Performance management national institute of management case analysis

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AT NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT Case Study Analysis

Case Analysis: Some insights

NIM Campus were highly appreciative of the transparent, Unit based work measurement system

Location of NIM (CI) was not preferred by faculty members. Thus getting good faculty to work and industrial interface was very difficult

The incentive system was the only motivation among faculty to work with CI campus.

Faculty drastically opposed any change in current measurement system

Quality of intellectual capital provide an institute with the only source of sustained competitive advantage.

Emphasis was to be given to EED programs as they are one of the main revenue streams and also helpful in industry interaction and reputation building.

Minimum work load specified was too low

Also the measurement system was not accurate since as mentioned in case many faculty members earned a no.of units that was as per directors believe was “DIFFICULT” to achieve.

Large Discrepancy between units earned by faculty at two different campus.

Advisory Committee was of a view that current measurement system didn’t include and qualitative analysis

Board of Director’s views

Difference between new incentive system introduced in April 2006 with the old one

Defining the minimum and maximum limits of work activities expected

Defining minimum and maximum hours of CORE ACTIVITY i.e. teaching.

Incentives for contribution in activities classified as organizational priorities like EED’s

Introducing the units for student’s feedback as students as major stake holders

New system was launched at both campuses at almost same time but there comes to be difference in the units earned. One primary reason was the difference in the organization structure at top level.

Faculty work measurement system•PG

DM and other long duration programs

•Supervision of  PhD thesis

•Evaluation of Internships and student projects

Teaching and Student Guidance

•Research

•Conferences

Research and publication

•Open Management Development Programs

•Off-campus Programs

•Consulting

Executive education program and

consulting

•Dean•Program

Chairperson•program

Chairpersons•Administrativ

e Chairpersons

•Hostel Warden

•Chairperson Placement Committee

•Chairpersons

Administrative Responsibilities

Executive education and consulting

Short term programs(2-15 days)

Major competitor of NIM in this field is IIM’s and several other B-Schools taking the advantage of location as industries prefer local courses.

In 2008, Under specific conditions by BODs, focus was given for conducting such programs and specific units could be earned by the faculty under this

Faculty could get the benefit out of this in 2 forms: by earning money and by earning units per session.

Faculty hiring and retention

A campus’s ranking is highly effected by its faculty.

With already existing problem of maintaining a Student-faculty ratio of 10/1, the plan of addition of more students to campus demands more faculty.

The change in management performance system and hold back of appraisal and delay has already resulted in the resignation of some faculty members and others also finding alternatives for the same.

This causes problem for AC to change the existing appraisal system.

The core purpose of concern was not being solved.

AC should propose a solution where the concern should not be to gain points by only bare completion of teaching hours but also by completion of level of syllabus and also the level of satisfaction amongst the students.

ANALYSIS

Parameters for Business School Rankings

•Ranking is critical for every institute.

•Since NIM(CI) campus was to get its independent ranking ,so parameter wise analysis is crucial.

•As per a survey, the most critical parameters are Intellectual capital(i.e. the faculty),the placement performance and Industry Interface

21

23

19

19

8

10Placement per-formanceIntellectual CapitalIndustry InterfaceInfrastructure and FacilitiesInternational LinkagesRecruiter's Satisfac-tion survey score

Parameters for Business School Rankings

The inference out the survey shows that getting top class faculty and retaining them is crucial for NIM. Hence any change in Performance Management which is not liked by the faculty members and turn up in NIM loosing its ranking in future years.

In another survey as mentioned in case study, the most important parameter in Intellectual capital evaluation is Paper Published in International Journals.

Also this aligns with the vision statement of NIM

Hence faculty should be encouraged more for this.

7%12%24%

5%5%5%5%7%5%24%

Intellectual Capital

Books published (Last Year)

Papers Published in Indian Journals

Papers Published in International Journals

Cases Authored

Journal Doctoral program

No. of permanent faculty numbers sent to international con-ference/seminar

Faculty / Student ratio

Faculty with PhD/ student ratio

Faculty perception

Parameters for Business School Rankings

The other important parameter in ranking is Industrial Interface.

The NIM(CI) campus is already at location disadvantage thus reducing the chances of industrial interface.

The situation can be taken care by improving MDP( Management Development Program)

Thus faculty should be encouraged to involve in more MDP’s Also through network building and through improving reputation in industry, this can be done

For example: students and teachers could be encouraged to indulge in live case study preparation and analysis of industry and the analysis can be shared with industry for their benefit.

This will build the trust.

6%14%

28%

8%7%3%

7%

28%

Industry Interface

No. of seminarsRevenue from consult-ingRevenue from MDPNo. of research projects undertaken with indus-tryIncubation cellCorporate visitorsProjects launched by Incubation cellFaculty Perception

Change in engagement of faculty after revision of performance measurement system

F1 F3 F5 F7 F9 F11

F13

F15

18.9

5223

421

3.27

8688

525

8.22

2811

671

16.7

4008

811

12.4

3243

243

17.1

5481

172

0.72

9927

007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2007-20082006-2007

Involvement of faculty in Research work

• It was also seen that the total units earned by 15 members from research work got increased in consecutive years

•With further calculations, the average units earned in research work by faculty in year 2006-2007 was 15% approx , whereas the average raises to 31%(approx) in year 2007-2008

Implementation Issues

•A hostel warden earn 50 points

•Two times evaluating and grading the class earns a teacher 40 points.

•The efforts required to be on administrative positions like warden needs more engagement in no. of hours than evaluating the class .Hence not justified.

Equalisation of unit allocation

• some people through their networks and expertise can easily hold several or multiple administrative positions at a time

• say : Corporate communication, student counseling, international relations, program chairperson PGDM program

• 135 units i.e. 45% of minimum units earned only through the case

Multiple administrative responsibilities

•It can be the case that the units allotted for feedback led some faculty members to engage in popularize and student appeasement

Units allotted for Feedback

•The Vision of the college is “ To be a premium management college and technology institute , a student focused learning community and recognized for its research and teaching.

•But proper focus is not made to justify the very Vision statement of the institute.

•Units earned by Publication in International Journal(non-referred) is just 20

•Whereas by just managing 2 OMD programs in campus, a faculty can earn 23.5 points

• It requires an effort of 12 months (approx) for publishing whereas a OMD program is held for just 10-15 days

Units allotted for research

and Publications

Implementation Issues

Since mentioned in the case, there was requirement to make system more robust and less vulnerable to change and misuse.

But on the other hand any changes would lead to decrease in income of faculty leading to large scare exodus of faculty members

So, changes should be made which will directly not affect the income level of members or work load addition but a better evaluation of qualitative factors like efficiency and effectiveness of teaching. This can be done by checking the corporate readiness and relevance of students on regular basis and feedback on the same to faculty.

Case review committee should also be present at NI campus (and not CI campus alone) as this will effect the average points earned by the faculty members in terms of cases being published or approved. At CI campus, the process is very rigorous.

The organization structure should be same for all the campuses at top level. This is reduce the gap coming between the units earned by faculty of different campus

Feedback

Some faculty members may publish research papers in journals in which they themselves serve on the editorial board. The system has no mechanism in place to control such actions. Such issues should be taken care of

Issue of incentive plans and their utility in motivating academicians.

Research has shown that financial benefits actually undermine intrinsic motivation (Kohn, 1993). Most top academicians would derive immense satisfaction by publishing in top-quality journals.

System does not encourage faculty members to target top rated journals

Feedback

The discussion can also be seen in light of managing intellectual capital or employees engaged in creative pursuits. Faculty members have their own interests and areas of strengths that may not always coincide with organisational priorities. It may be counter-productive if these employees are subject to the standard performance management practices designed for managers and executives in functional roles.

Feedback