Alliance Cindy and Bill Simon Technology Academy High School
ALLIANCE BUSINESS ACADEMY, BANGALORE,...
Transcript of ALLIANCE BUSINESS ACADEMY, BANGALORE,...
ALLIANCE BUSINESS ACADEMY, BANGALORE, INDIA
TQM IMPLEMENTATION IN MANAGEMENT EDUCATIONSubmitted to
The American Society for Quality
1
Executive Summary
• Business School founded in 1996• Programs offered: MBA and BBA• VISION crafted in 1996: Be among the Top 10 Private B-
Schools in India by 2006• Mission of Alliance: Impart education leading to an
enriched holistic and wholesome personality of the key stakeholders – the students
• Aspiration: Be a catalyst in transformational change among key stakeholders
2
Project Outline
Use TQM Principles and Techniques to achieve
Institutional Mission and Vision
3
Team Composition
• Prof. KRISHNA K HAVALDAR – Professor Of Marketing• Dr. ANUBHA SINGH – Professor of Human Resources Management• Dr. V RAJESH KUMAR – Professor of Finance• Prof. M V NARASIMHAN – Professor of Operations Management• Dr. MIHIR DASH – Professor of Statistics and Quantitative Methods• Prof. M A RAJASEKHAR – Academic Coordinator• Ms. SUREKHA SHETTY – Admissions Coordinator• Ms. USHA RANI – Placements Coordinator• B V KRISHNAMURTHY – Director and Executive Vice-President, ASI
Distinguished Professor, and Team Leader
4
1A. Explain How Team Selected the Project
• The 2002 Ranking of B-Schools placed ALLIANCE in the 51st Position – a far cry from the Vision
• Board of Trustees and Founder President asked the Director to take steps to realize the vision, and pledged total commitment and support to the effort
• Director constituted the team from a pool of volunteers• The Team analyzed the B-School ranking process adopted by five
different agencies and concluded that the only way the vision could be realized was by adopting a holistic concept – TQM was the answer
5
1A. Project Selection
Why was the Vision so important?• Analysis over 5 years showed that the top 10 private B-Schools
accounted for the top 5% of students appearing for the Common Aptitude Test (similar to GMAT)
• The analysis also showed that the top 75 recruiters in the country preferred students from the top 10 private B-Schools (besides the Government run IIMS)
• Conclusion: Unless Alliance reached the top 10 among private B-Schools, it would remain as just another institution
6
1A. Project Selection –Understanding B-School Ranking Parameters
Tool Used – Bechmarking (Year 2002)SL.No. Parameter No. 1 Ranked School ALLIANCE
1 Infrastructure 200,000 Sq. Ft. 15,000 Sq. Ft.
2 Admission Criteria CAT Score 95% 65%
3 Intellectual Capital 80% Faculty academically qualified 30%
4 International Research Publications >100 / Year 3 / Year
5 Management Development Programs > 50 / Year 5 / Year
6 Practitioners’ interaction with students > 100 / Year < 10 / Year
7 Placement Performance 100% 70%
8 Mean Salary n 0.27n
9 ROI 400% 68%
10 International Linkages 5 0
11 Student Satisfaction 91% 64%
12 Recruiter Satisfaction 82% 59%
7
1B. Project Selection –Project Alignment with Organization’s Goals
Organizational Goal: Be among the top 10 private B-Schools by 2006
Project Alignment: A TQM approach would address all the key variables usedin B-school ranking by all the market research agencies
Key Strategies:
1. Increase rigor of admissionsRaise acceptable CAT Score to 80% or better over 4 years; Introduce value adding courses; Go beyond the Curriculum
2. Recruit academically qualified faculty
Pay-for Performance; Incentives for Consulting and Training, Recognition of Research, Improved Knowledge Delivery
3. Industry InterfaceBring in industry practitioners to interact with students every week; Students understand recruiters’ expectations and vice-versa
4. Research & Mentoring Improve Faculty to Student ratios
5. Placement PerformanceTarget and attract top recruiters, negotiate for better compensation
6. International LiaisonEnter into collaborative arrangements with institutions with similar value systems
8
1C. Project Selection –Identification of key stakeholders
Key Stakeholders identified through critical processes and how the project outcomes would impact them
Process Key Stakeholders
Prospective students seek information Admissions Office
Students applying for admissions Admissions Office, Accounting
Invite Students for Selection Process Admissions Office, Students
Admissions Selection Process Admissions Office, Faculty, Staff, Strategic Management Team & Parents
Program Delivery Students, Faculty, Library, Computer Labs
Soft Skills Training Students, Adjunct Faculty
Evaluation Students, Faculty, Administrative Staff
Compliance Regulators, Management
Placement Facilitation Students, Placement Office, Director’s Office, Recruiters
Satisfied Students, Parents & Recruiters Society, Institution
9
1D. Project Selection – Key Stakeholders and How the Project May Impact Them
Stakeholders Impact
1. Admissions Office Improving admissions criteria attracts better students leading to instituional goals
2. StudentsTransparency in admissions ensures good students; good students tend to perform better; better performance translates into improved placements; placement performance reinforces confidence and attracts even better students. Academic excellence and placement performance complement each other.
3. FacultySatisfied & Motivated faculty make a significant difference to the learning process. Students’ feedback on faculty performance a valuable tool for continuous improvement and innovation. Recognition of Research & Training are powerful motivators.
4. Staff Satisfied & Motivated Staff render services that create value to students. Performance based incentives lead to even better performance.
5. ManagementTop management commitment and support are vital to ensure success of process. Resource allocation is the main tool for measurement. Since institution has shown enormous improvement year-on-year. Management support is assured.
6. Parents Value institutions that provide quality education and facilitate good placement.
7. Recruiters Recruiters have the luxury of choice; they expect the best and pay salary accordingly, satisfied recruiters become repeat recruiters
8. Regulators Respect compliance; encourage qualitative growth; pressure on system brought on by undue influences
9. Board of Trustees Expect growth, Self Sustenance and Constant Improvement. Encourage any new initiatives that ensure these outcomes.
10. Society Nurtures an institution that is responsible and responsive to expectations
10
2A. Identifying Potential Root Cause
Academic OutcomesPlacement
Performance
Admission Knowledge Delivery Evaluation
Learning Ambience Soft Skills Support
Academics
CAT Score
Communication
Transparency
Fees
Location
Environment
Recreation
Food
Faculty expertise
Faculty Motivation
Student Motivation
Work pressure
Quality of Teaching
International Linkage
Exchange Programs Fairness
Integrity
Probity
Library
Computer Lab
Counseling
Industry Interaction
Etiquette
General Awareness
Attitude
MDP & EDP
Consulting
Success Rate
Value added Courses
Upgradation of Curriculum
Communication
Interview Skills
11
Cause evaluation matrix of top 10 causesScoring : 1 Low 5: Moderate 9: High
2B. Analysis of Potential Root Cause
Most probable root cause Score Actionable
CompositeScore
Measurable
Consistent Scholastic Record 9 9 81 Yes
CAT Score 9 9 81 Yes
Placement Performance 9 9 81 Yes
Training and Consulting 9 9 81 Yes
Exchange Programs 9 9 81 Yes
Intellectual Capital 9 9 81 Yes
Stakeholders Satisfaction 9 9 81 Yes
Academic Outcome 9 9 81 Yes
Faculty Interaction 9 5 45 Partially
Research and Publication 9 5 45 Partially
12
2C. Key Data and Information used in Analysis
Admission Stage:Analysis of 5 year data regarding scholastic record, aptitude test scores, and communication scores.Sample Size: 300
Knowledge Delivery:
Analysis of 3 year data of faculty performance and academic outcomes.Courses analyzed: 27Faculty analyzed: 14Students analyzed: 180
Placement Performance:
Analysis of 3 year data relating to average, median, & minimum salaries; relationship between academic outcomes and placement performance; Comparison with compensation surveys; Benchmarking with top B-School.Recruiters analyzed: 75Students analyzed: 180
Benchmarking:Cut off scores for Admissions, Placement Performance, Research & Publications, International Linkages, Training & Consulting, Infrastructure and Industry Interaction with Top 5 private B-Schools
B-School Ranking Parameters
Analysis of 3 year data gathered by 5 different research agenciesSample size: Top 25 private B-Schools
13
Regression analysis of aggregate percentage
2D. Root Cause Analysis (Intake)
coefficient standard error beta tcal significance
High school marks 0.1709 0.0446 0.1857 3.8308 0.0002
Pre-university marks 0.2313 0.0393 0.2462 5.8809 0.0000
Graduation marks 0.3027 0.0396 0.3014 7.6481 0.0000
Communication score 0.1716 0.0707 0.1581 2.4272 0.0158
Aptitude test marks 0.0923 0.0477 0.1113 1.9347 0.0540
Dependent Variable: Aggregate Percentage
R2 = 0.992Fcal = 7475.053p = 0.0000
Regression analysis of the final aggregate percentage secured using five-year data of student performance showed that the scholastic record of the students as well as their communication skills and aptitude had a significant effect on the aggregate percentage. Further, taking a benchmark of 60% for the aggregate percentage, it was found that the cut-off for the high school, pre-university, and graduation marks was 60%, for communication skills 75%, and for aptitude 80%.
14
Aggregate Percentage (Against Scholastic Record, Aptitude and Communication Skills)
average aggregate percentage
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
good scholasticrecord
poor scholasticrecord
average aggregate percentage
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
good apt itude score poor apt itude score
average aggregate percentage
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
good communicationskills
poor communicationskills
15
Passing Percentage (Against Scholastic Record, Aptitude and Communication Skills)
passing percentage
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
good scholasticrecord
poor scholasticrecord
passing percentage
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
good aptitude score poor aptitude score
passing percentage
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
good communicationskills
poor communicationskills
16
Regression analysis of passing percentage
2D. Root Cause Analysis (Course Delivery)
coefficient standard error beta tcal significance
Feedback 10.0627 0.1172 0.9982 85.8743 0.0000
R2 = 0.996Fcal = 7374.394p = 0.0000
Regression analysis of the passing percentage in different courses using three-year data of student feedback and performance showed that student feedback of course delivery had a significant effect on the passing percentage. In particular, courses which were delivered using interactive learning and case-based methodologies received feedback ratings of 9.25 or higher, and were found to have passing rates of 93% or higher. Taking a target passing rate of 95%, it was found that the cut-off for feedback was 9.44.
17
Regression analysis of salary group
2D. Root Cause Analysis (Placement)
coefficient standard error beta tcal significance
Communication score 0.0358 0.0020 3.3071 18.3260 0.0000
Aptitude test marks 0.0016 0.0006 0.2090 2.8647 0.0045
Aggregate percentage 0.0276 0.0017 2.7720 16.5426 0.0000
Dependent Variable: Salary Group
R2 = 0.790Fcal = 363.085p = 0.0000
Regression analysis of the final salary group using three-year data of student placement performance showed that the academic performance of the students as well as their communication skills and aptitude had a significant effect on the aggregate percentage. In particular, the two most important factors influencing salary group were communication skills and academic performance.[Note: In the above analysis, the salary groups were formed by taking the average salaries of the respective batches into consideration, to take into account the increase in average salaries over the years]
18
Placement Performance (Against Scholastic Record, Aptitude and Communication Skills)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
good academicperformance
poor academicperformance
below average salary
above average salary
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
good aptitude score poor aptitude score
below average salary
above average salary
19
3A. Explain How the Team Identified Potential Methods
Generate all possible ideas
PROCESS
Brainstorming
APPROACH
Screen ideas not feasible Benchmarking, Resource Availability
Identify feasible ideasOrganize feasible ideas Affinity diagrams
Select possible solutions
Evaluate possible solutions
Select final solutions
• Benefit to effort analysis • Morphological analysis• Scenario analysis• Evaluation Criteria• Formal approval from Board of
Trustees
20
Example
Idea: Ensure participation of company xyz in recruitment
Screening: Company xyz visits only top 3 B-Schools
Feasibility: Doubtful
Possible solution: Discuss with key executives of company xyz; explore opportunities for collaboration; offer value added course specific to company; Invite executives to deliver the course
Analysis:Costs: Faculty costs + Travel Costs + Incidental ExpensesBenefits: Participation by xyz may have cascading effect
Data:How many students has xyz recruited from top 3 B-Schools in last 3 years? How many are they likely to recruit from Alliance in year 1? Do possible benefits out weigh explicit and implicit costs? Offering course A from company xyz may improve recruitment opportunities in 3 other companies as well.
Solution:Offer DBMS course from Oracle delivered by Oracle executives.Total costs: INR 750,000 / batch of 10 students.
ResultOracle has recruited 7, 9, 9 & 10 students opting for the course in the last 4 years at competitive salaries. Remaining 5 students have been recruited by competitors at the same or slightly lower salaries.
Conclusion The initiative was worth the effort
21
3B. Explain the Selection of Final Solution
• Weights were assigned to each idea / solution on the same basis as that used by the Ranking Agencies (Median scores of 5 agencies were used)
Infrastructure: 19%Intellectual Capital: 23%Industry Interface: 19%International Linkages: 08%Placement Performance: 21%Stakeholder Satisfaction: 10%
• Each team member independently assessed the possible impact of a solution on each of the parameters listed in (1) above. The scores were tabulated. Mean, Median and Standard Deviation were computed.
• A threshold value of 1.5:1.0 (Benefits: Costs) was initially set for accepting a solution, and gradually increased to 2.5:1.0 over 4 years
• Only those solutions which were above the threshold were taken up for implementation
• Where a conflict was apparent for any reason, the solution having the higher score was chosen
22
3B. Explain the Selection of Final Solution
Critical Success Factor Dependent on
Placement Performance A. Conceptual ClarityB. Communication SkillsC. Aptitude
Conceptual Clarity A. Scholastic RecordB. CAT ScoreC. AttendanceD. Knowledge DeliveryE. AssignmentsF. Performance in Examination
Knowledge Delivery A. Faculty ExpertiseB. Faculty Communication SkillsC. Faculty EmpathyD. Prompt FeedbackE. Fairness in Evaluation
Need for Academically Qualified and Passionate Faculty
Benefits: Better Placements Ability to attract even better students
Costs: Higher than industry average compensation + Incentives + Performance Linked Bonuses
Overall Team Evaluation: Benefit : Cost Ratio 3.6 : 1.0
Hence selected as one of the Final Solutions
23
3B. Explain the Selection of Final Solution
Ideal Solution (Partial)
• Select only students with exceptional scholastic record (>80%) throughout AND with CAT scores of >90% AND with Communication scores >80%
• Recruit and Retain 100% Academically Qualified faculty
• Increase contact – hours by 25% to enhance academic rigor
• Have at least 1/3 of a course delivered by practitioners to improve practical orientation
• Conduct an open enrollment program for executives every week
• Send entire batch of students on exchange programs for one semester
24
3B. Explain the Selection of Final Solution
Constraints
• Institution has no control over entire admissions process; part of every student batch is selected by the university
• Shortage of academically qualified faculty
• Not all students prepared to attend extra classes
• Practitioners prefer weekends; Students wish to avoid classes on weekends
• Insufficient brand equity to attract executives for MDPs
• At least 50% of students in every batch not willing to bear the cost of a semester abroad
25
3B. Explain the Selection of Final Solution
Actual Solution
• Apply selection criteria to students who approach institution directly
• Recruit & retain as many academically qualified faculty as possible (84% reached)
• Make extra contact – hours voluntary; give preference to those who attend in placement facilitation
• Start with at least 1 practitioner lecture/ week and gradually increase
• Start with one MDP per month and increase to 1/week over 4 years
• Send students who are willing to bear costs on exchange programs; provide scholarship to deserving candidates; provide soft loans to those who need it
26
3C. Identify the Final Solution(s) and the Expected Benefits
Final Solution Expected Benefit
1. Admit students with consistent academic record (60% throughout), min 80% CAT score and min 75% on communication
• Improved Academic outcomes
2. Recruit and retain academically qualified faculty
• Better Knowledge delivery• Improved Academic outcomes• Enhanced Research Productivity• Possibility of consulting and training
3. A. Impart value added courses and soft skillsB. Invite practitioners to interact with students
• Better placement performance• Improved acceptance by recruiters
4. International collaborations and exchange programs
• Global visibility• Cross cultural learning• Diversity• Networking improves attitudes and provides mobility
5. Build new world class campus
• Learning ambience• Recreational facilities for Students, Faculty and Staff leads to
better work-life balance.• Higher retention rates
27
3D. Explain how the Team Determined the Expected Benefits
Expected Benefit How Determined
Academic Outcomes
• Benchmarking• Statistical data from top 3 B Schools• Published data on relation between previous scholastic record and performance at
graduate level.
Placement Performance• Focus group interviews with recruiters• Statistical data from top 3 B Schools• Compensation surveys
Industry Interaction• Inputs from Senior Managers/CEOs• Need Analysis survey• Analysis of training programs offered by top 3 B-Schools
Research Productivity • Inputs from Professors of Harvard Business School, Stanfard Graduate School of Business, IMD, London Business School, Cranfield University (ECCH)
Learning Ambience• Published surveys• Questionnaires filled by students• Noel - Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory
Stakeholder Satisfaction • Noel – Levitz Satisfaction Inventory
28
4A. Explain the Planned Solution’s Implementation
Who What How When Where
Admissions Office Invite prospective students Based on Pre-defined Criteria November each year ABA Campus
Admissions Office Admissions Process Admissions Policy February each year ABA Campus
Faculty Knowledge Delivery Participant Centered Learning
Every session of every course Class room
Faculty Research & Publications Fieldwork by Students Continuous Industries
Faculty Training & ConsultingMDPs
Customized Training1/Month2/Month
ABA / Resorts Industries
Practitioners Share experience, explain expectations Interactive Sessions Once a week ABA
Placement Office Invite Recruiters, Negotiate better salaries
Personal visits, phone calls, E-mails July – Oct every year Across the country
Placement Office Facilitate Placement Process
Aptitude Test,Group Discussions,
InterviewsDecember every year ABA
Selection Committee Recruitment of Faculty & Staff Demo classes, Interviews Twice a year ABA
International Liaison Committee Exchange programs Visits, Phone calls, E-mails Throughout the year With partner institutions
Team Leader’s OfficeCoordination
Stakeholder SatisfactionMotivation & Counseling
SurveysThroughout the year &
Once a year respectively ABA
Who does what, how, when, and where?
29
4A. Explain the Planned Solution’s Implementation –What were the challenges?
Potential Challenge How Overcome
Student resistance• Counseling• Transparency• Credibility
Faculty shortage• Attractive Compensation• Incentive Schemes• Revenue sharing in consulting & training
Practitioner shortage• Personal Visits & Requests• Including industry requirements in curriculum• Attractive Honorarium
Recruiter resistance for higher salaries• Well-trained students• Constant dialogue & discussions• Compensation trend surveys
Financial constraints for exchange programs• Scholarships• Loans• Endowments
Executive resistance to MDPs / Training• Offer best-in-class quality• Affordable pricing• More of a service than a revenue-generating activity
30
4B. Explain How the Team Implemented its Solutions –Describe Process, Procedures & System Changes
Process Existing Procedure System Changes
Admissions Eligibility Criteria Vague • Enhanced Academics 60%; CAT 80%; Communication 75%
Admissions Process Being carried out through the year • Compressed to 2 Days; Ability to attract the best students
Faculty/Staff Selection Interview • Changed to essay, demo lecture, peer evaluation, publication record and interview
Knowledge Delivery Lectures• Participant Centered Learning• Case Method• Extensive Presentations by students
Soft Skills No formal Training • Formal training made mandatory for all students, screening process before placement facilitation
Industry Interaction Hardly any interaction • Starting with one/week increased to three/week
MDP/Training/Consulting Hardly any• Currently doing > 50 Open Programs per year• >100 Custom Programs per year• Consulting for 36 companies
Placement FacilitationSpread over two months, Unlimited number of opportunities
• Screening process introduced• Max.3 opps/student• Placement Cycle reduced to 3 days/batch• Healthy Competition resulted among recruiters
Exchange Programs Hardly any• 9 MOUs signed• Last year’s exchanges: 45+41 students; 20+19 faculty
Infrastructure Limited, being in the city• > 650,000sq.ft built over 36 acres of land• World –Class Campus created
Stake Holder Satisfaction No formal feedback mechanism
• NOEL-LEVITZ Satisfaction Inventory introduced (First institution in India to do so)
31
4C. Explain How the Team Achieved Support and Buy-in
Group How Buy-in and Support were Achieved
Team Members Being Process –owners, buy in was easy
Prospective Students Educated through website , media, and e-mails
Students and Parents Through’ PR events held across 12 cities
Students Through workshops and data from B-Schools
Faculty Training, TQM implementation, lead auditor training, Accreditation training workshops
Faculty-Research With the help of Visiting International Faculty
Faculty-PCL Seminars on Participant Centered Learning
Staff Training and Counseling; benefits explained
Regulators Helped in Accreditation processes and hence were keen to help in TQM as well
Recruiters Prominent recruiters invited to be on Advisory Council; Personal requests for interaction; curriculum embellishment to suit specific sectors
Society Banks were convinced to provide educational loans to meritorious students
Management Buy in and commitment automatic and absolute since vision was crafted by Founder President
32
4D. Explain How the Team Measured the Results of the Projects and How it Ensured Results were Sustained
RESULT OBJECTIVE ACHIEVEMENT
Strategic Vision “Be among the Top 10 Private B-Schools by 2006”
CFORE COSMODE/GFK MODE
2006: 14 162007: 9 62008: 7 Not announced
Academic Outcomes
• 100% Results• Improved First Divisions• Improved Distinctions• Improved result in integrative
module
• Achieved for 4 Consecutive years• F.D’s improved from 50% to 96 %• From 8 % to 45 %• 60% to 85%
Placement Performance
1. 100% Placements2. Average Salary
3. Minimum Salary
4. Repeat Recruiters
1. Achieved for 4 years2. INR 4,00,000 to INR 8,46,000 P.A in 4
years3. INR 2,40,000 to INR 6,30,000 P.A in 4
years4. 25% to 72% in 4 years
33
RESULT OBJECTIVE ACHIEVEMENT
Intellectual Capital 80% of faculty to be academically qualified 84% faculty are
International Publications Min 50/year 96/year achieved (2007-08)
Industry Interaction Min 1/ week 3/week
Consulting and Training Revenue INR 20 Million INR 30.6 Million
Exchange Programs Min .5 9
Faculty Overseas at ABA: Min.10ABA Overseas: Min.10
2019
Students Overseas at ABA: Min.25ABA Overseas : Min.25
4541
Stakeholder Satisfaction Students . Min 85%Recruiters . Min 80%
91% achieved84% achieved
Infrastructure World –Class Campus5,00,000 sq.ft
Achieved6,50,000 sq.ft
4D. Explain How the Team Measured the Results of the Projects and How it Ensured Results were Sustained
34
5A. Explain How Team Members were Selected
VISION Drawn and articulated by Founder President
Briefed Director & Executive Vice-President & nominated Director as Team Leader for implementation
Director analyzed B-School Ranking Process and parameters and drew up Strategic Plan
Strategic Plan approved by Strategic Management Team (President, Chairman & Director)
Director conducted 3 workshops of 4 hours’ duration each for all faculty and 2 workshops of 4 hours’duration each for all staff
Director sought Volunteers
14 Faculty members and 9 Staff members Volunteered
Volunteers interviewed about Commitment, Passion and Willingness to stretch by committee headed by Director and comprising of two independent experts - The CEO OF TUV Rheinland India and a TQM
Specialist (Six Sigma Blackbelt)
Team members Selected
35
5B. Explain How Team Members were Prepared
Step 1 TUV Rheinland conducted 2-day workshop on QMS for Team members and a ½ day workshop for all faculty and staff
Step 2 Dr. Anubha Singh, Dr. Rajesh Kumar and Dr. Mihir Dash successfully completed Lead Auditor Training
Step 3 Lead Auditors Conducted 1-day workshop for other team members
Step 4 Team Leader conducted intensive 5-day workshop for team members on B-School Rankings, Parameters and Strategic Plan
Step 5 Team Leader identified team members to lead initiatives in specific areas
Step 6
Infrastructure: Prof. KKH agreed to coordinateIntellectual Capital: Team Leader and Prof. M.V. Narasimhan International Linkages: Dr. Anubha Singh & Team LeaderAdmissions Process: Ms. Surekha and Team LeaderPlacement Performance: Ms. Usha and Team LeaderIndustry Interaction: Prof. Raja Sekhar & Team LeaderStatistical Tools & Analysis: Dr. Mihir DashResearch & Publications: Dr. Rajesh Kumar & Team Leader
Step 7 Each team member prepared a tactical plan and all the tactical plans were discussed threadbare by team; modifications were made where required; decisions were by consensus
Step 8 TUV, TQM expert and Team Leader have conducted 2 day continuous improvement workshops for team members TWICE EVERY YEAR and ½ day workshops for all Faculty and Staff once every year
Step 9 PDSA Cycle has been used for Continuous Improvement
36
5C. Explain How Team Ensured that All Team Members Contributed
Team Member Major Contribution
Krishna Havaldar Visited Campus and oversaw developments; coordinated with builders, negotiated with key vendors.
Narasimhan Recruited academically qualified faculty with the help of a selection team (Team leader + 3 industry experts).
Anubha Singh Established contact with over 1000 institutions; shortlisted 200 for active discussion , visited 36 campuses along with team leader, finalized 9 MOUs.
Surekha Shetty Disseminated revised criteria among prospective students; enrolled industry experts to be involved in admission process; coordinated admissions process; worked with team leader to compress admission process to 2 days.
UshaVisited over 100 recruiters, made presentations, targeted top recruiters and enthused them to participate in placement process; worked with team leader to identify the best recruiters; Drew up plans for training students in soft skills; invited practitioners to interact with students.
Rajasekhar Organized open enrollment and customized training programs with guidance from team leader; marketed programs; negotiated payments; obtained feedback.
Mihir Dash Number cruncher of the team; expert in analysis and interpretation; conducted extensive data mining and analysis; advised team leader on gaps and suggested methods to bridge gaps.
Rajesh KumarWorked with team leader to launch ALLIANCE JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH, ALLIANCE ANTHOLOGYY OF CASES AND ALLIANCE BUSINESS REVIEWS. Worked with faculty members to enhance research productivity; addressed press conferences with team leader; Organized conferences and Seminars.
BVK Coach, Mentor and Guide to the team.
37
5D. Explain How the Team Managed to be Effective
Team meetings every Saturday 12 - 1:30 pm followed by
working lunch hosted by
rotation by eachteam member
Respect for time precision,pride in beinginvolved in something worthwhile
Each milestone celebrated at a
nearby resort with families of team members also being present
Team members, even while taking
ownership for specific tasks, have consulted
others at every stage
Learning as a continuous,
life long process;Participated in over 75
conferences, seminars and
workshops
Briefing to all faculty and staff
once in two months all team members
participated
Briefing to trustees and president once
very six months; communication of
all milestones
Leadership by example; positive attitude always;
criticism avoided, team leader first among
equals
DARE TO DREAM
+PASSION TO
PURSUE
38
6A. Describe Results Achieved – Tangible & Less Tangible
GOAL
Be among Top 10 Private B-Schools in India by
2006
CFORE COSMODE /GFK MODE
2006 Rank 14 16
2007 Rank 9 6
2008 Rank 7 Not Announced
ACHIEVED
39
6A. Result Achieved – B-School Ranking
40
6A. Result Achieved – B-School Ranking
41
6A. Describe Results Achieved – Tangible
GOAL
GOAL : 100 % Results. Achieved : 100 % for 4 successive years
GOAL : Increase FIRST DIVISION. Achieved : 96% in 2007 (50% in 2002)
GOAL : Increase DISTINCTIONS. Achieved : 45% in 2007 (8 % in 2002)
GOAL : Increase score in Integrative Module Achieved : 85% in 2007 (60% in 2002)
ACADEMIC OUTCOMES
Recruit Academically Qualified Faculty
GOAL: 80% to be academically qualified
Achieved : 84% academically qualified (2007)
Goal : 50 International papers
Achieved : 96 international papers (2007-08)
Exchange Programs
GOAL: 5 Exchange programs
Achieved : 9 Exchange Programs
2007-08 Exchanges:
Overseas students at ABA : 45Overseas Faculty at ABA : 20Alliance Students Overseas : 41Alliance Faculty overseas : 19
42
6A. Results Achieved – Academic Outcomes
43
6A. Results Achieved – Academic Outcomes
44
6A. Describe Results Achieved – Tangible
Placement Performance
Goal : Average salary 2008 : INR 0.650 Million.
Achieved Average salary 2008 : INR 0.846 Million
Goal : 100% Placements
Achieved : 100 % for 4 successive years.
Repeat Recruiters
Goal : 50% Repeat Recruiters
Achieved (2008) :
72% Repeat Recruiters
45
6A. Result Achieved – Placement Performance
46
6A. Result Achieved – Placement Performance
47
6A. Results Achieved – Student Perception
48
6A. Results Achieved – Student Perception
49
6A. Results Achieved – Student Perception
50
6A. Results Achieved – Student Perception
51
6A. Results Achieved – Student Perception
52
6A. Describe Results Achieved – Tangible
Industry Interface
Practitioners’ Interaction with students
Goal : 1/week (40/year)
Achieved in 2008:
117 practitioners (≈3/week)
MDP & Consulting Revenue
Goal: INR 20 million
Achieved:(2007-08)
INR 30.6 million
Unplanned outcome
Full or Partial Fee waivers for top 5% of students
Recruiter Satisfaction
Goal: Min 80%
Achieved: (2008)
86%
53
6A. Describe Results Achieved – Tangible
Infrastructure
Goal : Fully self contained campus by 2007
Achieved : 652,500 sq. ft built area spread over 36 acres of land
Classrooms
Goal : Ampi Theater classrooms
Achieved :
34 ampi theater classrooms with AC, LCD projector and PA System
Library
Goal : 30,000 volumes
Achieved :
50,000 + volumes + 3 electronic databases
Computing Center
Goal : 300 computers
Achieved : 360 computers all students with laptops.All legal s/w.
Food Court
Opens 18 hours/day
2 types of cuisine
Subsidized Food
Recreation center
Fitness centerHealth centerSports centerEntertainment center
54
• Brand Equity: 5th Best preferred Private B-School for students (2008)6th Best preferred private B-School for recruiters
• Innovation: No. 1 among private B-Schools • International Linkages: No.1 among private B-Schools• Recruiters: 55 of the Top 100 Indian Companies (ET-
500, BT-500) have recruited from ALLIANCE(2008)
6A. Describe Results Achieved – Less Tangible
55
6B. Explain How the Results Impacted the Organizational Goals
GOAL RESULT IMPACT
Be among the Top 10 Private B-Schools in India by 2006
Achieved in 2007 and 2008
New Initiatives• Move to University Status• Implement Environment Quality
System• Obtain AACSB Accreditation• Obtain EQUIS Accreditation• Obtain AMBA Accreditation
VISION 2016: BE AMONG THE TOP 50 B-SCHOOLS IN THE WORLD
56
6B. Explain How the Results Impacted the Organizational Goals
Strategy Alignment Impact
1. Enhance Academic Rigor
• All students admitted have FIRST Divisions throughout• MIN. CAT Score for Admissions: 86%• MIN. COMMN. Score for Admissions: 82%Overall Impact: Better, More-Focused Students
2. Recruit & Retain Academically Qualified Faculty
• 84% Faculty academically Qualified• Enhanced Research Productivity (96 Total Publications against 50 planned)• Enhanced Revenues from Consulting & Training; 50% more than plannedOverall Impact: Recognition, Retention, Motivation
3. Bring in Industry Practitioners to interact with students
• 117 practitioners on Campus in 2007 as against 40 planned• Students understand Recruiters’ expectations betterOverall Impact: Recruiters train Students on specific skills required
4. Improve Faculty : Student Ratio
• Faculty Student Ratio 3.75 : 1 today against 8.57 : 1 in 2002• More time for Faculty to engage in Consulting and Research.Overall Impact: More time for faculty-student interaction and counseling
5. Target & attract top recruiters & negotiate better compensation
• 55 of Top 100 companies are current recruiters.• 72% Repeat Recruiters• Average Salary INR 8,46,000 in 2008 against target of INR 6,50,000Overall Impact: Improved Placement Performance & Attracts even better students
6. Enter into Collaborative arrangements with institutions
• 9 Exchange Programs• 45 overseas students & 20 Overseas faculty• 41 ABA students overseas & 19 ABA Faculty OverseasOverall Impact: Global Footprint, Brand Equity, Cross Cultural understanding
57
6C. Explain How the Results were Shared
Stakeholders How Shared
With Strategic Management Team and Board of Trustees
• Summary Report• Key findings and Comparison with top 3 B-Schools• Recommendations for further improvement and new initiatives
Students Team made presentations every year; Results announced in bulletin boards; Communicated to prospective students through institutional brochure & e-mails
Faculty and Staff Team made presentations every year; sought suggestions for improvement; incorporated feasible suggestions
RecruitersCommunicated through Placement Brochures, Placement CD, E-mail and Telephone calls; CEOs and Top Executives of Recruiting companies personally briefed by Faculty, Staff and Students – 12 Cities have been visited; 153 companies have been briefed during 27 visits in 2008
Parents• By Admissions Department through Telephone & E-mail• By Top Management during Admissions• By Faculty & Students during annual get-together
Regulators• Personal briefing by Director• Communication through Letters and E-mail
58
59
60
61
Concluding Thought
SUCCESS OF PROJECT HAS BEEN DUE TO TEAM WORK
62
What Next?
• Obtaining University Status (2 additional members)• AACSB Accreditation (5 additional members)• EQUIS Accreditation (5 additional members)• AMBA Accreditation (5 additional members)• Environmental Quality System for New Campus• Realizing Vision 2016!
Need we say more?
63