There is no such thing as a free lunch

“There is no such thing as a free lunch” reminded the Nobel Laureate Professor Rolf M. Zinkernagel in his recent Convocation address to the graduating students of KIIT-University at Bhubaneswar. He was highlighting the value of women in society and how their efforts have often subsidized economic growth of communities, states and nations. Most societies, in return, have not done enough to recognize this valuable support extended by their women folk. Nations that have realized this, however, have given ample opportunities to their women folk and are on the path of rapid development. At the same time, cautions the Nobel Laureate, challenges related to accelerated development have to be handled carefully by balancing the cultural sensitivities of civilizations. Like Prof. Zinkernagel, his associates from Switzerland have been articulating similar messages during their several visits to this part of the globe in recent times. These are important messages in a world going global and supposedly with ingrained democratic values.

At the same time we see accelerated development luring young minds towards lucrative ventures promoted by “academics-turned-businessmen” in and around Cambridge, USA. Reports indicate how biotechnology companies have sprouted up around MIT and Harvard University spending billions of dollars for promoting research and development. [See report: Biotech Topples the Ivory Tower]

Thus, while scientists in Switzerland are reaching out to the masses (local as well as global) to justify their research spend; Corporations in America are trying to lure academics out of their ivory towers for boosting their profits.

India needs to be careful with its own compulsion of facing challenges related to inclusive-growth. Weighed down with a legacy of caste-based politics, it has failed to create structures to exploit greater global opportunities - leading to economic commentators ridiculing us of our fatalism and slow “Hindu-rate-of-growth”. This in part is, perhaps, due to our several social redundancies which are the result of ill-understood customs and traditions taking the form of ritualistic proportions. Blind adoption of rituals may lead us to dark alleys of yesteryears and mindless acceptance of global adventurism may force us into situations of ideological conflict. I urge the Indian community (at the basic level of the family) to consider what is socially relevant in participating in a healthy global economy.
It is time the Indian community faced religion with reason for accepting global opportunities with grace. The first step in this direction is a caste-less society which should internalize the Nobel Laureate’s message - “There is no such thing as a free lunch”.

Use Brain Power in Manufacturing

The Chief Secretary of Orissa has rightly articulated the need for industry participation in the development of the state. Value addition near the raw material source is a desirable objective from the perspective of development within the state. Further, the Industry department is suggesting the establishment of plant level advisory committees (PLAC) for facilitating ancillary industries around the mother plants. While these moves are welcome, it remains to be seen how Orissa-Inc responds to these expectations. The TISCOs, POSCOs, NALCOs, and upcoming BPOs need to reflect on the past mistakes and see that there is balanced stakeholder participation in sharing the benefits of competitiveness. Benefits cannot be shared properly without creating conditions for enabling manpower to move up the value chain.

There are evidences where the state has not been able to protect the stakeholder interest after the investors have moved in. Mainly because the MoUs (if not well formulated) are open to interpretation and the investors try their level best to push their own hidden agenda. The ongoing tussle regarding POSCO needs to be settled properly by developing a robust MoU through proper stakeholder participation. Otherwise, “Mineral Resource Discrimination will lead to Human Resource Discrimination”. However, with a robust MoU in place, Mineral Resource Development can lead to Human Resource Development.

Quoting B.Muthuraman, Managing Director of Tata Steel, from a Wall Street Journal article titled Indian State Digs In Over Iron (11 May 2005): (Quote) "India needs to be careful with our iron or we will run out in less than 50 years. Exporting iron ore is a national crime." (Unquote) The Gopalpur project of Tata was shelved because it was made to appear that the environment lobby was against the industry lobby. However, did the industry do enough to promote green manufacturing concepts? Isn’t it possible to develop products and processes keeping good design-for-environment principles in view? Further, as some may say, the unfortunate Kalinga Nagar incident has put industrial development within the state on reverse gear. However, did it stop the Industry (such as Tata) from not exploiting the existing mineral resources of the state?

The PLAC concept has been adopted by NALCO since the mid-1990s. However, has it allowed real brain power from moving into the manufacturing activities in and around the mother plants? The committee’s functioning has been dictated more by the surrounding power-hierarchy than by the stakeholder expectations. I have come across interesting initiatives from the ancillary promotion cell often being ignored by the higher officials. Should this mistake be perpetuated?

Captains of Orissa-Inc have often suggested that the lack of a world-class golf course detracts serious professionals from moving into the state. I hope they are not making it as “the” cause. Have they done enough to see that the employees (knowledge worker or otherwise) are not asked to keep their brains outside the factory gates? World-class manufacturing requires promotion of world-class thinking.

Professor Shoji Shiba was in Mumbai to make middle and senior executives unlearn the “need to produce and produce more.” While the go-east policy is moving industry into our state, I hope India Inc. will be encouraging greater brainpower in manufacturing. The results can be even more striking if it is adopted in a poor state like Orissa. However, sustained development through innovation would not be possible if an environment tuned to measure efficiency is adopted. Rather, Orissa needs manufacturing to be more responsive. The upcoming initiatives in the state should, therefore, focus more on boosting the brainpower in manufacturing.

India needs to go beyond being a back office to the globe. Quoting Michael Dell (ET; 31 Oct 2007): "Technology users in the western world benefit every day from the work of bright, talented Indian employees and their constant innovation. But more than serving as the world’s software writer or back office, India is harnessing the productivity, efficiency, and innovation benefits of IT as a foundation for global economic competitiveness. I see industry working, with great commitment, with India’s government to build on this progress, and to help further democratise access to technology, so that more Indian citizens enjoy even more of technology’s benefits with an ever-decreasing impact on our environment. That is our shared responsibility. By harnessing these forces — the democratisation and simplification of technology, we can make a positive impact not just on our economies, but also our planet."

{An edited version of this post appeared in the "letter to the editor" section of The New Indian Express}

Year-back issue @BPUT

Here is my take on the “year back” issue.

I start by assuming that everyone associated with the education sector is genuinely interested in handling the challenges related to inclusive growth and believes in healthy globalization.

Given the above assumption, in my opinion, the “year-back” system should not be seen in isolation. If BPUT wants to retain “quality control” over all the constituent/affiliated colleges, then it has to work on holistic measures to enhance the process-capability of a centralized system of education delivery. In such a system, “year-back” will be meaningful only when there is a collective ownership of the process (from admissions=>academic-delivery=>evaluation=>placement). This will require a lot of cooperation and coordination between the promoters of private colleges and the government functionaries. Efforts should be taken to involve the other stakeholders as well by balancing their expectations. With Orissa taking steps to welcome the industry, it would be essential to have the corporations participating actively in manpower development. Opportunities need to be availed for better Industry-institute interaction. Surprisingly, corporations have been left out of this entire debate as of now. The industry department of the GoO should be looking into this aspect.

As reported in today’s newspaper, BPUT is considering deployment of resources for (a) Developing a cadre of centralized faculty (b) Implementing smart-cards for monitoring student attendance (c) Monitoring faculty activities through e-systems and (d) Developing a question bank with solutions. I doubt if these measures are going to bring collective responsibility in administering quality. We do not see much scope for active participation of either the promoters or the corporations. To meet the needs of the industry we need to factor in the requirements of the industry. Further, technology should be used to re-engineer the existing processes and not for merely monitoring the same old processes. Case in point is monitoring of classroom attendance - it will not give the much needed fillip to the creative world of academics. Rather, technology should be used for creating innovative modes of interaction between the stakeholders - certainly for the young generation (of students and teachers). Moreover, it could be used in enabling the corporations to participate in the academic development process. Finally, if the stakeholder community decides to adopt “year-back” as a mode of controlling quality output, then all attempts must be made beforehand (in the upstream process) to ensure that the students are given a fair chance to clear the various “quality check points” to be able to qualify as “industry-ready”. Here also technology could be deployed and it has been perhaps partly suggested by BPUT.

The stakeholder community of a centralized set up (as you know) would be definitely large and it would not be easy to allow individual freedom and creativity. Therefore, it would be better to decentralize and provide distributed process capabilities at the level of the schools and colleges with their own inherent set of stakeholders. Thereafter, if the stakeholder community of (say) College-X decides to have “year-back” as a means of ensuring quality, then so be it. Let them be allowed the freedom to decide their own quality parameters. BPUT can use its resources (instead) to setup benchmarks, provide constructive guidelines and develop various knowledge resources to support the autonomous colleges. In addition, it can continue evaluating the students of those colleges who express their desire to be governed by a centralized system of evaluation.

It is surprising to see the oldest college of the state (i.e., UCE Burla) still not enjoying the autonomy that it deserves. Please check if this is true. In my opinion, colleges both in the private and public sector should be given the freedom to develop their own capabilities should they express the desire to be fully autonomous.

Corporate Social Responsibility @BPUT

The BPUT authorities are trying hard to bring sanity into the higher education sector that is growing at a very fast rate. Under the 11th five-year plan this rate is bound to grow even faster with greater private participation. With corporations worldwide trying to seek out opportunities at the bottom of the pyramid, India is becoming aware of the challenges related to inclusive-growth. Under these circumstances, the state should be careful in exercising controls. Excessive non-market oriented controls fail to meet the expectations of young minds driven by aspirational goals. Such ineffective controls then give way to unhealthy aspirational politics. Hence a regulatory framework, designed to balance stakeholder expectations, needs to be put in place.

Majority of parents and students want good placements and are, therefore, willing to pay for private education. Most academic administrators want to ensure “quality in education” albeit using outdated experience from a protected economy. They use evaluation systems that are just not good enough for the new economy. While companies need “industry-ready” engineers, it is yet to be determined that the performance in the BPUT exam is strongly correlated with post-placement job-performance. To counter the deadlock with the students, instead of suggesting holistic solutions, the Academic Council has formed a 7-member panel to assess only the exam system.

It is time we became the trendsetters instead of emulating what other states are doing. BPUT is well placed under a Vice-Chancellor who understands the various quality models that can be used to develop distributed process-capabilities. Implementation of these models would ensure greater responsibility and autonomy with built-in accountability at the level of the schools. The schools have their own independent stakeholder community to guide them in their development. Such an arrangement would also ensure greater involvement of the placement company at the level of the school.

BPUT needs to develop the regulatory framework to create the necessary competitive environment with the schools given the option of self-certification of quality. It is time the industry department and the state government supported the VC in thinking and implementing out-of-box solutions to our existing problems. Academic administrators need to create effective learner-centric modules leveraging the power of information technology to hold the interest of creative young minds. They cannot afford to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach. For instance, use of smart cards for monitoring attendance may result in a tinkering effect that may lead to stifling creativity in the academic environment. Finally, when corporations are poised to virtually rule the state, it is time we engaged the companies into some serious corporate social responsibility.

Allow Academic Adventurism

This refers to the article “The 100% guarantee for 9%” (TNIE, 31 August 2007). The authors have rightly pointed out the lacuna in our educational system. Adopting a one-size-fits-all approach through state controlled regulatory bodies does not bode well for an economy preparing to face growth-related challenges. We do need to encourage drastic educational reforms for supporting creativity in professional education. Adopting concurrency to reduce the lead time in developing industry-ready professionals is indeed a very good suggestion. One can also uphold their suggestions for developing creative learner-centric programs through a more inclusive capacity building exercise involving participation of small towns. These suggestions can be taken forward through a more progressive educational policy that promotes free thinking beyond limiting geographical boundaries.

However, we have to be cautious with the idea of faculty exchange between top-rung institutions such as IIMs and IITs with other institutions of the country. Faculty members in these elite institutions have seldom experienced the harsh conditions under which most institutes in India have to grow. Nor has their involvement as nominees and experts to the various boards and committees given any relief to the faculty wanting to promote creativity in a less-privileged school of India . Even if some of them are prepared to face the harsh conditions, their ability gets stifled by the statutes currently governing most “non-elite” educational Institutions/Universities of the country.

Faculty members in elite institutions enjoy much greater autonomy than their less privileged counterpart in other colleges. Moreover, unlike US faculty, they don’t have to compete for funds as these are planned in the form of grants (read taxpayers’ money) by the MHRD. Naturally, therefore, they don’t have to spend much energy worrying about support to bring quality into the classroom meant for the elites. Further, their proximity to MHRD made it easier for them to be in most policy making bodies. However, did they ever use this opportunity to create more IIT/IIM like Institutions in the country? Did they create conditions to encourage pluralism in the faculty community? IIT Kharagpur has more than 40% of faculty who are the products of their own system. In some departments it is as high as 90%. Will it be healthy to make them the role models for the less privileged Institutions?

Finally, the authors have given some promising facts about the huge manpower potential that is locked in students below 14 years of age. Are the elite Institutions doing enough in helping them realizing their dreams for a future? The most important area where they can create a difference is by promoting greater freedom to the individual entity through formulation of progressive policies. I strongly support their bottom-line – “we need to think of new solutions to face the approaching challenges”. If I may add, we need radical reforms to promote academic adventurism.

Radical reforms

This refers to the express headline “BSE rot stinks, top to bottom” (TNIE, 23 Aug 2007). It has nicely exposed the rot in the examination system leading to “mark-fixing scams”. With the Chief Minister appointing a committee for suggesting reforms, we should take advantage of the situation in creating better systems for the future. It is time we suggested some radical reforms in our boards and councils.

The current examination system, controlled by BSE, is a result of our distrust for many. Perhaps the single most objective of the existing system is to negate the “internal biases” in our various schools. A closer examination of the existing evaluation process, as highlighted in the express report, shows that it cannot even fulfill this objective properly. Rather it adds a lot of non-value adding activities that distances the teacher/evaluator from the students. Moreover, several individuals fall victim to this system unknowingly. The end-result: BSE’s credibility has been severely undermined.

Further, the existing system of student evaluation is detrimental to the growth of young minds. It stifles their creative ability and does not provide enough motivation to the schoolteachers to create interesting learner-centric modules.

The most radical step forward would be to empower the schools to evaluate their own students. Models could be adopted whereby the teacher is encouraged to bring various creative methods of delivery and evaluation into the classroom. Teachers belonging to the region need to be supported to take the responsibility of evaluating the students in a transparent manner. The ultimate level in transparency is when students are allowed to compare their answers and the teacher/evaluator is allowed to respond to the student seeking re-evaluation. The board can only play the role of a mentor in developing the capabilities of these distributed centers. With the education sector poised for rapid expansion and competition, it is going to be extremely difficult to have the boards/councils undertaking the task of examining students without revamping their existing processes.

I urge the educators and legislators to shed their conservative outlook and make a bold step forward in devolving greater power to the schools.

Collective responsibility

This has reference to the article titled “Health, education scams in Orissa” (TNIE, 17 Aug 07). The author rightly suggests overhauling of the entire system through sweeping changes in policy and implementation.

Unfortunately we find key members in both the sectors over-emphasizing the role of the “controller” – be it drugs or examinations. Controllers are human-beings and are themselves quite susceptible to the various corruptive influences. Even if they are not, ensuring quality through “control” (i.e., inspecting somebody else’s work) is an archaic form of quality assurance model as compared to the one that enforces a discipline of self-control (quality at source). This requires collective ownership of processes designed to provide individual autonomy as-well-as accountability with the sole aim of ensuring high process capability. Capable processes ensure quality output. This also makes the system less-amenable to malpractices.

Apparently, the role of the controller is defined by the existing statutes. However, instead of emphasizing the need for statutory compliance, it would be heartening to see the legislators being supported to make important legislations to foster collective responsibility. We need a paradigm shift.

Holistic solution

This has reference to the editorial “Toys R’nt Us” (TNIE; 6 Aug 2007). Not wanting to lose the trust and confidence of its customers, American toy-producer Mattel went for worldwide product recalls. Toxic substances found in their Chinese-made toys prompted this action. Further, the falling share price will force Mattel to go for immediate supply chain corrections.

As rightly mentioned, India must learn a lesson from this episode and support its own manufacturing hubs with proper safety protocols. However, even though our system may be attuned to the concept of the consumer, there is a lot left to be desired. Case in point is the health sector of the state of Orissa, which has witnessed some horrific tales in recent times. We have seen gross negligence by some health-service providers and drug manufacturers that severely undermine the confidence of the consumers. Unfortunately we don’t see much urgency in seeking holistic corrections.

The pharmaceutical industry seems to be supported by an out-dated supply chain whose focus seems to be merely on warehousing, inspection and distribution. While these are important activities needed from a logistics perspective, there is a lot left to be achieved in terms of a robust supply chain. We need world-class domestic supply chains that would give “cradle-to-grave” support to the medicine manufacturing hubs of the country. That would mean greater involvement of our manufacturers from product development to delivery and beyond.

The Pharmaceutical associations have to take aggressive proactive steps in regaining the trust of consumers. To begin with, they have to share their expertise in identifying fake drugs and other supply chain delinquencies. I urge the Government and the medical fraternity to find a holistic solution rather than getting into a witch-hunt of nabbing the “culprits”.

Throw more light

This has reference to the letter titled “Rupee appreciation” (TNIE, 3 August 2007). The letter is justified in demanding an explanation from the policy makers. Given the UPA’s current disposition, I doubt there is anyone in the Government who will be brave enough to recognize the intrinsic worth of the rupee (read “Indian/local entity”) vis-à-vis the dollar (read “US/global entity”).

Also, historically speaking, the “swadeshi model” of self-reliance was rarely considered as the “in-thing”. Our post-Independent leaders in their eagerness to appear “socialistic” brought in regulations that stifled healthy and competitive enterprise. It was in the interest of these “socialite-elites” to then promote slogans such as “brain drain rather than brain in the drain”. Controls were exercised in a manner that finally resulted in the rupee depreciating drastically against the dollar. Along with it declined our standards of living.

According to management guru, Michael Porter, “devaluation causes a nation to take a collective pay cut by discounting its products and services in world markets while paying more for the goods and services it purchases abroad. Exports based on low wages or cheap currencies then do not support an attractive standard of living.”

Yet, our country has some fairly articulate economists who would like to see the rupee depreciate. No wonder you see some of them in the boards of IT companies that are heavily dependent on export earnings. The 21st century BPO industry, as some say, is akin to the 19th century Bombay Mills that exploited cheap labor to boost exports. [See Business World 21 July 2003 Book Review section: "The Global Competitiveness Report 2002-2003: Peter Cornelius, Michael Porter and Klaus Schwab as reviewed by Ajit Balakrishnan]

A firm having good corporate governance standards, however, should never aim for competitive gains at the expense of others. Is this happening? I doubt. These very economists would be respected more if they helped their firms find better methods of enhancing competitiveness. They ought to be riding the global “business process outsourcing” wave to create better “business process opportunities” for the local markets. That would then mean diverting greater attention to the domestic markets and enhancing domestic productivity in a manner that would make both our buyers and sellers more sophisticated.

If this had happened earlier, we would not have seen the horrific tales that we are currently witnessing in the health sector of our state. I urge the Government of Orissa to promote policies that would recognize the intrinsic worth of its “domestic entities” and enable them to face “healthy” global competition.
{This post appeared in the "letter to the editor" section of The New Indian Express}

What Orissa needs

This has reference to the letter titled “Donate for a seat” (TNIE; 23.07.07). The letter unjustifiably holds all Indians as being poor - so poor that they all need subsidy to send their wards to Institutions of higher learning. Further, it raises pertinent questions about exploitation and accountability.

We have seen the outcome of the highly subsidized education in few elite government-run Institutes with limited-seats. In fact, the “not-so-poor” extracted the maximum benefits from this subsidy. These were, in effect, seats “almost-donated” by the taxpayer for transforming “bright” students into bright Engineers and Managers who should have perhaps served their country. However, many left the country for better prospects abroad. So who has been exploited?

Faculty in these elite Institutions never faced much competition while securing research grants. The five-year plans ensured substantial funds for them to maintain “quality” (at the cost of quantity). Without any “right to information”, taxpayers were not given any account of how these funds were utilized. So who is to be held accountable?

Post-liberalization, India is facing global competition in its own territory and we need to create conditions for reversing the brain drain. The first step in that direction is capacity expansion and infrastructure building through private participation. Today, many Indians want to come back because of the prospects brightening in India. Some NRIs want to send their wards to schools in India because of its “affordability”. Parents in India, who don’t like the infrastructure in the Govt-funded Institutions, look for alternatives in the private sector. They look forward to better material comfort while sending their wards to these Institutions. Moreover, these Institutions also provide placement – an important attribute of “quality in education”.

While these are the changed market conditions, it is unfortunate that educators of the bygone century are not doing enough to support the entrepreneurs in creating better “IIT-like” institutions in Orissa. They promote their superannuated views from a regime of “unhealthy-control” that almost always failed to fix accountability on the individual.
I respectfully urge these educators to be mentors and create the next generation leaders for taking the education sector forward. They need to encourage young “edupreneurs” to handle greater autonomy with accountability. That is the essential first step towards Institution-building in Orissa. Once that happens we would be on the path of attracting intellectual-capital while extracting even better price for meeting various social obligations (including high salary for the faculty). In the absence of subsidy, knowledge-resources will command their own right price in the new economy. The donor would not mind paying as long as he/she is satisfied.

Autonomy more important

The bottom-line of this news article in Telegraph reads => “Fewer students from Bengal in the IITs and IIMs mean fewer decision-makers of tomorrow from Bengal.” It expresses “parochial concerns” for not being included within a certain “pedigree”. It seems to suggest that decision-makers of tomorrow have to be from the existing IITs and IIMs. And, therefore, it is a do-or-die situation for the students. At the same time, it is oblivious of the outcomes of globalization in the education sector. Emulating Bengal will not definitely bode well for Orissa.

Today, while other states get away (with almost anything) by expressing their parochial sentiments, Orissa’s rightful demands are being neglected. The answer, therefore, lies in “making” our own IIT rather than “begging” for an IIT. Effort will be needed to inspire students and teachers to join these new IITs in the making. Some entrepreneurs (or “edupreneurs”) have already started on this road. The moot point, will the “regulators” allow enough autonomy to make such enterprise reach the level of an IIT? I don’t see that happening till education in India faces “free and fair” global competition. I hope that day is not too far.

Decision-makers in Orissa often seek the counsel of faculty members from IIT Kharagpur in matters related to higher education. However, thanks to the long prevailing “hierarchical control” in the system (MHRD => IITs => RECs => UCEs; somewhere along we were saddled with AICTE), technical education in Orissa has suffered to a large extent. It is not that the erstwhile engineering colleges of the state, UCE and REC, did not have the potential to be one amongst the IITs. As some of us know, there was a somewhat healthy relationship between the faculty of UCE, REC and IIT-Kgp. However, while IITs enjoyed a huge share of the taxpayers’ money along with the “autonomy” to use it the way they wanted, REC and most importantly UCE were left to fend for themselves with the scarce resources from the state. The least that could have been done was to grant academic autonomy to the individual faculty. Even that could not be granted because of this urge to “control”. Aspiring for the IAS, therefore, has instinctively been considered more important than to aspire for an IIT.

Instead of urging the students to work hard to get into these IITs/IIMs (read “limited capacity”), I would urge the educators to create systems that would grant greater autonomy to the individual in the upcoming Institutions of learning.