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


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


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)


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


49


50


51


52


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


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

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

Thank You

Contact Information:

[email protected]

Tel: +91 80 26789750

Mob: 9880518136

64

alliance business academy, bangalore,...

Documents