Analysis of the Impact of Financial Structure Optimization on Budget Performance Management in Universities Based on the Perspective of Internal Control and Final Accounts - Using ABC Model as a Framework
Pubblicato online: 24 mar 2025
Ricevuto: 30 ott 2024
Accettato: 13 feb 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2025-0743
Parole chiave
© 2025 Xianwen Wang, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
With the continuous advancement of China’s education system reform, the catalytic effect of market-oriented factors on the reform of colleges and universities has become more and more obvious. Colleges and universities have gradually become legal entities running schools independently for the society, internal economic diversification, external economic relations are becoming more and more complex, and the funds for running schools are no longer dominated by a single financial allocation, and diversified financing channels are gradually formed [1-5]. Changes in the internal and external financial environment require universities to further standardize financial activities and improve financial management [6]. At the same time, the involvement of social parties in university governance is an inevitable trend of university development, and it is imperative to pay attention to the needs of different stakeholder groups, including government representatives, students and parents, alumni, research institutions, donors, etc., and to improve the governance structure of colleges and universities [7-9]. Like enterprises, the introduction of stakeholder subjects in colleges and universities after the responsibility, power, and interests of all parties need to be clear, and the decentralization of financial power and constraints, and balance appear to be very important [10-12]. In this context, the use of college budget performance management methods to enhance the governance capacity of colleges and universities, improve the financial governance system, optimize the allocation of funds for the development of college and university business, is to promote the modernization of college and university governance rely on, but also to enhance the use of college and university funds performance of the key initiatives, an important safeguard and an effective grip [13-15]. Through a series of institutional arrangements to coordinate the status and influence of universities, government and social stakeholders in the university financial system as stipulated by law, it realizes the scientificization of financial decision-making in universities, the check and balance of power and the improvement of efficiency, so as to ensure the maximization of the interests of university stakeholders [16-19].
This paper uses the ABC model as a framework to analyze the impact of optimizing financial structure on budget performance management in colleges and universities. A total of 16 items were designed from cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions, and a questionnaire survey was distributed to 105 managers of A university. A five-level Likert scale was used to analyze the managers’ attitudes toward optimizing budget performance management in college A according to five levels: strongly agree, generally agree, generally disagree, strongly disagree, and strongly disagree. The budget performance of university A under the improved budget performance management model is evaluated based on the weight table of university budget performance evaluation indexes. And further optimize the budget performance management from four aspects of budget performance management system, target setting, performance index system, and management concept respectively.
The internal control of financial accounts of colleges and universities is an important means of ensuring the effectiveness of financial accounts and guaranteeing the truth, accuracy and completeness of financial data in the process of performance management [20]. In the process of financial accounting in colleges and universities, if the internal control measures are not in place, it may lead to financial data errors or omissions, which in turn affects the accuracy of the financial report, and even the phenomenon of financial fraud. First of all, a good internal control system can effectively standardize the financial final accounting process, ensure the authenticity and reliability of financial data, and improve the quality and transparency of financial reports. Secondly, through the establishment of a sound internal control system of financial accounts, universities can find and respond to potential financial risks in a timely manner to prevent the emergence of financial fraud, misappropriation of funds, misreporting of financial information and other behaviors. This is not only conducive to safeguarding the stability of the financial situation of universities, but also increases trust and recognition of universities. Finally, by standardizing the financial accounting process, optimizing the allocation of resources and monitoring the use of resources, colleges and universities can maximize the use of resources, effectively reduce operating costs and improve operational efficiency. Therefore, strengthening the internal control of financial accounts of colleges and universities is of vital importance to colleges and universities.
The ABC model of attitude contains three-dimensional processes, namely emotion, cognition, and behavior. Emotions are subjective feelings that arise in response to the object of the attitude and are capable of playing different roles, with two sides. Positive emotion can advance behavior, and vice versa hinders. Cognition is the beliefs held about the attitude object after acquiring overall information about it. Behavior is the decision, intention to act, or actual action towards the attitude object [21].
Affect is the overall feeling towards the attitude object. Emotions can directly express and holistically assess people’s impression of the attitude object. Descriptions of emotions usually appear in pairs, with positive and negative matches.
Behavior is the decision-making, intention to act, or actual action of a person towards the attitude object, as it is difficult to produce actual action immediately at the moment of investigation.
Cognition is the overall information gained about the attitudinal object, identified using the senses, and includes perception, beliefs, and knowledge. The source of relevant information can be either directly or indirectly, and the beliefs formed are all valid.
In this paper, based on the ABC attitude theoretical model, the hierarchical effect is used to explain the different identification of university managers with budget performance management policies.The ABC attitude model hierarchical effect is shown in Figure 1. When college managers face different types of budget performance management policies, cognition, emotion, and behavior play different roles. The effects are divided into standard learning hierarchy, low-intervention hierarchy, and experiential hierarchy (affective-behavioral-cognitive), which are applicable to all types of decisions. The three dimensions of attitudes vary in the direction of their interactions and relationships depending on the level of effect. At the standard learning level, cognition is the basis, by virtue of the feeling of the attitude object and then affect emotion and behavior, when the original information that formed the cognition is particularly important. At the low intervention attitude level, skipping information processing and direct action, applicable to unimportant decision-making, college administrators act and then produce emotion, formed by practicing cognition. At the experience level (emotion-behavior-cognition), emotion is in the lead position, perceptual decision-making action, and ultimately affect cognition.
ABC attitude model level effect
This chapter analyzes the impact of the financial structure of HEI A under the internal control of final accounts on budget performance management, based on the ABC attitude model presented above.
Based on the results of the interviews with the managers of university A, the dimensions of the attitudes of the managers of university A toward budget performance management were identified. According to the ABC model of attitude, the attitude of college managers towards budget performance management is divided into cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions. Cognition of budget performance management mainly refers to the view and impression of budget performance management, combined with the results of interviews with college managers, the cognition of college managers towards budget performance management is divided into awareness and expectation. The emotion of budget performance management mainly refers to the good and bad budget performance management. The emotions and feelings of college managers regarding budget performance management are divided. Attitude behavior for budget performance management refers to the readiness of actual behavior, which mainly refers to the behavioral tendency and willingness of university managers to manage budget performance.
The study designed to investigate the cognition (CM) of university managers regarding budget performance management after optimizing financial structure contains eight question items.
CM1: What is your level of understanding of financial structure optimization under the internal control of final accounts?
CM2: What do you think is the impact of financial structure optimization measures on budget performance management?
CM3: What are the changes in your perception of the improved budget performance management?
CM4: What are your expectations of the long-term effects of financial structure optimization measures?
CM5: Do you think the financial structure optimization measures contribute to improved budget performance management?
CM6: How would you rate your perceptions of improved budget performance management?
CM7: Do you think the financial structure optimization measures are in line with the long-term development strategy of the school?
CM8: What is your perceived trust in the improved budget performance management of your school?
Sentiment (AM) of university managers towards budget performance management after financial structure optimization contains the following 10 question items:
AM1: What is your affective response to the implementation of financial structure optimization measures?
AM2: To what extent do you think financial structure optimization measures have a positive impact on budget performance management?
AM3: How satisfied are you with the financial structure optimization measures?
AM4: What is your emotional experience of the improved budget performance management?
AM5: How well do you accept the financial structure optimization measures?
AM6: How is your overall perception of the improved budget performance management?
AM7: Do you have a large emotional difference between the financial structure optimization measures and the actual results?
AM8: What is your confidence level in the improved budget performance management?
AM9: Are you excited or worried about the process of implementing financial structure optimization measures?
AM10: What is your sense of belonging and pride in the improved budget performance management?
Behavior (BM) of college administrators towards budget performance management after financial structure optimization contains the following eight question items:
BM1: Have you taken any action to support or oppose the financial structure optimization measures?
BM2: Were you involved in the discussion or decision-making process of the financial structure optimization measures?
BM3: Have you participated in training or educational activities on financial structure optimization measures?
BM4: Have you changed your budget allocation preferences as a result of the financial structural optimization initiative?
BM5: Did you change your perception of budget performance management as a result of the financial structural optimization measures?
BM6: Have you taken measures to improve the efficiency of budget performance management?
BM7: Do you participate more actively in budget performance management because of financial structure optimization measures?
BM8: Do you believe that financial structure optimization measures have contributed to the transparency and workability of budget performance management?
The study distributed questionnaires to 105 administrators of University A. The questionnaires were administered in accordance with the relevant questions designed above. A five-point Likert scale was used to evaluate and analyze according to strongly agree (5 points), agree (4 points), generally (3 points), disagree (2 points), and strongly disagree (1 point). The sum of the scores of all the question items is the managers’ attitude towards budget performance management, and the total score of each sub-dimension reacts to the attitude situation of the corresponding dimension, and the higher the cumulative score is, the more positive the attitude of the respondents towards budget performance management under the optimization of financial structure based on the perspective of internal control and final accounts is represented.
Managers’ perceptions of budget performance management contain eight question items, and the specific findings are shown in Table 1. The overall favorability is 73.7%, which shows that managers’ perception of budget performance management is relatively high.
The manager’s knowledge of budget performance management
| Categories | N | Min | Max | M | Degree of identification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CM1 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.58 | 71.6% |
| CM2 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.61 | 72.2% |
| CM3 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.76 | 75.2% |
| CM4 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.77 | 75.4% |
| CM5 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.79 | 75.8% |
| CM6 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.56 | 71.2% |
| CM7 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.58 | 71.6% |
| CM8 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.81 | 76.2% |
| CM | 105 | 8 | 40 | 29.46 | 73.7% |
Managers’ sentiments towards budget performance management include 10 question items, and the specific findings are shown in Table 2. The overall favorability rating is 75.6%, which indicates that managers’ attitude towards budget performance management is relatively positive.
The manager’s emotion for budget performance management
| Categories | N | Min | Max | M | Degree of identification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AM1 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.93 | 78.6% |
| AM2 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.94 | 78.8% |
| AM3 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.78 | 75.6% |
| AM4 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.87 | 77.4% |
| AM5 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.62 | 72.4% |
| AM6 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.64 | 72.8% |
| AM7 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.95 | 79.0% |
| AM8 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.67 | 73.4% |
| AM9 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.56 | 71.2% |
| AM10 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.83 | 76.6% |
| AM | 105 | 10 | 50 | 37.79 | 75.6% |
Managers’ behavior toward budget performance management includes eight question items, and the specific findings are shown in Table 3. The overall approval rating is 74.1%, and the approval rating of each question item is more than 70%, which shows that managers’ behavioral tendency and willingness to act on budget performance management are high.
The manager’s behavior to budget performance management
| Categories | N | Min | Max | M | Degree of identification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BM1 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.59 | 71.8% |
| BM2 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.5 | 70.0% |
| BM3 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.69 | 73.8% |
| BM4 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.65 | 73.0% |
| BM5 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.84 | 76.8% |
| BM6 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.99 | 79.8% |
| BM7 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.6 | 72.0% |
| BM8 | 105 | 1 | 5 | 3.77 | 75.4% |
| BM | 105 | 8 | 40 | 29.63 | 74.1% |
Based on the ABC attitude model, it analyzes that the managers of school A have a more positive attitude towards improving budget performance management. This paper analyzes the evaluation of budget performance of university A after implementing optimization measures from 2021-2023 using the budget performance evaluation index weight table.
According to the literature [22], the weights of budget performance evaluation indicators of universities are shown in Table 4. The budget performance of colleges and universities can be evaluated in four dimensions: input, process, output, and effect, and the proportionate weight of each dimension is 0.29, 0.16, 0.46, and 0.09, respectively.
The weight of the evaluation index of university budget performance
| Criterion layer | Subcanonical layer | Global weight | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Input | 0.29 | Financial resources | 0.36 | 0.104 |
| Human resources | 0.25 | 0.073 | ||
| Infrastructure | 0.39 | 0.113 | ||
| Process | 0.16 | Capital management | 0.41 | 0.066 |
| Organizational management | 0.59 | 0.094 | ||
| Outputs | 0.46 | Talent culture | 0.23 | 0.106 |
| Scientific research | 0.21 | 0.097 | ||
| Social services | 0.25 | 0.115 | ||
| International cooperation and communication | 0.16 | 0.074 | ||
| Cultural heritage and innovation | 0.15 | 0.069 | ||
| Effect | 0.09 | Economic benefit | 0.32 | 0.029 |
| Social benefit | 0.27 | 0.024 | ||
| Service satisfaction | 0.41 | 0.037 |
In conjunction with Table 4, evaluate the indicator scores obtained under each indicator for each year from 2021-2023 after the implementation of the improved budget performance management measures. The indicator score rates for each dimension are shown in Table 5. It can be seen that by comparing the data from 2021-2023, overall the budget performance evaluation results of University A are improving year by year, and moreover, it has achieved a qualitative improvement from good to excellent in 2022.University A has outstanding performance in economic benefits, organizational management, and talent cultivation, and the indicator score rates in 2023 have reached 99.79%, 98.73%, and 98.63% respectively. Although the evaluation of social benefit, international exchange and cooperation is lower, the total level of the score of budget performance management of University A has gradually improved between 2021 and 2023. 2023 has improved by 9.89% and 7.41% compared to 2021 and 2022 respectively.
Score rate table of each dimension index
| Criterion layer | Subcanonical layer | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Input | Financial resources | 89.00% | 85.74% | 96.65% |
| Human resources | 80.42% | 98.08% | 85.30% | |
| Infrastructure | 92.87% | 83.24% | 88.32% | |
| Process | Capital management | 79.71% | 82.85% | 96.26% |
| Organizational management | 91.23% | 81.36% | 98.73% | |
| Outputs | Talent culture | 95.40% | 95.35% | 98.63% |
| Scientific research | 84.26% | 81.63% | 96.22% | |
| Social services | 97.32% | 88.97% | 97.82% | |
| International cooperation and communication | 54.59% | 56.12% | 59.87% | |
| Cultural heritage and innovation | 63.53% | 71.20% | 75.19% | |
| Effect | Economic benefit | 95.21% | 85.24% | 99.79% |
| Social benefit | 0.24% | 52.56% | 66.34% | |
| Service satisfaction | 99.15% | 92.89% | 92.26% | |
| Whole | 78.69% | 81.17% | 88.58% | |
Through empirical analysis, the optimization of financial structure of universities based on the perspective of internal control and final accounts has a positive impact on the output of budget performance management, and has gained a high degree of acceptance in budget performance evaluation, but there is still room for progress in the social benefits, international exchanges and cooperation and other projects, in this regard, this chapter puts forward relevant countermeasures to further optimize the performance management of university budgets.
Colleges and universities should fully implement budget performance management to ensure the effectiveness of their work. First, the establishment of the Party and Government Office, the Inspection Office, the Finance Office, the Audit Office, the discipline construction and development planning office, the Personnel Office, the Graduate School, the Academic Affairs Office and other functional departments of the school budget performance management work committee is mainly responsible for the organization and leadership and overall planning of the budget performance management work, organizing and carrying out the development of policies and projects beforehand performance evaluation, and supervising the implementation of the application of the results of the performance evaluation. The second is to set up a performance management function office or full-time performance management section with strong independence, equipped with a management team or full-time staff with strong professional skills, guiding the secondary units and project leaders on campus to prepare performance objectives and carry out performance self-assessment, responsible for the daily work of ex ante performance evaluation, ex post performance tracking, ex post performance evaluation and feedback of the results, analyzing the reasons for deviation in a timely manner, and proposing corrective and rectification measures, as well as regularly forming the budget execution, major projects, and the budgetary performance management committee. Regularly form budget implementation, major projects, tracking and monitoring reports and performance evaluation reports, to provide a reference basis for the implementation of the project corrective action, the school’s annual assessment, budgetary arrangements. Thirdly, the laws, regulations, and systems are fully combined with the school’s own characteristics to establish the relevant budget performance management system. Through the establishment of the system, the specific requirements for the preparation, review, approval, amendment, and application of performance objectives are clarified. The implementation of budget execution, performance target monitoring, enhancement of evaluation results feedback and application, in order to strengthen the responsibility of budget expenditure, to standardize and scientifically carry out the budget performance management work to provide institutional safeguards.
Adhere to comprehensive and systematic thinking when setting performance targets. On the one hand, set a reasonable income budget target, adhere to the principle of positive and prudent full-caliber preparation of income budget, set the annual minimum completion target value of the school’s income projects and breakthrough target incentives, guidance and incentives for the school’s secondary units or individuals to overcompletion of the income target, to ensure that adequate sources of funding for the annual budget. On the other hand, to set the expenditure budget performance objectives, both comprehensive and integrated consideration of setting the school party building and ideology, talent team building, discipline construction, teaching and education reform, scientific research, administration, student affairs, student training, conditions to improve and laboratory construction and other business activities performance objectives, but also to find the key content of the project implementation, refining quantifiable, evaluative, assessable performance indicators, highlighting the main outputs and core effects of the project performance objectives. It is also necessary to identify the key contents of project implementation, refine quantifiable, evaluable and assessable performance indicators, highlight the main outputs and core effects of the project performance objectives, and promote the deep integration of budget and performance management.
The performance indicator system is the centralized manifestation of the evaluation concept and the difficulty of managing performance. First of all, it is necessary to improve the framework of performance indicators for overall unit and project expenditures, and to improve the core performance indicator system by project, fund and type, so as to provide a basis for decision-making by managers and project teams. Secondly, closely following the overall performance objectives, highlighting the key points, comprehensively and systematically refining and quantifying the performance indicators, effectively linking and integrating the common and individual indicators, financial and non-financial indicators, quantitative and qualitative indicators, setting up output indicators, efficiency indicators and satisfaction indicators that are closely related to the performance objectives and feasible, and determining the reference standard (standard value) for each performance indicator with reference to the plan standard, industry standard, historical standard and empirical standard. The reference standards (standard values) and weights of indicators are determined by reference to planned standards, industry standards, historical standards and empirical standards, so as to give full play to the role of indicators of achievement in guiding and controlling the implementation of the budget.
In order to improve the understanding of budget performance management of faculty and staff in colleges and universities, and promote the participation of all staff in performance management, the whole school has formed a good atmosphere of “stressing performance, emphasizing performance, and using performance”, and it is necessary to work hard from the publicity and incentive mechanism. First of all, carry out “online” normalized publicity, establish a budget performance management column on the WeChat official account and website of the school’s financial department, regularly update the budget performance management policies and work dynamics of the superior department, and help teachers and staff clarify the relationship between budget and performance through typical case analysis and excellent experience sharing, deeply understand the all-round, whole-process, and full-coverage budget performance management, continuously expand the coverage and awareness of publicity, and make the concept of budget performance management deeply rooted in the hearts of the people. Secondly, regularly organize “offline” publicity and training, and organize the heads of secondary units and budget managers in the school to carry out system publicity special meetings when starting the preparation of project plans and annual budgets every year, so that they can realize their responsibilities and roles in budget performance management, change from the traditional concept of “I want to have performance” to “I want to have performance”, keep in mind the concept of “spending money must be effective, and ineffective must be accountable”, and establish the budget concept of “paying equal attention to investment and performance” and “paying equal attention to expenditure and goals”. Establish and improve the incentive mechanism to commend and reward the units or project teams with excellent performance in budget performance management, so as to stimulate the motivation and creativity of faculty and staff to participate in budget performance management.
The study analyzes the impact of optimizing financial structure on budget performance management in universities using the ABC attitude model. The cognitive agreement, emotional agreement and behavioral tendency agreement of managers towards budget performance management are 73.7%, 75.6% and 74.1% respectively. It indicates that the managers of School A have a more positive attitude towards budget performance management, based on the optimization of the university financial structure, from the perspective of internal control and final accounts. Under this management model, the overall performance level of School A gradually increases from 2021 to 2023, and improves to 88.58% in 2023, which is 9.89% and 7.41% higher than 2021 and 2022, respectively. It shows that optimizing the financial structure of universities based on internal control of final accounts can improve the effectiveness of budget performance management.