Godspeed to SPEED

Karmic conscience guided me to some interesting sessions coordinated by IFEES officials at the 38th ISTE Convention hosted by KIIT University from 19-21 December 2008. The student forum was just about to conclude and the industry forum was to begin.

With ISTE acknowledging IFEES leadership in being a “flat-world facilitator”, the convention was of enormous symbolic significance in terms of meeting India’s inclusive growth challenges in technical education.

The student forum coordinated by SPEED was eagerly committed to mixing and mashing of global ideas on a local platform made available at Kalinga (Orissa). SPEED is short for Student Platform for Engineering Education Development. These students want action more than talk. Godspeed to their action plans. Hopefully, policy makers would be able to provide them the necessary ambience to take their plans forward.

The industry forum was moderated by Mr. Xavier Fouger of Dassault Systems who emphasized the urgent need of changing the industry focus from “Growth” to “Sustainable Development”. Highlighting WEF’s focus on “the power of collaborative innovation”, his talk was governed by the ideals guiding product-lifecycle-management (PLM) issues. He set the stage for the industry panel members to articulate their views on the theme: “Industry Expectations of Institutions and Industry Obligation to Institutions”.

The panel was represented by Infosys, L&T, Tata Technologies, Autodesk, Safran Aerospace, and Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Ltd. Though the panelists articulated their expectations of Institutions, they fell short of committing their obligations to the Institutions. Notable among them were Infosys and Tata Technologies who represent companies having significant business interest in the state of Orissa. They failed to take the cue from a QFD framework presented by Mr. Fouger for deploying the voice of the industry in shaping the University curriculum. The industry reps were evasive in their response for supporting an actionable initiative to establish a “Center for Product Lifecycle Engineering and Management” in an upcoming University (such as KIIT). An idea was mooted to take the campus connect programs of Infosys to higher levels through formation of consortiums around Universities. Mr. M. P. Ravindra’s articulation, however, leaves much to be desired from a company which claims to be guided by a certain value-based doctrine.

During the policy session, Dr. Hans Hoyer rightly observed the lack of maturity in most Universities in enabling cross-functional teams for breaking disciplinary boundaries to handle multidisciplinary projects. During the IFEES Overview he highlighted the importance of “Globalish” for promoting effective global interaction. Dr. Krishna Vedula, UMASS Lowell, promoted his IUCEE initiatives. However, his presentation was not backed by adequate suggestions for meeting the challenges currently faced by India. Their Train the Trainers program was banking heavily on overseas experts with support from companies like Infosys. Prof. N.R.Shetty, the ISTE Chairman, however, drew the panel’s attention to the indigenous capabilities being currently deployed to enhance the capacity and quality of technical education providers. Mr. Ravindra from Infosys did support the idea of having cross functional student teams (including students with a liberal art background) for undertaking student projects. However, he could not place any prescriptions in this regard for overcoming the limitations imposed by regulators such as AICTE.

Hopefully, policy makers would be able to develop actionable strategies for deploying the voice of the stakeholder into the University curriculum through active industry-institute participation spread across the globe. I wish IFEES & ISTE all the best in synergizing their efforts.

After all there is indeed an Intelligent cause for academic freedom (please click)

Criticisms and comments may be directed to kaushiksahu@gmail.com

Engineering better engineers

Our country has been slow in creating an environment for academics to engage in free thinking. Most academics are, therefore, constrained to operate within various narrow confines. Similarly, the academic engaged in technical education is no different. As a result, we fail to create true technical professionals. The country needs “engineers who should be allowed to engineer” and “managers who should be allowed to manage”. Till that happens, the value of free and independent professional thinking cannot be fully realized by our country.

Professional bodies (such as ISTE) need to work harder in removing the existing constraints on the professional engineer.

Here I reiterate my stance to ISTE Orissa chapter made in the early-to-mid 1990s. I hope ISTE office bearers of the Orissa chapter will be able to set good examples and lead the way in attracting greater resources to the state.

The ISTE membership drive in this part of the country will yield effective results only when the office bearers undertake genuine pains to attract (not coerce) membership. They need to first spread awareness of their good work in order to attract life time members. Lifetime membership cannot and should not be coerced. A person can continue to work in the best interest of the profession even without being a member of such societies.

=======================================

Here is the prelude to this post: The following message by Mr. Ajit Mohapatra (President, Orissa State Productivity Council) was given to Engineers in one event held at KIIT (back in 2006):

“E is equal to M into C square”
[where E = Engineer, M = merit and C = communication]

I wonder how many from KIIT University have been allowed to internalize the context and the depth behind this message. I may be corrected if I have misreported the above event

=======================================

Academic Freedom with a Reason

KIIT University is going to host the 38th ISTE National Convention from 19 – 21 December 2008. The theme is “Autonomy and accountability of technical education in changing scenario”. I hope the participants representing the private sector will champion the cause for greater freedom.

Read Kiran Karnik’s article on “Restructuring the education system” [Economic Times; 10 December 2008; Wednesday] . Karnik says:
“Institutions like UGC and AICTE are not needed and the effort of transforming them to a new role is unlikely to work. It is best that they are wound up. The National Knowledge Commission has recommended an independent regulatory body.” He adds: “The stifling oversight of government, of which the UGC and AICTE have become willing surrogates, needs to be removed and replaced with a helping hand.”

Here is my view:
[On Public] The government-funded Institutions (including the “elite” ones) have enjoyed substantial taxpayer support over the decades and it is time for payback. The elite ones also enjoyed greater autonomy but did little to empower the less privileged ones during the protectionist era. One way to payback now is by participating actively in various inclusive growth initiatives. Government oversight is, therefore, essential for such Institutions to ensure proper payback.

[On Private] The private sector, however, needs a free and independent regulatory framework. They need regulatory bodies bringing superior standards to make the education system “glocally” competitive.

Public-Private-Participation is worthwhile only when pains and gains are properly shared. In the current disposition, however, the public seems to pass on the pains to private without fixing much accountability on the self.

As I espouse for greater academic freedom, I am cautioned by William Wordsworth’s poem “Ode to Duty” (click).

Autonomy under AICTE

In the tussle with MHRD during 2003-2004 the B-Schools were complaining about autonomy on the fee hike issue. Click on this image to observe whose autonomy was really at stake then:

The story is no different even now (circa 2008). A teacher's voice continues to be choked.

KIIT University hosted the one-day national seminar on “Role of Teachers in Professional Education in the Changing Scenario” on 19 October 2008 (Sunday). The event managers did what they are good at – hosting the event at a very short notice. However, while severe faculty shortage was identified as the key issue, little moderation was done in terms of consensus building with positive outcomes for the 200 odd participating teachers.

The AICTE Chairman, Prof. Yadav, cited the imbalance in our higher education system highlighting the brand equity of IITs and IIMs over the others. Perhaps he could have acknowledged that these brands were built over decades of government support with huge funding and much greater academic autonomy. The less privileged institutions which are being regulated sans any significant government fund are struggling against regulatory pressures to impart quality education. With global pressures mounting, we did see some references about dissolving the boundaries to accommodate interdisciplinary nature of academic activities. However, we are a long way from achieving the necessary conditions (let alone sufficiency).

The former Chairman, Prof. R. Natarajan’s earlier efforts in placing Design and Innovation courses in engineering schools is yet to be accepted wholeheartedly. Schools and colleges under AICTE still need to appreciate the fact that design is a multidisciplinary activity. To foster the design culture, therefore, we need to catch students young. This calls for some changes in the engineering and management courses. It is yet to be seen when AICTE will bring back its focus for a greater emphasis of design in engineering education. Engineers and managers should be able to assume ‘multi-partite roles’.

The AICTE representation was distinctly absent after the inaugural session, leaving the house open to the other speakers for sharing their views. Prof. Binayak Rath, Vice Chancellor of Utkal University and Prof. Omkar Mohanty, Vice Chancellor BPUT, seemed to be ventilating their frustrations with the Indian regulatory bodies. While the VC-BPUT went to the extent of labeling the teachers as “TEA CHERS”, he did suggest the use of quality assurance models for education. His suggestion for going through the models of ABET and MBNQA would have been more apt if it were made to the AICTE officials. The participating teacher was left to wonder if the theme of the seminar should have been “Role of Regulators in Professional Education in the Changing Scenario”.

Prof. Devi Singh, Director-IIM Greater Noida, did make some valuable suggestions about teachers taking a holistic view of the education system and regulators creating a competitive environment for improving the quality standards. Prof. Balaveera Reddy, Former VC, VTU, made an interesting presentation extolling the virtues of Computer-Based Teaching. He came close to convincing the audience about technology solutions for overcoming the capacity constraints. He suggested models for enabling the faculty to participate in meaningful content building exercises with technology aiding the process of dissemination and evaluation. He wondered why universities (such as KIIT) were not taking the lead in replicating such models within the existing boundaries of autonomous freedom.

With constructive moderation being distinctly absent, this platform could not be used for making recommendations to AICTE for creating the much needed framework for enabling teachers to perform. The idea of suggesting the teacher to first learn and then teach was not being seen as a bottleneck for inhibiting the progress of learner-centric models where the teacher becomes a facilitator (as well as a learner). The most important role of a teacher is to be able to articulate freely. AICTE’s role, therefore, is to create an enabling environment for the teacher to be a self-starter in enlarging this role further. The suggested models of “Training the Trainers” or “Mentoring the Mentors” are dated ideas which detract the system from being proactively learner-centric. An eager learner (be it a teacher, student or an administrator) needs a conducive technology-enabled learner-centric academic environment to be a self-starter.

Unfortunately, the voice of the teacher continues to be choked – even in the new millennium!! The participating teachers were hapless observers and found little scope for interacting with the speakers to develop a shared vision. They preferred to remain mute spectators till the end.

Finally, taking a cue from the well proposed vote of thanks by the Registrar, KIIT University – no one really seems to care about what a teacher “MAKEs”. I have dedicated this blog to make people see yet another viewpoint.

Bubbles of positivism

Positive thinking needs to be supported by negative thinking. Otherwise it may lead to the formation of bubbles which hurt when they burst.

Please click on the image to enlarge the cosmic uplink by Vithal C. Nadkarni titled “Too positive for one’s own good” [Economic Times dated 18 October 2008, Saturday]. He quotes from Prof. John Mayer’s blog post titled “Was Financial Caution Undone by Positive Thinking?”

Like the financial sector, the education sector is no different. The education sector in India needs to be careful in its expansion pursuits by taking lessons from the US meltdown. Keeping ears open to the dissenting voice (read negative feedback) is a must for any organization wanting to be on the path of continual improvement.

The same holds true for academic regulators who need to create an enabling environment for the changing times. After all, who will regulate the regulator?

Grid computing yet to energize the physical world

(Click) The seven challenges (01 Nov 2001), in general, continue to be real for us in Orissa. Are we ever going to be able to overcome these challenges? Challenge #6 still poses the question: How to make the virtual space complement the physical space? Though technology is making rapid advances, organizations are lagging behind in terms of realizing the potential benefits.

The global computing grid has been unveiled by CERN to handle real-time data related to particle physics research. Click this link for details (Oct 03, 2008) titled "Computer grid links 7,000 scientists around the globe"by Jonathan Lynn, Reuters. Here is an excerpt:

[Quote]
The data flow will be about 700 megabytes per second, or 15 million gigabytes a year for 10 to 15 years – enough to fill three million DVDs a year or create a tower of CDs more than twice as high as Mount Everest.

“To analyze that amount of data, you require not only a lot of computing but a new computing paradigm – that's what we call the Grid, and that's what we're here to celebrate today,” CERN spokesman James Gillies told a press briefing.

Just as the Worldwide Web – invented in 1990 at CERN – allows users to share access to information over the Internet, computer grids allow the linking of computing resources such as data storage capacity and processing power.

CERN has only 10 per cent of the computing capacity needed for the LHC experiment, which will allow scientists to observe sub-atomic particles and probe the nature of gravity and matter. The grid will provide the rest.
[Unquote]

(Academic) Corridors of Power

Persons interested in behavioral studies must have come across Stanley Milgram’s experiments on “behavioral study of obedience” (1963). Refer this Spiritual Quotient by Mukul Sharma titled “Power of authority is in ourselves” (Economic Times dated 13 October 2006, Friday) for the experiment. (Please click on the image to enlarge)

Academic administrative functionaries wearing similar “white coats” (read designations) ought to take note of what their roles ought to be in the emerging knowledge economy.

The serious academic (in India) should be asking whether he/she belongs to the significant majority 2/3rd or the significant minority 1/3rd. Or maybe to the unspecified “minority within the minority 1/3rd” who would like to bring reason into the way things are currently being done.

Indian education sector has to move away from the unhealthy influence of such (academic) corridors of power. The National Knowledge Commission (NKC) of India has been making recommendations incessantly for drastic reforms in the education sector – almost down to the level of granting greater academic autonomy to the individual. The moot point to all Academic Functionaries: Are they interested in changing their old mindsets?

Building an Educational Institute is becoming the order of the day in Orissa (as in India). However, dedicated Institution builders are becoming a rare breed. Is it because of the existing models of Educational Governance that do not promote "out-of-box" thinking? Or, Is it due to our legacy that values blind obedience over constructive dissent? Do we really need these legacy systems where orders are to be obeyed without questioning the possible outcomes?

A Law on Hope

There should be a “Law on Hope” said Justice S.B.Sinha, Judge, Supreme Court of India, while delivering the 1st H.M.Seervai Memorial Lecture organized by the KIIT Law School on 20th September 2008.

A Law on Hope – seems to be quite an apt proposition for our times. We live in times when there is deception all around us – be it health, education, industry or plain governance. Raising expectations of people without doing enough to meet these expectations creates frustration and an environment of hopelessness.

Here is an excerpt from Dr K P Prabhakaran Nair’s article titled “The real India is getting poorer by the day”

(Quote)
When the World Bank says that four out of ten Indians live below the poverty line, one could quarrel with the methodology used, but, there is no disputing the cause — pathetic governance.

According to the September 30, 2007 status report of the Ministry of Programme Implementation, out of 897 projects, 276 suffered cost overruns with an anticipated cost of Rs. 1,42,227 crore, against the original estimate of Rs 95,913 crore, a colossal 48 per cent increase. This shows that for more than 30 per cent of the projects, the accountability factor is of a very low order
(Unquote)

It is time we moved away from extolling the practice of celebrating foundation stone laying ceremonies. It is important for India to ensure successful completion of projects.

Big Bang to Big Crunch - Going back to future

Note the following excerpt titled Big Crunch from http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/the_universe/Crunch.html (last updated prior to September 2000)

[Quote] If there is enough matter in the Universe eventually gravitational forces will stop its expansion. When this happens gravity will cause the universe to reverse its direction and begin to collapse under its own weight. This phase of the Universe's life is known as the Big Crunch.

Eventually all of the matter in the Universe will collapse into a super dense state and possibly even collapse into an unimaginably massive black hole. Some theorize that the Universe could collapse into the same state that it began as and then blow up in another Big Bang. In this way the Universe would last forever but would continually go through these phases of expansion and contraction, Big Bang and Big Crunch and so on...[Unquote]

As the world gears up for the biggest physics experiment tomorrow (10 September 2008) to re-create the Big Bang forces, I pause again (my last was on 26/10/2004) to reflect on Mother Earth’s journey and its bearings on groups and organizations created around us.

• [Our Past] "The Big Bang" gave birth to cohesive masses and solid groups.........
• [Our Present] Human aspirations are forcing groups to stretch and expand….(repulsive forces are also having similar effects)
• [Our Future] "The Big Crunch" will be shaping the future (as some theorize)……
• Human society, being a part of the Universe, is also on this theoretical path of going back to the future....
• It seems to have developed a need to disintegrate in order to fully integrate....
• There are umpteen examples in the socio-politico-economic environment around us that drive home this message time and again.
• We are all hapless entities under the diktats of some unseen "Universal strategic intent"

Nevertheless, Mother Earth’s journey from Big Bang to Big Crunch offers uncountable moments of joy and sorrow to earthlings.

Intelligent cause for academic freedom

This has reference to the express editorial titled “Closed openings – HC underlines the gag in education” (TNIE; 13.02.08). It is true that innovative programs are either unrecognized or are in the process of being de-recognized. While UGC has been mandated to promote education systems for handling the challenges of inclusive growth, ironically the very same regulators (such as AICTE) who have been constituted to enforce quality tie its own hands. Our regulators comprise of faculty members and scientists belonging to elite institutions, which have often enjoyed greater autonomy and large government grants. Their recommendations for growth in education infrastructure have always supported models that promoted the “trickle down effect”. Naturally, therefore, most non-elite institutions governed by the UGC were kept languishing for government grants (a scarce resource). Nor were they given the freedom to develop their own capabilities outside the government’s purview.

One remembers how UGC’s move to launch new courses in astrology was vehemently resisted by some of these elite institutions. One of their arguments was that government funds are meant for “scientific pursuits” only. As we know, “practice without theory is blind and theory without practice is lame”. Yet we fail to encourage new ventures being adopted by some institutes interested in understanding (or perhaps rediscovering) the theoretical base governing some ongoing practices and rituals. We are contented to label them as “blind faith”. It is more disheartening when we see the same educated elite vigorously supporting programs on Artificial Intelligence in the name of scientific discovery. Yet, as they must know, sciences of the artificial are due to our deeper understanding of the natural. Should not we encourage efforts aimed at developing theories and methodologies for re-discovering our past?

Recently, when Harvard University embarked on a research project to uncover the origins of life, proponents of alternative theories cited that initiative as proof that science has yet to disprove alternative theories. One alternative, the Intelligent Design Theory, suggests that nature is so complex that it could not have occurred by random natural selection as held by Darwin in 1859. The proponents hold that our existence is perhaps the result of an “Intelligent cause” and would like this to be taught in schools along with Darwin’s theory of evolution. While this is just one example of where the globe is headed, I hope our elitist regulators will pick up some lessons for creating an enabling environment for greater academic freedom.

Today, while IITs may be embarking on an online project with Carnegie Mellon, the UGC is faced with the uphill task of ramping up its infrastructure to meet the competitive challenges spurred by the recommendations of the National Knowledge Commission. Instead of gagging higher education, it would be heartening to see the regulators (the educated elite in particular) lending greater support to UGC for adopting bolder and innovative models using technology for reaching out to educate the masses. That also includes giving recognition to various learner-centric programs promoted by the Open University system or, for that matter, by the Foreign Education Providers.
Comments (if any) may be mailed to kaushiksahu@gmail.com