Abstract
The objectives of this research were: 1) to explore the existing situations, desirable situations, and the needs to develop the asset management system for universities in Guangxi; and 2) to develop the asset management system for universities in Guangxi. Mixed methods research was employed, which was divided into two phases: Phase 1 was exploring existing situations, desirable situations, and the need to develop the asset management system for universities in Guangxi. The sample comprised 187 heads of asset divisions and heads of asset departments of universities in Guangxi, selected using the stratified random sampling technique. The research instrument was a five-point rating-scale questionnaire with reliability coefficients of 0.97 for the existing situation and 0.98 for the desirable situation. Phase 2 was developing the asset management system for universities in Guangxi. Informants were 5 experts who have experience in asset management, and 7 experts who joined connoisseurship and evaluated the system. The research instruments were an interview form and a system evaluation form. Statistics used to analyze data were mean, standard deviation, and modified priority needs index. The research results were: 1) The existing situation of the asset management system for universities in Guangxi in total, and in each element including input, process, and output was at a high level, whereas the desirable situation in total and in each element was at a very high level. The needs for developing the asset management system for universities in Guangxi were ranked, from high to low, as output, process, and input. 2) The asset management system for universities in Guangxi comprised the following: 2.1) Input, consisting of human resources; technology; budgets; and policy, laws, and regulations; 2.2) Process, consisting of four subsystems as work units, namely comprehensive asset management plan, technology integration, lifecycle management, and human capital development; 2.3) Output, consisting of integrated plan quality, efficient control, and service quality; and 2.4) Feedback, consisting of performance evaluation, asset audit, stakeholder feedback, risk report, and continuous improvement. The results of system evaluation were at a very high level of propriety and utility, and at a high level of feasibility.