Evaluating the Performance of Rural Management Units from Villagers’ Perspective Using Kano Model (Case Study: Siah Estalkh Village-Rasht County)

Document Type : علمی

Authors

• eisa pourramzan ¹
• Maryam Alinaghipour ²
• Ebrahim Tofighjou ²

¹ science & research Branch Islamic Azad Unirversit

² Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University

10.22067/jrrp.v5i2.47472

Abstract

Extended Abstract
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the main pillars of analyzing rural issues is considering management structure in such communities. Assessing the performance of rural management units, as local organizations, which, on one hand, are in touch with the government through its representatives in the region (provincial and local governments) and, on the other hand, through councils, are in touch with people, and thus evaluating the degree of their effectiveness can be predictive of the success of rural management unit’s chair in performing his or her duties, which is the key to numerous rural management problems and issues and, more importantly, determines the degree of rural management unit’s chair’s influence on rural development. To this end, the present study, using basic, operational and emotional needs of village settlers, was conducted to evaluate the performance of rural management unit of Siah Estalkh village in the central district of Rash county and the degree of villagers’ satisfaction with it. Considering the importance of management in rural development and the relative ineffectiveness in this regard for many years and owing to the recent considerations concerning the assignment of rural management to rural management units, the present study aims to evaluate the performance of rural management units, from the perspective of villagers in Siah Estalkh village, in the central district of Rasht county.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Rural management is, in fact, the process of organizing and guiding the community and rural environment through creation of organizations and institutions. These organizations and institutions are considered the means through which rural communities realize their goals. Achieving development and subsequently sustainable development is the goal of rural management. In sustainable rural development, management denotes adjusting human relationship with his environment, in which attention is paid to connecting social and economic systems with ecological supervision. The crucial role played by rural management units in rural management and development makes evaluation of their performance necessary and, in case it is done correctly, costs are reduced. Moreover, through identification of rural management units’ strengths and weaknesses, the way is paved for them to perform their duties with effectiveness and efficacy.
3. METHODOLOGY
The present research is a pragmatic one, in terms of objective, and an analytical-descriptive study in terms of methodology. Research population entails the entire population of Siah Estalkh village, among whom 346 people were selected though random sampling. The study used Kano Model which was presented in terms of analyzing three types of basic, operational and emotional needs. Questionnaire’s validity was established through the opinions presented by experts and specialists in rural development planning and its reliability was established through Cronbach’s alpha, which was determined to be 0.994, indicating an acceptable reliability. Kano model was also used to create the Questionnaire. In the Questionnaire, a pair of questions was included for each feature, enabling villagers to select the appropriate answer for each question. The questions in the first group were operational and the ones in the second group were non-operational. In order to determine the degree of influence of rural management unit’s chair on performance Likert scale and for converting qualitative answers too quantitative one’s weighting were used. For assessing and identifying factors affecting quality of services from settler’s point of view there is a consensus and agreement and many models such as Hysteresis, Kano, SERVQUAL, QFD and etc. exit for evaluating the quality of services. For the purpose of this study, Kano model was used for evaluating villagers’ satisfaction.
4. DISCUSSION
In this study, for the purpose of assessing villagers’ basic needs, seven factors were investigated and surveyed. Development of green spaces and tree plantation with a satisfaction coefficient of 0.88 was the most important factor, followed by creation of creek water with 0.84, cleanness of the village’s environment and scenery with 0.81, lighting and security of passages at night with 0.65, collecting, burying or disposing of trash with 0.56, asphalting and curbing alleys with 0.53 and supervising rural settlement construction with a satisfaction coefficient of 0.45 respectively. In order to assess the operation needs of villagers six factors were analyzed, among which the factor for helping to attract state investment for creating new job opportunities, with a satisfaction coefficient of 0.78, was the most important one followed by providing information regarding rural management unit’s performance together with promoting collective and collaborative actions among villagers with 0.73, settling villagers differences and disputes with 0.58, supervising road construction in addition to widening of routes with 0.49, and finally participating villagers in matters concerning the village with 0.36, respectively. With regards to the emotional needs of the villagers under the study, the factor of guarding and protecting the village against natural disasters with 0.66 was the most important factor followed by helping to increase villagers’ accountability with 0.57, creating suitable cultural and arts facilities in the village (library) with 0.55, protecting cultural heritage with 0.51, and expansion and creation of sports facilities with 0.46, respectively. In terms of villagers’ satisfaction with the efforts made by the rural management units to meet their basic, operation and emotional needs, using the Kano model, considering the studied factors and quantitative analysis of the data, villagers had the highest degree of satisfaction with the fulfillment of their basic needs, with a satisfaction coefficient of 0.66, and the least degree of satisfaction belonged to the fulfillment of their emotional needs, with a dissatisfaction coefficient of 0.55. In other words, rural management units’ performance in meeting villagers’ basic needs was better in comparison with their other needs.
5. CONCLUSION
Considering the topic of the present study, it can be said that rural management unit’s chair, as the manager of the village, plays a crucial role in every aspects of a village and this is the very principle in which the settlers of the studied village believe. With respect to the gathered data and its analysis using the Kano model, in villager’ opinion, in comparison with other needs, their basic needs have been fulfilled relatively better, with a satisfaction coefficient of 0.66, followed by operational and emotional needs, with 0.61 and 0.55 respectively. Consequently, in planning for the village and increasing the degree of villagers’ satisfaction, more can be done to meet their emotional and operational needs and to increase their satisfaction with the present situations. Taking into account the studied factors and drawing on the experience of the village manager, along with other village authorities, villagers’ degree of satisfaction with life and subsistence within the village can be increased, instigating settlers to stay, preventing them from migrating to adjacent urban areas.

Keywords

• Dehyari
• Kano model
• basic needs
• operational needs
• emotional needs
• Rasht County

---

References

1. Abdollahian, H., Shariati, SH., & Shoshtarizade, A. (1385/2006). Measure the performance of rural management in Iran according to affecting factors on management process in the villages of Iran. Human science Modarres (especially the management letter), 10(46), 227-267. [In Persian]

2. Akbari, Gh., & Abdullah, M. (1385/2006). Set of rules and regulations of village and Dehyari. Tehran: Ghalamestan Honar press. [In Persian]

3. Alvani, S., & Riyahi, M. (1382/2003). Treatise the establishment of quality comprehensive management in the public sector. Tehran: Education and research center of Iran. [In Persian]

4. Badri, A., & Nemati, M. (1386/2007). Assess the role of modern management system in rural

Comparison of active dehyari in villages and towns (Case study: Golestan Province). Geographical Research Quarterly, 39(59), 161-176. [In Persian]

5. Badri, A., Akbarian-e-Ronizi, S. R., & Ghasabi, M. CH. (1392/2013). The Role of Local Management in Physical Development of Rural Settlements (Case Study: Rural Areas of Aran - Bidgool County). Journal of Rural Researches, 4(2), 249-276. [In Persian]

6. Chen, L. S., Hsu, C. C., & Chang, P. C. (2008, October). Developing a TRIZ-Kano model for creating attractive quality. Proceeding of the 1st International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing (pp. 1-6). 2008, August. 4, IEEE.‏

7. Chen, Y. H. (2006). A Kano-CKM model for customer knowledge discovery. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 17(5), 589-608.

8. Chobchian, SH., Kalantari, Kh., & Shabanalifami, H. (1386/2007). Effective factors

on dehyary performance in Gilan province. Journal of Village & Development, 10(2), 87-108. [In Persian]

9. Dias, H., Vikramanayak, B. D. A. (1386/2007). Textbook of rural development plan (N. Farbod, Trans.). Tehran: Research Center and check out rural issues of Reconstruction ministry. [In Persian]

10. Farahani, H., & Rostam khani, A. (1392/2013). Review and assess the role of Dehyaries on quality of life in rural areas (Case study: Karasf district of Khodabande County). Urban Management Quarterly, 30(14), 195-206. [In Persian]

11. Firoznia, A., & Roknodin Eftekhari, A. (1382/2003). The place of village in the national development process from pundits point of view. Tehran: Iranian rural development institute. [In Persian]

12. Forrester, R., & Drexler, A. B. (1999). A model for team-based organization performance. The Academy of Management Executive, 13(3), 36-49. ‏

13. Ghalayini, A. M., Noble, J. S., & Crowe, T. J. (1997). An integrated dynamic performance measurement system for improving manufacturing competitiveness. International Journal of Production Economics, 48(3), 207-225. ‏

14. Ghasemi, H. (1388/2009). Performance analysis Dehyaries on rural development (Case study: Emamzadeh section of Natanz County). Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Tehran. Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]

15. Gilan Planning Department. (1390/2011). Statistical Yearbook of Gilan province. Gillan: Gilan Planning Department. [In Persian]

16. Haji Sharifi, D. (1371/1992). Access to human resource management. Tehran: Abyek Graduate Studies Press. [In Persian]

17. Hashemi, S., Motiee Langroodi, H., Ghadiri Masoumi, M., Rezvani, M. R., & Moghimi, M. (1390/2011). Clarifying the role of Dehyari and councils in the development of rural entrepreneurship (Case Study: Bahabad in Yazd province). Journal of Rural Researches, 2(5), 93-114. [In Persian]

18. Hiskey, J., & Seligon, M. (2003). Pitfalls of power to the people: Decentralization, Local Government Performance, and System Support in Bolivia. Studies in Comparative International Development, 37(4), 64-88.

19. Imani-e-Jajarmi, H., & Pourrajab, P. (1389/2010). Measure and analyze the characteristics of dehyaran entrepreneurship with emphasis on underlying factors affecting it (Case study: rural managers Miandoab County). Journal of Rural Researches, 1(1), 67-96. [In Persian]

20. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scored: Measures that Drive Performance, Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79.

21. Karimi, M. (1386/2007). Dehyaries performance evaluation in rural development (Case study: Kandovan section of Miane county). Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Tehran. Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]

22. Kochakianfard, H. (1386/2007). Challenges facing village Islamic council and Dehyari relations.

Monthly research, Dehyaries Education and Extension, 1(21), 16-21. [In Persian]

23. Kuo, Y. F. (2004). Integrating Kano’s model into web-community service quality. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 15(7), 925-939.

24. Lin, S. P., Yang, C. L., Chan, Y. H., & Sheu, C. (2010). Refining Kano's quality attributes-satisfaction' model: A moderated regression approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 126(2), 255-263.

25. Mahdavi, M., & Najafi-e-Kani, A. (1384/2005). Dehyaries, another experience in rural management (Case study: Dehyary of West Azerbaijan province). Geographical Research Quarterly, 38(52), 39-21. [In Persian]

26. Mohammad Naderi, A. (1386/2007). Collection of village’s rules and regulations and dehyaries organization. Isfahan: publication of the Ministry of Interior. [In Persian]

27. Motiee-e-Langroodi, S. H. (1382/2003). Rural Planning with an emphasis on Iran. Mashhad: Jahad Daneshgahi. [In Persian]

28. Naeeji, M. (1388/2009). The role of Dehyaries education in rural development (Case study:

Chamestan District dehyaries of Nour County). Unpublished master’s thesis of Rural Planning. University of Shahid Beheshti, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]

29. Nemati, M. (1384/2005). Council-Dehyari, reformist strategy. Dehyari Monthly, 3(14), 164-170. [In Persian]

30. Pimpa, N. (2005). Teacher Performance Appraisal in Thailand. Education Research for Policy and Practice, 4(2-3), 115-127.

31. Qadiri-e-Masoum, M., & Riahi, V. (1383/2004). Check axes and challenges of rural management in Iran. Geographical Research Quarterly, 34(50), 177-198. [In Persian]

32. Rafipour, F. (1372/1993). Measurement villagers tend to Jihad Sazandegi, Research in three provinces: Isfahan, Fars and Khorasan. Tehran: Center for Research and check out rural issues. [In Persian]

33. Rezaei, K. (1384/2005). Customer-focused approach to plan and improve product quality. Tehran: Anta press. [In Persian]

34. Rezai, K., & Shekari, A. (1385/2006). Presentation cause and effect model focused on customer orientation based. Journal of Faculty of Engineering, 40(98), 523-537. [In Persian]

35. Rezvani, M. (1387/2008). Introduction to rural development planning in Iran. Tehran: Ghomes publication. [In Persian]

36. Riahi, V., & Karimi-e-Nasab, S. (1392/2013). Dehyari Performance evaluation in

Physical-spatial development of rural settlements (Case Study: Kordian District of

Jahrom County). Journal of Regional Planning, 3(12), 61-70. [In Persian]

37. Roknodin-e-Eftekhari, A. (1386/2007). A new approach to rural management with an emphasis on effective inputs. Journal of Village & Development, 10(2), 1-30. [In Persian]

38. Tabarsa, GH. (1378/1999). Research and needs assessment strategy selection and performance evaluation of state organs model. Proceeding of the 1st Rajai Conference. Tehran: Administrative and Employment Center. [In Persian]

39. Taleb, M. (1376/1997). Rural management in Iran. Tehran: Tehran University press. [In Persian]

40. Weitz-Shapiro, R. (2007). The local connection: local government performance and satisfaction with democracy in Argentina. Comparative Political Studies, 41(3), 285-308.

41. Witell, L., & Löfgren, M. (2007). Classification of quality attributes. Managing Service Quality, 17(1), 54-73.

42. Xu, Q., Jiao, R., Yang, X., Helander, M., Khalid, H., & Opperud, A. (2009). An analytical Kano model for customer need analysis. Design Studies, 30(1), 87-110.