Construction and Application of a Comprehensive Management Effectiveness Evaluation System for University Teaching and Research Laboratories
University laboratories serve the dual functions of talent cultivation and research innovation. However, existing laboratory management evaluations predominantly focus on single dimensions such as safety, resource utilization, or intelligent management, lacking a comprehensive assessment that accounts for the synergistic effects of teaching, research, management, safety, and economic benefits, and thus failing to fully reflect the true management effectiveness of laboratories. Taking a university in Wenzhou as an example, this paper constructs a comprehensive management effectiveness evaluation indicator system for university laboratories comprising 12 indicators across four dimensions—teaching support, research output, resource utilization, and safety management—based on the principles of scientific rigor, systematicity, and operability. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is employed to determine indicator weights, with 15 experts in laboratory management invited to score the judgment matrices; expert opinions exhibited moderate coordination, the consistency test at the criterion level was passed, and the rationality of weights was ensured through consistency checks, while reliability and validity tests were conducted to verify the scientific soundness of the system. Using the laboratories of six secondary colleges at the university as evaluation units, 198 valid questionnaires were collected from enrolled students, experimental teaching staff, and laboratory managers for case application. The results show that the safety management dimension received the highest weight (0.2615), with relatively balanced weights across dimensions; the comprehensive effectiveness scores of the six colleges ranged from 3.60 to 4.03, and the evaluation results effectively distinguished the management effectiveness levels of laboratories across colleges, corroborating the results of IPA (importance–performance) analysis. The system provides a quantitative tool and reference basis for university laboratory management decision-making and performance improvement.
[1] Yan H, Gao M, 2018, Construction of a Comprehensive Management Information Platform for University Laboratories. Computer Knowledge and Technology, 14(2): 20–21.
[2] Xu S, Xu B, 2015, Discussion on the Current Status and Countermeasures of University Laboratory Management. Experimental Science and Technology, 13(3): 185–186.
[3] Yang X, Fang K, Lei J, et al., 2019, Research and Reflections on the Construction and Management System of University Laboratories. Journal of Laboratory Research and Exploration, 38(12): 270–273, 287.
[4] Zhou Y, 2011, Research on the Current Status and Issues of Laboratory Management in China: A Case Study of Economic and Management in Universities. China’s Collective Economy, (1): 48.
[5] Wang X, 2014, Research on the Current Status and Issues of Laboratory Construction and Management. Information Systems Engineering, (2): 157–158.
[6] Li G, Liu Y, 2009, Comprehensive Evaluation of University Laboratories Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Experimental Science and Technology, 7(4): 129–131, 134.
[7] Liu Y, Lin B, Liao J, et al., 2024, Construction of an Evaluation Index System for Open Nursing Laboratories in Universities. Nursing Research, 38(6): 4190–4195.
[8] Sun Y, 2009, Evaluation Index System and Methods for Open Management of University Laboratories. Journal of Hebei Normal University of Science & Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 8(4): 31–34.
[9] Shi J, Wu C, Chen Z, 2017, Research on the Comprehensive Evaluation System and Methods for Open Teaching Laboratories in Universities. Laboratory Science, 20(4): 159–162.
[10] Chen W, Yan Z, Lan Y, 2018, Research on the Benefit Evaluation of University Teaching Laboratory Construction. Experimental Technology and Management, 35(4): 252–255.
[11] Wang H, Qin S, Yang J, 2024, Safety Risk Assessment of University Laboratories Based on AHP—CRITIC—Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation. Safety and Health, (6): 50–55.
[12] Cao Yi, Zhao Lu, Li Hongtao, et al., 2019, Safety Evaluation of Engineering Laboratories in Universities Based on AHP-Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Method. Laboratory Science, 22(5): 191–194, 198.
[13] Huang S, 2014, Preliminary Exploration of the Benefit Evaluation System for University Teaching Laboratories. Journal of Laboratory Research and Exploration, 33(4): 251–254.
[14] Chen Q, Zeng X, Lin J, 2013, Research on the Performance Evaluation of Open Sharing in University Laboratories. Experimental Technology and Management, (4): 209–211, 216.
[15] Wei L, 2025, Accelerating the Informatization Management Process of Scientific Research Laboratories to Support the “Double First-Class” Initiative in Universities. Education and Science Guide (Electronic Version), (3): 266–268.
[16] Liu B, Chen G, 2025, Research and Discussion on the Current Status and Issues of University Laboratory Safety Management: A Case Study of a Western Undergraduate Agricultural and Forestry University. Laboratory Testing, 3(3): 57–59.
[17] Zhu S, Yang C, Li S, et al., 2006, Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Model and Its Application Combined with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Experimental Science and Technology, 4(4): 42–44, 71.
[18] Cheng Y, Chen L, Xin H, et al., 2023, Research on the Evaluation of Laboratory Quality Management Systems Based on AHP Analysis. Grain Storage, 52(10): 11–20.
[19] Wang W, Wang H, Luo S, 2015, Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation of Teaching Laboratories in Universities Based on AHP. Modern Educational Equipment in China, (4): 32–35.
[20] Guo J, Yang S, Jiao C, et al., 2023, Research and Practice on the Safety Management System of University Laboratories under the Background of Big Data and Dual Prevention Mechanism. Experimental Technology and Management, 40(11): 240–245.
[21] Yin L, 2015, Promoting Comprehensive Open Sharing of Laboratories with a Focus on Cultivating Practical and Innovative Abilities. Experimental Science and Technology, 13(5): 229–231, 251.
