Mednarodno ínovativno poslovanje Journal of Innovative Business and Management 1.01 Original scientific article = Izvirni znanstveni članek 1Prof. Dr., College of Professional StudiesBelgrade Polytechnic, Katarine Ambrozic 3, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia, anastasic@politehnika.edu.rs 2Prof. Dr., College of Professional StudiesBelgrade Polytechnic, Katarine Ambrozic 3, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia, kbanjevic@politehnika.edu.rs 3Lect. Dr., College of Professional StudiesBelgrade Polytechnic, Katarine Ambrozic 3, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia, dgardasevic@politehnika.edu.rs How to cite this paper = Kako citirati ta članek: Nastasic, A., Banjevic, K., Gardaševic, D. (2019). Student Satisfaction as a Performance Indicator of Higher Education Institution. Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management, 11 (2), 67-76. DOI: 10.32015/JIBM/2019-11-2-8 © Copyrights are protected by = Avtorske pravice so zaščitene s Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) / Creative Commons priznanje avtorstva-nekomercialno 4.0 mednarodno licenco (CC BY-NC 4.0) Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management ISSN: 1855-6175 Student Satisfaction as a Performance Indicator of Higher Education Instituf/on Aleksandra Nastasič1 Koviljka Banjevič2 Dragana Gardaševic3 Abstract: Modern performance measurement systems include customer satisfaction as an important performance indicator. From the standpoint of the Higher Education Institution (hereinafter HEI) in Serbia, key performance indicators are quality indicators used to assess the current situation; to identify service failures and to take on service recovery; to improve total quality of the institution and to determine the future development of the institution. In increasingly competitive and dynamic educational environment, the management of a HEI is aware of the importance of student satisfaction in the context of student motivation and retention, recommendations to potential freshmen, recruiting efforts and funding, as well as performance management. There are numerous direct and indirect indicators of student satisfaction. The main objective of this paper is to identify the parameters of educational process and non-teaching support that have the greatest impact on student satisfaction. Data analysis, conducted in this paper, provide information on the degree of student satisfaction and possible improvements in this area. This study uses standard and hierarchical regression to examine possible causes of student satisfaction. It is based on answers of 1541 students of the College of Professional Studies - Belgrade Polytechnic, collected during a four-year research. Keywords: performance indicators; student satisfaction; educational process; higher education; non-teaching support JEL classification: I21, I23, C49 Zadovoljstvo študentov kot kazalnik uspešnosti visokošolskih zavodov Povzetek: Sodobni sistemi za merjenje uspešnosti vključujejo zadovoljstvo potrošnikov kot pomemben kazalnik uspešnosti. Ključni kazalniki uspešnosti s stališča visokošolske ustanove (v nadaljnjem besedilu: HEI) v Srbiji so kazalniki kakovosti, ki se uporabljajo za oceno trenutnega stanja; prepoznati napake v storitvi in obnoviti storitve; izboljšati skupno kakovost institucije in določiti prihodnji razvoj institucije. V vse bolj konkurenčnem in dinamičnem izobraževalnem okolju se vodstvo visokošolske ustanove zaveda pomena zadovoljstva študentov v okviru motivacije in zadrževanja študentov, priporočil potencialnim študentom, zaposlovanja in financiranja ter upravljanja uspešnosti. Obstajajo številni neposredni in posredni kazalci zadovoljstva študentov. Glavni cilj tega prispevka je določiti parametre izobraževalnega procesa in nepedagoške podpore študentom, ki najbolj 41 Nastasic, A., Banjevic, K., Gardaševic, D. (2019). Student Satisfaction as a Performance Indicator of Higher Education Institution vplivajo na zadovoljstvo učencev. Analiza podatkov, opravljena v tem prispevku, zagotavlja informacije o stopnji zadovoljstva študentov in možnih izboljšavah na tem področju. Ta študija uporablja standardno in hierarhično regresijo za preučevanje možnih vzrokov zadovoljstva študentov. Temelji na odgovorih 1541 študentov Visoke škole za strukovne studije - Beogradske politehnike, zbranih med štiriletno raziskavo. Ključne besede: kazalniki uspešnosti; zadovoljstvo študentov; izobraževalni process; visokošolska izobrazba; nepedagoška podpora JEL klasifikacija: 121, 123, C49 1 Introduction This study examines the influence of parameters of the educational process and non-teaching support on student satisfaction, since student satisfaction is recognized as a factor that influences on student achievements, motivation and retention, as well as on academic and business success of HEI. The crucial activities in the processes of quality improvement and achievement of business excellence are reflected in developing and implementing the system for performance appraisal (Kanji, 1998;Striteska and Spickova, 2012), which from the perspective of continual improvements is the only logical approach associated with quality management (Spasojevic Brkic et al., 2012). Therefore, HEIs must focus on systematic and continual improvements of overall performances as well as performances reviewing against the mission, vision, policies, strategies and objectives, at all levels and in all relevant processes and functions. Furthermore, the established management and control mechanisms allow the HE institution to measure the ratio of planned and actual results and investments necessary to achieve those results. The HE system in Serbia has radically changed in the twenty-first century when Serbia joined the Bologna process. The HEIs faced with complex tasks that imply a total reconstruction of the existing system with the goal of reaching European standards in terms of availability, accessibility, quality, cost-effective education (Nastasic et al., 2011). In the circumstances of reduction in the number of recruits, negative demographic trends, high dropout rates, increasing competitions, problems of financing etc., the students as direct customers of HE (Crawford, 1991, cited in Hill, 1995), are reasonably placed in the centre of the educational process, and "they act as the receiver and subsequent user of the educational services" (Marzo-Navarro et al., 2005a). Students first participate in the educational process and afterwards use skills, abilities and knowledge. In addition, students have become active participants in the process of quality assurance. The management of a HEI, teaching and non-teaching staff is forced to think differently about the importance of student satisfaction. They devote considerable attention to the factors that can help them to effectively attract and retain the best students and to create a supportive environment for learning (Banjevic et al., 2014). All the above strengthens the need for the continual measurement of student satisfaction. This research intends to examine variables that have the greatest impact on student satisfaction. In order to simplify this examination, the following research questions have been formulated: Question 1: What is the contribution of the parameters of educational process to the student satisfaction with the overall quality of the institution? Question 2: Which factor (educational process or non-teaching support) has greater contribution to the student satisfaction with the overall quality of the institution? 2 Literature review In the literature, the most accepted performance measurement (hereinafter PM) systems are the Balanced Scorecard by (Kaplan and Norton, 1996) and the MBNQA and EFQM Business Excellence Models (Striteska and Spickova, 2012). However, selection of appropriate key performance indicators and methodology are important for the success of the 68 Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 11 (2), 67-76, DOI: 1 G.32G15/JIBM/2G19-11 -2-8 Nastasic, A., Banjevic, K., Gardaševic, D. (2019). Student Satisfaction as a Performance Indicator of Higher Education Institution measurement and analysing process and should demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of the HEI. All the aforementioned PM systems include customer satisfaction, as a key performance indicator. From the standpoint of the HEI, key performance indicators are quality indicators, used to assess the current situation of the business and to determine direction of future development. Standardization of key performance indicators is the basis of the HEIs ranking, comparing them from the perspective of different stakeholders and reaching conclusions about the overall state of HE (Maksimovic, 2012). Performance indicators regarding students allow HEI to regularly monitor, understand, predict and improve service quality based on student performances ("the graduation rates, graduate destinations, learning outcomes, graduate capabilities, work readiness" (Coates, 2010)), and indicators of their perception of the institutional quality (the image of the institution, evaluation of service quality, loyalty, etc.). As student satisfaction varies over time, a proactive approach to the business requires systematic monitoring, measurement and analysis of direct and indirect indicators of student satisfaction. Studies regarding the student satisfaction with educational services from the 1960s and early 1970s were mainly focused on the level of student satisfaction with different parameters; not on the causes of the satisfaction or lack of the satisfaction, and usually linked student satisfaction to their actual results (Bean and Bradley, 1986). Concerning the significance of students' results, surveys of student satisfaction have been directed to students' perception of overall parameters of institutional quality, with a primary goal to improve the quality of the educational services (Banjevic et al., 2013). Kotler & Fox (Kotler and Fox, 1995) believe that creating happy and satisfied customers "should be a primary goal, contributing to the quality of educational institutions". In addition, "the student satisfaction approach goes hand-inhand with the development of a culture of continuous quality improvements" (Aldridge and Rowley, 1998; Harvey, 1995). Elliot & Healy (Elliott and Healy, 2001) adapted the definition of satisfaction regarding students. The scholars indicated that student satisfaction is a short-term attitude that results from the evaluation of their experience with received education service as cited in (Marzo-Navarro et al., 2005a).Furthermore, student satisfaction refers to the favourability of a student's subjective evaluation of the various outcomes and experiences associated with education (Elliott and Shin, 2002). Student satisfaction is a complex and multi-dimensional concept (Hartman and Schmidt, 1995). Although some authors analysed only determinants of teaching and learning quality (Guolla, 1999; Gursoy and Umbrei, 2005), while others examined the students' overall experiences with the full services of an institution (Aldridge and Rowley, 1998; Athiyaman, 1997; Harvey, 1995; Hill, 1995; Joseph and Joseph, 1997; Kwan and Ng, 1999; Leblanc and Nguyen, 1997; Toland and De Ayala, 2005; Marzo-Navarro et al., 2005a, 2005b). All of them had the aim to improve service quality, maximize the student satisfaction, commitment, loyalty, academic performances, enrolment and retention (Athiyaman, 1997; Elliott and Healy, 2001; Helgesen and Nesset, 2007), minimize dissatisfaction, "improve the institutional image and performance across a number of league tables" (James et al., 1999) and achieve business excellence. It is noted that the support services differ from one education system to another according to the needs of a specific time and situation (e.g. support services to the educator, learners, and teaching activities and structures) (Mashauet al., 2008). A service failure occurs when students are dissatisfied with service delivery system or when quality of service falls below their expectations. Therefore, HE institution must establish process of service recovery, by which identifies failures and causes of failures, and effectively resolves problems, which could impact on student satisfaction (Chahal and Devi, 2013). 3 Methodology The process of measuring student satisfaction is conducted annually, based on the descriptive approach with the aim of obtaining answers about the current student satisfaction with parameters that specify the quality of service in Belgrade Polytechnic. The student satisfaction is measured in terms of the 10 parameters, that specify the quality of 69 Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 11 (2), 67-76, DOI: 1 G.32G15/JIBM/2G19-11 -2-8 Nastasic, A., Banjevic, K., Gardaševic, D. (2019). Student Satisfaction as a Performance Indicator of Higher Education Institution educational process (teaching and learning; curriculum; academic staff; workspace; library and IT resources) and the quality of non-teaching support (information system; student services; faculty administration office; legal service and students participation in work of institution). In order to obtain the data needed for this study, the original 46-itemquestionnaire was used. The students were required to mark the value of their satisfaction on a scale of 1 -5 (1 -not satisfied; 5-extremely satisfied). Reliability is assessed through its internal compliance, by calculating Cronbach's a coefficient. Nunnaly (1978) suggests the value of 0.7 for the lower band that is accepted by many other authors (Jiang et al., 2002; Johnson and Wichern, 1998). Reliability of the scale and reliabilities for the 10 parameters of the institution quality (Table 1 and Table 2), indicate good reliability and internal compliance of a scale. Table 1 : Reliability of the scale Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items 0.891 0.899 10 Source: own calculation, based on a four-year research of student satisfaction of the quality of service in Belgrade Polytechnic Table 2: Reliabilities for the parameters of the quality of institution Parameter Number of Number of Cronbah - a respondents variables Quality of teaching and learning process 1505 8 0.834 Curriculum quality 1503 4 0.773 Academic staff 1517 3 0.795 Quality of the workspace 1489 5 0.769 Quality of library and IT resources 1428 8 0.867 Quality of the information system 1498 3 0.854 Quality of student services 1497 4 0.878 Quality of faculty administration office 1497 4 0.911 Quality of legal service 1468 4 0.906 Students participation in work of institution 1377 3 0.889 Source: own calculations, based on a four-year research of student satisfaction of the quality of service in Belgrade Polytechnic In this study, we used the data based on measuring student satisfaction with these 10 parameters that determined the quality of the institution, in the period of 4 academic years. The sample included 1541 respondents - students of the first, second and third year of studies from eight study programmes of various scientific areas. In the period of collecting data, the population of Belgrade Polytechnic included approximately 2000 students. The sample size was determined with 95 % confidence level, i.e. 322 respondents. 4 Results Each quality institution parameter is defined by a set of variables, through which students expressed their satisfaction. The value of each parameter was obtained as the mean of the certain variables. Quality institution parameters are considered as independent variables, while the quality of institution is seen as dependent variable. Descriptive statistics (Table 3) was used to gain the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum for each quality parameter. 70 Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 11 (2), 67-76, DOI: 1 G.32G15/JIBM/2G19-11 -2-8 Nastasic, A., Banjevic, K., Gardaševic, D. (2019). Student Satisfaction as a Performance Indicator of Higher Education Institution Table 3: Descriptive statistics of the educational process and non-teaching support N Minimum Maximum 1 Mean Std. Deviation 1. Students participation in work of institution 1441 1 00 5 00 2B24 1.134 2. Quality of student service 1527 1 00 5 00 2 945 1.11B 3. Quality of the workspace 1531 1 00 5 00 3 49B 0.B24 4. Quality of the information system 1527........ 1 00................. 5 00................. 3 5B0....... 1.064......................... 5. Quality of legal service 1500 1 00 5 00 3 630 0.955 6. Quality of faculty administration office 151B 1 00 5 00 i 3.652 0.95B 7. Curriculum quality 1532........ 1 00................. 5 00................. 3 690....... 0.796......................... 8. Quality of teaching and learning process 1533 1 00 5 00 i 3.717 0.70B 9. Quality of library and IT resources 152B........ 1 00................. 5 00................. 3 B71......... 0.75B......................... 10. Academic staff 1531 1 00 5 00 i 4.002 0.764 Valid N (list wise) ........1417........ Source: own calculations based on a four-year research of student satisfaction of the quality of service in Belgrade Polytechnic The standard regression was calculated in order to answer the first question. Preliminary findings have proven that assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity and homogeneity of variance were not violated. Obtained values of Pearson correlation of the overall quality of institution (dependent variable) and parameters of educational process (independent variables) were greater than 0.4 (Table 4). In addition, the values of tolerance and variance inflation factor indicate that there is no multicollinearity among independent variables (Table 6, column VIF). Table 4: Pearson correlation coefficients of parameters of the educational process Quality of institution Quality of teaching and learning process Curriculum quality Academic staff Quality of student's workspace Quality of library and IT resources Pearson Correlation Quality of institution 1.000 0.762 0.729 0.6BB 0.717 0.6B3 Quality of teaching and learning process 0.762 1.000 0.722 0.616 0.502 0.4B2 Curriculum quality 0.729 0 722 1.000 0.546 0 4B6 0.44B Academic staff 0.6BB 0616 0.546 1.000 0 445 0.425 Quality of the workspace 0.717 0.502 0.4B6 0.445 1.000 0.526 Quality of library and IT resources 0.6B3 0.4B2 0.44B 0.425 0.526 1.000 Sig. (1-tailed) Quality of institution 0 000 0.000 0.000 0 000 0.000 Quality of teaching and learning process 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Curriculum quality 0.000 0 000 0.000 0 000 0.000 Academic staff 0.000 0 000 0.000 0 000 0.000 Quality of the workspace 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Quality of library and IT resources 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Source: own calculations based on a four-year research of student satisfaction of the quality of service in Belgrade Polytechnic The value of R (91.4%) indicates excellent level of prediction of the parameters from the group 'a' of the quality of institution (Table 5). The corresponding regression model predicts 83.5% of the variance of the quality of the institution, which is very satisfying level. 71 Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 11 (2), 67-76, DOI: 10.32015/JIBM/2019-11 -2-B Nastasic, A., Banjevic, K., Gardaševic, D. (2019). Student Satisfaction as a Performance Indicator of Higher Education Institution Table 5: Total contribution of parameters of educational process on quality of institution Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 0.914a 0.835 0.834 0.26644 a. Predictors:(Constant) teaching and learning process quality, curriculum quality, academic stuff, workspace quality, library and IT resources quality b. Dependent variable: Quality of institution Source: own calculations based on a four-year research of student satisfaction of the quality of service in Belgrade Polytechnic. Table 6 shows the individual contributions of independent variables (of educational process) on total student satisfaction. The value of the coefficient Beta shows the individual contributions of independent variables (of educational process) on total student satisfaction (Table 6). So, the parameter 'quality of workspace' contributes the most in explaining the value of depended variable - quality of institution (beta=0.283; p<0.05). However, students express very low level of satisfaction in relation to this parameter. Results of Part correlation coefficients (Table 4) indicate the contribution of each parameter of the educational process in the total variance of the quality of institution. According to (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007), contributions of each independent variable were calculated by squaring Part correlation coefficients: quality of teaching and learning process 2%; curriculum quality 1.9%; academic staff 2.4%; quality of the workspace 4.9%; quality of library and IT resources 3.9% (Table 6). Table 6: Individual influence of each parameter of educational process on total students' satisfaction Unstand. Stand. Coeff. Coeff. Correlations Collinearity Statistics Std. Zero- Tole- del............................................................... B Error Beta t Sig. order Partial Part rance VIF (Constant) -0 171....... 0 044..... -3 868...... 0 000..... Quality of teaching and 0.209 0.015 0.226 13.484 0.000 0.762 0.327 0.141 0.389 2.571 learning process Curriculum quality 0.170 0.013 0.206 13.194 0.000 0.729 0.321 0.138 0.445 2.249 Academic staff 0 177....... 0 012..... 0 206........ 14 997..... 0 000..... 0 688..... 0 359 0.156 0 575 1 738............ Quality of the workspace 0.225 0.011 0.283 21.308 0.000 0.717 0.480 0.222 0.617 1.619 Quality of library and IT resources 0.212 0.011 0.246 18.925 0.000 0.683 0.437 0.197 0.646 1.549 Dependent variable: Quality of institution Source: own calculations based on a four-year research of student satisfaction of the quality of service in Belgrade Polytechnic The next step in the analysis involved evaluation of the model ability (parameters of educational process) to predict the result of student satisfaction with the quality of the institution, after removing the influence of variables of non-teaching support. In that way, hierarchical regression was applied. Model 1 includes the variables of non-teaching support, while Model 2 includes all parameters that contribute to institution quality (Table 7). The unadjusted multiple R for Model 1 is 0.927 and the adjusted multiple R is 0.858 (Table 5), which indicates that a relatively great number of observations are being predicted with a relatively large number of variables. The unadjusted value of R2means that all subsets of predictor variables will have a value of multiple R that is smaller than 0.927. Combination of these parameters significantly (Sig. F Change =0.000) predict student satisfaction. The results of R Square Change (Model 1 - 85.9%, Model 2 - 11.9%) indicate the contribution of both models to the total variance of student satisfaction with the quality of institution. This means that parameters of non-teaching support contribute 85.9% to the predictive capacity of the variance of the student satisfaction, while all parameters of institution quality have an increase by 11.9%. Therefore, the model predictive ability by including parameters of non-teaching support is greater than its predictive ability without these parameters. The obtained results have statistically significant contribution for both models p<0.05. ?2 Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 11 (2), 67-76, DOI: 1 G.32G15/JIBM/2G19-11 -2-8 Nastasic, A., Banjevic, K., Gardaševic, D. (2019). Student Satisfaction as a Performance Indicator of Higher Education Institution Table 7: The impact of variables of educational process and non-teaching support on total student satisfaction Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics Model R R Square R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 0.927a 0.859 0.858 0.24481 0.859 2258.710 4 1486 0.000 2 0.989b 0.978 0.978 0.09731 0.119 1585.051 5 1481 0.000 a. Predictors: (Constant), Quality of teaching and learning office, Quality of technical support, Quality of student service, Quality of information system, Quality of legal service b. Predictors: (Constant), Quality of teaching and learning office, Quality of technical support, Quality of student service, Quality of information system, Quality of legal service, Academic staff, Quality of the workspace, Curriculum quality, Quality of library and IT resources, Quality of teaching and learning process c. Dependent Variable: Quality of institution Source: own calculation, based on a four-year research of student satisfaction of the quality of service in Belgrade Polytechnic Table 8 shows the contribution of each parameter to total variance of the dependent variable. The results of Beta coefficients for Model 2 show that the quality of student service (beta= 0.195) has the greatest contribution to total variance of the dependent variable (19.5%). Furthermore, regarding Table 8, column Sig., each parameter of the educational process significantly contributes in overall student satisfaction with the quality of the institution. This is due the fact that the nine independent parameters predict 97.8% of the Model 2 (Table 7). Table 8: Individual influence of all parameters on quality of institution Model Unstand. Coeff Stand. Coeff. t Sig. Correlations Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Beta Zero-order Partial Part Tolerance VIF 1 (Constant) 1.007 0.028 35 997 0.000 Quality of the information system 0.197 0.008 0.322 25.827 0.000 0.748 0.557 0.252 0.612 1.634 Quality of student service 0.133 0.007 0.228 18.486 0.000 0.697 0.432 0.180 0.624 1.602 Quality of faculty administration office 0.203 0.010 0.298 19.448 0.000 0.807 0.450 0.190 0.404 2.475 Quality of legal service 0.193 0.010 0.284 19.803 0.000 0.769 0.457 0.193 0.463 2.162 2 (Constant) -0.022 0.017 -1 339 0.181 Quality of the information system 0.101 0.003 0.165 31.311 0.000 0.748 0.631 0.121 0.543 1.843 Quality of student service 0.114 0.003 0.195 39.397 0.000 0.697 0.715 0.153 0.610 1.639 Quality of faculty administration office 0.105 0.004 0.155 24.501 0.000 0.807 0.537 0.095 0.375 2.666 Quality of legal service 0.112 0.004 0.164 28.066 0.000 0.769 0.589 0.109 0.437 2.286 Quality of teaching and learning process 0.117 0.006 0.127 20.018 0.000 0.763 0.461 0.078 0.375 2.668 Curriculum quality Academic staff Quality of the workspace 0 113 0 095 0.117 0 005 0 004 0.004 0 138 0 111 0.147 23.452 21.373 28.806 0 000 0 000 0.000 0 727 0 682 0.713 0 520 0 486 0.599 0 091 0 083 0.112 0 436 0 554 0.576 2 296 1 804 1.736 Quality of library and IT resource 0.114 0.004 0.131 26.434 0.000 0.680 0.566 0.102 0.609 1.642 Source: own calculations based on a four-year research of student satisfaction of the quality of service in Belgrade Polytechnic 73 Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 11 (2), 67-76, DOI: 1 G.32G15/JIBM/2G19-11 -2-8 Nastasic, A., Banjevic, K., Gardaševic, D. (2019). Student Satisfaction as a Performance Indicator of Higher Education Institution 5 Discussion and Conclusions The results of this study lead to the conclusions as presented below. First of all, from the Table 3 could be observed that students express greater satisfaction with parameters of the educational process than non-teaching support. Thus, it is expected that parameters of the educational process have significant contribution to the overall student satisfaction, especially parameter academic staff which has the highest value of the mean. However, the results of standard regression didn't confirm previous assumption. In this regard, the parameter quality of student service was singled out as a variable with the greatest contribution on student satisfaction. The results of hierarchical regression suggest that the parameters of non-teaching support contribute with 85.9%, while the parameters of the educational process contribute with 11.9 % to the student satisfaction. The single parameter quality of student service has the greatest contribution, while the students express the lowest level of satisfaction in relation to this parameter. Finally, the obtained data point out the fact that some parameters of non-teaching support have a negative contribution to the overall student satisfaction with the quality of the institution. The main contribution of this study is reflected in the obtained results which suggest that students, in spite of importance of quality of educational process, perceive and emphasize the importance of quality of non-teaching services. The findings in this paper have a wide range of implications, particularly for management, teaching and non-teaching staff. Therefore, the Belgrade Polytechnic has already undertaken some actions in the area of non-teaching support, such as the implementation of a more sophisticated ICT system, in order to improve support services. Now, students may accomplish most of the non-learning activities online and get information immediately. The teaching staff are able to finish administrative work from home (upload test/exam results, maintain student records, etc.). The workload of student service staff is reduced, and they have more time to respond in detail on students' questions/requests, face-to-face communication, etc. The future studies could examine changes in student satisfaction as after effect of the implementation of the new ICT system, including social networks- a comparative view of a traditional vs. modern approach. In addition, it could be interesting to explore the relationship between staff satisfaction and student satisfaction, motivation and retention and recommendations to potential freshmen retention; the influence of demographic parameters on student satisfaction, the influence of social networks on students' outcomes, etc. Acknowledgments: Some parts of this paper have been presented at the 2nd International Scientific Conference on IT, Tourism, Economics, Management and Agriculture - ITEMA 2018 (http://www.itema-conference.com/). References 1. Aldridge, S. and Rowley, J. (1998). Measuring customer satisfaction in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 6(4), pp. 197-204. 2. Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking Student Satisfaction and Service Quality Perceptions: The Case of University Education. European Journal of Marketing, 31 (7), pp. 528-540. 3. Banjevic, K., Markovic, S.and Gardaševic, D. (2013). Zadovoljstvo zaposlenih u funkciji zadovoljstva korisnika: studija slučaja visokoškolske ustanove. Zbornikradova IInaučno-stručnog skupa Politehnika - 2013, Beograd: VŠSS Beogradska Politehnika, pp. 133-139. 4. Banjevic, K., Nastasic, A. and Dzeletovic, S. (2014). Unapredenje kvaliteta u funkciji zadovoljstva korisnika: Studija slučaja visokoškolske ustanove. Zbornik radova 15. Medunarodnog simpozijuma o kvaliteti: Kvaliteta, rast i razvoj. Zagreb: Hrvatsko udruženje menadžera kvalitete, pp. 327-337. 5. Bean, P. J. and Bradley, K. R. (1986). Untangling the Satisfaction-Performance Relationship for College Students. The Journal of Higher Education, 57(4), pp. 393-412. 6. Chahal, H. and Devi, P. (2013). Identifying satisfied/dissatisfied service encounters in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 21 (2), pp. 211 -222. 7. Coates, H. (2010). Defining and monitoring academic standards in Australian higher education. Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(1), pp. 1-17. 8. Elliott, K. M. and Healy, M. A. (2001). Key Factors Influencing Student Satisfaction Related to Recruitment and Retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(4), pp. 1-11. 74 Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 11 (2), 67-76, DOI: 1 G.32G15/JIBM/2G19-11 -2-8 Nastasic, A., Banjevic, K., Gardaševic, D. (2019). Student Satisfaction as a Performance Indicator of Higher Education Institution 10. Elliott, K. M. and Shin, D. (2002). Student Satisfaction: An Alternative Approach to Assessing This Important Concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 24(2), pp. 197-209. 11. Guolla, M. (1999). Assessing the Teaching Quality to Student Satisfaction Relationship: Applied Customer Satisfaction Research in the Classroom. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(3), pp. 87-98. 12. Gursoy, D. and Umbrei, W. T. (2005). Exploring Students' Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness: What Factors are Important? Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 29(1), pp. 91 -109. 13. Hartman, D. E. and Schmidt, S. L. (1995). Understanding Student/Alumni Satisfaction from a Consumer's Perspective: The Effects of Institutional Performance and Program Outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 36(2), pp. 197-217. 14. Harvey, L. (1995). Student Satisfaction. The New Review of Academic Librarianship, 1, pp. 161-173. 15. Helgesen, 0. and Nesset, E. (2007). Images, Satisfaction and Antecedents: Drivers of Student Loyalty? A Case Study of a Norwegian University College. Corporate Reputation Review, 10, pp. 38-59. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550037 16. Hill, F.M. (1995). Managing Service Quality in Higher Education: The Role of the Student as Primary Consumer. Quality Assurance in Education, 3(3), pp. 10-21. 17. James, R., Baldwin, G. and McInnis, C. (1999). Which University? The Factors Influencing the Choices of Prospective Undergraduates. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, Centre for the Study of Higher Education. 18. Jiang, J. J., Klein, G. and Carr, C. L. (2002). Measuring information system service quality: Servqual from the other side. Mis Quarterly, 26(2), pp. 145-166. 19. Johnson, R. A. and Wichern, D. W. (1998). Applied multivariate statistical analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New York: Prentice Hall: xvi, pp. 816. 20. Joseph, M. and Joseph, B. (1997). Service Quality in Education: A Student Perspective, Quality in Assurance in Education, 5(1), pp. 15-21. 21. Kanji, G. K. (1998). Measurement of business excellence. Total Quality Management, 9(7), pp. 633-643. 22. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 23. Kotler, P. and Fox, H. P. (1995). Strategic marketing for educational institutions (2nd Edition). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. 24. Kwan, P. Y. K. and Ng, P. W. K. (1999). Quality Indicators in Higher Education - Comparing Hong Kong and China's Students. Managerial Auditing Journal, 14(1), pp. 20-27. 25. Leblanc, G. and Nguyen, N. (1997). Searching for Excellence in Business Education: An Exploratory Study of Customer Impressions of Service Quality. International Journal of Educational Management, 11 (2), pp. 72-79. 26. Maksimovic, R. (2012). Performanse visokoskolske ustanove - osnova za rangiranje. 18. Skup trendovi razvoja "Internacionalizacija Univerziteta" (Rad br. A2.2-1, 1-6). Kopaonik. 27. Marzo-Navarro, M., Iglesias, M. P. and Torres, P. R. (2005a). Measuring Customer Satisfaction in Summer Courses. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(1), pp. 53-65. 28. Marzo-Navarro, M., Iglesias, M. P. and Torres, P. R. (2005b). A New Management Element for Universities: Satisfaction with the Offered Courses. International Journal of Educational Management,19(6), pp. 505-526. 29. Mashau, S., Steyn, E., Van der Walt, J. and Wolhuter, C. (2008). Support services perceived necessary for learner relationships by Limpopo educators. South African Journal of Education, 28, pp. 415-430. 30. Nastasic, A., Banjevic, K. and Dzeletovic, S. (2011). Uspostavljanje sistema menadzmenta kvalitetom u funkciji ispunjavanja zahteva za akreditaciju visokoskolskih ustanova. Zbornik radova I naucno-strucnog skupa, Politehnika 2011. Beograd: VSSS Beogradska Politehnika, pp. 163-170. 31. Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. 32. Spasojevic Brkic, V. K., Milanovic, D. D., Knezevic, S. M., Lazic, D.S. and Milanovic, T. S. (2012). Sistem menadzmenta kvalitetom iposlovne performanse, Beograd: Masinski fakultet. 33. Striteska, M. and Spickova, M. (2012). Review and Comparison of Performance Measurement Systems. Journal of Organizational Management Studies, 2012, pp. 1 -12. 34. Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th Edition). Boston, M: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education. 75 Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 11 (2), 67-76, DOI: 1 G.32G15/JIBM/2G19-11 -2-8 Nastasic, A., Banjevic, K., Gardaševic, D. (2019). Student Satisfaction as a Performance Indicator of Higher Education Institution 35. Telford, R. and Masson, R. (2005). The Congruence of Quality Values in Higher Education. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(2), pp. 107-119. 36. Toland, M. D. and De Ayala, R. J. (2005). A Multilevel Factor Analysis of Students' Evaluations of Teaching. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, pp. 272-296. 76 Mednarodno inovativno poslovanje = Journal of Innovative Business and Management 11 (2), 67-76, DOI: 1 G.32G15/JIBM/2G19-11 -2-8