Value-oriented B-School Curriculum

An American B-School student posed a question to one InternationalAdvisory Board of a well known European B-School: "Whether B-Schools had caused the economic mess that America and the world was in?"

This refers to the editorial opinion by Arun Maira titled “Reorienting Business Leadership” (ET, 19 March 2009, Thu). He says: "The global economic meltdown and erosion of trust require business schools to examine the fundamentals of the education they provide". Access the following link for the complete article: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Editorial/Reorienting-business-leadership/articleshow/4284491.cms

We certainly need to do something in our own respective B-Schools and examine the values we are imparting to our students. The existing curriculum regulated by AICTE is highly domain specific (locked within self-centred functional areas) and is driven towards the goal of "making more money using other people's money". As Maira says: "The financial services industry ballooning into a world of exotic derivatives.......unfortunately bringing the global economy down...".

Courses like Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility are important subjects that need to be over-emphasized. And, if I may suggest once again, we need to do something about de-emphasizing the role of specializations in B-Schools. However, a balanced "value-oriented" core course foundation is an absolute must for the MBA program.

Holistic measures of goodness are needed to counter the media hype surrounding wealth-oriented “lifestyle statements”. This requires B-Schools reengineering their academic and placement processes. Here is another related link written long ago (I wish timely steps had been taken by the stakeholders): Corporate Governance.

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.