ALLIANCE BUSINESS ACADEMY, BANGALORE, INDIA TQM I MPLEMENTATI ON I N - - PDF document

ALLIANCE BUSINESS ACADEMY, BANGALORE, INDIA

TQM I MPLEMENTATI ON I N MANAGEMENT EDUCATI ON Submitted 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

ALLI ANCE

1 I nfrastructure 200,000 Sq. Ft. 15,000 Sq. Ft. 2 Admission Criteria CAT Score 95% 65% 3 I ntellectual Capital 80% Faculty academically qualified 30% 4 I nternational 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 I nternational Linkages 5 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 used in B-school ranking by all the market research agencies Key Strategies:

• 1. I ncrease rigor of admissions

Raise 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. I ndustry I nterface

Bring 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 Performance

Target and attract top recruiters, negotiate for better compensation



• 6. I nternational Liaison

Enter 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

• utcomes would impact them

Process Key Stakeholders

Prospective students seek information Admissions Office Students applying for admissions Admissions Office, Accounting I nvite 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, I nstitution

9

• 1D. Project Selection – Key Stakeholders and

How the Project May Impact Them

Stakeholders I mpact

• 1. Admissions Office

Improving admissions criteria attracts better students leading to instituional goals

• 2. Students

Transparency 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. Faculty

Satisfied & 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. Management

Top 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 Outcomes Placement 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

• f Curriculum

Communication Interview Skills

11

Cause evaluation matrix of top 10 causes Scoring : 1 Low 5: Moderate 9: High

• 2B. Analysis of Potential Root Cause

Most probable root cause Score Action able Composite Score 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: 27 Faculty analyzed: 14 Students 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: 75 Students 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 agencies Sample 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 = 0.992 Fcal = 7475.053 p = 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 scholastic record poor scholastic record

average aggregate percentage 0.00% 1 0.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% good aptitude score poor aptitude score

average aggregate percentage 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% good communication skills poor communication skills

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 scholastic record poor scholastic record 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 communication skills poor communication skills

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 = 0.996 Fcal = 7374.394 p = 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. I n particular, courses which were delivered using interactive learning and case-based methodologies received feedback ratings of 9.25

• r 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 = 0.790 Fcal = 363.085 p = 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. I n 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)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 good academic performance poor academic performance below average salary above average salary 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 ideas Organize 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

I dea: 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 Expenses Benefits: 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. Result Oracle 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
• f 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 Clarity B. Communication Skills C. Aptitude Conceptual Clarity A. Scholastic Record B. CAT Score C. Attendance D. Knowledge Delivery E. Assignments F. Performance in Examination Knowledge Delivery A. Faculty Expertise B. Faculty Communication Skills C. Faculty Empathy D. Prompt Feedback E. 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

I deal 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
• rientation
• 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%

• n 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 skills
• B. 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 & Consulting MDPs Customized Training 1/Month 2/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, Interviews December 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 Office Coordination Stakeholder Satisfaction Motivation & Counseling Surveys Throughout 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 I nterview

• 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 I ndustry I nteraction 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 Facilitation Spread over two months, Unlimited number of

• pportunities
• 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

I nfrastructure 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-LEVI TZ Satisfaction I nventory introduced (First institution in I ndia 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 OBJECTI VE ACHI EVEMENT Strategic Vision “Be among the Top 10 Private B- Schools by 2006” CFORE COSMODE/ GFK MODE 2006: 14 16 2007: 9 6 2008: 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% Placements 2. Average Salary 3. Minimum Salary

• 4. Repeat Recruiters

1. Achieved for 4 years 2. INR 4,00,000 to INR 8,46,000 P.A in 4 years 3. INR 2,40,000 to INR 6,30,000 P.A in 4 years 4. 25% to 72% in 4 years

33

RESULT OBJECTI VE ACHI EVEMENT I ntellectual Capital 80% of faculty to be academically qualified 84% faculty are I nternational Publications Min 50/year 96/year achieved (2007-08) I ndustry I nteraction 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.10 ABA Overseas: Min.10 20 19 Students Overseas at ABA: Min.25 ABA Overseas : Min.25 45 41 Stakeholder Satisfaction Students . Min 85% Recruiters . Min 80% 91% achieved 84% achieved I nfrastructure World –Class Campus 5,00,000 sq.ft Achieved 6,50,000 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

VI SI ON

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 I ndia 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 coordinate Intellectual Capital: Team Leader and Prof. M.V. Narasimhan International Linkages: Dr. Anubha Singh & Team Leader Admissions Process: Ms. Surekha and Team Leader Placement Performance: Ms. Usha and Team Leader Industry Interaction: Prof. Raja Sekhar & Team Leader Statistical Tools & Analysis: Dr. Mihir Dash Research & 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. Usha Visited 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 Kumar Worked 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 each team member Respect for time precision, pride in being involved in something worthwhile Each milestone celebrated at a nearby resort with families of team members also being present Team members, even while taking

• wnership for

specific tasks, have consulted

• thers at

every stage Learning as a continuous, life long process; Participated in over 75 conferences, seminars and workshops Briefing to all faculty and staff

• nce 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 + PASSI ON TO PURSUE

38

• 6A. Describe Results Achieved – Tangible & Less

Tangible

GOAL Be among Top 10 Private B-Schools in I ndia by 2006 CFORE COSMODE / GFK MODE 2006 Rank 14 16 2007 Rank 9 6 2008 Rank 7 Not Announced ACHI EVED

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) ACADEMI C 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 : 45 Overseas Faculty at ABA : 20 Alliance Students Overseas : 41 Alliance 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

I ndustry I nterface 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 center Health center Sports center Entertainment 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 I MPACT 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

VI SI ON 2016: BE AMONG THE TOP 50 B-SCHOOLS I N THE WORLD

56

• 6B. Explain How the Results Impacted the

Organizational Goals

Strategy Alignment I mpact

• 1. Enhance Academic Rigor



• All students admitted have FIRST Divisions throughout
• MIN. CAT Score for Admissions: 86%
• MIN. COMMN. Score for Admissions: 82%

Overall I mpact: 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 planned

Overall I mpact: 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 better

Overall I mpact: 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 I mpact: 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 6,50,000

Overall I mpact: 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 Overseas

Overall I mpact: 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 Recruiters Communicated 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

Thank You

Contact I nformation:

director@alliancebschool.ac.in Tel: + 91 80 26789750 Mob: 9880518136

64