Upgrading Engineering Education In India – 2: Hrd As Part Of

1

Upgrading Engineering Education in India – 2: HRD as part of Institution Building: by Raju Swamy: July 07, 2009 (3 pages) (This is a follow-thru on my earlier article “Upgrading Engineering Education in India – 1: New Role for the Professional Teacher: by Raju Swamy: May 10, 2009”. In this final instalment, an attempt is made at providing a Management and HRD Strategy for institutes of higher learning, like engineering colleges, in terms of a specific Action Plan. The original version was published in ‘THE HINDU’ of Tuesday, November 13, 1990.)

1. Before an action plan for organization development can be initiated, certain ground rules have to be set: 1.1. Heads of Departments and teachers at all levels in the college must accept that the responsibility of an engineering educational institution which caters to both undergraduate and postgraduate education will encompass Teaching. Research, and Consultancy. 1.2. That involvement in Research and Consultancy will enrich the quality of teachers and teaching. 1.3. Teachers have to be “accountable” like any other working professional. 2. Once the Ground Rules have been understood ‘The Action Plan’ can be initiated: 2.1. To incorporate and promote Research and Consultancy as key functional areas in each department in addition to teaching, senior HODs need to be given the additional responsibility of overseeing one each of the above for the purpose of monitoring progress. They could be designated Dean of Teaching, Dean of Research, and Dean of Consultancy. 2.2. The Deans, as a first step, wIll work with each HOD and their respective teams on establishing the most rational priority or weightage to each of the objectives in each department keeping in mind the capacity of the department and felt-needs of the environment in which they work. 2.3. Once the priorities are fixed for each functional activity, the HODs of the respective departments will be required to allocate down the line “weighted” roles to each of the teachers in their department again based on aptitude and other personal factors. This marks broadly the initiation of “accountability” in departments. 2.4. The next phase of the “accountability” programme would be for the HODs to initiate, first within their departments and later among themselves, a broad, mutually agreeable, monitorable job description (job expectation) for different levels of professors, lecturers, and other teaching and research staff. 2.5. It is advisable for the job description to evolve from within as such a step would ensure not only an improvement over the past but at the same time ease implementation. Also since external formula will always be “suspect” – or prone to resistance ---- an internal formula will carry with it a degree of self-motivation to succeed. 2.6. To accomplish this task, the Deans/HODs will have to modify their style of functioning where required – become less hierarchial and more motivational. 1

2 3. Since the realization of the institution’s ambitions depends to a large extent on the effectiveness of HODs, it is suggested that they may be exposed to a Leadership Development Programme (or a series of such programmes) which will enchance their academic standing with managerial capability. Such a programme (or programmes) will include Financial Management in addition to Leadership and HRD: 3.1. Financial Management Principles (with special reference to HODs). 3.2. Recognizing Departments as Cost Centres: Planning and Budgetting: Monitoring. 3.3. Leadership and Human Resource Management: 3.3.1. Motivation of teachers. 3.3.2. Motivation of students. 3.3.3. Formation and Motivation of high performance teams, and of exceptional individuals. 3.3.4. Setting personal example in enhancing performance standards. 3.3.5. Performance Appraisal System for teachers. 3.3.6. Career Planning and Counseling. 3.3.7. Training and Development. 3.3.8. Innovation and Talent Planning. 3.3.9. Succession Planning. 3.4. The faculty for the above programmes can be drawn from academic as well as industry professionals with a global track record of performance milestones, particularly in promoting productive and mutually beneficial interaction between educational institutions of higher learning and industry. 4. The traditional and truly outdated belief that whatever is applicable to industry is not applicable to an educational institution is contrary to facts when the situation is understood in the proper context: 4.1. A private, aided educational institution has to work effectively with limited resources: hence planning and budgeting are imperative. 4.2. When resources are limited (whatever the magnitude) and have to be allocated in the most efficient (or economical) manner, the concept of “Cost” and “Cost-Benefit” becomes important. 4.3. Understanding the concept of “Cost” also leads to an understanding of the concept of “productivity” : when one recognises that a lecturer costs X, or an assistant professor Y, are we not interested in ensuring his effective utilization at least to the extent that he costs something? 4.4. When an HOD says he does not have enough staff, does he know what it will cost extra to have all the staff he needs, and how will he justify these additional costs through “output”? In fact, most of the teaching world has not thought of such concepts, and even a little progress in this direction would be good progress. 4.5. Managing “salaried” people to get effective performance from them: this is a problem common in all sectors including government, industry, banks, public and private sectors and so on. Is there no need for “managing” people to perform in teaching institutions? Teachers today are salaried professionals. So they are as much driven by motivations of money, recognition, etc., as those in industry and elsewhere. 4.6. One has necessarily to worry about those that do not have these motivations and at the same time have a low output: how can such people contribute to the institution, 2

3 college, or department? How to tackle them if they cannot be fired? How does one deal with a person who is just not satisfied but is very good at work? Are such people not found in educational institutions? 4.7. Therefore, as part of the Action Plan and in fact to facilitate change to an “input-output” based culture, association with professionals of proven performance in industry must be made a rule rather than an exception. In the final analysis, this step would certainly also promote research and consultancy and possibly open avenues for teachers to be deputed to industry for short terms as part of their training and development process. 5. HRD implementation at department levels will not succeed unless unconditionally supported by the Director/ Principal and the Governing Board. Ultimately, of course, the Director/ Principal and the HODs are the primary HRD agents, with assistance from the ‘Dean of HRD’ as the facilitator. 5.1. The successful operation of a Performance Appraisal System is the key to effective HRD---many institutions in public and private sectors, in Business and Industry, and in Government have not yet succeeded in implementing effective systems 5.2. Accordingly, a Performance Appraisal System should be evolved once the “accountability” phase is established in terms of implementation of planning and budgeting exercises, creation of job descriptions through internal brainstorming, and formalizing training to develop management capability at HOD and other senior levels. 5.3. In fact, a simple P.A. system must be evolved first for the Deans of Teaching, Research, and Consultancy and the HODs. Once they understand its implications, a format for appraisal of other teachers can be evolved. Personal example setting from the top is the easiest way to pass on effective messages down the line. An engineering institution in our country, like leading institutions in other parts of the world in the advanced countries, has to learn to play the role of a knowledge bank to industry: take much but give back more with interest.

Raju Swamy Principal Consultant & Advisor to Entrepreneurs & Family Business PROMAG Consultancy Services Apt. 206 Brigade Rathna 42 Ranga Rao Road Shankarapuram Bangalore - 560004 INDIA Tel. +91-80-26676298/ Cell: 9845271498 Email: [email protected]

Promoting Management Action for Growth

. since 1985 3