ࡱ> `bjbjss 8@c   j7j7j78768thV:V:V:V:V:1;1;1;sssssss$uh`xhtEJ1;1;JJtV:V:Jt'N'N'NJV:V:s'NJs'N'Nh)kV:J: '3j7Jil`t0ti^xLHx4)kx7k1;@~'NC_F1;1;1;ttMX1;1;1;tJJJJ066  Mirna Leko `imi Helena arapi A RESEARCH OF BUSINESS SCHOOL SERVICE QUALITY IN CROATIA: AN ENTREPRENEURIAL APPROACH NEEDED 1. INTRODUCTION Society expects higher education institutions to perform multiple roles. Higher education is generally recognized as both foundation for economic growth and as necessity for the well-being of each individual, as well as the society in general. Traditionally, higher education institutions only have been learning centers accumulating and transferring knowledge of all kinds to students, but today these institutions and the faculty are expected to actively engage in research and other creative activities that advance the frontiers of knowledge and to be the cutting edge of the intellectual, cultural, social and technological developments of civilization (Sharp et al.1998). The pace and dynamics of global changes in many aspects of life are changing dramatically and it is also noticeable in the area of higher education. According to Sotirakou (2004), mass higher education, the emergence of knowledge society, the unprecedented development of information technology, the marketization of higher education, as well as the turbulence of globalization has brought revolutionary changes to the universities mission and purposes all around the world. Some researchers concentrate on particular trends influencing business education: the focus is shifting from transactions to relationships and partnerships, increasing emphasis on ethics and corporate social responsibility, the emergence of global perspective, new organizational designs and patterns of employment, a shift in accreditation from education inputs to learning outcomes, an increasingly diverse student population, and, finally the need to teach a growing student population with fewer resources. (Laforge and Haynie, 2006). In addition to these factors and trends, building a market economy in Croatia and many other transitional countries in Central and Eastern Europe has brought not only the emergence of various economic conflicts but also the partly or total destruction of entire spheres of activity. One very fragile sector has been higher education, especially business education, which has undergone massive changes and is constantly facing institutional and market changes. One of the most important goals for many higher education institutions in such an environment is to ensure quality service for them customers. The major goal of this paper was to analyze the service quality of one of the Croatian business schools. The research was conducted on a sample of 273 undergraduate students of Faculty of Economics in Osijek, Croatia by using the SERVQUAL model. 2. TRADITIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION vs. NEW GLOBAL TRENDS A growing demand for learning combined with technical and technological advances challenges the core existence of traditionally organized higher education institutions in the 21st century and opens the door for emerging competitors. Traditional universities are attempting to adapt new purposes, structures and programs, which seems to be very challenging within the situation where government spending for public institutions of all kinds, including knowledge providing ones, is not keeping pace with growing enrollment and rising costs. The basic characteristics of traditional higher education institutions are, as described by Hanna (1998), the following: a residential student body, a recognized service area from which the majority of student are drawn, full time faculty members who organize curricula and degrees, teach in face to face settings, engage in scholarships, often conduct public service and share in institutional governance, a central library and physical plant non-profit financial status evaluation strategies of organizational effectiveness based upon measurement of inputs to institution (for example, funding, library holdings, facilities, and faculty/student ratio, faculty and student qualifications). In recent years a variety of efforts to reengineer higher education into closer alignment with market principles and management approaches drawn from business can be observed. Proponents argue that traditional approach is increasingly out of stay with demographic trends, technological innovations and changes in other sectors of the society. Opponents, on the other hand, criticize that these changes will lead to Taylorization of higher education by transforming faculty into a contingent labor force and learning into commodity (Green, 2003). However, due to the already mentioned trends in higher education, the market in this sector is rapidly developing, and new kinds of competitive organizations offering the similar service are appearing. They offer more responsiveness and accessibility to their customers; they are more adoptable in their programs and more capable of change when needed. According to Hanna (1998) these new organizations are in form of: extended traditional universities for-profit adult-centered universities distance education, i.e. technology based universities corporate universities university/industry strategic alliances degree/certification competency based universities, and global multinational universities. The major characteristics of these new type organizations is that they focus on knowledge less as a public good than as a commodity to be capitalized on in profit oriented activities. They became what is in USA being called academic capitalists (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004). These organizations are trying hard to develop, market and sell research products, educational services as well as consumer goods in the identified market. It is quite understandable that in doing so these organizations force traditional universities to change their policies and practices, implement new organizational structures and expand their managerial capacities in order to keep their competitive edge. 3. HIGHER BUSINESS EDUCATION IN CROATIA THE CURRENT STATE Only about 12% of Croatian population has a higher education degree, which is a half of OECD countries average. The major problems of higher education in Croatia have been identified as: -insufficient growth of educational capabilities, and -their inadequate quality and efficiency (Grbac and Meler, 2006). As a country preparing for the EU accession, Croatia is obliged to adapt its higher education system to European standards, so that these institutions can become a part of EU cooperation and higher education exchange programmes. The process of harmonizing Croatian higher education system with the Bologna process started with signing the Bologna Declaration in May 2001 and bringing in the new Act on scientific activity and higher education in July 2003. It indeed was a unique chance to overcome the above mentioned problems and implement a totally new higher education concept. However, the Bologna process was carried out in extremely short period (only 8 weeks for general program design and 10 week for detailed program completion)and, most importantly, without any research of the environment and demand characteristics, neither of direct customers (students), or indirect customers (economy). Higher education in business is one of the areas in which the new-type education institutions appear and create competitive environment. The system of higher business education is becoming dual, made of public and increasing number of private institutions. To our opinion, the increase of private institutions is mainly due to the noticed conflict between higher education in this area and the labor market, between education and work. Out of total of 97 higher education institutions in Croatia (excluding polytechnics) currently there are 8 traditional, state-owned universities with business schools in Croatia and 12 private institutions in business education of the new type. Although they still do not have the same status, there is an increasing number of students interested in these new types of studying. It is clear that traditional universities have to act. Faculty of Economics in Osijek, the institution in which the research was conducted, is a mid-size state-owned traditional business school, a part of the J.J. Strossmayer University in Osijek, in north-east of Croatia. The School has started implementing the Bologna system in year 2005-2006, and currently has both the Bologna and the old system running simultaneously for different generations. The School has about 4800 active undergraduate students and 66 faculty members (19 full professors, 11 associate professors, 6 assistant professors, 25 assistants and 5 senior lecturers). The staff includes the student service (4 persons), library (3 persons), school administration (8 persons), computer center support (2 persons), bookstore (1 person) and housekeeping staff. The old undergraduate program offers two modules: Marketing management and Financial management, while the Bologna program offers six different modules: Marketing, Management, Entrepreneurship, IT, Banking and finance and Economic development. 4. RESEARCH The research was conducted on a sample of 273 undergraduate students of Faculty of economics in Osijek, Croatia in spring 2007. The data collection model was in-class survey where different courses were visited and questionnaires distributed to randomly selected students. Since there are about 4800 undergraduate students at the Faculty, the sample covers about 6% of the total, which we consider representative. 4.1. Sample description Table 1 shows the major characteristics of the sample. Table 1. Sample description NVALID PERCENTYEAR OF STUDY173271381448STUDENT STATUSNON-PAYING78PARTLY PAYING76FULLY PAYING119STUDY SYSTEMTRADITIONAL144BOLOGNA129STUDY SUCCESS (AVERAGE GRADE)2.00 - 2.99863.00 3.991044.00 5.007 4.2. Research methodology The sample of 273 undergraduate students from freshmen to senior year out of total of about 4800 students at the Faculty of Economics Osijek were asked to identify and evaluate various aspects of the service quality provided by the Faculty. These aspects were identified as threefold: as organization and resources of the School which was evaluated thru the organization of studies, quality, available resources and capabilities of faculty, as knowledge itself, evaluated as its contribution to personal development, relevance to their expectations and its perceived applicability for future work, and as students as a final product, evaluated by their average study success (grades). Research was based on SERVQUAL model. It is a statistical model that measures several aspects of service quality: reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy and responsiveness. It is most often used to measure a gap between customer expectations and actual experience with a service. We have analyzed the difference of the quality criteria and checked its evaluations against the sample students' characteristics (year of studies, different student status (paying, partly-paying and non-paying), study success, and old system and Bologna system education, as well as the general image and quality of the Schools' program. 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A SERVQUAL model adapted from Parasuraman et al. (1988) has shown that the overall evaluation of the general service quality of Faculty of Economics in Osijek on 5 point Likert scale is 3,33. However, different quality aspects significantly differ, according to student opinions. The major strengths of the School (the highest average marks were given to the following: - knowledge and capabilities of the faculty (3.94), - opening hours and schedule (3.77), - applicability of acquired knowledge (3.72), and the worst positions are held by: - politeness of staff (2.51), - quality of work by staff (2.99), - knowledge and capabilities of staff (3.21), The organization and capabilities as a part of Schools product was evaluated according to five following variables: -organization of studying -adequate resources (library, PCs, classrooms, presentation equipment, and similar), -opening hours and schedule, -faculty quality, politeness, credibility, knowledge and capability -staff quality, politeness, knowledge and capabilities. Its average mark was 3.42. The knowledge as a Schools product was evaluated through five following variables: -the quality of the overall program, -the acquired knowledge responds to the expectations, -the acquired knowledge is needed, -the acquired knowledge enables personal development, -the acquired knowledge is useful for future work, and its average mark was 3.59. Students as products of the School were evaluated according to their study success, i.e. their average grades, and it was 2.97 for the whole sample. Further analysis had a goal to determine the statistically significant differences of these evaluations according to the sample specific characteristics (year of study, student status, Bologna vs. traditional program and study success). The ANOVA analysis has shown the following results in Table 2: Table 2. Statistically significant differences of Schools product quality aspects evaluation NMEANST.DEV.STD.ERR.FpOrganization and resourcesBologna1443,52,66860,067,399,007Non-Bologna1293,31,60080,051st YoS733,69,65030,087,665,0002 nd YoS713,34,64320,083 rd YoS813,23,62650,074 th YoS483,44,53410,08Total2733,42KnowledgeBologna1443,67,70630,064,319,039Non-Bologna1293,49,74240,071st YoS733,90,59730,077,717,0002nd YoS713,44,73730,093rd YoS813,40,74630,084th YoS483,63,72090,10Total2733,59StudentsNon-paying703,18,41500,0514,144,000Partly paying432,79,42900,05Fully paying842,90,40940,06Total2732,98 The students evaluation of organization and resources of the School as a product quality aspect shows statistically significant differences between Bologna and non-Bologna students and between students of different years of study. Bologna student evaluate this aspect with statistically significant higher average than non-Bologna students (3.52 vs. 3.31; F=7.399, p= 0.007). The highest average score for organization and resources according to the year of study was given by first-year students (3.69), and the lowest by third-year students (3.23). There were no statistically significant differences according to the student status and study success. The students evaluation of knowledge acquired at the School as a product quality aspect shows also statistically significant differences according to Bologna vs. non-Bologna students and according to the year of study. Bologna students have higher opinion of knowledge acquired (3.67) than non-Bologna students (3.48) (F=4.319, p=0.039). The best opinion of knowledge acquired at the School have the first year students (3.90), and the worst the third-year students (3.40) (F=7.717, p=0.00). In this case too, the paying vs. non-paying status and study success were not relevant criteria for significantly different evaluations. The students study success measured by their average grades was the weakest aspect of the Schools product, and the only statistically significant difference found was according to the student status: the non-paying students had average grade of 3.18 and the worst was the partly paying student group with an average grade of only 2.79 (F=14.144, p=0.000). There are some interesting relations in this analysis. First of all, one would expect that acquired knowledge that was evaluated as the best aspect of Schools product quality would imply better study success, but this case shows that the knowledge is either not accepted as it should, or evaluated properly. Secondly, despite out criticism about the implementation of Bologna system, the students seen to recognized the new quality and advantages of the new system, both in organization and resources, and acquired knowledge although there are no reflections to the study success again. However it might partly be explained by the fact that Bologna students in Croatia are now only 1st and 2nd year of study, and traditionally higher years of study are more specialized and students tend to study harder for their area of specialization. The lowest evaluation in all three aspects of the Schools product quality was evident in group of third year students. They are those who are trying to escape the Bologna system which would require them many changes and additional efforts in their study from class attendance to additional courses and different study system in general. Therefore they tend to pass their exams as soon as possible, not willing to engage in any non-grading projects and not caring about grades. Last but not least, one would expect that students paying for the Schools product would have higher expectations and therefore would be more critical, abut also more successful at studying. In the first case there is no statistically significant difference in their evaluation of the organization and resources and acquired knowledge, while in the second case there is a paradox. Paying student, both partly and fully, have significantly lower study success in comparison to the non-paying students. Since non-paying students are those financed by the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports, based upon their high school success and entrance exam success, it seems that it seems that high school study success influences higher education study success. 6. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS It is generally agreed that sustained competitiveness in global economy in the near future will increasingly depend on technology based strengths, which include the ability to apply new technologies, at access new markets successfully, to develop new product and to incorporate best management practices (Klofsen and Jones-Evans, 2000). Higher education institutions in the area of business undoubtly play a crucial role for this kind of development, and are under very high pressure to go along. Policy makers in Europe, but also in Croatia are increasingly identifying the need to develop the effectiveness of different forms of entrepreneurial activities within higher education institutions. These activities can be grouped into external, which goal is to bridge the widening gap between academic research, technological development and the commercial market, and internal, which are aimed at improving the competitive position of the institution by internal changes. Taking into account the obtained results and existing circumstances in Croatian socio-economic and political environment, the most viable and probably necessary option for the School will be an extended traditional university, i.e. school. It would mean the implementation of entrepreneurial approach to the existing state of the art in both internal and external activities. External entrepreneurial approach in this case would include the engagement of the School into various new income generating activities i.e. products like commercial projects, commercial research, consulting, specialized intensive executive courses and training, etc. which could involve both students and faculty, new teaching technologies like distance learning, finding new markets like business people who need highly profiled intensive courses on specific subjects. According to the Croatian government Strategy Report (2006), only 2.3% of active population participate in a kind of additional education during their working period, while this percentage in EU is10,8%. Internal entrepreneurial approach would mean creating curriculum attractive to students, change the staff quality and approach as well as the environment they create. The School can also re-think the evaluation, i.e. grading system and try to implement continuous grading of different student activities and not only or mainly the final exam. Entrepreneurial approach implemented to the analyzed School would bring in numerous benefits: -it would help introducing a market sensitive institutional culture, that is due to the historical reasons non-existent in Croatia, -it would enable relevant training experience for students, thus crating better student quality as a product aspect, -cooperative links with the business community could be established: it could be involved in numerous activities, from curriculum guidance help, work placement for students to part time teaching arrangements etc. All these activities could help create an image and reputation of the School, thus attracting good students, respectable faculty and possible new commercial projects as well as donations from the business community as additional financing sources that again will enhance the quality of the School. 7. LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH This research has some limitations. The first one refers to the sample. Although the sample is rather big (5,7% of the total population) and according to its structure quite representative, we do miss control groups, especially concerning Bologna vs. non-Bologna students. There are no non-Bologna students of the 1st and 2nd year of study, and no Bologna students of 3rd and 4th year of study, so the real influence of the Bologna factor which our research shows to be significant, has to be taken in account cautiously. Secondly, students as a variable for measuring the Schools product quality might be questionable for several reasons: They are measured only by study success, i.e. average grades, which in case of the current evaluation system in the School are mostly based on final exam, and not on semester long activities or out-of-School activities. The first year students are omitted in this evaluation since only a few of them had some grade before the end of the first semester when the research was made. Also we doubt how conscious and critical of the program and acquired knowledge they can be at the beginning of their studies. Third year students are somewhat specific. Namely, they are running away from Bologna system which would, if they fail a semester, bring them a number of additional exams and activities, so their behavior is specific. Their real value as a Schools product is made in the labor market, so this variable should be measured as combination of average grades and how good do students end up in the labor market (company, position, etc) after some time. Unfortunately, the school does not keep track of former students further success. Despite these limitations, in our opinion we have managed to get an overall picture of the Schools product quality and identified the necessity for entrepreneurial approach as a way to keep the current competitive position and at the same time to prepare for the coming future with growing education service market competition. All the activities we have suggested can be labeled as creative, innovative, proactive and, to some extent risk taking, which are the basic elements of entrepreneurial behavior. We plan to continue this research in the following few years and observe the changes that might occur on both Schools behavior and students evaluations of the Schools product quality. And, certainly, we would like to compare the obtained results with some other comparable institution of higher business education in Europe. BIBLIOGRAPHY: [1] Carman, J.M.: Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: An Assessment of the SERVQUAL Dimensions, Journal of Retailing, Vol.66, No.1, Spring, 1990. pp 33-55 [2] Conway, T. Et al.: Strategic Planning in Higher Education: Who are the Customers, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 8, No. 6. 1994. pp 29-36 [3] Dali, M.: Strateaki okvir za razvoj 2006-2013, Vlada Republike Hrvatske, Zagreb, 2006, /www.strategija.hr/ [4] Glassman, A.M. et al.: Academic Entrepreneurship: Views on Balancing the Acropolis and the Agora, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol.12, No.4. 2003., pp. 353-374 [5] Grbac, B., Meler, M.: Designing Higher Educational Programs on a Marketing Basis, in: Marketing of Higher Education SIG Symposium, Cyprus, 2006 [6] Green, R.: Markets, Management and ReengineeringHigher Education, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 585/1/196, , 2003. pp. 585-610 [7] Klofsen, M., Jones-Evans, D.: Comparing Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe The Case of Sweden and Ireland, Small Business Economics 14, 2000., pp.299-309 [8] Laforge, B., Haynie, M.: Creating an Effective Learning Environment: It's about People, Experiential Classroom, Syracuse University, Syracuse, USA, 2006. [9] Leatbeater, C., Goss, S.: Civic Entrepreneurship, DEMOS, London, Great Britain, 1999. [10] Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L.: SERVQUAL a multiple item scale for measuring customers perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing 64(1): Spring, 1988., pp.12-40 [11] Sharp, A.M. et al: Economics of Social Issues, 8th ed., BPI/Irwin, Homewood, Ill., 1998. [12] Sotirakou, T.: Coping with Conflict within the Entrepreneurial University: Threat or Challenge for Heads of Departments in the UK Higher Education Context, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 70, No. 2, 2004. pp. 345-372 [13] Stehr, N.: Knowledge and Economic Conduct, University of Toronto Press, 2002.  .VZ     8 > G p ;>&'*12丬umeh&CJaJh'*CJaJhUhkCJaJhUh'*CJaJhUh .CJaJhUh~fCJaJhUhCJaJhUh5CJaJhUh\l5CJaJhCJaJhUh5CJaJhUhu5CJaJhUCJaJhUh6hUhU6hU'  8VXZ   8 : :$a$gdy&K $`a$gd''''''6(;((())))N*Q*W*`*̶̫̠̊̕th h/vCJaJh h4CJaJh h#&CJaJh h7CJaJh hQV*CJaJh hkCJaJh he/CJaJh h~fCJaJh h!SCJaJh h%CJaJh&CJaJh h;ZCJaJh hdCCJaJ-`*u*v***++++,,,,,,,,,,-h-v---------- .../.0.1.ĸujjjbZhn|CJaJh+PCJaJh h}CJaJh hnCJaJh h+PCJaJh h~fCJaJh h 1CJaJh he/CJaJh h 15CJaJh h\l5CJaJh CJaJh h#&CJaJh hkCJaJh$XiCJaJh h/vCJaJh h4CJaJ#1.6.I.J....................../////////'/(/8/9/E/F/c/ƻܧ}}rh hkCJaJh h/vCJaJh h?5CJaJh?h h?CJaJh}h h}5CJaJh}CJaJh h 1CJaJh h}CJaJh hvaCJaJh hn|CJaJh h 15CJaJh h\l5CJaJ(......pzkd$$Ifl0$$ t0644 la $$Ifa$gd~f$a$gd].... $$Ifa$gd? $$Ifa$gd~fgkdW$$IflH$ t0644 la....xl $$Ifa$gd? $$Ifa$gd~fzkd$$Ifl0$$ t0644 la....xl $$Ifa$gd? $$Ifa$gd~fzkd$$Ifl0$$ t0644 la....xl $$Ifa$gd? $$Ifa$gd~fzkdN$$Ifl0$$ t0644 la...x $$Ifa$gd~fzkd$$Ifl0$$ t0644 la.... $$Ifa$gd? $$Ifa$gd~fgkd$$IflH$ t0644 la..//xl $$Ifa$gd? $$Ifa$gd~fzkdE$$Ifl0$$ t0644 la////xl $$Ifa$gd? $$Ifa$gd~fzkd$$Ifl0$$ t0644 la//'/x $$Ifa$gd~fzkd$$Ifl0$$ t0644 la'/(/4/8/ $$Ifa$gd? $$Ifa$gd~fgkdJ$$IflH$ t0644 la8/9/A/E/xl $$Ifa$gd? $$Ifa$gd~fzkd$$Ifl0$$ t0644 laE/F/e/x $$Ifa$gd?zkd$$Ifl0$$ t0644 lac/d/e/f/j/q/r/v/w/z/{////////////////00000;1K1ݿ}rgr\h h>aCJaJh hy<CJaJh h4CJaJh hnCJaJh h~fCJaJh h 15CJaJh h~f5CJaJh h\l5CJaJhn|CJaJh CJaJh h?CJaJh h/vCJaJh?h h?5CJaJ$jh hk0J5CJUaJ e/f/s/v/ $$Ifa$gd? $$Ifa$gd~fgkdA$$IflH$ t0644 lav/w///xl $$Ifa$gd? $$Ifa$gd~fzkd$$Ifl0$$ t0644 la////xl $$Ifa$gd? $$Ifa$gd~fzkd$$Ifl0$$ t0644 la///////c2444|||woc[||$a$gdqH $`a$gdaCJaJh hCJaJ'444e66667/7R7778d88889m9999!:T:t: ;$a$gd/v $`a$gdaCJaJh h/vCJaJh hcCJaJ9:::;(<3<4<5<6<<<<<<<<<<====3=7=C=D=\=`=b=c=~================>>>>>≯htN"CJaJh hqCJaJh h CJH*aJhqh$XiCJaJh h CJaJh h 5CJaJhcCJaJh CJaJh hCJaJh h>aCJaJh hbCJaJh hkECJaJ3 ;;5<6<<<<<<<<<< $$Ifa$gdO0S$a$gd $a$gd\l$a$gdqH <<kd$$Iflִp l%; t06    44 la<<<<<<<<< $$Ifa$gdO0S<<kdr$$Ifl4ִp l`%; t06    44 la<<== ===== $$Ifa$gdO0S==kdk$$Ifl4ִp l   %  ;    t06    44 la==%=(=-=3=8=>=C= $$Ifa$gdO0SC=D=kd$$Ifl4ִp l   %  ;    t06    44 laD=E=N=Q=V=\=a=b= $$Ifa$gdO0Sb=c=d=$ $$Ifa$gdO0Skd $$Ifl4֞p l %;` t0644 lad=m=p=u={=== $$Ifa$gdO0S===$ $$Ifa$gdO0Skd} $$Ifl4֞p l %;  t0644 la======= $$Ifa$gdO0S===$ $$Ifa$gdO0SkdW $$Ifl4֞p l    %  ;   t0644 la======= $$Ifa$gdO0S===$ $$Ifa$gdO0Skd? $$Ifl4֞p l            %        ;     t0644 la======= $$Ifa$gdO0S===$ $$Ifa$gdO0Skd0 $$Ifl4֞p l   %  ;   t0644 la======== $$Ifa$gdO0S==kd$$Ifl4ִp l`%; t06    44 la===>> >>>> $$Ifa$gdO0S>>kd $$Ifl4ִp l   %  ;    t06    44 la>>>>$>*>/>5>:> $$Ifa$gdO0S>->.>:>;>U>V>X>Y>v>w>>>>>>>>>>>??? ?+?,???@?A?B???@@@@@@@@@@@@3A:AaAhAiAAABǼh hy<CJaJh hkECJaJh h'*CJaJh h}CJaJh hCJaJh hO0SCJaJh CJaJh(h h(CJaJh hqCJaJhqh$XiCJaJh h CJaJ4:>;>kd!$$Ifl4ִp l   %  ;    t06    44 la;><>D>G>L>R>W>X> $$Ifa$gdO0SX>Y>Z>$ $$Ifa$gdO0Skd6$$Ifl4֞p l %;` t0644 laZ>b>e>j>p>u>v> $$Ifa$gdO0Sv>w>x>$ $$Ifa$gdO0Skd$$Ifl4֞p l %;  t0644 lax>>>>>>> $$Ifa$gdO0S>>>$ $$Ifa$gdO0Skd$$Ifl4֞p l    %  ;   t0644 la>>>>>>> $$Ifa$gdO0S>>>$ $$Ifa$gdO0Skd$$Ifl4֞p l            %        ;     t0644 la>>>>>>> $$Ifa$gdO0S>>>$ $$Ifa$gdO0Skd$$Ifl4֞p l   %  ;   t0644 la>>>>>>>> $$Ifa$gdO0S>>kd$$Ifl4ִp l`%; t06    44 la>>>>>??? $$Ifa$gdO0S? ? ?$ $$Ifa$gdO0Skd$$Ifl4֞p l %;` t0644 la ????%?*?+? $$Ifa$gdO0S+?,?2?$ $$Ifa$gdO0Skdy$$Ifl4֞p l    %  ;   t0644 la2?3?7???? $$Ifa$gdO0S??@?A?B?$$a$gd\lkda$$Ifl4֞p l            %        ;      t0644 laB?AGDEMMMMMQ1SU-WWXXYYZZZZZ,]$a$gd $`a$gd*B*phj@j } Table Grid7:V0>@> k Footnote TextCJaJ@&@!@ kFootnote ReferenceH*H@2H F Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJB'@AB y&KComment ReferenceCJaJ<@R< y&K Comment TextCJaJ@j@QR@ y&KComment Subject5\c&dd +,-: Z v x[}Ru&'(de V#####/%0%1%I%J%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&&&&&&'&(&4&8&9&A&E&F&e&f&s&v&w&&&&&&&&&&&&c)+++++e----./.R.../d////0m0000!1T1t1 2253633333333333333333333344 4444444%4(4-43484>4C4D4E4N4Q4V4\4a4b4c4d4m4p4u4{44444444444444444444444444444444444444455 55555555$5*5/555:5;5<5D5G5L5R5W5X5Y5Z5b5e5j5p5u5v5w5x5555555555555555555555555555555555555666 6 6666%6*6+6,6263676<6=6>6?6@6A6B68G;<DDDDDH1JL-NNOOYPQQQQQ,TU&VW=X8Z[[[[2\\I]]^1__u``aab>c?c@cccccccccddd000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000@000@0h00@0xh00@0Hh00@0ph00h00W=X8Z[dj00h00j004YyYj00 2j `*1.c/K15:>BM,W^7ej7:<>?@NSUVn& ........//'/8/E/e/v///4 ;<<<<==C=D=b=d===========>>:>;>X>Z>v>x>>>>>>>>>? ?+?2???B?,] m8;=ABCDEFGHIJKLMOPQRTWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmopqrstuvwxyz{|}~98@0(  B S  ?Y&W'W (W )W$*W!+W ,W#"-Wd .W/Wd0Wb1W$2Wb3Wo"4Wd 5W$6W7Wd 8W 9W%":W?;W|?>W>?W|>@W<>AW=BW=CW|=DW<=EW<FW<GW|<HW<<IW;JW;KW|;LW<;MW:NW:OW|:PW<:QW9RW9SW|9TWdW"UW$W"VWV"WWZXWZYW4l"ZW[WT"\W#4]W^W X"_W`W4"aW<bWfcWdWdeWfW"gWhWz#iW#jWkWDlWmWēnWT6"oW6"pW\!qW!rWsWtWl#EuW#EvWTx#wWx#xWyW4zWt{WT"|W"}Wԁ"~WlS";D^^_ _ g DDHVV^}} ""###9&9&x+x+22334466*7*7h9h999!>!>2?F?F?@@GGOORRvVvVx[']']n^n^y^I`R`^`^`i``````aaazbzbcc)cd      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCEDFGHJIKMLNOPRQSTUWVX""CJeee n n GGO]cc ###$$@&@&++223344661717o9o999(>(>9?M?M?@@GG O ORR}V}V~[-]-]w^^^Q`\`f`l`l``````aaa|b|b%c0c0cd   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCEDFGHJIKMLNOPRQSTUWVX9X*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace8Y*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCityBU*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region=W*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=V*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState YXWVUXYXUUXUWXVUXUXYXUUXYYXYXYXUYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYXYUXYXUXUXYXYXXXYXYUWVXYUXYUX XY XUXVW+1\3]6]I]]]6_=___z````abbb@cBccccccccccccddd9RX>@V""%%*+g-p-----..1.8.T.].//U1X163>3LLRRYY\\]]f`l```@cBccccccccccccddd33333333333333333333333333 +:Z v [Rt1%I%%s&w&&&&--333C4E44444:5<55555>6@cccccccccccddd@cccccccccccddd mZO\x)Dɺ8D*BJ&@-:1`b1ٸAq48d%J`;!"h2: yٸJy&? ^`hH. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.T^`OJQJo(hHT^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoT  ^ `OJQJo(hHT  ^ `OJQJo(hHTxx^x`OJQJ^Jo(hHoTHH^H`OJQJo(hHT^`OJQJo(hHT^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoT^`OJQJo(hHh 88^8`hH.h ^`hH.h  L ^ `LhH.h   ^ `hH.h xx^x`hH.h HLH^H`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHT $$^$`o(hH.T^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoT  ^ `OJQJo(hHT  ^ `OJQJo(hHTxx^x`OJQJ^Jo(hHoTHH^H`OJQJo(hHT^`OJQJo(hHT^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoT^`OJQJo(hH ^`hH. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.^`o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.T $$^$`o(hH.T^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoT  ^ `OJQJo(hHT  ^ `OJQJo(hHTxx^x`OJQJ^Jo(hHoTHH^H`OJQJo(hHT^`OJQJo(hHT^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoT^`OJQJo(hHT^`OJQJo(hHT^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoT  ^ `OJQJo(hHT  ^ `OJQJo(hHTxx^x`OJQJ^Jo(hHoTHH^H`OJQJo(hHT^`OJQJo(hHT^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoT^`OJQJo(hH -:1;!"h%JAq48mZ8D*x) y0Jyb1 H/ @_^0qHl~k&(A@Jq4tN"MS'*'*QV*G- .e/"37y<?ava e/e~fwsh$Ximjvj qau/vn|}xubQw!c!n(X)#&:nL_  A}#Lhtm\l>~Fv+PcUBt,;ZsF^J%i@ 1u%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&&&&&&'&(&4&8&9&A&E&F&e&f&s&v&w&&&&&&&3333333333333333333344 4444444%4(4-43484>4C4D4E4N4Q4V4\4a4b4c4d4m4p4u4{44444444444444444444444444444444444444455 55555555$5*5/555:5;5<5D5G5L5R5W5X5Y5Z5b5e5j5p5u5v5w5x5555555555555555555555555555555555555666 6 6666%6*6+6,6263676<6=6>6?6@6d@4*5*l<4*4*@\]Bcd``@`f`@`0@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1ҳ&&54pT2pT2! 4dcc2QHX ?2Mirna Leko `imiMirna Korisnik014         Oh+'0   @ L X dpxMirna Leko imiMirnaNormal Korisnik0153Microsoft Office Word@8@0#@=o@pT՜.+,0 hp   RH - TDU2c Mirna Leko imi Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FS:Data `1TablexWordDocument8SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q