of </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> fed*r** univer*ities *ere use* *i*hin a time f*ame between the </line>

<line> years 201* to </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Through the application of *ultivariate statistical t*chniques of data, such </line>

<line> as multiple *inear </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *egression and analys*s of clust*rs (c*nglom*r*tes), i* was possible to compar* *he </line>

<line> p*rformance *etween each B*azilian federal university with the p**lic management in*icators </line>

<line> adopted by t*e TCU. T*e comparative ana*ysis allowed the development *f group*ngs </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *etween the federal uni*ersiti*s accordin* to the resu*ts </line>

<line> of *ach m*nagem*nt indicator, in </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> p*rformance of </line>

<line> each gr*up by levels *f </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> efficiency, e*fectiveness a*d effectiveness. </line>

<line> Ke**ords: Perform*nce. Brazilia* Federal Universitie*. E*ficie*c*. Efficacy. Effectiven*ss. </line>

<line> RESUMO </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> * objetivo </line>

<line> do prese*te t*a**lho é comparar o *esemp*nho na ges*ão públ*ca entre as </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> universida*es *e*era*s brasile*ras, a partir de in*ic*dore*, que tratam d*s n*veis *e eficiê*ci*, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> eficácia e </line>

<line> efet**idade ex**aídos diretam*n*e dos relat*rio* </line>

<line> desempen*o </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Tribunal de Contas da Un*ão. Para a rea*ização da pes*uisa, for*m utilizad*s </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *ecund*rios </line>

<line> compree*dendo *m universo de 63 uni*ersi*ad*s fe*erais </line>

<line> em um r*corte </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> a*licação d* técnic*s </line>

<line> estatís*icas </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> multivariadas de *ados, como r*gressão *inear múltipla e análi** de clusters (*onglome*ados), </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> foi possível comparar o desemp*nho de cada </line>

<line> *niver**da*e federal bras*leira </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> indi*adores </line>

<line> d* gestão pública ad*tado* p*lo TCU. A *n*li*e co*para*i*a </line>

<line> permitiu </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> desenvolvimento </line>

<line> de *grupamentos e**re as universida*es federais *e ac*rdo </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *esultados *e cada ind*cador de gestão, *e f*rma que possibilitou conh*cer * desemp*nho de </line>

<line> cada a*rupamento **r nívei* de efici*ncia, e*icácia e eficácia. </line>

<line> Palavras-cha*e: Dese**enho. Univer*idade* F***r*i* Bras*l*iras. E*iciência. Ef*các*a. </line>

<line> E**cácia. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Rev. F*A, Teresina, v. 20, n. 8, art. 3, p. 41-63, ago. *02* </line>

<line> ww*4.fsanet.com.br/revista </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> Perfo*mance in Pub*ic Management: Compar*n* Ef*ici*ncy, Effect*ve*ess *n* *ffectiveness *e*ween </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> 1 INTRODUCTI*N </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> In the last 10 years, *he *m*rgence *f mo*e studies **al*n* with the fi*l* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> managem*nt h** ***n grown *ubstantially, interna*ionally and nationally (Santos et al, 20**; </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Santos et a*, </line>

<line> *0*7), havin* attribu*ed, *bov* a**, a sign*f*cant po**ion of theo*etical efforts </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> empir*cal </line>

<line> in the n**d t* e*pan* the strategies, wh*ch search *or le*eraging the </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> effi*iency, effic*cy and effe*tiv*ne*s *f p*blic organizat**n*. </line>

<line> In Brazil, for e*a**le, the e*phas*s gi*en by mo*t stu**e* on public m**ageme**, </line>

<line> seeks to analyze the *erform*nc* level of B*azilian federa* universit*es from the m*a*ur*men* </line>

<line> of the ma*ager*al performan** o* *hese un*versities (Santos & *oronh*, 201*; Galvão, </line>

<line> Cor*êa; & Alv*s, *01*; *ugob*ni, 2010; Melo, Sarrico & R*dno*, 2010). </line>

<line> Public un*v*rsi*ies i* *razil are l*oking ** rest**cture th*i* pe*f*rmance standards </line>

<line> ac*ording to the req**r*ment* of *he E*uc*tion Minist*y - M*C (S*einer, *005), ** *ell as th* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Federal Au*it C*urt TCU (Santos et al, 2017). Because of this, being c*ncer*ed with the - </line>

<line> performance of pu*lic universities mea*s, therefore, the searc* for inst*tutional quality. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *n t** litera*u*e thro*gh the l*st 10 yea*s, t*e*e </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> analyze perfo*mance, mainly t*roug* *nves**e*t </line>

<line> in**cators, *n *he one h*nd by measuring </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> t*e g*oba* pe*form*nc* instituion and on the other by th* cri**r*on of instituti*n*l </line>

<line> sustain**ility (Azma, 2010; W*heed, Khan; & Ve*tch, 2011). In this **nse, per*or*a*ce in </line>

<line> *ublic u*iv*r*ities m*y be divided, a prio*i, into t** blocks ** anal*sis, namely: *c*demic </line>

<line> pe*formance - r*lated to t*e q*ality of t*aching, r*sear*h *n* the use o* graduates *n the *abor </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> market and the other bloc* mentions pe*fo*man*e fi*ancial an* </line>

<line> econo*ic of </line>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

<line> In the last 10 ye*r*, a significan* emphasis has bee* given ** stud*es involving </line>

<line> pe*for*ance a**lysis, especially *ith*n the sc**e of public o*ganizatio*s, since this pr*c*ice </line>

<line> has been *ons*l**ated as a *oherent way to min*mize bottl*neck* re*ult*ng from burea*cra**c </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> an* nebulous proce*ses in </line>

<line> t*e man*gemen* o* *razilian public universities (Santos et al, </line>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

<line> Then, t*is resea*ch is *uided to a*s*er t*e followi*g quest*on: *re th**e re*ional </line>

<line> simil*riti*s i* *anage*e*t perform*nc* and results among Brazilian federal univers**i*s? To </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> answe* t*is qu*stion, it has </line>

<line> a*out **e *xistence of </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> TCU aud**s *ha* i*dicate a*pro*i*ate *erfo*mance in*ices a*ong some Brazilian fe*eral </line>

<line> universi*ies. </line>

<line> Rev. F*A, Teresina PI, *. 20, n. 8, art. 3, *. 41-63, ago. *023 www*.*sanet.com.br/rev*sta </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> *. R. Santos, D. F. *. Martins, E. S. Sousa, *. J. V. Santos </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *n this **nse, the general objective was outlined: to compare the p**form*nce *n pu*lic </line>

<line> management among Brazil*an fed*ral universities, based on indicato*s th*t d*al w*th t*e </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> levels </line>

<line> *f efficiency, </line>

<line> eff**acy a** *ffecti*eness. Specif**al*y, we sought t*: i) identify t*e </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> indicators wi*h the </line>

<line> greatest r*lationshi* betw*en universiti*s; </line>

<line> ii) measu*e th* existing </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> co*relation b*tween the diffe*ent oper*tio*al </line>

<line> performance indi*ators a*d, i**) cl*ssify a*d </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> g*oup the feder*l un*versities accordi** to the performance a*hi*ved. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> The research used re*l data *mong </line>

<line> the *ea*s 2015 to 2019, c*ns*sting of the </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> application of mult*varia*e st*t*stic** techn*q*es *or data anal**is. From universe of 63 * </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> fe*eral universities, th* r*search used the multi**e *i*ear regre**ion te*hnique, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> c*uster an*lysis (clus*ers) s*eking to meet the proposed objective. Based on the </line>

<line> afore*en*ione* argum*n*s, this wo*k i* justified as an an*lytica* *cope that seeks t* s*pport * </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> possible rev*ew of strat*gies a*d </line>

<line> practi*es currently adop*ed b* m*na*ers </line>

<line> of feder*l </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *niversi*ies in Brazil. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> 2 THEORE*ICAL FRAMEWORK </line>

<line> 2.1 Feder*l u*ive*si*y manageme*t in Brazi* </line>

<line> The e*ergence of a more effi*ien* public management *as *riven a se*ie* of changes </line>

<line> in the manageme*t stru*ture of Brazilian public machine. T*is perspectiv* h*s m*de the State </line>

<line> assu*e a *ew guidel*ne *s a promoter of *ost- o* *e*-*ureaucratic strategies an* management </line>

<line> mod*ls, oriented towards good resul*s b*sed on pe*formance measures (Brasil, 2009). </line>

<line> T*is fact *s pe*ceived **en t*e federa* g*vernme*t i*sti*uted in 200* the </line>

<line> GES*Ú*LI*A pr*gram - National Pr*gram for Public *anagement and Debureaucr*t*zat*on </line>

<line> whic*, for *ts pu*pose, sea*ch for di*e*ting public institutions to bui*d s*e*ifi* models for </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> meas*ring perform*nc*, b*se* on a *oli** in*pired by t*e pr*mise that the manag*ment </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> public bodies an* *ntities m*y and should be *y ex***lence an* co*patible with inter*ationa* </line>

<line> standards *f qu*lit* in *anagem*nt (Br*sil, 2009). And, good m*nagement in the publ*c </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> secto* impli*s the search and </line>

<line> achie*ement of results, regardless *f meritor*ous efforts or </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> int*ntions that s*arc* for *eet*ng demands, **llectiving in*erests, as well as the </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> expec**tio*s or orga*izations t*at *ake up s*ciety i* a realistic and sust*inable way (Braz*l, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *n **de* to a*comp**y the process of S*ate **form, in </line>

<line> the field of higher education </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *here was a signific*nt replacem*nt </line>

<line> of burea*cratic contr*l*, based on a *ew ma**geria* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> R*v. FSA, T*resina, v. 20, n. 8, art. 3, p. 41-63, *g*. 2*** </line>

<line> *ww4.f*anet.com.br/revista </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> *erform*nc* in Public Manageme*t: Com*a*ing Efficiency, Effectiv*ne*s and Eff*ct**ene*s Between </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> culture by i*corp*r*ting the evaluation p*licy a* a str*tegic eleme*t *f </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> (Castro, 1997). The logic of the discu*sion *n the necessa*y expa*sion of higher **uc*tion in </line>

<line> Brazil *mplied re-discu*sing the current policies a*d org**izational and regulatory </line>

<line> fr*m*wor*s, espe*ially in the privatist p*rspectiv* underlying the reg**ation and m*nagement </line>

<line> policies of this level of ed*cation (Cunha, 2007). </line>

<line> In this l*ght, Brazilian public hi*her education institu*ions h*ve been reaac*i*g *** </line>

<line> tar*et o* several *nquiries for three decades, especially due to man*ge*ent problems (Vieira </line>

<line> & Vi*ir*, 2004). Then, educational polic**s were r****e*ted an* i* tun* with neolibe**l </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> premise*, which e*phasiz* pr*ductivity, </line>

<line> eff*ciency </line>

<line> and total qualit* (Olive*ra, *007; </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Sguissardi & S*lva Juni*r, *001). </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> In *he FHC governme*t reform (1994-2003), it was understood t*at th* sing*e mode*, </line>

<line> tea*hing, resear*h and ext*ns*on, it had been exhaus*ed and it would be unable t* ada** to the </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> new co*dit*ons o* th* w*r*d ec*n*my, as it was in*rt and inflex**le to a *ang* </line>

<line> *f current </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> de*ands, requ*rements and cha*lenges. *sing w*at it would be necessary to m*k* *he offer o* </line>

<line> highe* educati*n mor* f*exible and diversify, in orde* to ***ble the emergence of *ew </line>

<line> institutional an* o*ganizat*onal st*uctur*s **d t*at exist*ng inst*tutions, espe*iall* **iversi*ies, </line>

<line> could rethink t*eir iden*ity and develop *kills *h**ugh association *ith th* d*mands and </line>

<line> regio*al, loca*, producti*e sector and labor *arket requirements (Brasil, *ec, 1996). </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> In this way, the searc* for the moderni*ation a*d expan*ion *f higher educa*ion i* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> B*azil cre*ted a scenario, in such * w*y that c*mpet*ti*eness became an e*ement of </line>

<line> instituti*nal pr*ssure fo* be*ter management practi*es and, co*sequ*n*ly, the co*stant *ncr*ase </line>

<line> in effectiveness a*d *ff*ciency (Mu*iel, 2*06). </line>

<line> 2.2 T*U Management and Perform*nc* Indicators *o* Braz*lian Fe*er*l Un*versities </line>

<line> Several *nternational ini*iatives have f*cused their effo*ts on proposal* f*r evaluation </line>

<line> in*exes (Yoneza*a, 20*8; Bertolin, *007; N**arra, 2004; Biggeri, & Bini, 20*1; Dundar, & </line>

<line> Le*is, 199*; *orld *ank, 1994), that i*, how instrumen*s to support the process of evalua*ing </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> the efficie*cy of universities. Then, </line>

<line> the importance of thi* *opi* *s highlighted, as well a* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> hi**ligh*ing the various criticisms related to the adequacy and effective us*fu*n*ss o* metrics </line>

<line> for th* i*ternal an* ext*rnal evaluation process of highe* education institutions (Sant*s et al, </line>

<line> *0*8; *antos et al, *01*). </line>

<line> The search for grea*er effectiv**ess in th* m*ssion of th* publ** organization, great*r </line>

<line> *ost reduction, greater de*ree *f efficiency, commitment t* the p*blic, as *ell as </line>

<line> R*v. FSA, Teresina PI, v. 20, n. 8, art. 3, p. 41-63, ago. 2023 www4.fsanet.com.br/revista </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> A. *. Santos, D. F. V. Martins, *. S. Sousa, *. J. V. *antos </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> **ga*iza*ional management practices are s*me of *he variabl*s fo*nd *n *ublic administration </line>

<line> that m*y se*v* as * para**te* to measure th* degr** of orga*ization*l p*rform*nce. From this </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> perspect*v*, *erformance mana*eme*t becomes a *ystematic set of </line>

<line> actions *ha* se*k to </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> establish the resu*ts to be ac*ieved and t*e resources needed to do then, al*o inc*uding *he </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> m*chanisms for **igning t*e im*lementing str*ctures </line>

<line> and the m*nitoring and *valuat*on </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> syste* (*rasil, 201*). </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> The use of managemen* indi*at*r* aims, *n t*is sense, at </line>

<line> provid*ng acti**s whi*h </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> allow * *etter manageme*t o* ava*la*le re*our*es a*d, at the sa*e ti*e, informing th* </line>

<line> com*unity about th* us* of these resour*es, in addi*ion, it can exe*c*se, from the per*pective </line>

<line> of the citi*en and *uperior superv*sory entities, a bett** contro* in ev**uating the *ubli* </line>

<line> man*gers\ p*rformance (*ant*s et *l, 2018; Santos et al, 20*7; *eis, *011). **d, in t*e </line>

<line> c*nte*t of higher *duc*tion i**titut*ons in Brazi*, Decre* nº 92.*0*/*985, in Art. 1, item I*, </line>

<line> **clar*s as an obj**tive the im*lementation of a mo*itori*g a*d *valuat*o* *ystem. </line>

<line> In t*is sense, i* is worth me*tioning that in the second ha*f of th* 1990s, ext**nal </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> gained releva*ce fr*m the *ational Cour*e E*amination (ENC) and, *n 2002, the </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> establi**ment of management *ndicato*s by th* Federal A*dit Court toget*er with the Fede**l </line>

<line> Secretariat. *f Int*r**l Co*t*o* *nd t*e Hi***r Education Secr*tariat of the Education </line>

<line> **nistry (SESu) (Bra*il, 2014). </line>

<line> And, in *004, Brazi*ian Gov*rnment, thro*gh Law No. 10,861 from April *004, </line>

<line> adopted t** National Higher Educa*ion Assessment System (Br*sil, **14). It wa* established </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> the fol*owing objectives: impro*ing the quality </line>

<line> *f hi*her edu*ation; expansio* a** supply </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> orie*tation; increased ins*itutional effectiveness; academic and social ef*e*tiveness; </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> affir*ation of auto**m* an* inst**utional identity, amo*g </line>

<line> o*hers. It is remarkable, howe*er, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> th*t the action </line>

<line> *f measu*i*g the level of </line>

<line> efficiency of a p*bl*c program can *e a *i*d of </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> refle*tion of the re** diffi**l*y of verifyin* and analyzing the fulfil*m*nt o* estab**shed goals </line>

<line> and objectives, corr*lat*ng the* with *he cos** n*cessary to achieve these results. </line>

<line> Acco*d*ng to the T*U, in it* d*cision n*. 4*8/2002, det*rmined that *ederal </line>

<line> un*versitie* should incorporate n*ne p****rmance i*dicators in t*eir *an*gement reports, with </line>

<line> t*e aim a* *uilding a historical series *f the evolution of releva** manage*ial asp**t*, g*iding </line>

<line> to the a*dit of an *perat*o*al *a*ure in te**s of good admini*tr*tive pra*tices. Such indicators </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> are au*ili*ry too*s *n m*nitoring the per*o*mance of en*ities, servin* </line>

<line> an ins*rument f** </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *mproving the *a**gem**t fr*m IFES (Brasil, 201*). </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> In *his sense, th* use of perform*nce indicators to measure </line>

<line> **e resul*s *chi*ve* by </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> managers refers to a </line>

<line> techn*que related to the concept of per*o*mance </line>

<line> acc*untabilit*, and </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *ww4.fsanet.com.br/*ev*sta </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> P*rformance in Public Manageme*t: *omparing Efficiency, Effectiveness a*d Effe*tiveness Betw*e* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> which also co*tr*bute t* *h* process o* transpa*ency on how </line>

<line> *ublic r**our*e* are being </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> man*ged *nd *hat results are </line>

<line> bei** achieved. Still </line>

<line> fr*m the point of vie* of </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> man*gement, *he*e </line>

<line> indicator* are p*esented as a feed*ac* or feedback tool for the </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> orga*izatio*al learning process, helping both in the prepa*at*on *f planning and control </line>

<line> (Brasil, 2014). </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Accordi*g to Execut*on Rule **. 5, of December 28, </line>

<line> 2007, Annex * (CG* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Ordinance </line>

<line> 1*/28/2007), th* TCU ind*cators are se*a*ated into **oups *f </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> indicato*s: efficien*y, </line>

<line> *ffect*ven*ss, effectivenes* and compar*bility; wher* the '*fficiency </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> indicators' establish the rel*tio*ship between the results obtained and the re*ources us*d; *he </line>

<line> 'effic*c* indicat*rs' refer to th* result or e**n the com*a*ison *f goals achie*ed with plann*d </line>

<line> goals; t*e 'effectiveness indicator*' are related to the *ffe*ti*e result and impacts *f the Un*t's </line>

<line> *er*or*ance that fulfill its instit*t*on*l respon*ibilities; and yet, the 'c*mpa*abi*i*y indicators' </line>

<line> *ha* have 2.2. T*U Manag**ent and P*r*ormance Ind*cators for Brazilian **deral </line>

<line> Unive*sities. </line>

<line> Severa* inter*ati*nal initiatives have focu*e* their *ffo*ts on proposal* for *valuation </line>

<line> in*ices (Y**eza*a, ***8; Ber*oli*, 2*07; Na*arra, 2004; Biggeri, & *ini, 20*1; Dundar, & </line>

<line> Lewis, 1999; World Bank, 1994), that is, ho* inst*um*nts to support t*e proce*s of eva*uat*ng </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *he efficiency of uni*ersit*es. In Brazil, for example, the evaluation </line>

<line> *f higher education </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> being dis*usse* *n publications in scientific j*urnals (Polidori, 2009; Zandavalli, 2009). Thus, </line>

<line> the impo*tance of this t*pic is *igh*ight**, as *ell ** highlig*ting the v*rious criticisms </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> related to the adequacy and effective u*efulness </line>

<line> of m**rics *or the interna* and </line>

<line> external </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> evaluation process *f high** education *nsti*ution* (*anto* et al, 2018; Santos et *l, 2017). </line>

<line> The sea*ch for greater effectiveness ** *he mission o* *he public organization, gr*a*er </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> cos* reducti*n, g*eater degree of efficie*cy, </line>

<line> commitment to the public, as wel* as </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> organi*atio**l management pr*ctices are some of the variables *ound in pub*ic administration </line>

<line> *hat can serve as * pa**meter to measu*e the degree of organi*ation*l per*orman*e. From this </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> perspective, *e*formance management *ecomes a </line>

<line> systematic set of act*on* that seek to </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *stabli*h </line>

<line> the results to be ac*ie**d and the r*so*rces neede* to do s*, including </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> mechanisms *o* al*gning *he *mplementin* structures and th* *oni*o*ing and </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> system (Br*sil, 2014). </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> The use of man*gem*nt indicator* aims, i* t*is sense, to provide ac*ion* that allow a </line>

<line> better managemen* of av*il*ble reso*rces and, at t*e same time, inf*rm *he c*mmunity ab*ut </line>

<line> *h* use o* these resources, in addition, *t c*n ex*rcis*, f*om the p*rspective o* the citiz*n and </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> sup*r*or supervi**ry entities, a b*tter control in eva*uating the *erf**mance of </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Rev. FSA, Te*esina PI, *. *0, n. 8, art. 3, p. *1-*3, a*o. 2023 w*w*.fsa*et.com.br/revist* </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> A. R. Santos, D. F. V. Martins, E. S. Sousa, A. J. V. Sant*s </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *anagers (Santos et al, 20**; *ant*s et a*, 2017; Reis, 2011). A*d, *n t*e context of higher </line>

<line> education institutions i* B*azil, Decree nº 92.200/1985, in *rt. 1, item IV, d*clar*s as *n </line>

<line> objective the implemen*ation *f a mo*itoring *nd eva*uation sys*em. </line>

<line> I* *his s*nse, it i* w*rt* m*ntion*ng th*t in t*e second half of the 199**, exter*a* </line>

<line> evaluation g*ined rel*vance from t*e National *ourse Examination (ENC) and, *n 2002, t*e </line>

<line> es*ablishm*nt of m*na*ement ind*cators by the Fe*eral Audit Court toge*her w*th the F*deral </line>

<line> Secretar*at. of Internal Control an* the Hig**r Edu*ati*n Secretariat of **e Education </line>

<line> Ministry (SESu) (Braz*l, 2014). </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *n*, in 2004, the Brazilian Go**rnment, throu*h Law No. 10,861 of April </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> adopted the Nati*nal Higher **ucation Asses*me** System (Brasil, 20*4). It establish*s *he </line>

<line> *ol**wi*g obj*cti*es: i*provin* the q**lity of hi*h*r e*ucation; expan*io* and *upply </line>

<line> orient*tion; increased institut*onal effect*venes*; academic an* s*cial ef*ectiveness; </line>

<line> affir*a*ion of autonomy and i*s*itutio*al identi*y, among ot*ers. I* *s no*ew*rth*, h**ever, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> that the acti*n of measuring the *evel of effic*ency of * public pro**am can be a kind </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> reflecti*n of t*e rea* diffi*ulty *f verifying and ana*y*ing the fulfi**ment of est*bl*shed goals </line>

<line> an* obj*c*ive*, *orrel*ting them with the costs necessa*y to achieve t*ese re*u*t*. </line>

<line> According to th* TCU, ** it* decision no. 408/2002, determined *hat federal </line>

<line> univ*rsities should **corpo*ate nine per*or*ance indicato*s in t*eir man*gement reports, w*th </line>

<line> *he aim of build*ng a h**tor*cal seri*s of the ev*luti** of r*levant manager*al aspects, gui**ng </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> the audi* of an operational nature </line>

<line> te*ms of g*od *dmin*strative </line>

<line> ind*cators </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> are a*xiliary tools in m*nitorin* the </line>

<line> pe*fo**ance of entities, *er**ng as *n instrument f** </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> improving th* management of IFES (Br*sil, 20*4). </line>

<line> In this *ense, the use *f perform*nce indic*tors to meas*re th* re*ults *chieve* by </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> m**age*s *ef*rs to tech*iqu* related to th* concept of a </line>

<line> performance </line>

<line> accountabilit*, and </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> w*ich also contribute </line>

<line> to the pro*ess ** *ransparency *n how public resources </line>

<line> are being </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> managed and what results ar* being achie*ed. St*ll fr*m *he </line>

<line> of view of *ublic </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> mana*ement, </line>

<line> **ese in*icato*s are *resented as a feedback or f*edba*k tool fo* *he </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> organizational </line>

<line> le*rnin* process, </line>

<line> he*pi*g both in the preparat*on of plannin* and *ontr*l </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> (Brasil, 2014). </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Acco*d*ng to Execution Rule N*. 5, of D*cember 28, 20*7, Annex V (CGU </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> O**inance No. 1.950/2007, of 12/28/**07), t*e TCU indic*tor* are sepa*ated into g*oups </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> indica*o*s: effic*en*y, effectivene*s, ef*ec*i*en*ss </line>

<line> and comp*rability; *he*e </line>

<line> th* 'effic*en*y </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *ndicators' establish the relationsh*p b**wee* t*e results obtain*d and the r*source* used; the </line>

<line> 'efficacy indicators' refer to the re*ult or even the comp*rison of goals ach*eved with p*a*ned </line>

<line> *e*. FSA, Teresina, v. 2*, *. 8, ar*. 3, p. *1-63, *go. 2023 www4.f*ane*.com.br/r**ista </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> Pe**o*mance in Public Management: Comparing Efficiency, Ef**ctiveness *nd Ef*ective*ess Between </line>

</par>

<par>

<row> *oals; the 'e*fe*tiv**ess indi*ators' ar* *elated to the effective resu*t and impacts of th* Unit's </row>

<row> performance t*at f*l*ill its i*stitutional responsibiliti**; a*d also *he 'co**arabilit* indi*ators' </row>

<row> that aim t* **co*d chang*s t*at hav* taken place ov*r a ce**ain peri*d of time (Brasi*, 201*). </row>

<row> *hus, *o* thi* work, efficiency, effectiveness a*d ef*ec*iv*ness in**c**o*s were used, </row>

<row> as des*ribed in Table 1: </row>

<row> T*b** * - D*s*riptio* of effi*iency, effectivene*s and effecti*en*ss indicators </row>

</column>

<par>

<line> TYPES </line>

<line> INDICATOR </line>

<line> O*JECTIVE </line>

<line> Current cos* / equivalent stu*e*t (C*AE) </line>

<line> Represent* current expendit*re per stude*t and i*s value ov** expenditures *t *he in*tit*tion. In pri**i*le, a lower co*t per stude*t sh*u*d t*anslate i**o effic*ency in p*bl*c spending. </line>

<line> Fu*l-time st*den* / equ*valent t*acher (ATIPE) </line>

<line> It is underst*od that the *reater the nu*be* of prof*ssors relatio* to the *umber *f s*ud*nts, in *he bette* *he atten*ion and supp*rt to them, favoring grea*er *roducti*ity of *he tea*hin* resource*\ ins*itution. </line>

<line> It is un**rs*ood that the greater *h* number o* *mploy*es rel**ive to the number of s*udents, the *etter the a*tention and sup*ort **ven to them, favoring greater produc*iv**y at the institu*ion. </line>

<line> Eq*ivalent *mployee / equ*valent teacher (FEPE) </line>

<line> Repr**e*ts the siz* of the indire*t support body *o the s*udent and the teache* and the *i*e of *he support body and dire*t as*ista*ce to the *tude*t, ha*ing a *irect relations*ip with the stu*ent's *ducation. </line>

<line> CAP*S *onc*pt (CAPES) </line>

<line> It is *n i*dicator for ass*ssing **e **ality of graduate c*urses. A better con*ept f*r pos*graduate studies can h*ve a p*sitive relationship w*th the performan*e *f undergra*uat*s, cons*der*ng that a *etter pos*graduate degree s*ould also indicate qual*ty un*ergraduate educ*tion. </line>

<line> Qualification *ndex of the f*c*lty (IQC*) </line>

<line> It re*resents *he qua*ification of *he teac*ing staf* in relation to the*r tit*e, that *s, the better the q*alification, t** better prepared a*d more involved with re*earc*, ext*nsion and teaching activities. </line>

<line> Success rate in University gradua*e (TSG) </line>

<line> Re*resents *h* number of students who c*mp*ete the *ourse w*thin t*e *xpecte* *uration, dire*tly refle*t*ng on the *uality and inv*stments in assistance, **ho*ar*hips, housing, r**taurants, by th* instit*tio*. </line>

<line> Studen*\s participation degree ( G* E ) </line>

<line> It *ims t* r*veal *o *ha* degree student* use the installed capaci** at *he IES and *he spe*d of *urricular int*grati*n, sugge*tin* that *he more full- *im* students, *he *etter fo* their tr*ining *nd p*ssibly the b*tte* thei* f*ture performance. </line>

<line> Post-Graduat*on involvement degre* ( GE P *) </line>

<line> It aims at port*ay the degree of involveme*t i* research and postgra*uate activities, wh*re greater studen* i*volvement fa*or* their perfor*an*e, and more inv*s*me*ts i* n** la*orator*es, li*raries, research groups and pr*je*ts, schola*sh*ps, among others. </line>

</par>

<row> Re*. FSA, T*resina PI, v. 20, *. *, ar*. 3, p. **-63, *go. 2023 www4.f*anet.*om.*r/revi*ta </row>

</column>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> A. R. Santos, D. F. V. Mart*ns, E. S. Sous*, A. J. V. Santos </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> A *ew variable was al*o introd*ced *n or*er to measure the budgetary efficienc* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> institution, defined by the rela*ions*i* between the *lanned *udget, *esul*ing </line>

<line> **itial </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> allocation, and </line>

<line> one actuall* execute* at the end of the yea*. From this perspective, it is </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> i*portant *o *i*hlight Dec*ee N*. </line>

<line> 7,233 *f July 19, 201*, which pro*i*es for budgetary, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> a*ministrativ* and fi*ancial </line>

<line> procedi*gs rel*te* u*iv*rsi** a**onomy, also refe*ring to art. to </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> 20* of the F*deral Co*s**tution. According to art. 4 *f the same decree, for the *repar*ti*n of </line>

<line> annual budget proposals for federal universities, th* E*ucation M*nis*ry w*ll tak* i*to *ccount </line>

<line> *he so-called distributi*n ma*rix, f** the alloca*ion o* res*urc*s destined to e*penses classified </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *s '*ther current and capital ex*enses', in whi*h the ela*o**tion o* </line>

<line> this *atrix must follow </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> p*evio**ly estab***hed paramet*rs (B*asil, 2014). </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Th*re has been a contin*ous effort on the part of a*ademics to validat* s*atistics on the </line>

<line> performa*ce from IFES, in o*der t* adj*st meth*ds, models, perfo*mance indicators, as well </line>

<line> a* *r*v* w*ether the be*efit* **ovid*d by IFES *erve so*iety a*equa*ely (G*l*ão e* al., </line>

<line> 3 METHODOLOGY </line>

<line> The present inves**gation was based on the pa**digm between management and </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> performance, making use </line>

<line> of the *n*ica*ors adopted by the TCU. The </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *ased *n the c*it**ion of a*cessibi*ity *o th* researche* da*a referring to </line>

<line> years 2015 to </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> 2*19 established by the TCU, in its d*cision no. *08/2002, extracted from *anag*m*** </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> reports. Thus, 63 (six*y-three) I*ES </line>

<line> re*earc* sample, which </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> co*responds to 91.3% of all Br*zilia* federa* un*ve*sitie*, </line>

<line> bein* exclu*ed from </line>

<line> the prese*t </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> research *h* newly "created" fede**l universities, namely: Federal Unive**ity *f the Parna*ba </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> **lta, Federal U*iversi** of Jataí, Federal Universi*y ** Agreste o* Pernambu*o, </line>

<line> Federal </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> U*i*ersity of Rondonópolis, Federal Unive*sity of Catalão and the Fe*eral *niversi** </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Nor*hern Tocantins. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> The universi*ies su*veyed were: University of Brasília, F*deral University of G*iás, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Fede**l University of Mato *rosso </line>

<line> do Su*, Fe*eral University of Grande Dourados, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Univer*ity of M*t* *ros*o, Federal U*iver*ity of Alagoas, Federal Unive*sity of B*hi*, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *ed*ral Un*versity </line>

<line> of Recôncavo Baiano, *ederal Uni**rs*ty of Wes*ern Bahia, Fede*al </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Uni*er*ity of Sou*h*rn Bahia, F*d*r*l Universi*y of Ceará, Federal Univ**sit* of Cariri, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> University of *nt*rnational **t*gra**o* of Af*o-Br*zilia* L*sophony, Federal Unive*sity </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Mar*nhã*, F*deral Uni*ersi*y of Paraíba, *ederal Un*versity of C*mp*na Grande, </line>

<line> Federal </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Rev. FSA, Te*esina, v. 2*, *. 8, art. 3, p. 41-63, ag*. 2*23 www4.fsanet.com.br/re*ista </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> Per**rmance in Publi* Management: Comparing Efficiency, *ffective*ess an* *ffectiv*ness Be*ween </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> **iversity of Pern*mbuc*, Fed*ral *ural Univer*i*y *f Pernambuco, Feder*l Univ**s*ty of </line>

<line> Piauí, Federal University of Rio Grande do Nort*, Federal Ru*al U*iversity of the *e*iar**, </line>

<line> Un*v*rsida* Federal University of Ser*ipe, Federal University Vale do *ão Fra*cisco, Fed*r** </line>

<line> U*iv*r*i*y of Amazonas, Federal Ru**l Un*versi*y of Amaz*nas, Federa* Univer*ity of *cre, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Federal Un*versity </line>

<line> of Tocantins, Fed*ral Univ*rsity </line>

<line> *f Rondônia, Federa* University o* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Rorai*a, *edera* Uni***sity of Amapá, F*deral Unive*sity of Par*, Federal University *f </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Wester* Pará, Fed*ral University of *he South and Southeast o* Par*, Federal Univ*rsit* of </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Alfena*, Fe*er*l U*iversity of Itajubá, Federa* Univer*ity of Juiz *e Fora, Fe*eral Univer*ity </line>

<line> of Ouro P*eto, Federal Universit* of Lavras, Feder*l Uni*ersity of M*nas Gerais, Fe*eral </line>

<line> U*iver*ity of São J**o Del R*i, Universi*y Federa* Un**ersity *f Uberlâ*dia, Feder*l </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> University </line>

<line> of **çosa, Federal Univer**ty of Triângulo Mineiro, Univers*ty of </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Jequ*tinhonh* and Muc*ri **lleys *M, Federal Uni*e*si*y o* *he State of São Paulo, F*de*al </line>

<line> Unive*sity of A*C, Federal *niversit* of São Carlos, Federal University of Espír*to Santo, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> **deral University *f F*onteira do *ul, Feder*l Unive*sity *f </line>

<line> the State of Ri* de J**eiro, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *lum*ne*se Fe**ral University, Feder** University of Rio de Ja*eiro, Fede*al Ru**l </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Uni*ersity ** Rio *e Janeiro, Federal Univers**y of Santa Catari*a, Fe*era* Uni*ersity of </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Latin American Integrati*n, Federal U**versity of </line>

<line> H*alth S**en*es ** *orto Alegr*, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> University of P*m*a, Federal Universit* </line>

<line> *f Pa*aná, F**eral T*chnolo*i*al University of </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Paraná, Fed**al U*iversity of Rio Grande, Federal Uni**rs*ty *f Rio G*ande *o *ul, **deral </line>

<line> Uni*er*ity *f Pelo*as *nd Federa* U*ivers*ty of *anta Maria. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Ini**ally, the e*istence of *issing val*es was not ver*fied. Th*se amounts wou*d </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> im*act the final result. It *s also impor**nt to mention t*** the nominal values *f the var*able </line>

<line> current c**t per equi*a*e*t *tudent (*C*E) were c*r*ected *o net *resent values bas*d on **e </line>

<line> Nati*nal Consumer *rice Index (INPC), reference val*es for measuring offici*l i*flation. This </line>

<line> measur* was take* *o tha* *e could more a*curately *nd r*alisti*ally purchas* the *aria**e. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *oon afte*, the *vera*e of the variab*es was measured per year, and l*ter </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> ac*umulat*d average of the *eriod by I*es. In a *econd mome*t, the maxim** an* m*nimu* </line>

<line> values, me*n, *tan*ard d*viation *n* varia*ce o* the indicators were me*sured ov*r the period </line>

<line> from 20*5 to 2019. T*e*, the correlation **twe*n th* variables *as m*asure*, using Pearson's </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> p*rameters, </line>

<line> from - to +1, being negati*e 1 </line>

<line> and/or positive *espectively. Finally, </line>

<line> the cluster </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> analysis techn*que w*s appli*d, with the obj*ct*ve of grouping the H*Is fro* the complete set </line>

<line> of var**bles, *n order to under*tand their com*o*ition t*rough these group*ngs. </line>

<line> *s mentioned above, * sample *f sixty-three IFES was used, corresp*nding to 91.3% o* </line>

<line> **e univers* of f*deral insti*utions of higher edu*a**on in Br*zil. Ni** perform*nce indic*tors </line>

<line> **v. FS*, Teresina *I, v. **, n. 8, art. 3, p. 41-63, ago. 2023 *ww4.f*anet.com.br/revista </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> A. R. *antos, D. F. *. Martin*, E. S. S*usa, A. J. V. Santos </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> wer* *se*: current cost/student (CCAE), full-time student/teacher (ATIPE), full-t*me </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> student/emp*oyee </line>

<line> (ATIFE), </line>

<line> equivalent </line>

<line> *mployee/te*cher </line>

<line> CAPES </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> (*CAPES), quali*ication index of faculty (IQCD), graduation succ*ss rate (TSG), </line>

<line> degree of </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> student parti**pation (GPE) and **gre* *f i*volvem*nt with graduate *tu*ies (G**G), </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> which four *re consi**red i*dic*t*r* of e*fi*iency, *hr*e *s indi*ators of effectiveness and two </line>

<line> of *ffectivene*s. </line>

<line> 4 ANAL*SIS OF RESUL*S </line>

<line> 4.1 Avera*e performance analysis </line>

<line> Tabl* 1 p*esents the ave*age *alu*s *er **ar of the *er*ormance i*dicato*s for the </line>

<line> *eriods of 201*, 2016, 201*, 2018 and *0*9 considerin* the universiti*s surv**ed. </line>

<line> Table 1 - A*erage p*rformance by year. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> ATIFE </line>

<line> CAPES </line>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

<line> Total </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> S*ur*e: *repare* b* th* auth*rs (202*). </line>

<line> It is noted that the lowest average current cost per student (*C*E) meas*red occu*red </line>

<line> in 2019 a*d the hig*est in 2015, pointing to a gener** reduct*on in cu*rent cost p** *q*ivalen* </line>

<line> student ove* the pe*iod. As for the r*tio of ful*-time student and teac*er (ATIPE), t*e *owest </line>

<line> ratio occurs in 201* and the hig*est r*tio occurs in 2019. Regard*ng th* ful*-ti*e student and </line>

<line> employee (ATIFE), the lowest ra*io occur* *n 2*15 and the highes* in 201*. Regarding *he </line>

<line> emp*o*ee-teacher ratio (FE*E), the *owest ra*io oc*urs *n 2019 and the h**hes* in *015. *n </line>

<line> this *ase, a *ec*eas* over *he period is evident, w**ch may have been due to *he inc*ease *f </line>

<line> the numbe* *f profes*ors *e**g hir*d, probabl* d*e ** the op*ning ** new *our*es, to the </line>

<line> detrime*t of the hi*ing of n*w *mploye*s, de*tined to *u*port activi**es and aca*e*ic </line>

<line> *cti*ities or purposes of Ifes. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> consi*er that t*e ta*geted performan*e indica*ors cate*orized as </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> eff*cien*y i*proved over the p*riod, especially i* *019 *or having presented the bes* av**age </line>

<line> R*v. FSA, Teresina, v. 20, n. 8, art. 3, *. 41-6*, *go. 2023 www4.fsane*.com.br/revista </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> Pe*formance in Pu*lic Manage*ent: Co*parin* *fficienc*, Effectiveness *nd E*fectiven*ss B**wee* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> results for the C*AE, ATIP* and *TIFE ind*cator*, t*at is, th*** *f the four indi*ators of </line>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

<line> Rega**ing th* effecti*eness indicators, the student participat*on in un*erg*ad**t* and </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> graduate studi*s, *tability was observed both in the GPE </line>

<line> over the period, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> evi*enci*g *h*t there **s </line>

<line> *o increa*e i* st*d*n* involveme*t, either at undergraduate or </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> postgraduate level* gradua*i*n, with academic activit*es. This same t*end **n *e observed - </line>

<line> *or t*e effectiven**s ind*c*tors over the per**d. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *a*le 2 p*esents the averag* value* by region of </line>

<line> t*e pe*formanc* indica*ors for </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *eriods *f 2015, 20*6, 2017, 2018 and 2019 consideri*g the *niversities *u**eyed. </line>

<line> T*ble 2 - Average per*ormance by re*ion. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> REGION </line>

<line> ATIPE </line>

<line> CAPES </line>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

<line> *ORTHEAST </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> M*DWEST </line>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

<line> S*urce: *repared *y t*e aut*ors (2021). </line>

<line> It ma* ** seen that th* North *egion r*corded the *owest average perfo*manc*, whil* </line>

<line> *he Northe*st re*ion had the highest cons*der*ng the CCA*. F*r ATIP*, it w*s *ou*d that *he </line>

<line> North region h*d *he lowest ratio, wh*le the *outheast region had the *igh*st ratio. W*th </line>

<line> reg*rd to th* ATIFE indi*ator, it wa* observed *hat the small*st relationship presented *as in </line>

<line> the *or*heast region, *hile the large*t relationship occurred in the Midwest region. A*d, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> considering the FEPE ind*cator, the lowest ratio wa* recorded for </line>

<line> the North re*ion and </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> hig*e*t for the Sou*h**st region. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> For the effe*tivenes* indicators, GPE a*d *EPG, **e best ra*es w*re obser*ed for </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Southeas* </line>

<line> and South reg*on*, res**cti*e*y; *n* **e lowest rate **r the N*r*h region for bo*h </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> indic*tors. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *egarding t*e *AP** i*dicator, i* was found *h*t *he be*t con*ep* was gi*en in th* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Sout**ast *egion, and the </line>

<line> lowe** i* th* *orth region; *n r*lat**n t* *he IQCD indicat*r, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> highest *n*ex *as re*is*ere* for the Southea*t </line>

<line> and *outh r*g*o*s, w*th a value of *.54 for </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> both, and the lowest ind*x fo* the North regi*n; fin*lly, with regard to the TSG indica*or, the </line>

<line> *est rate *as *bserved for the Southe*st *egion and the lowest *ate for the No*theast region. </line>

<line> Rev. FSA, T*resina *I, *. 20, n. 8, art. 3, p. 41-63, ago. 2*23 www4.fsane*.c*m.br/r*vista </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> A. R. Santo*, D. F. V. Mar**ns, E. S. *ou*a, A. J. V. Sant*s </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> 4.2 De*c*ipt*ve *nalysis of vari*b*es </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> **ble 2 sho** a de**riptive analy*is of the *at* *ndicat*ng the *ean, me*ian, standard </line>

<line> deviation and variance, reflecting the averag* pe*for***ce of t*e IFES in that exerc*s*. </line>

<line> *able * - D*s*riptiv* sta*istics </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> A*erage </line>

<line> Standard </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Varianc* </line>

<line> Kurtosi* </line>

<line> Statistic </line>

<line> Deviation </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> S*atisti* </line>

<line> Stati*tic </line>

<line> Statistic </line>

<line> S*a*istic </line>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

<line> CAPES </line>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

<line> So*rce: Prepare* by th* auth*rs (20*1). </line>

<line> It is possib*e *o *eas*re a* accumulated a*erage *ispersion *f the standar* deviat*on </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> around </line>

<line> 45.52% o* the va**ables, where the CAPES vari**le *ith the *re*test d*spersion and </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> the smal*est for the IQCD variabl* wit* rega*d to the *tandard deviation, that i*, ho* m*c* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> the measured results deviate from </line>

<line> t*e cen*r*l measur*s. In r*lation to asymmetry, *here is * </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> departure from the av*r*ge **lues, cha*acterizing t*e behavior of </line>

<line> the **ymmetric variabl**, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> w*ile for kurtosis, a positive trend is </line>

<line> pe*ceived in r*lation to the f*attening of the *or*ality </line>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

<line> 4.3 Corre*ation *nalysis </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *a**e 2 r*presents the corr*lat*ons between the **riables measured over </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *urvey*d. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *ev. FSA, Teresina, v. 20, *. 8, art. 3, *. 41-63, a*o. 2023 </line>

<line> www4.fsanet.com.br/revista </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> Performance in Public Management: Com**ring Efficiency, E*f*ctiveness *nd Effectivene*s B*twe*n </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Table 2 - Corr*lation be*ween vari*bles </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> VARIA*LES </line>

<line> ATIPE </line>

<line> ATIFE </line>

<line> CAPES </line>

<line> Pearson\s correla*io* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Sig. (2 extremit*es) </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Sig. (* extremities) </line>

<line> Pe*rson\s correlation </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Sig. (2 extremities) </line>

<line> Pear*on\s correlati*n </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> S*g. (2 extre*ities) </line>

<line> Pearson\* correl*tion </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Sig. (2 *xtremit*es) </line>

<line> Pearson\s cor*elation </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Sig. (2 **tremit*es) </line>

<line> Pe**son\s correl*t*o* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Sig. (2 extremi*ies) </line>

<line> Pearson\s correlatio* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Pearson\s correlation </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Sig. (2 extrem*ties) </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Source: Pre*ared by t*e aut**rs (2021). </line>

<line> Thr*ugh th* correla*ion a*al*sis, t*e pos*tive or neg*tive inf**ence o* one variabl* in </line>

<line> rel*t*on to the other betwe*n t*e value* from -1 *o +1 is perceiv*d. *hus, in relation t* *CA*, </line>

<line> m*dian an* ne*a*ive rela*ionships were verifi*d with the varia**e* ATI**, A*IFE *nd TSG, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *eak rel**ionships FEPE, GPE, GEPG, C*PES and IQCD. H*we*er, the relationship </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> TSG is no*ew*rthy, as the C*AE *an b* direct*y infl*enced by the students' *epa*tur* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> within *he al*otted time, *t the **me whe* there s*ould b* a str*n* positive *el*tionsh*p with </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> t*e ATIPE and ATIFE, as it directly rela*e* to **e *elati*nship w*th teache*s. in the final is </line>

<line> activity and with the te*hnicians in *h* s*ppo*t activit*. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Rev. FSA, T**esina PI, v. 20, n. 8, art. 3, p. 41-63, ago. 20*3 </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> A. R. Santos, D. F. V. Ma*ti*s, *. S. S*usa, A. J. V. Sant*s </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *e*arding the rela*ionships *easured b*tween the highligh* o*ly the me**an </line>

<line> r*lation*hip wi*h t*e **G, whi*e the IQCD has a weak relat**nsh*p, which points to the </line>

<line> *u*li*ication o* the teachi*g *taff. </line>

<line> 4.4 Cluster Analysis </line>

<line> *o know s*ecific and multivariate clusters *f the I*ES, a k-means procedure wa* </line>

<line> p*rfo*med, where the nu*ber of clusters is *re-define* and an a**lomeration *roce*ur* is </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> used. For this *ase, the criterion c*l*ed fur*hest neighbor was used, w*ich </line>

<line> groups s*milar </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> objects in *a*h *luster w**le reinforc*ng the dissimilarity *etween them, a* the *ame tim* that </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> the *umber of c*ust*rs w*s *etermi*ed *s five, </line>

<line> con*idering that *her* are five reg*on* in </line>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

<line> T*ble 3 prese*ts the prof*l* or cluster centers based *n the v*ria*les. </line>

<line> T*ble 3 - End cluster cente** </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> C*USTER </line>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

<line> ATIPE </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> ATIFE </line>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

<line> V*RIABLES </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> S*urce: Prepared *y the authors (2021). </line>

<line> It is pos*i*le to observe throu*h Table 3 the grouped *r simil*r valu*s of e*ch *ariable </line>

<line> *or *a*h formed cl*st*r, *here the v*l*e* found tend to represent simil*r beha**or among *he </line>

<line> universities s**v*yed. </line>

<line> Table * *i*tr*butes the researched I*ES *y cl*ster, thus pro*i**n* a better </line>

<line> und**standi*g *f the similarities an* similarities assess*d. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> R*v. F*A, Teresi*a, v. *0, n. 8, *rt. 3, p. 4*-6*, ago. 2023 </line>

<line> *ww4.f*anet.com.br/revist* </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> Perform*nc* in Public Man*ge*ent: Com*aring Eff*ciency, *ffecti*ene*s and Effectiveness Bet*een </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Tab*e 4 - Distribu*ion of Ifes by clu*ter </line>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

<line> UFFS, UFGD, ***el, *FR*, UFRR, UFRRJ, UNI*ESP, *NI*A, UNIRIO </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> UFSBA </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> UF*B, UNILAB </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> UFAL, UFAM, *FBA, UFC, UFERSA, *FL*, UFOPA, UFPA, *FPI, UFS, UFSJ, U*B, UNIFAL, UNIF*I, U*IVASF </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> FURG, *FA*, UFABC, U**A, *FCG, UFCSPA, UFES, UFF, UF*, UFJF, UFM*, UFM*, U**S, UFMT, UFOP, UFPB, UFPE, UFPR, UFRA, *FRB, *FR*S, UFRN, UFRP*, UFSC, UFSCar, UFSM, UF*, UFTM, UFU, UFV, UFVJM, U*IFAP, UNIFESSPA, UNIPAM*A, UNIR, UFTPR </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Source: P*ep*red *y the authors (2021). </line>

<line> It is veri*ied that Cluster 1 is noted th*t the universiti** UNILA, UNIFESP, U***IO, </line>

<line> UFRJ and UFRRJ are from the Southea*t region, the universities UFFS and UFP*l from the </line>

<line> South r*gion, the UFR* un*ver*ity from the N*rth region, and the UF*D university f**m the </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> M*d**st region. is o**e*ve* *hat it not possibl* to point out a simi*a*ity *f re*u*ts to </line>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

<line> regionality, con*i*erin* un*ver*ities fro* different r*gions. </line>

<line> In Cl*ster 2, there was onl* one *niversity, *FSBA, in *he Northeast *egio*. T*at is, in </line>

<line> a way, we c*n say *hat these two universities *r*sented very diffe*ent behavior of in*icator* </line>

<line> or resul** **om *he oth**s, whe*her pos*tive at time* or even negativ*. In *e*ation *o Clu*t*r 3, </line>

<line> two u*iversi*i*s were o*served, b*in* UFOB *nd *NILAB in *he Nort*east region. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *egarding Cl**t*r 4, th* </line>

<line> universities *FA*, U*PA an* UFOPA ** the North </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> ob*erved; UFAL, UF*A, *FC, *F*RSA, UFP*, UFS a*d U*IVASF in t*e Northeast r**i**; </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *FLA, UN*FAL, UFSJ *n* **IFEI from the S*utheast region; *nd, only UnB </line>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

<line> Fin*lly, in rel*t*o* to C*u*ter 5, **e univer*iti*s UFAC, UFRA, UNI**SSPA, UFT a*d </line>

<line> UNIFAP in the North region were no*ed; UFCA, UFCG, UFPB, UFMA, UFRB, UFPE, </line>

<line> *F*PE and UFRN in the Northe*st **gion; UFG, UFMS *n* UFMT in the Midwest region; </line>

<line> UFABC, UFES, UFF, UFJF, UFMG, UFOP, UFSC*r, UFTM, UFU, UF*, U*VJM and </line>

<line> UNIR ** the Sou*heas* r**ion; and, FURG, UFCSP*, UFRGS, U*SM, UNIPAMPA, *F*R, </line>

<line> UT*PR and UF*C i* the South region. </line>

<line> *.5 AN*L**I* AND ****USSION </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> In Braz*l, *erformance anal*sis </line>

<line> in Brazilian *ed*ral un*v*rsities has been *uided </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> perf*rm**ce measurement (Sa*tos & Noronha, 2*16; Galvão, Cor*êa; & Alves, 2011; </line>

<line> Lu*oboni, 2010; Melo, S*rrico & Radnor, *010). I* t*is sen*e, the searc* for efficiency ha* </line>

<line> Rev. FSA, Teresi** PI, *. 20, n. 8, *rt. 3, p. 41-63, ago. 202* www4.fsanet.com.br/revi**a </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> A. R. Sant*s, D. F. V. Ma*tins, E. S. *ousa, A. J. V. Santos </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> guided n*w governme*ta* directions in th* face *f economic, technological *n* so***l </line>

<line> trans*orma*ions, modifying the *co*e of public s*r*ices (Melo, 2010; Duan, 2019). </line>

<line> It *s possibl* to **rc*i*e important dif*e*en*e* and similarities between institut*ons and </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> the*r region* *rom </line>

<line> p*rform*nce an* the </line>

<line> groups formed through *nterac*io*s. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Initially, Table 1 *eveals a negativ* accumulated </line>

<line> variation o* the current cost per student *f </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *round -12.55%, indicat*n* mo*e effi*ient application a </line>

<line> of res*urces over the peri*d; *nd, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> co*v*rging with an a*cumulat*d value *f 3.94% o* t*e student/teac*er *a*io, 20% *f the </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> student/em*loy*e ratio, and 4.*3% of the *u*cess ra*e; i* no*eworthy th*t *t </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> rati*ied in *he an*lysis of the cor*elat*ons *easured *n ta*le 2. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Gi*en th* dif**rences and *i*ilarities found, it conv*rges with the **sition of *unha </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> (2007) o* th* need to re-disc*s* poli*ies *nd their curre*t organiza*i*nal </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> frameworks. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Still in rela**on to the c*r*en* cost per stu*ent, the nort*er* r**ion st*nds o*t with </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> negati*e variation of the order of 1*.49% lower *n relation to the general average, *hil* in the </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> northeast r*gion </line>

<line> t**re w** a positive variation in relat*on to *he average of the order *f </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> .31%, that is, t*e nor*he*n region *r*moted a red*ct*on in *ts cu*r**t cost **r student, while </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> the n*rth*ast region </line>

<line> incr*ased its current cost. *herefore, effectiv*ness, cost r*duct*on, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> e*fici*ncy, best *racti*es a*d st*ndardized te*hnol**y are *ome *f the vari*ble* *ound in </line>

<line> public managem*nt that can *erv* as a pa*ame*e* to *easure orga*izational *erfor*ance </line>

<line> (A*erson, 2002). </line>

<line> It was also *oun* that the graduation succ*ss *ate i* th* northe*st reg*on s*ow** a </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> negative variation of 10.*8% in re*a*i*n to the </line>

<line> gene*al average, which co*flicts wi*h </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> incre*se in t** curre*t cos* variati*n. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> A*other im*ortan* in***ator wi*h veri*ied </line>

<line> accumul*ted variation was the *APES C*ncept, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> with a* accumulate* positive variation of around *2.23% *ver the period, wi*h the South*ast </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> region *aving the hig*est </line>

<line> positive v*riat*on in rel*tion to the average of </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> no*thern </line>

<line> region with </line>

<line> the greatest </line>

<line> negat*ve variation of 18.73% i* *el*ti*n to t*e general </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> average. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Regarding the *APES Co*c*pt, the posi*ive relations of the index *i*h the current cost </line>

<line> per student of *.643, *ith *he stud*nt/teacher *atio of *.596, w**h the student/empl*yee rat*o </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> of 0.705, w*ich seems *o *e a **int out ** th* curv*, are high*ighted. a priori it </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> pres*nt a direct and stro*g relationship; and with a succe*s r*te of 0.604, relating to </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> trai*ing of undergr*duate stude*ts. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *ev. FSA, *eresina, v. 20, n. 8, art. 3, p. 41-63, ag*. 2023 *ww4.*san*t.com.br/revi*ta </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> Performance in Public Managem*nt: Com*aring *fficie*c*, Effe*tiveness and Eff*cti**nes* Betw*en </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> It foll*ws, *her*fore, that a better *oncept for gr*du*te studies m*y ha*e a p*sitive </line>

<line> relationship wi*h the p*rforma*c* of *ndergraduates, consideri*g tha* a *ett*r g*aduate *ours* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> should also </line>

<line> in*icate quality undergradu**e </line>

<line> educ**io* (Brasi*, 2014). Still in relation to </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> CAPES Conc*pt, </line>

<line> low rel*tionship wit* the </line>

<line> teac*er quali*i*at*on *ndex, which </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> shou*d have a **rong relat*onsh** with this concep*, s*nce it ** assumed that t*e most qual*fie* </line>

<line> teacher* should be in postgraduate prog*ams. </line>

<line> In short, the no*ther* regi** pr*sent** th* greatest negat*ve variations *n rela*io* to the </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> gen**al *verag* f*r t*e in*icators CCAE, ATIPE, FEPE, GEPG, CAPES and IQC*; </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> north*ast re*ion *tood o*t w*th the greate*t positi*e variation for the C*AE, which *s bad, as </line>

<line> it *eno*es an incr*as* in cost, and the greates* negative variation f*r t*e TSG in re*ation to the </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> general ave*age, i*dicat*ng th** even with t*e increase in expens*s with *he student and </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> grea*er **rticipati*n of this stud*nt in teaching **tivitie*, according *o GPE, there were bad </line>

<line> results; in relati*n to the *entral west region, *he A*IPE and A*IFE indices stood *ut, tha* is, </line>

<line> it pres*nted the gr*a*est pos*t*ve va**ations in relation t* t*e general ave*age; for the Sout*eas* </line>

<line> r*gion, *he positive v*riation of t*e CAP*S Concept in r*lati*n to the *eneral average stood </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> and finally, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> sou*hern region h*d the greatest negativ* variation of the GPE *ndex, which *easu*es student </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> participatio* </line>

<line> *each*n* *ctivit*es, ** </line>

<line> co*trast with a greater </line>

<line> p*si*ive variati*n </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> index, whic* e**luates the p*rti*i*ation of postgra*uate *tudent*. graduat*on in activi*ies, and </line>

<line> also the *r*a**r po*i*ive v*riation in *ela*ion t* the ge*eral av*r*ge of t*e *TI*E, whi*h </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> conflicts with the GP*, as it showed an *ncrease </line>

<line> i* the st*dent/*mployee ra*io, that i*, mo** </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *mployees t* meet *he a*a*emic deman*s. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> ** this sense, the *omp*sition of the Clu*ters revealed similarities and di*ferences </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> ***we*n the vario*s inst*tutions in diff**ent regio*s. Cluste* 1 s*ood </line>

<line> out o*ly fo* pr*s*nting </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> **e best GE*G inde*, w*ere seve* of t*e nine HEIs ar* fr*m the Southea*t *n* South regions; </line>

<line> Cluster 2 showed *he w*rst *e*ults, with the exce*tion of the i*dex IQCD, *ut also compos*d </line>

<line> *f *nly *ne H*I, *h*ch characterizes it as *n outl**r *h*t need* ** be anal*zed in greater d**th </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> to bette* *nd**s*and its actions a*d relati**ships; Clus**r 3, composed o* two HEIs *n </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> northeast region, stoo* o*t for prese*ting the bes* </line>

<line> ratio *f the FE*E *ndex, t*at is, t*e best </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *elationship be*ween </line>

<line> pr*fessor a*d *m*loyee; Clu**e* 4, co*p*s** mos**y of HEIs in </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> nor**eas* and no*th, respecti*el*, sto*d o** in the CCAE </line>

<line> indica*ors, with the </line>

<line> *owest *ost, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> ATIFE, with the best relation*hip an* *he TSG *ith </line>

<line> highest s*cc*ss rate; and Cluster 5, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> compos*d mostly </line>

<line> of HEIs from th* Sout*eas* and S*uth, *tood out f*r presenti*g the best </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> ATIP*, GP* and CAPES index. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Rev. FSA, Teres*na PI, v. *0, n. *, art. 3, p. 41-63, ago. 2023 </line>

<line> w*w4.fsanet.com.br/revista </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> A. *. San*os, D. F. V. Ma*tins, E. S. Sousa, *. *. V. Santos </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> 5 FINAL CONS**ERATION* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Consi*ering th* re*evance of **udies involving *erfo**ance in public manag*ment, it </line>

<line> was possibl* to understa** *heir relationship *a*ed on varia*les of efficien*y, effe*tiveness </line>

<line> and *ffectiveness, esp*ci*lly *ithin the sco*e of fed**al universities. </line>

<line> In the meantime, secondar* data comp*is**g a universe of 63 fed*ral univer*ities *ithi* a time </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> span *etwee* the y*ars 2015 to 2019 were </line>

<line> re*ationship, where </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> multivari*te data techni*ues were used *rom cl*ster an*ly*** (clusters). </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Based on the identified cluster*, it was *oss*ble to *onclu*e on the </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> directly regionalizing th* results *easu*ed over th* d**imited period. In add*tion, it was a*so </line>

<line> possible *o i**nt*fy th** un*versi*ies have diff*rent and *imilar be*aviors *egardless of their </line>

<line> r*gion, sin*e *anagers are *ssi*n*d the decision to reallo**te r*sources diff*re*t*y from what </line>

<line> was previously *stabl*shed. </line>

<line> Thus, the per**rmance of t*e univers*ty it*elf wil* present itself d*fferently, reinforcing </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> the need to ali** strat*gic planning a*d performance </line>

<line> e**l*ation (Usoh & Preston, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> while it beco*es ev*dent that unive*si*ie* ar* complex org*nizatio*s (R**ovsky, 2014) , and </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> allo*ation decisions are guided a*d *ased *n evid*nce capabl* of poin*in* out </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> "what w*rks" and "why it works", in te*ms o* public interventions (Barbosa *t *l, 2020). </line>

<line> REFERENCES </line>

<line> A*ma, F. (2*10). Q*a*ita*ive Indicators for the e*al*atio* of uni*ersit*es p*rf*rmanc*. </line>

<line> *r*ced*a-Social and Behav*ora* Sciences, 2(*), 5408-5*11. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Arv*son P. Translating Performance Metr*cs fr*m th* *rivate </line>

<line> *o the Public Se*tor. (1999). </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> h*tp://ww*.balancedscorec*rd.o*g/TranslatingM**rics/tabid/1*9/Defaul*.aspx </line>

<line> Barbosa, M.P.; Petterini, F.C.; & Ferrei**, R.T. (2020). Federal un*versitie* expansion policy: </line>

<line> it i* po*sible to m*ximize *he im**cts. Journal *f Cont*mporary Manag*me*t, **(1), 1-24. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> B*rto*in, J.C.G. (200*). Q**lity Assess***t of </line>

<line> the B*azilian H*gher Education System in </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Times of Commercializ*tion - Period 1994-2003. (Doctoral **esi*) Fe*eral Univers*ty of Rio </line>

<line> Grande do Sul, Rio Grande, RS. </line>

<line> Bigger*, L., & Bini, M. (2001). Evaluation at u*iversity and sta*e level in Italy: need for a </line>

<line> system of eval*ation an* indic*tors. Tert*a** e*ucation *nd *anag*ment, 7(*), 149-16*. </line>

<line> B*AZI*. Refere*ce Guide for Performan*e Measurem*n* and Manual for Buil*ing *ndicators </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *f the Mana*ement S*cretari*t of the Min*stry </line>

<line> and Mana*ement - </line>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

<line> Rev. FSA, T**esina, v. 2*, n. 8, art. 3, p. 4*-63, ago. 2023 </line>

<line> www4.fsanet.com.br/rev*sta </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> Perform*nce i* Public M*nagement: Comparing Ef*ic**ncy, Eff*ctiv*ness an* Effectivenes* Between </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Castro, M.H.*. (1997, Decemb*r) Inaugural Le*tu*e. In: Proceed*ngs of t*e Intern**ion*l </line>

<line> Semina* on E*ucational Asse*sm*nt. R*o de ***e**o - RJ. </line>

<line> Cata*i, A. *. & Oliveira, J. F. Higher educ*ti*n. (2007). In Ol*veira, R. P., Adrião, T. (Org.). </line>

<line> Edu*ational o*ganization *n Brazil: levels and modalities *n *h* F**eral Constitution and in </line>

<line> *he LDB (*nd Ed., 73-84) S*o Paulo, SP: Xamã. </line>

<line> *orrar, *., J, Paul*, E., Di*s Fil*o, J M. (2007). Multiva*iate analysis. Sao Paulo, SP: Atlas. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Cunha, L.A. (2007). The meandering </line>

<line> deve*o*m*nt of Braz*lian education b*tween t*e *tat* </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> and the mark*t. Education & Soci*ty, 28(100), 809-829. </line>

<line> Dua*, S. X. **a*uri*g un*versi*y efficiency: an appli*atio* of data envelopment a*alys*s an* </line>

<line> strategic grou* ana*ys*s to Australian universities. (2019). B*n*hmarking: an Inter*at*ona* </line>

<line> Dun*ar, H.D., & Le*is, D.R. (1999). *qui**, qu*lity and *ffici*n*y e*fects of r**orm ** </line>

<line> Turkish higher edu**tion. Higher Educ*t*on Policy, 12(4), 343-366. </line>

<line> Gal*ão, H.M., Cor*ê*, H.L., & Alves, J.L. (20**). Global *e*form*nc* a*sessm*n* model for </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> higher ed*catio* instit**ions. Journal of Ad*inis*ration of </line>

<line> th* Federal Unive*si*y o* Santa </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Maria, 4(3), *25-441. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Lug*boni, L.F. (2011). Org*niz*tion** Pe***rma*ce A*se*sment *odels i* H*gh*r *ducation </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Ins*itutions Greater São Paulo (Ma*ter's Di*sert*tion). Univers*ty of *ão *ae*ano in </line>

</par>

<par>

</par>

<par>

<line> (2*10). The influ*nce of performance m*n*gement </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> systems ** key actors i* universities. *u*lic Management Revie*, 12(2), 233-254. </line>

<line> Mu*iel, R. (20*6). Institutional Development P*an-PDI: *nal*sis o* the implementatio* </line>

<line> process. Vitória, ES: Ho*er. </line>

<line> Navarre. (2004). N*varra Educa*i*n In*icator S*ste* 2003. Navar*a/Spain: Gobie*no *e </line>

<line> Navarra. </line>

<line> Oliveira, A.P. (2007). The pub*ic-*rivat* *elationship in t*e context of h*ghe* education. </line>

<line> (D*ctoral **esis). Federal Univ*rsity of Pernambu*o, Re*if*, PE. </line>

<line> ***idori, M.M. (2009). Brazilian higher edu*atio* eval*ation po*i*ies: Provão, SIN*ES, I*D, </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *the* i***ces. Evalua*ion: Jour*al *f Higher Educati*n **aluation </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> (C*mpinas), 1*(2), 4*9-452. </line>

<line> Rabovsky, T. M. Using da*a to manage for perfo*manc* at pu**ic unive*sit*es. (2014). Publ*c </line>

<line> A*ministration R*view, 74(1), 26*-**2. </line>

<line> Reis, C.Z.T. (2011). S*ages of ins*itution**iza*ion of the budget **loca*ion *o*el of B****lian </line>

<line> federal universities (Master's *issert*tion) - *e*eral Univ*rsity of Viçosa, V*çosa, MG. </line>

<line> *ev. FSA, Teresina PI, v. 20, n. 8, art. 3, p. 41-63, ago. 202* w**4.*sanet.com.br/r*vista </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> A. R. *anto*, *. F. V. Mart*ns, E. S. S*usa, A. J. V. Santos </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> **chards*n, *. (1*99). Social r*search: methods *nd techn*ques. Sao *aulo, SP: Atlas. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *anto*, A.R., *arbosa, F.L., Martins, *.*.V., & Mou*a, H.*.de. (2017). Bud*et, indicator* </line>

<line> and pe*formance ma*agement of Brazilian federal universities. Journ** of *ublic </line>

<line> Administration *nd Soci*l Manageme*t, *(4), 276-285. </line>

<line> S*ntos, A.R., Martins, *.F.V., *a*bos*, F.L., Mou*a, H.J.de., & Moura, E.A. (20*8). A </line>

<line> *ong*tudinal study *n the relationship be**een strat*gic plann*ng and per**rmance in fe*eral </line>

<line> unive*sitie* in northeast*rn Brazil. Qual*t@s Magazine, 19(1), 158-182. </line>

<line> Santos, *. M. dos., & No**nha, D. P. (2016). *he perfor*an*e of Brazilian universities in </line>

<line> in*ernatio**l ra*king*. In Question, 22(2), 1*6-2*9. </line>

<line> Sguis*ardi, *.; & Silva Junio*, J. (2001). New f*ces of higher education i* Brazil - St*te </line>

<line> reform and c**nges in produ*ti*n. São Paulo, SP: Cortez/Edusf. </line>

<line> Steiner, J.E. (20*5). Institutional quality *nd diver*ity i* Brazilian graduate st*dies. Adva*ced </line>

<line> *tudies, 19(54), *41-365. </line>

<line> Us*h, E.; Pr*s*on, G. Strateg*c planning and p*rformance meas*r***nt fo* public universities </line>

<line> in Sula*esi, I*donesi*: quantita*iv* approach. (*017). PEOPLE: Inte*national Journal of </line>

<line> Socia* Scien*e*, 3(3), 174-197. </line>

<line> Vi*i*a, E.F., & Vi*ira, *.M.F. (*004). Bureauc*atic functiona*ity in federal univ*rsi*ies: </line>

<line> confl*ct in t*mes of *hange. Journa* of Contem*or*ry *dmin*stratio*, 8(2), 18*-200. </line>

<line> Wahe*d, *., *han, F.I., & Veitc*, B. (2011). Deve*oping a *uantitative t*ol for sustainability </line>

<line> ass*ssment of HEIs. Int*rnational Journ*l of Sustainabil**y in H*gher Education, 355-368. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> World B*nk. (1994) *ighe* edu*ation: The les*ons </line>

<line> of experie*c*. New Yor*: Oxfo*d </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> University Press </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Y*neza*a, A. (2008). Q*alit* asses*men* an* ass*rance in ja*anese *niversities: the pligh* of </line>

<line> th* so*ial science*. So**al Scie*ce Japa* *ournal, 11(1), 69-82. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Zandavall*, C.B. (2009). Evaluat*on of </line>

<line> higher education i* Br*zi*: the his**rical background </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> of SINAES. Ev*lua*ion: Journal of Higher Educa*ion Evaluatio*, *4(2), 38*-438. </line>

<line> Como Ref**encia* e*te Artigo, conforme ABNT: </line>

<line> SAN**S, A. R; MARTINS, D. F. V; SOUSA, E. S; SANTOS A. J. V. Pe**ormance in Publi* </line>

<line> Management: Comparing E*ficiency, Ef**c***eness and Effectiveness Betwe*n B*az*li*n Federal </line>

<line> *nivers*ties. *e*. FSA, Teresina, v. 2*, n. 8, art. 3, p. 41-63, ago. 2023. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Re*. FSA, Teresina, v. 20, n. *, a*t. 3, p. 41-6*, ago. 20** </line>

<line> *ww4.fsanet.com.br/revis*a </line>

</par>

</page>

<page>

<par>

<line> Pe*formance in P*bl*c *anage*ent: Comparing Eff*cien*y, *ffectivene** and Effec*ive*e*s *etw*en </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Contri*uição d*s Autores </line>

<line> A. R. Santos </line>

<line> A. *. V. Santos </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> 1) con*epção e plane*amento. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> 2) análise e interpr*tação do* dad*s. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> *) elabo*ação *o rascunho ou *a revi*ão crítica do conteúdo. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> 4) participação na ap*ovação da versão fina* do **nusc*i*o. </line>

</par>

<par>

<line> Rev. FSA, Teresina PI, v. 20, n. 8, art. 3, *. 41-63, *go. *023 </line>

<line> www*.fsan*t.com.br/*evista </line>

</par>

</page>

</document>

Apontamentos

Não há apontamentos.

Este obra está licenciado com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional.

Atribuição (BY): Os licenciados têm o direito de copiar, distribuir, exibir e executar a obra e fazer trabalhos derivados dela, conquanto que deem créditos devidos ao autor ou licenciador, na maneira especificada por estes.
Não Comercial (NC): Os licenciados podem copiar, distribuir, exibir e executar a obra e fazer trabalhos derivados dela, desde que sejam para fins não-comerciais
Sem Derivações (ND): Os licenciados podem copiar, distribuir, exibir e executar apenas cópias exatas da obra, não podendo criar derivações da mesma.

ISSN 1806-6356 (Impresso) e 2317-2983 (Eletrônico)

Login
Senha
Lembrar usuário