evaluation study of the technical education quality ... of teqip ii.pdf · evaluation study of the...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Evaluation Study of the Technical Education Quality
Improvement Program (TEQIP) Phase-II
Volume - I
October - 2014
Submitted to
Ministry of Human Resource Development
Government of India
Study Team
Dushyant Mahadik (Team Member)
G. Surender Reddy (Team Member)
Hemnath Rao H. (Team Leader)
Support Team
M. Jagadish Kumar / Mahaboob Tanda / Manju Vani
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE OF INDIA
BELLA VISTA, HYDERABAD 500 082.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME - I
Pg. No.
List of Appendices and Annexures (Volume II) 3
List of Tables 4
List of Figures 7
List of Boxes 9
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 11
Acknowledgement 13
Executive Summary 14-19
Chapter 1: The Technical Education Quality Improvement
Programme (TEQIP) – An Overview 20-25
Chapter 2: Evaluation of TEQIP-II - Design and Methodology 26-38
Chapter 3: Impact of TEQIP-II on Student Learning 39-67
Chapter 4: Growing Research Orientation and Publications 68-79
Chapter 5: TEQIP Impact on Industry-Institution Interaction (III) 80-92
Chapter 6: TEQIP Led Institutional Reforms- Academic and
Management Systems 93-118
Chapter 7: Autonomy, Accreditation and Governance Reforms 119-135
Chapter 8: Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations
for Way Forward 136-148
3
List of Appendices and Annexures (Part of Volume II)
List of Appendices
Appendix 1 : Enriching Student Learning Outcomes: The VNR-
VJIET Way!
Appendix 2 : National Institute of Technology, Rourkela – A Case of
Quantum Leap in Research
Appendix 3 : Weaving Industry Institution Interaction (III) in to the
Institutional Culture: The Case of the Institute of
Chemical Technology, Mumbai
Appendix 4 : Driving Good Governance at BVB College of
Engineering: A Case study
Appendix 5 : GCT, Coimbatore: The Case of a Vibrant Alumni
Association.
Appendix 6 : Facilitating Industrial Consultancy : A Case Let of
GNDEC
Appendix 7 : Human Resource Management of Faculty : Three
Comparative Caselets.
List of Annexures
Annexure 1.1 : TEQIP Performance Indicators
Annexure 1.2 : Key Performance Indicators of the TEQIP II Project
Annexure 1.3 : Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme
(TEQIP) Phase‐II - List of Project Institutions
Annexure 2.1 : Survey Schedule-H: Survey of Heads of Institution
Annexure 2.2 : Survey Schedule–F: Survey of Teaching Staff / Faculty
Annexure 2.3 : Survey Schedule–S: Survey of Students / Research
Scholars
Annexure 2.4 : Survey Schedule–A: Survey of Non-teaching Staff
Annexure 2.5 : List of Persons Contacted/Interviewed
Annexure 2.6 : Profiles of Core Study Team
Annexure 6.1 : List of Programmes for Management Capacity
Enhancement at IIMs
4
List of Tables
Table
No. Title
2.1 List of TEQIP institutions sampled for evaluation
2.2 Profile of HoI respondents
2.3 Profile of faculty respondents
2.4 Profile of student respondents
2.5 Profile of non-teaching respondents
3.1 Faculty response to improved use of teaching aids
3.2 Faculty on improvement in library facilities
3.3 Faculty response on improvement in maintenance of laboratory
equipments and software
3.4 Faculty response on overall improvement in the infrastructure
3.5 Student responses (%) on learning environment and ambience
3.5A Mean level of student feedback on learning environment and ambience
3.6 Faculty response on opportunity to participate in academic conferences
and seminars
3.7 Mean feedback of students on quality of instruction
3.8 Faculty response on change in the learning and scholastic orientation of
students.
3.9 Faculty response on improvement in the learning aptitude of the students
3.10 Faculty response on improvement in students' exam performance
3.11 Faculty response on quality of students attracted since 2009-10.
3.12 Students' responses on take a ways from lab work / practical's
/assignments.
3.13 Students' mean feedback on academic progression
3.14 Students' responses about three major strengths
3.15 Students' feedback on design of course curriculum
3.16 Satisfaction levels by student categories about support for potential
learners
3.17 Measures recommended by faculty members for improved quality of
teaching
3.18 Students' mean level of satisfaction with employability initiatives
3.19 Reasons for pursuing higher education
5
3.20 Percentage of student responses on employability related factors
3.20A Mean feedback of student responses on employability related factors by
institutional groups
4.1A Faculty response on qualifications acquired during TEQIP-II
4.1B Break up of faculty whose response was "No" in Table 4.1A
4.2 Mean feedback from faculty about research culture in TEQIP-II
institutions
4.3 Progress of research publications in 190 TEQIP Institutions
4.4 Cohort-wise break of research publications (domestic & international) for
2012-13
4.5 Sponsored research activity in TEQIP-II institutions-2012-13
4.6 Growth in seminars and conferences at the sampled institutions
5.1 Students' responses to III
5.2 Mean feedback of student responses on improvement in institute (who
has completed more than two years in institute)
5.3 Faculty responses on improvement in III
5.4 Faculty perception about students' benefit from III
5.5 Suggestions from faculty for strengthening III
5.6 Growth of IRG in the 30 sampled TEQIP institutions
6.1 HoIs responses on the role of BoG in reviewing TEQIP
6.2 HoIs response on the role of BoG in strategising
6.3 Faculty response about performance audit system
6.4 Faculty response about improvements in management
information systems
6.5 Non-teaching staff on top management use of MIS reports
6.6 Non-teaching staff on investment growth in ICT
6.7 Faculty view on the mentoring system
6.8 Faculty satisfaction with financial management system
6.9 Faculty satisfaction with the procurement management
support system
6.10 M&E Structure for TEQIP II
7.1 HoIs response to question on accreditation of eligible courses
7.2 HoI responses on BOG meetings held in the year 2009-10
and 2012-13
7.3 BoG's oversight of various academic and administrative committees
7.4 BoG obtains periodical feedback from all stakeholders
6
7.5 BoG’s role in developing policy for recruitment of faculty and staff
7.6 Reviewing service rules for faculty and staff
7.7 Faculty response on the role of BoG in promoting III
7.8 Non teaching staff on whether BoG involves them more actively in
administrative decision making
8.1 Frequency of responses to the question on recommendations for
improving the quality of teaching
8.2 Frequency of responses to the question on recommendations for
improving the quality of research
8.3 Frequency of responses to question on recommendations for
improving III
7
List of Figures
Figure
No. Title
2.1 Profile of HoI respondents
2.2 Profile of faculty respondents
2.3 Profile of Student respondents
2.4 Profile of non-teaching respondents
3.1 Faculty response to improved use of teaching aids
3.2 Faculty responses on improvement in library facilities
3.3 Faculty response on improvement in maintenance of laboratory
equipments and software
3.4 Faculty response on overall improvement in the infrastructure
3.5 Faculty response on opportunity to participate in academic conferences
and seminars
3.6 Faculty response on change in the learning and scholastic orientation of
students
3.7 Faculty response on improvement in the learning aptitude of the students
3.8 Faculty response on improvement in students' exam performance
3.9 Faculty response on quality of students' attracted since 2009-10
3.10 Students' responses on take aways from lab work / practicals /
assignments
3.11 Students' feedback on design of course curriculum
3.12 Satisfaction level with performance in exams and support to slow learners
3.13 Satisfaction levels by student categories about support for potential
learners
3.14 Measures recommended by faculty members for improvement in quality
of teaching
4.1 Responses from HOIs about changes in research profile
5.1 Students’ responses to III
5.2 Faculty response on improvement in III
5.3 Faculty perception about students’ benefit from III
6.1 A Review of progress in implementation of TEQIP and
achieving its goals
6.1 B Overseeing proper allocation of resources and utilization of funds
6.2 Faculty response about performance audit system
8
6.3 Faculty response about improvements in management
information systems
6.4 Non-teaching staff on top management use of MIS
reports
6.5 Non-teaching staff on investment growth in ICT
6.6 Faculty feedback on the mentoring system
6.7 Faculty satisfaction with financial management system
6.8 Faculty satisfaction with the procurement management
support system
7.1 HoI responses on BOG meetings held in the year 2009-10
and 2012-13
7.2 BoG obtains periodical feedback from all stakeholders
7.3 Response of non teaching staff to the question whether BoG
now involves them more actively in administrative decision
making
9
List of Boxes
Box
No. Title
3.1 ANOVA of data in Table 3.4 comparing the 'mean' perception of faculty
on infrastructure improvement across institutional categories
3.2 Chi Square Test of knowledge gained during the course by students on
career guidance.
3.3 Regression of faculty perception regarding the scholastic and learning
orientation of the students as dependent on various students' responses.
4.1 Chi Square Test of faculty's academic qualification by their perception of
the support system for pursuing research.
4.2 Chi Square Test of opportunities for faculty to participate in
conferences by motivation for pursuing research.
4.3 ANOVA of 'mean' difference in level of publications (Table 4.4).
4.4 Independent Sample T-test comparing mean levels of publications
between sub-component 1.1 and 1.2 institutions
5.1 ANOVA of faculty response (Table 5.3) on improvement in III.
5.2 Chi Square Test of faculty responses about students benefit from III by
their perception of improvement in III.
6.1 ANOVA of data in table 6.3 of faculty responses about performance audit
system across institutional groups
6.2 ANOVA of data in table 6.5 comparing the 'mean' feedback of non-
teaching staff across institutional cohorts on top management use of MIS
reports
6.3 Chi Square Test of faculty responses to improvements in MIS by
mentoring system for institution building
6.4 Chi Square Test of faculty satisfaction with financial management system
by procurement management support.
7.1 Chi Square Test of students’ perceptions of autonomy by their
perception of curriculum design.
7.2 Chi Square Test of students perception of autonomy by their perceived
performance in exam
7.3 T-test comparing mean level of student’s perception of curriculum design
in autonomous and non autonomous institutions.
7.4 T-test comparing Mean level of students’ perception about their
performance in exams in autonomous and non autonomous institutions.
10
7.5 Chi Square Test of faculty perception of autonomy by their perception of
students performance in exams and their knowledge of subject improving.
7.6 T-test comparing mean level of faculty perception of students
performance in exams and their subject knowledge in autonomous Vs
non-autonomous institutions
7.7 ANOVA of 'mean' perception among the faculty of different institutional
categories (Table 7.7) on the BoG support for III initiatives
8.1 Indices of section-wise feedback from questionnaires for faculty, students
and non-teaching staff
11
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ANOVA - Analysis of Variance
A.P . - Andhra Pradesh
AICTE - All India Council for Technical Education
ALPs - Academic Leadership Programmes
ASCI - Administrative Staff College of India
BoG - Board of Governors
BoS - Board of Studies
BTEs - Boards of Technical Education
CAPE - Co-operative Academy for Professional Excellence
CFIs - Centrally Funded Institutions
CUSAT - Cochin University of Science and Technology
CVA - Career Vision Approach
e-FMR - electronic Financial Management Reporting System
FGD - Focus Group Discussion
GCT - Government College of Technology
GoI - Government of India
HoD - Head of Department
HoI - Head of Institution
HSD - Honestly Significant Difference
ICT - Information and Communication Technology (3 chap)
ICT - Institute of Chemical Technology (chap 5)
IDPs - Institutional Development Proposals
IET - Institute of Engineering & Technology
III - Industry-Institution Interaction
IIIC - Industry-Institute Interaction Cell
IIIT - Indian Institutes of Information Technology
IISc - Indian Institute of Science
IIT - Indian Institute of Technology
IIMs - Indian Institutes of Management
IITs - Indian Institutes of Technology
12
IRG - Internal Revenue Growth
ITIs - Industrial Training Institutes
JNTU-H - Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University- Hyderabad
JRM - Joint Review Mission
KICs - Knowledge Incubation Cells
KIT - Knowledge Incubation for TEQIP
KPI - Key Performance Indicator
MDP - Management Development Programme
MHRD - Ministry of Human Resource Development
MOOCs - Massive Open Online Courses
M-T-P - Mentoring-Training-Placement
NAAC - National Assessment and Accreditation Council
NBA - National Board of Accreditation
NCTVT - National Council for Training in Vocational Trade
NERIST - North Eastern Regional Institute of science and Technology
NITs - National Institutes of Technology
NPE - National Policy on Education
NPIU - National Project Implementation Unit
NSC - National Steering Committee
PG - Post Graduate
QEEE - Quality Enhancement in Engineering Education
QIP - Quality Improvement Programmes
RECs - Regional Engineering Colleges
SNIST - Sreenidhi Institute of Science & Technology
SPFUs - State Project Facilitation Units
SPSS - Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
TEQIP - Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme
UG - Under Graduate
UGC - University Grants Commission
VNR-VJIET - Vallurupalli Nageswara Rao Vignana Jyothi Institute of
Engineering & Technology
WB - World Bank
13
Acknowledgement
The study team is grateful to Ms. Amita Sharma, Additional Secretary (T) and her dedicated
team of colleagues in the MHRD, GoI for very patiently sparing their time to frankly discuss
the methodology and for their generous support to the study team with perspectives, analysis
and ideas on how the project has been perceived by various stakeholders. The team heartily
thanks Dr. A. U. Digraskar and his team at the NPIU who have contributed their valuable
time in facilitating the field visits of the study team, besides sharing relevant information and
documents from time to time.
The feedback provided by Dr. Tobias Linden from the World Bank, members of the successive
joint review missions, the Chairman and members of the National Steering Committee on
TEQIP, following interim presentations by the study team at various stages, have immensely
benefited the progress and direction of the study. The team sincerely acknowledges their kind
attention and encouragement. The team is also thankful to the heads of technical education
departments in the sampled states and to the SPFUs for sharing their views on the progress
and problems associated with the the project and for coordinating the team’s visits to the
project institutions in their respective states.
The study team expresses its gratitude to all the heads of institutions, heads of department,
faculty teams, non-teaching staff and students from all branches and levels of study who
responded to our requests for both survey data as well as focus group discussions/
interviews, positively and very earnestly. Project coordinators and nodal officers in the
institutions deserve a special mention. But for their honest feedback, support and
forebearance, this study could not have progressed at the speed that was envisaged by the
client system. The aggregate time invested by the community of TEQIP project institutions in
making this evaluation study effective, has provided an input not only for this study report but
has added great value to the learning and understanding of the members of the study team.
We can’t thank them more.
We also owe our thanks to all members of the Boards of Governor, mentors, performance
and data auditors, retired academics and administrators, recruiters and potential employers
who visit the campuses of TEQIP institutions for student placements, for their valuable
suggestions and time. The team seeks forgiveness if we have not thanked any institution or
individual who has contributed to the study, by oversight, and gratefully acknowledges the
invaluable comments and suggestions received from the World Bank and the MHRD-NPIU
teams on the draft version which have greatly enriched the report.
ASCI Study Team
14
Executive Summary
Introduction
0.1 The Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI) is pleased to have been assigned this
study for evaluation of the ongoing second phase of the Technical Education Quality
Improvement Programme (TEQIP-II). The overarching objective of TEQIP-II is to improve
the quality of learning, teaching and research outcomes in select technical education
institutions of the country so that the engineering graduates of these institutions come out
equipped with a level of knowledge and skills that would make them highly employable. Yet
another key objective of the project is to scale up post-graduate education and demand driven
research and development promoting an environment conducive to innovation in the project
institutions.
0.2 Central to achieving the above objectives is the need for enhancing 'Institutional and
System Management Effectiveness' and 'Capacity Building’ to Strengthen institutional
leadership and Good Governance, which have also been provided for adequately in the
TEQIP II, referred to mostly as TEQIP in the entire report. A total of 190 institutions across
the country are participating in the project which includes 25 Centrally Funded Institutions
(CFIs) and 165 government, government-aided and private unaided institutions drawn from
23 states / union territories.
Methodology
0.3 The study was commissioned by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD)
in the Government of India (GoI), following a meeting on the 20th August, 2013, to discuss
the methodology, jointly with the MHRD, National Project Implementation Unit (NPIU) and
the World Bank (WB). With multiple components and diverse profile of institutions, that did
not share a common zero date for joining the TEQIP meant that the evaluation study had to
be based on a flexible methodology. In shaping the methodology, the senior officers of the
MHRD in the GoI, the NPIU and the WB were actively involved and their suggestions have
helped develop the methodological basis of the study. A methodological framework blending
both qualitative and quantitative approaches to the evaluation was agreed to. A semi-
structured survey of the major stakeholders’ groups, namely, the Heads of Institution (HoI)
and Heads of Department (HoD); members of the governing bodies; faculty team;
undergraduate and postgraduate students; and the non-teaching staff from both technical and
15
administration background whose role in the quality of technical education is widely
recognized, was designed to provide the primary data on the progress in implementation of
the TEQIP. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and focus interviews with the same sample of
stakeholder groups was also part of the study design.
0.4 A multi-stage sampling plan was drawn up in close consultation with the client system for
the survey. Ten states were purposively sampled. Within each of these states, the sample size
of the TEQIP institutions was decided on the principle of proportionality to population size,
keeping the sample size of the institutions at 30. Within each of the 30 institutions sampled
for study, a random sample of 30 faculty members, 50 students and 20 non-teaching staff
were invited to participate in the survey as well as FGDs. In some institutions, the sample
size of the stakeholder groups contributing to the study was larger when more of them could
be approached on the campuses without in any way affecting the random nature of the
sample. The sampling of both faculty and students further ensured that all branches and
students in different years of undergraduate and post-graduate programmes were represented
in the sample.
Student Learning Outcomes
0.5 The key attributes of academic progress in a typical technical education institution are the
enabling environment for student learning, quality of instruction, students’ performance in
exams and transition through the years of study. Utilising the data from both the survey and
FGDs, the study found that the learning environment has improved significantly across the
sampled institutions according to both faculty and students. Over 60% of the students
believed that the physical infrastructure as well as the learning ambience was good while 80-
85% of the faculty have expressed that the overall infrastructure including laboratory and
library facilities as well as teaching aids in class rooms have improved in the project
institutions including the private unaided ones where no direct assistance was provided under
TEQIP for procurement of hardware. Both faculty and students in private institutions have
provided the most positive feedback followed by the government aided institutions. The most
direct contribution of TEQIP to the students’ learning outcome has been the development
support to faculty and staff. Over 95% of the faculty has expressed agreement with the
benefits that the project has offered them by way of unprecedented support for their
participation in various academic seminars, conferences and workshops. The feedback from
16
the students also confirmed that TEQIP has influenced the professional growth of the faculty
which is reflected in the latter’s teaching style and quality.
0.6 The above learning outcomes were also evidenced by the academic progression of the
students who have also shown a distinct preference for the autonomous system of curriculum
design and evaluation where the institutions have been granted autonomy. The timely
announcement of examination results was particularly highlighted as a benefit of autonomy
by the students, during the FGDs. Irrespective of the system of evaluation and status of
autonomy, a general improvement in the transition rates was observed which in two years
between 2010-11 and 2012-13 has gone up from 56% to 58%. The remedial courses offered
under TEQIP to potential learners often labeled as slow or weak learners, is producing results
though the support system has not percolated down to the neediest students which may be
due to the inhibitions that discourage their participation in such special support classes. As
the faculty responses to certain open ended questions brought out, the improvements in
student learning has been facilitated by the curriculum changes and pedagogical
improvements of the faculty on one hand and also due to the increased exposure of students
to industry experts and academics from premier institutions. Finishing school support has
positively impacted the employability and confidence levels of students.
Growing Research Orientation
0.7 Across the 30 sampled institutions of all categories and states, the improved culture of
research and motivation among the faculty to enhance their academic publications emerged
as one of the most significant outcomes from TEQIP II. Within each institution, there was
consensus that the interest among the faculty towards research has palpably increased. The
primary thrust for research has been generated by the growth in the academic qualification
levels of the faculty as the proportion of faculty with post graduate qualifications has gone up
from 63% to 89% at the aggregate level. The sample level data showed a more encouraging
performance in terms faculty who have improved their qualifications with as many as 94%
having completed their post graduate studies. With TEQIP support, the quality and quantity
of research output has visibly improved and many faculty have shared during focus group
discussions that even the quality of Masters’ degree dissertations has been growing. The CFIs
stand out from the rest in their output of publications. There has been an appreciable increase
in the level of publications, patents filed and granted as well as sponsored research projects.
The feedback from many of the heads of the institutions has confirmed the positive change in
17
the research culture of their institutions, which is also reflected in the marked rise in the
number of publications in international refereed journals.
Industry Institution Interaction (III)
0.8 The low key performance of most institutions in promoting deeper interaction with
industry has been an issue of concern as the students have conveyed during the focus group
discussions that the shortcoming of their education has been a serious lack of interaction with
industry which leaves them with gaps in their practical knowledge. With aggressive efforts
being made by the MHRD, NPIU and the State Project Facilitation Units (SPFUs), TEQIP is
beginning to make a difference in two ways. First, an unprecedented level of awareness has
been generated among the HODs and HOIs about the need for Industry Institute Interaction
(III) and secondly, TEQIP II has motivated and provided resources to faculty to proactively
approach the industry and bring the industry closer to the institutions. Institutions in the far
flung rural areas that are more challenged than their urban counterparts, perceive the various
III interventions under TEQIP as an invaluable opportunity and are willing to make the most
of it.
Academic and Management Reforms
0.9 TEQIP has provided an impetus to institution level reforms in terms of academic
processes and management systems that were generally weak before inception of the
programme. The series of initiatives launched under TEQIP for knowledge incubation
through the Knowledge Incubation Centres (KICs) and the live classes and tutorials under the
programme for Quality Enhancement of Engineering Education (QEEE), have contributed to
a credible eco-system in which the TEQIP institutions are seeking to develop and sustain
knowledge partnerships with the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the Indian
Institutes of Management (IIMs). The participation of TEQIP institutions in various
Management Development Programmes (MDPs) and Academic Leadership Programmes
(ALPs) organized by the IIMs and other management development institutions has added a
new learning experience to the faculty and heads of TEQIP institutions. Many HoIs have
conveyed that the faculty and students have been positively influenced and inspired by their
interaction with faculty from the premier institutions, mentors, performance auditors and
industry representatives who have been visiting their institutions, and in the process finding a
performance benchmark for themselves.
18
0.10 TEQIP has also brought to the project institutions an inter-disciplinary perspective in
their work through formulation of the institutional development proposals and strategic
planning exercises. The traditional organizational structures have been shaken up as different
branches and departments are working together towards a holistic institutional vision, mission
and goals. Significant progress has also been registered by the TEQIP institutions in
reviewing and reorienting most management systems particularly in the areas of financial
management, procurement, management information system, monitoring and evaluation. The
role of performance auditors, data auditors and mentors is increasingly making an impact by
providing a neutral assessment of various tangible and intangible assets that the TEQIP
institutions have been creating and maintaining.
Autonomy and Governance
0.11 The concept of good governance and performance assessment has revolutionized the
manner in which organisational structures and systems have traditionally been defined and
they have functioned in the technical education institutions. While challenges remain in terms
of knowledge gaps of the members of the governing bodies themselves in regard to the
exercise of powers that autonomy has conferred on them, and more importantly in being able
to contribute to areas like strategy formulation, III and talent management, the role of BoGs
in promoting strategic planning, speedy decision making and review of various policies and
committees set up for good institutional governance, has been very encouraging. TEQIP has
also sensitised the project institutions to the need for and benefits of accreditation and
autonomy from the University Grants Commission (UGC). While most institutions have been
able to get more than 50% of their eligible courses accredited and 23 out of the sampled 30
institutions have also achieved autonomy, the more important outcome has been the
educative experience that accreditation processes have provided to the institutions.
Miscellaneous Outcomes
0.12 Many benefits have accrued to the project institutions in the course of implementing
TEQIP. Institutions have reported that awareness and knowledge of management concepts
including budgeting and costing tools, procurement procedures, human resource management
systems, and management information systems have improved. Innovative sub-structures are
taking shape within the institutions to strengthen their consulting and technical services for
the industry. The potential value of developing and sustaining alumni relations has triggered
19
more vibrant alumni development processes in the project institutions. There have been
instances of unique gains in terms of institutional upgradation as recognition from state and
central governments has enhanced their brand equity. In pursuit of their III endeavors, some
institutions have made creative efforts to forge industry linkages. Focus on the four funds and
internal revenue growth through consulting and sponsored research has sharpened. The HoIs
of 26 out of 30 sampled institutions who responded to the question on growth in IRG
confirmed a 45% increased in the mean level of institutional revenues. Above all, the TEQIP
institutions have formed a community of institutions pursuing a common goal.
20
Chapter 1 : The Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme (TEQIP)
– An Overview
Introduction
1.1. Broadly speaking, “Technical Education” can be seen as an instruction in or teaching of
those scientific and artistic principles which underlie the industrial occupations as well as the
instruction in or teaching of the manual practice involved in the application of these
principles. Viewed thus, it can be seen as an education that prepares people for specific
trades, crafts and careers at various levels – as a craftsman or technician (vocational
education), or a professional position in engineering and allied fields. Both globally and in
the Indian context, technical education has had a long history going back many centuries in
time. This chapter highlights the policy initiatives of the Government of India (GoI) for
enhancing the quality of technical education including the Technical Education Quality
Improvement Programme (TEQIP), the second phase of which is the subject of this
evaluation study.
India's Technical Education System
1.2 Recognising the importance of technical education for the country's development, the
Indian Education Policy (1902) advocated speedy growth of technical education. The
recommendations of Indian Education Commission were accepted and technical and
vocational subjects were included in the curricula of high schools in different provinces.
From 1920 onwards, there had been a great demand for the establishment of technological
institutions by Indians since they wanted to avoid going abroad for such courses. Post-
independence, successive five year plans have laid much emphasis on setting up institutions
of excellence that could impart world class technical education. Today, the technical
education system in the country operates in a three-tier structure as follows;
(i) Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs)/ Vocational Craft Courses,
(ii) Diploma/ Polytechnic Courses,
(iii) Engineering Colleges or Institutions of higher education offering undergraduate, post
graduate and doctoral programs.
1.3 Vocational training / Craftsmen courses are designed to train skilled workers and are
offered by the Industrial Training Institutes under the overall guidance and supervision of the
21
National Council for Training in Vocational Trade (NCTVT). The diploma courses to train
technicians are offered by the polytechnics which are guided and supervised by the state-level
Boards of Technical Education (BTEs). The Apprentices Act of 1961 regulates the
programme of training for apprentices in the industry structuring to the syllabi, period of
training etc. mandated by the Central Apprenticeship Council, with a view to meeting the
requirements of skilled manpower for industry. The Act was amended in 1973 to include
training of graduate and diploma engineers as "Graduate" and "Technician" Apprentices. The
Act was further amended in 1986 to bring within its purview the training of the 10+2
vocational stream as "Technician (Vocational)" Apprentices.
1.4 Most of the polytechnics (about 80%) in the country offer three-year generalized diploma
courses in conventional disciplines such as Civil, Electrical and Mechanical Engineering.
During the last two decades, many polytechnics have started offering courses in other
disciplines such as Electronics, Computer Science, Medical Lab Technology, Hospital
Engineering, Architectural Assistance etc. In addition, many single technology institutions
also were established in areas like Leather Technology, Sugar Technology, Beauty Culture,
Textile Design, etc. Polytechnics also offer post-diploma and advanced diploma programmes
of 1-2 years duration in different specializations. There are over a 1000 polytechnics today
offering three-year diploma courses in various branches of engineering, where the entry
qualification is a school completion course.
Higher Technical Education
1.5 Currently, there are several engineering colleges (nearly 6000) imparting undergraduate
and post graduate courses in engineering, applied engineering and sciences, across the
country. The Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), the National Institutes of Technology
(NITs) and the Indian Institutes of Information Technology (IIITs) are the renowned
institutional groups in the country, besides others like the Birla Institutes of Technology and
Science, the Jadavpur University and the Delhi Technological University, to name a few. The
Government of India (GoI) set up the first Indian Institute of Technology at Kharagpur by an
Act of Parliament during the first five year plan (1951-56) and today, sixteen IITs are
functioning at Bhubaneswar, Bombay, Delhi, Gandhinagar, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Indore,
Jodhpur, Kanpur, Kharagpur, Madras, Mandi, Patna, Roorkee, Ropar and Varanasi. They
enjoy the status of Institutions of National Importance and are autonomous, drafting their
22
own curricula. More such institutions are being proposed by the GoI on the request of the
state governments.
1.6 During the second five year plan (1956-61), on the recommendations of the Engineering
Personnel Committee, the GoI decided to establish the regional engineering colleges, and 17
of them came up between 1959 and 1987, one each in all the major states of the country. In
2002, the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), GoI decided to upgrade, in
phases, all the original 17 Regional Engineering Colleges (RECs) as National Institutes of
Technology while setting up 10 new NITs in the year 2010. The National Institutes of
Technology (NIT) Act, 2010, empowers all the 30 NITs with complete autonomy in their
functioning. In addition to these premier institutes, there are several engineering colleges run
by state governments as part of government universities and have achieved very good
reputation over the years. The GoI has also established four centrally funded institutes of
higher learning focused on information technology, called the IIITs.
Technical Education Policy of the GoI
1.7 As academic institutions across the world are increasingly challenged to keep pace with
the rapid advancement of knowledge on the one hand and to manage the organizational
systems and processes that contribute to the quality of teaching, research and extension, on
the other, national governments have been embarking on several initiatives, such as the
Bologna Process set in motion by the European Ministers of Education, in the last decade.
The GoI had adopted the National Policy on Education (NPE‐1986 as revised in 1992) which
suggested some major steps to promote efficiency and effectiveness of engineering education
as follows;
(i) High priority for modernization and removal of obsolescence. However, modernization
will be undertaken to enhance functional efficiency and not for its own sake or as status
symbol.
(ii) More effective procedures will be adopted in the recruitment of staff. Career
opportunities, service conditions, consultancy norms and other perquisites will be improved.
(iii) Teachers will have multiple roles to perform such as teaching, research, development of
learning resource material, extension and managing the institution. Initial and in-service
training will be made mandatory for faculty and adequate training reserves will be provided.
23
Staff Development Programmes will be integrated at the State-level, and coordinated at
regional and National levels.
(iv) Institutions will be encouraged to generate resources using their capacities to provide
services to the Community and Industry. They will be equipped with up‐to‐date learning
resources, library and computer facilities.
(v) Facilities for sports, creative work and cultural activities will be expanded.
(vi) The GoI shall assist the States in the development of institutions of national importance.
1.8 Engineering education became a main attraction since the 1990s when India became a
major contributor to the global Information Technology (IT) industry revolution. In the last
two decades, many State Governments have encouraged the idea of self‐financed engineering
institutions where the State Government does not provide financial support but facilitates the
setting up of such institutions. As a result, the Indian system of engineering education has
become vast, and so far a total number of 2388 engineering degree institutions have been
established, but the gap in the quality of education between the premier institutions and
others, has only been widening in recent years. Some of the concerns with the new wave of
institutions are:
Faculty Shortage
Weak Industry‐Academia collaboration
Obsolete learning systems and curriculum
Stagnating research
Poor aptitude among students for a career in teaching/research
Imbalance in outputs at bachelor, master and doctoral levels
The TEQIP
1.9 During 1980s, the GoI and the State Governments recognized the need for revamping the
Technician Education System in the country to make it demand‐driven with relevant courses
in new and emerging technologies, with adequate infrastructure resources, competent faculty
and effective teaching‐learning processes. The GoI supported 25 State Governments and
Union Territories of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry through three Technician
24
Education Projects during 1991‐2007, financed by the World Bank, which helped to
strengthen and upgrade the system which benefited 552 polytechnics.
1.10 The success of these projects encouraged the GoI and the State Governments to seek
more funding from the World Bank for systemic transformation of the Technical Education
System with focus on degree-level engineering education. In 2002‐03, the GoI with financial
assistance from the World Bank, launched a Technical Education Quality Improvement
Programme (TEQIP) as a long-term initiative of 10‐12 years, for enhancing the quality of
undergraduate and postgraduate teaching; research profile; industry interaction; students’ pre-
qualification progression and post-qualification placement; institutional mentoring and
governance in technical educational institutions, including the centrally funded ones, all over
the country. The first phase of TEQIP commenced in March 2003 and ended in March 2009,
covering 127 institutions in 13 States. This project, covering less than 10% of the institutions,
was just the beginning and to address the challenge of systemic transformation, the second
phase of Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme (referred to as TEQIP‐II) has
been initiated, fully integrated with the Eleventh Five‐year Plan objectives for technical
education.
The TEQIP-II
1.11 As per the concept and design of TEQIP, each phase is required to be designed on the
basis of lessons learnt from implementation of an earlier phase. TEQIP‐II was initiated as a
sequel project to carry forward the development activities initiated under TEQIP‐I. Further,
TEQIP-II seeks to promote institutional reforms at all levels with an expectation that the
reform process would be sustained and scaled‐up to a higher level, as the project matures.
The overarching objective of TEQIP-II is to improve the quality of learning, teaching and
research outcomes with the following concomitant objectives:
Strengthening institutions to produce high-quality Engineers for better employability
(Sub-component 1.1),
Scaling‐up Postgraduate Education and demand‐driven Research & Development and
Innovation (Sub-component 1.2),
Establishing Centres of Excellence for focused applied research,
Pedagogical training of faculty for effective teaching, and
Enhancing Institutional and System Management effectiveness.
25
1.12 Central to achieving the above objectives is the need for enhancing 'Institutional and
System Management Effectiveness' and 'Capacity Building’ to Strengthen institutional
leadership and Good Governance reflected in the performance indicators. Annexure 1.1
reflects the progress in the implementation of TEQIP-II as of July , 2014 based on the data
available from NPIU-MIS. The programme design addresses these needs and TEQIP-II is
being implemented in 25 Centrally Funded Institutions (CFIs) and 165 government,
government-aided and private unaided institutions across 23 States / Union Territories
(Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand,
Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu,
Telangana, UT-Chandigarh, UT-Puducherry, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and West Bengal,
NCT of Delhi and Tripura). Of these 190 institutions, 113 are implementing sub-component
1.1 and the remaining 77 are selected under sub-component 1.2. The state wise number of
technical education institutions participating in the TEQIP-II may be seen in Annexure 1.2.
1.13 The Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI) is pleased to have been assigned this
study for evaluation of the ongoing TEQIP-II programme. The study was commissioned by
the MHRD in the GoI, following a meeting on the 20th August, 2013, to discuss the
methodology, jointly with the MHRD, NPIU and the World Bank. The methodology and
design of the study is discussed in the next chapter.
26
Chapter 2: Evaluation of TEQIP-II - Design and Methodology
Introduction
2.1 Developing the design and methodology for evaluation of the impact of TEQIP with
multiple components and various categories of institutions, selected from amongst the
government managed, government aided and privately owned, for participation in the
programme, was a challenge in itself. The challenge was further compounded by the fact that
the zero date for implementation of the TEQIP- II was not the same for all the 190
institutions currently implementing the project. Different institutions have joined the project
in different years with some being included in the project during 2012-'13. The staggered
entry of institutions to the project apart, the component of assistance available to government
institutions for procurement of equipment and hardware is not available to the privately
owned institutions. These differences in project design between institutional groups also
meant that the evaluation study had to be based on a flexible methodology.
2.2 The methodology originally contemplated in the proposal has been scrupulously followed
even while incorporating changes as the study progressed to capture feedback from various
stakeholders, directly or indirectly influencing the implementation of the programme. In
shaping the methodology, the senior officers of the MHRD in the GoI, the National Project
Implementation Unit (NPIU) and The World Bank (WB) were actively involved and their
suggestions have helped enrich the methodological basis of the study. The insights obtained
from participation in the Joint Review Mission (JRM) of the WB and the GoI from 18th to
24th February 2013, by the lead member of the ASCI study team has also contributed to the
design of the study.
Study Design
2.3 As mentioned above, the multiplicity of project components aimed at enhancing the
quality of technical education and the sheer diversity of stakeholders associated with the
programme implementation called for a methodological framework that blended both
qualitative and quantitative approaches to the evaluation study. The blended approach
involved assessing the impact of the programme from a survey of the major stakeholders’
groups, namely, the heads of institution and department; members of the governing bodies;
faculty team; undergraduate and postgraduate students; and the non-teaching staff from both
technical and administration background whose role in the quality of technical education is
27
widely recognized. Besides seeking feedback of these stakeholders through relevant survey
instruments, it was also considered appropriate to hold Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with
the same sample of above stakeholder groups so that they could articulate their views about
the project progress as well as concerns that they could not have expressed through the
survey questionnaire.
2.4 In addition to collection of data through the survey questionnaire and FGDs with the
stakeholder groups identified above, the study also drew rich inputs through focus interviews
of project implementation personnel placed both in the state level project facilitation units as
well as the NPIU. Similarly focused interviews with select members of the governing bodies
of institutions, alumni groups, present and potential employers, mentors and performance
auditors were also held in order to ensure that multiple layers of evidence is built up to
support the findings of the evaluation study.
2.5 Besides generating adequate primary data to evaluate the impact of TEQIP, vast amounts
of secondary data was obtained and studied as part of this evaluation study. The sources of
secondary data included a huge repository of both data and information available at the
website of the NPIU as well as various TEQIP institutions that are involved in implementing
the project. The proceedings of the successive JRM, minutes of meetings of the Board of
Governors of TEQIP institutions, reports of mentors, performance and data auditors of
TEQIP institutions and the annual institutional reports have also been analysed in seeking
evidence as well as appreciation of how the programme has impacted the institutions sampled
for this study.
Sample Plan
2.6 Following the blended approach to the study involving collection and analysis of both
quantitative and qualitative data, a multi-stage sampling plan was drawn up in close
consultation with the client system that included both the MHRD-NPIU and the WB. The
primary sampling unit in this multi-stage sample plan has been the identification of states
while the ultimate sampling units are the individual respondents cutting across different
stakeholder groups of faculty, students, non-teaching staff, etc. Ten states were purposively
sampled from out of 23 states/UTs participating in the TEQIP programme and within each of
these states, the sample size of the TEQIP institutions was decided on the principle of
proportionality to population size, keeping the sample size of the institutions at 30. Further,
28
proportionality was also maintained between institutions implementing sub-components 1.1
and 1.2 of the TEQIP programme.
2.7 Within each of the 30 institutions sampled for study, a random sample of 30 faculty
members, 50 students and 20 non-teaching staff were invited to participate in the survey as
well as FGD. In some institutions, the sample size of the stakeholder groups contributing to
the study was larger when more of them could be approached on the campuses without in any
way affecting the random nature of the sample. The sampling of both the faculty and students
further ensured that all branches and different years of undergraduate and post-graduate
programmes were represented in the sample. However, the FGD with the Head of Institution
(HoI) and Head of Department (HoD) in each of the sample institutions was almost
exhaustive in coverage. Table 2.1 shows the sampling of states and institutions across both
subcomponents of the TEQIP.
Design of Survey Instruments
2.8 Four survey instruments were designed, one each for the non-teaching staff, HoIs;
faculty; and the students. These survey schedules are at Annexures 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4
respectively. The questionnaire for students, schedule ‘S’, also had a specific section intended
only for those students who had spent two years or more on the institutional campuses so as
to capture their views on what changes they could perceive before and after the advent of
TEQIP. The survey questionnaires were thoroughly discussed with a team of senior officers
both in MHRD / NPIU and the World Bank and also pilot tested with a group of 27 senior
members of faculty from the TEQIP institutions who attended a Management Development
Programme (MDP) at ASCI from the 30th September to the 4th October, 2013. Based on the
pilot survey, the questionnaires were fine tuned.
2.9 Further, testing of these questionnaires was done in one of the TEQIP institutions located
on the outskirts of Hyderabad, namely, the Sreenidhi Institute of Science & Technology
(SNIST) with 33 faculty, 99 students and 19 non-teaching staff. The entire study team
participated in evaluating the pilot institution both by way of testing the survey instruments as
well as gaining a shared understanding of the methodology to be adopted across all the 30
institutions sampled for the evaluation study, particularly with regard to drawing the
stakeholders’ sample as well as facilitating the FGDs. Focus interviews and FGDs with the
29
HoI, HoDs, and faculty in the pilot institution also provided valuable feedback on how the
precise operationalisation of the sample plan could be achieved in all the sampled institutions.
Table 2.1 : List of TEQIP institutions sampled for evaluation
S.No.
State
Name of Institution Category
Component 1.1 Component 1.2
1
Andhra
Pradesh
Vallurupalli Nageswara Rao
Vignana Jyothi Institute of
Engg. &Technology,
Hyderabad
Private
unaided
2
Sree Vidyanikethan
Engineering College,
Chittoor
Private
unaided
3
GITAM Institute of
Technology - GITAM
University ,
Vishakhapatnam
Private
unaided
4
Gayatri Vidya Parishad
College of Engineering,
Visakhapatnam
Private
unaided
5 JNTU College of
Engineering, Kakinada Govt.
6 Jharkhand Cambridge Institute of
Technology, Ranchi
Private
unaided
7
Karnataka
BVB College of
Engineering & Technology,
Hubli
Govt.
aided
8
University Visvesvaraya
College of Engineering
(Bangalore
University), Bangalore
Govt.
9
Sri Siddhartha Institute of
Technology, Maralur,
Tumkur
Private
unaided
30
S.No.
State
Name of Institution Category
Component 1.1 Component 1.2
10
Kerala
Government College of
Engineering, Kannur Govt
11
LBS Institute of
Technology for Women,
Poojappura,
Thiruvananthapuram
Govt.
Aided
12 College of Engineering
Perumon, Perinad, Kollam
Govt.
Aided
13
Cooperative Institute of
Technology, Vadakara,
Kozhikode
Govt.
aided
14
M.P.
Madhav Institute of
Technology & Science,
Gwalior
Govt.
aided
15
Shri GS Institute of
Technology & Science,
Indore
Govt.
aided
16
Maharashtra
Government College of
Engineering, Karad Govt.
17
Institute of Chemical
Technology, Matunga,
Mumbai
Govt.
aided
18 GH Raisoni College of
Engineering, Nagpur
Private
unaided
19 Punjab
Guru Nanak Dev
Engineering College,
Ludhiana
Govt.
aided
20 Tamil Nadu
Govt. College of
Engineering, Baragur,
Krishnagiri
Govt.
31
S.No.
State
Name of Institution Category
Component 1.1 Component 1.2
21 Govt. College of
Technology, Coimbatore Govt.
22 Uttar
Pradesh
School of Engineering &
Technology, IFTM
University, Moradabad
(formerly known as College
of Enginering &
Technology, Moradabad)
Private
unaided
23 Institute of Engineering &
Technology, Lucknow Govt.
24
West Bengal
Bankura Unnayani Institute
of Engineering, Bankura
Govt.
Aided
25 West Bengal University of
Technology, Kolkata
Govt.
Aided
26
University College of
Technology - University of
Calcutta, Kolkata
Govt.
27
CFIs
Zakir Hussain College of
Engineering and
Technology, Aligarh
Muslim University, Aligarh
CFI
28
North Eastern Regional
Institute of Science and
Technology (NERIST),
Itanagar
CFI
29
NIT, Rourkela CFI
30 NIT, Nagpur CFI
Administering the survey
2.10 As regards administration of the survey instruments, the questionnaire meant for the HoI
was sent well in advance of the visit of study team to the respondent so that adequate time
was available for the HoIs to complete their response, while the survey instruments for
32
faculty, students and non-teaching staff were administered physically by the study team
during the visits to the institutions. The members of the study team ensured a complete
briefing about the proposed evaluation study and the methodology being adopted by the study
team, to each group sampled for the study and then the questionnaires were distributed. The
potential respondents were categorically assured that the evaluation was not about a particular
institution or a state but of the TEQIP programme as a whole and hence, their utmost
sincerity and frankness was sought through their responses. The completed responses were
obtained before initiating the FGDs. The data obtained from all the stakeholders’ groups in
the 30 institutions was coded and entered by a back office team in the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS) for further tabulation and analysis. The profile of responses in
various categories may be seen from the Tables 2.2 to 2.5 (Figures 2.1 to 2.4).
Table 2.2: Profile of HoI respondents
Highest Academic Qualification
(including Post doctoral ) Teaching Experience No. of HoI
Post Doctoral
11-20 2
21-30 4
31-40 1
41-50 1
Total 8
PhD
0-10 1
11-20 1
21-30 10
31-40 7
41-50 2
Total 21
Post Graduate 31-40 1
Grand Total 30
33
Table 2.3: Profile of faculty respondents
Academic
Qualification Teaching Experience
PhD
0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50
Total
valid
responses
Not
Responded Total
158 203 105 19 2 487
13
Post
Graduate 296 62 26 5 0 389
967
Under
Graduate 52 17 7 2 0 78
Total 506 282 138 26 2 954 13 967
0
2
4
1 1 1 1
10
7
0 0 0 0 0
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(0-10) (11-20) (21-30) (31-40) (41-50)
Fre
qu
ency
HoI Qualification / Experience
Figure 2.1 : Profile of HoI respondents
Post Doctoral
Phd
Post Graduate
34
Table 2.4: Profile of student respondents
Course of
Study Year of study
UG
First
Year
Second
Year
Third
Year
Fourth
Year
Fifth
Year
Total
valid
responses
Not
Responded Total
120 270 508 292 0 1190
59
PG 279 334 0 0 0 613 1902
Doctoral
Scholar 47 27 14 9 2 99
Total 446 631 522 301 2 1902 59 1961
158
203
105
19 2
296
62
26 5 0
52
17 7 2 0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
(0-10) (11-20) (21-30) (31-40) (41-50)
Fre
qu
ency
Faculty Qualification / Experience
Figure 2.2: Profile of faculty respondents
PhD
Post Graduate
Under Graduate
35
Table 2.5: Profile of non-teaching respondents
Staff
Category Experience
Technical
Staff
0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 Total
valid
responses
Not
Responded Total
75 69 43 10 0 197
226
Non
Technical
Staff
68 72 56 26 1 223
646
Total 143 141 99 36 1 420 226 646
120
270
508
292
0
279
334
0 0 0
47 27 14 9 2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year Fifth Year
Fre
qu
ency
Students course / Year of study
Figure 2.3 : Profile of student respondents
UG
PG
Doctoral
Scholar
36
Data Analysis
2.11 The analysis of data has been premised on the principle of “need to understand and
confirm evidence” of performance of the institutions under the TEQIP programme.
Tabulation of data mostly captured on a five point Likert scale, with frequencies and
percentages from all data points incorporated in the questionnaire has been carried out for
facilitating a primary understanding of how the sampled institutions have performed in the
implementation of TEQIP programme. Though evidence from the tabulated statistics was
compelling enough, following the observations of the client on the draft report, tests of
significance were carried out to compare 'means' across institutional categories within the
sample, to establish differences or otherwise in their performance with reference to select
variables. Depending on the categories for comparison of 'means' t-test and using the
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was deployed to compare performance across institutional
cohorts - private unaided, government managed, government aided and the centrally funded
institutions (CFIs). Cross-tabulation using the chi-square test was also performed to
understand association among the variables used for evaluating the project.
2.12 Responses to open ended question have been content analysed to generate insights into
the stakeholders' perceptions about TEQIP with frequencies captured for repetitive
statements. Completeness of responses have also been analysed by institutional groups to
study the differences, if any. The assumption behind this approach was that the completeness
75 69
43
10
0
68 72
56
26
1 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
(0-10) (11-20) (21-30) (31-40) (41-50)
Fre
qu
ency
Category / Experience of non teaching staff
Figure 2.4 : Profile of non-teaching respondents
Technical staff
Non Technical staff
37
of responses particularly from faculty could be viewed as a proxy to their commitment and
interest in the implementation of the TEQIP. The analysis of the primary data collected
through the survey and the qualitative data generated through focus group discussions
(FGDs) has also contributed to around eight researched case studies/ caselets, developed as a
way of illustrating both best practices and gaps in performance with reference to the key
performance indicators in the sampled institutions. The case studies primarily serve to add
evidentiary value to the findings of this evaluation study.
Case Studies
2.13 Case study research continues to be an essential form of social science inquiry including
evaluation research, as Robert K. Yin, the renowned exponent of case study research, claims.
The method is particularly appropriate when investigators desire to define topics broadly and
not narrowly, and rely on multiple and not singular sources of evidence. Case studies tend to
be selective, focusing on one or two issues that are fundamental to understanding the system
being examined. TEQIP, as a programme intervention has generated new contexts for
technical education institutions to experiment, innovate and align processes across various
programme components that have produced encouraging enough outcomes. There are also
instances where no clear outcomes were in evidence. The case studies included in this study
highlight incidence of both good practices as well as instances where the outcomes were not
substantive enough, in the course of implementation of the project.
Interim Presentations and Insights from MDPs
2.14 The interim findings of the study were presented to successive Joint Review Missions in
December 2013 and April 2014, and also to the National Steering Committee (NSC) of
TEQIP in January 2014. The feedback received from the members of the JRM and NSC has
also been reflected in the evaluation findings of the study. Further, a series of three
management development programmes were organised by ASCI at Hyderabad for chairmen
and members of BoG and senior members of faculty of TEQIP institutions in Andhra Pradesh
(A.P.) and Telangana states. The study team was involved in directing the above programmes
during which, rich insights were gained into the progress and problems in implementation of
TEQIP. Similarly, participation in the TEQIP State Steering Committee meeting of the
Government of A.P. in February 2014, provided an opportunity for the study team to
understand how TEQIP was perceived by the state level stakeholders in the combined state of
38
A.P. A list of persons contacted and interviewed in different states during the course of the
study is at Annexure 2.5.
The Study Team
2.15 The study has been led by Dr. Hemnath Rao H along with Prof. G. Surender Reddy and
Prof. Dushyant Mahadik. The team leader has had an opportunity to participate in the Joint
Review Mission (JRM) of The World Bank and the Government of India in February, 2013,
besides having contributed to numerous evaluation studies in diverse areas of public policy
and institutional evaluation including private sector organisations. Prof. Surender Reddy
brought rich experience from areas of development finance, entrepreneurship and corporate
governance in addition to his strong techno-managerial academic background. Prof. Dushyant
Mahadik's academic exposure to technology and financial management at the IIM,
Ahmedabad, and IIT, Mumbai enabled the study team to appreciate contemporary paradigms
in academic excellence besides strengthening the team's analytical competence. The profiles
of all the 3 members of the study team may be seen from Annexure 2.6.
Limitations of the Study
2.16 The evaluation study has its limitations as well. First, the random sampling of both
faculty and students was not entirely possible in every institution as some level of
convenience sampling was inevitable in institutions where certain batches of students were on
vacation. Secondly, the study was pursued more with a view to investigate impact of TEQIP
on various academic and non academic processes of institutions rather than seeking to pin
point or highlight the inadequacies and flaws in the system. Such a critical approach could
not have in any way helped since institutions are at different points of change in a continuum
and the benefits of unearthing the short comings would have been self defeating. Finally, the
predominantly ordinal nature of data collected from the sampled institutions constrained
comparison of the institutions sampled for the study with the population parameters in the
absence of data on matching variables.
39
Chapter 3: Impact of TEQIP-II on Student Learning
Introduction
3.1 That the learning environment with necessary infrastructure is a prerequisite to
maintaining high academic standards, is now a well accepted proposition, independent of the
level and domain of education. Traditionally, physical parameters have been used to describe
different aspects of the learning environment, such as classroom space, open recreational
spaces and laboratory space per student; library space and book volumes; faculty to student
ratio etc. Besides these, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) related facilities
such as computers, internet connectivity and access to digital learning resources are now
integral to modern education. Above all, good quality education requires an environment that
is motivating to both teachers and students in the form of freedom to research and innovate
new teaching tools while encouraging students to work on small non-credit projects or
assignments; providing opportunities for peer group discussions and support for self learning.
3.2 Quality of the students’ learning is at the heart of all academic processes including
development of faculty resources for enhancing their quality of instruction as well as research
output. Since most components of the TEQIP project drive these processes, the evaluation
study was designed to capture both qualitative and survey data on how TEQIP has influenced
the academic and professional growth of the faculty and how they perceive the performance
of students. Similarly, the perceptions of the students about their own academic progression,
the quality of instruction by the faculty and their perceived prospects of employability, along
with the views of the non-teaching staff have been obtained to assess the impact of TEQIP on
students’ learning, which forms the core of this chapter.
Physical Infrastructure and Learning Ambience
3.3 During the course of the evaluation study, many senior academicians in the TEQIP
institutions ventilated a view that Indian students are quite adaptive and perform well in spite
of the lacunae in supporting infrastructure. They seemed to compare with the state of
facilities that may have existed during their education, and may be missing out the point that
students’ expectations of physical infrastructure are now very different and demanding. Very
often, students’ complaints against deteriorating facilities and ambience in a given institution
are based on comparisons with other benchmark institutions. TEQIP has contributed to a
40
sense of competition among both government and private institutions for up gradation and
improved maintenance of physical infrastructure, by supporting modernisation of class rooms
and laboratories with ergonomic furniture and fixtures, including minor civil works in
government managed technical education institutions. While no such provision exists for the
private institutions, TEQIP has contributed to their soft infrastructure in terms of
development of faculty resources, skill up-gradation of non teaching staff, acquisition of
computer software, expansion of library resources and better access to utilities, chemicals and
laboratory consumables.
3.4 The feedback provided by faculty of both government and private colleges confirms the
above, as 82% of them agreed at the aggregate level that even the quality of teaching aids
used in the institutions have improved (Table 3.1 - Figure 3.1). Similarly almost 90% of the
faculty have indicated that the library facilities including access to online data bases of
journals and publications has improved in the course of implementing TEQIP, as Table 3.2
and Figure 3.2 show. Further, Table 3.3 and Figure 3.3 suggest that maintenance of
laboratory equipments and computer software has also improved as 86% of the faculty
surveyed across all 30 institutions agreed on this.
3.5 Over all, a little more than 87% of the faculty believed that improvement in physical
infrastructure is satisfactory (Table 3.4 - Figure 3.4). Further, an analysis of the feedback by
institutional cohorts indicates that the faculty of the private institutions have been the most
positive, as the above tables and figures indicate. Between the government aided and
government owned institutions, the faculty from the former category appear more convinced
about the improvements since 2009-10 in the library facilities, maintenance of laboratories
and overall improvement in infrastructure, compared to the latter. The faculty in CFIs have
expressed stronger agreement with improvement in library facilities over maintenance of
laboratories or teaching aids. The difference in the mean perception of the faculty in regard to
overall improvement in infrastructure across the institutional categories is further confirmed
as statistically significant through a one-way ANOVA (Box 3.1).
41
Table 3.1: Faculty response to improved use of teaching aids
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Strongly
Agree
Count 96 99 75 21 291
Percent 36.09% 29.55% 29.07% 22.11% 30.50%
Agree Count 143 168 139 43 493
Percent 53.76% 50.15% 53.88% 45.26% 51.68%
Can't Say Count 14 22 14 10 60
Percent 5.26% 6.57% 5.43% 10.53% 6.29%
Disagree Count 13 40 24 20 97
Percent 4.89% 11.94% 9.30% 21.05% 10.17%
Strongly
Disagree
Count 0 6 6 1 13
Percent 0.00% 1.79% 2.33% 1.05% 1.36%
Total
Valid responses 266 335 258 95 954
Not responded 3 5 3 2 14
Count 269 340 261 97 968
Mean* 4.21 3.94 3.98 3.66 4.00
Standard Deviation .75 1.00 .96 1.08 .95
*(5=Strongly Agree , 4=Agree , 3=Can't Say , 2=Disagree , 1=Strongly Disagree)
4.21
3.94
3.98
3.66
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 3.1: Faculty response to improved use of teaching aids
Strongly Disagree
(1)
Disagree (2)
Can't Say (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly Agree (5)
Mean
42
Table 3.2: Faculty response on improvement in library facilities
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Governme
nt Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Strongly
Agree
Count 132 108 60 27 327
Percent 49.25% 32.05% 23.62% 28.42% 34.28%
Agree Count 130 201 146 52 529
Percent 48.51% 59.64% 57.48% 54.74% 55.45%
Can't Say Count 3 8 20 9 40
Percent 1.12% 2.37% 7.87% 9.47% 4.19%
Disagree Count 2 16 21 5 44
Percent 0.75% 4.75% 8.27% 5.26% 4.61%
Strongly
Disagree
Count 1 4 7 2 14
Percent 0.37% 1.19% 2.76% 2.11% 1.47%
Total
Valid responses 268 337 254 95 954
Not responded 1 3 7 2 14
Count 269 340 261 97 968
Mean* 4.46 4.17 3.91 4.02 4.16
Standard Deviation .60 .78 .94 .89 .82
*(5=Strongly Agree , 4=Agree , 3=Can't Say , 2=Disagree , 1=Strongly Disagree)
4.46
4.17
3.91
4.02
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 3.2: Faculty response on improvement in library facilities
Strongly Disagree
(1)
Disagree (2)
Can't Say (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly Agree (5)
Mean
43
Table 3.3: Faculty response on improvement in maintenance of laboratory equipments
and software
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Strongly
Agree
Count 108 109 62 22 301
Percent 40.30% 32.54% 24.22% 23.16% 31.55%
Agree Count 146 173 148 55 522
Percent 54.48% 51.64% 57.81% 57.89% 54.72%
Can't Say Count 9 22 12 6 49
Percent 3.36% 6.57% 4.69% 6.32% 5.14%
Disagree Count 5 26 25 11 67
Percent 1.87% 7.76% 9.77% 11.58% 7.02%
Strongly
Disagree
Count 0 5 9 1 15
Percent 0.00% 1.49% 3.52% 1.05% 1.57%
Total
Valid responses 268 335 256 95 954
Not responded 1 5 5 2 14
Count 269 340 261 97 968
Mean* 4.33 4.06 3.89 3.91 4.08
Standard Deviation .63 .91 .99 .92 .89
*(5=Strongly Agree , 4=Agree , 3=Cant Say , 2=Disagree , 1=Strongly Disagree)
4.33
4.06
3.89
3.91
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 3.3: Faculty response on improvement in maintenance of
laboratory equipments and software
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Can't Say (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly Agree (5)
Mean
44
Table 3.4 Faculty response on overall improvement in the infrastructure
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Governme
nt Aided
Governme
nt Owned
CFIs Aggreg
ate
Very
Satisfactory
Count 122 79 51 23 275
Percent 45.52% 23.65% 19.69% 23.96% 28.74%
Satisfactory Count 133 215 160 52 560
Percent 49.63% 64.37% 61.78% 54.17% 58.52%
Neutral Count 10 22 30 12 74
Percent 3.73% 6.59% 11.58% 12.50% 7.73%
Unsatisfactory Count 3 17 11 9 40
Percent 1.12% 5.09% 4.25% 9.38% 4.18%
Very
unsatisfactory
Count 0 1 7 0 8
Percent 0.00% 0.30% 2.70% 0.00% 0.84%
Total
Valid responses 268 334 259 96 957
Not responded 1 6 2 1 11
Count 269 340 261 97 968
Mean* 4.40 4.06 3.92 3.93 4.10
Standard Deviation .62 .73 .85 .86 .77
*(5= Very Satisfactory , 4= Satisfactory , 3= Neutral , 2= Unsatisfactory , 1= Very
unsatisfactory)
4.4
4.06
3.92 3.93
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 3.4: Faculty response on overall improvement in the
infrastructure
Very unsatisfactory (1)
Unsatisfactory (2)
Neutral (3)
Satisfactory (4)
Very Satisfactory (5)
Mean
45
Box 3.1: ANOVA of data in Table 3.4 comparing the 'mean' perception of faculty on
infrastructure improvement across institutional categories
Sum of Squares Df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Between Groups 35.670 3 11.890 21.160 .000
Within Groups 535.498 953 .562
Total 571.168 956
Post Hoc Test Multiple Comparisons
Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (HSD)
(I) Category (J) Category Mean
Difference (I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig. 95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Private
Unaided
Government Owned .480* .065 .000 .31 .65
Government Aided .336* .061 .000 .18 .49
CFIs .468* .089 .000 .24 .70
Government
Owned
Private Unaided -.480* .065 .000 -.65 -.31
Government Aided -.145 .062 .091 -.30 .01
CFIs -.012 .090 .999 -.24 .22
Government
Aided
Private Unaided -.336* .061 .000 -.49 -.18
Government Owned .145 .062 .091 -.01 .30
CFIs .133 .087 .420 -.09 .36
CFIs
Private Unaided -.468* .089 .000 -.70 -.24
Government Owned .012 .090 .999 -.22 .24
Government Aided -.133 .087 .420 -.36 .09
Interpretation : *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level confirming the
differences in perception of faculty on infrastructure improvement across institutional
categories. However, Tukey Post Hoc Test indicates that there is no statistically significant
difference in the perception of faculty between CFIs and the government owned or the
government aided institutions.
3.6 During focus interviews as well as in their survey responses, the heads of the government
institutions have confirmed that updating the ageing infrastructure, investments in smart
classrooms and modernization of laboratories have been a major outcome from the TEQIP,
while the heads of private institutions feel that TEQIP has been a non-monetary motivator for
strengthening their own physical infrastructure. Faculty in both categories of institutions
expressed that the investments were badly needed. Despite initial cynicism, smart classrooms
have been appreciated by a majority of faculty members during the focus group discussions.
A plausible explanation for the very positive perception of the faculty in private institutions is
46
the fact that TEQIP as a brand differentiator has provided better traction to them compared
with the government owned or aided institutions, despite the fact that the private institutions
were not assisted with procurement of physical assets. On the other hand, the TEQIP
assistance for physical infrastructure development in government institutions is appreciated
but its impact is somewhat lost against the larger funding support received from the state or
central governments. This explanation can be extended to all other aspects of TEQIP
implementation where the perceived impact by private institution is more positive.
3.7 Table 3.5 summarises the responses of students to the survey instrument at Annexure
2.3. Only 10-15% of students find the learning environment to be excellent; 25-30% of the
students find it very good; 30% find it to be good; while 20% consider it to be satisfactory
and the remaining 5-10% find it poor. Students from private institutions and CFIs gave better
feedback from among the cohorts mentioned in column 5 of Table 2.1 of Chapter 2. As
Table 3.5A shows, the mean level of satisfaction in government owned and government
aided colleges was lower in comparison to the other two institutional categories, across all the
indictors of learning environment and ambiance. Library and computer facilities are an
important part of a student’s journey towards academic excellence, particularly for post
graduate students. At an aggregate level, 70% of the students found the class room,
laboratory and library facilities to be good or better though the proportion of students who
felt that the computer facilities were good was slightly higher at 72%. Hostel facilities (where
available) remained a point of discontentment as only 55% of the sampled students felt the
facilities were good. The students’ views generally found resonance with the non-teaching
staff with 90% of them confirming that the quality of infrastructure including laboratories,
library and class room facilities have improved with implementation of the TEQIP. Here
again, the private institutions were the most positive in their feedback.
Quality of Learning
3.8 The HoIs believe that the most direct contribution of TEQIP II has been the development
of faculty resources with 15 out of the 30 respondents claiming up gradation of faculty
qualifications and improvement in the faculty performance. Among these 15 HoIs, 8 admitted
that faculty development activities received the highest priority in their respective
institutions. Across the board, the faculty community too was unanimous in their view
articulated during the FGDs that TEQIP has provided them an unprecedented opportunity to
participate in academic conferences and seminars which has helped expand their academic
47
network with peers in premier institutions while widening their knowledge horizons. Over
95% of the 956 faculty respondents expressed their agreement with this view, during the
Table 3.5: Student responses (%) on learning environment and ambience
Questions from Schedule
‘S’ for Students
Valid
response
Excellent
(%)
Very
Good
(%)
Good
(%)
Satisfactory
(%)
Poor
(%)
Environment for
curricular learning
15.5 28.5 29.9 17.9 8.3
27. Classroom facilities 1953 12.2 26.9 31.6 20.5 8.8
28. Lab / Workshop
facilities
1957 13.7 27.7 30.1 19.7 8.7
29. Library services
including electronic
resources
1952 17.2 27.6 26 19.3 9.9
30.Computer services 1951 17.6 26.9 27.8 17 10.7
17. Guidance from faculty 1953 16.6 33.3 33.7 13.2 3.2
Environment for co-
curricular activities
12.2 27.7 33.2 18.2 8.7
18. Quality of Peer
interaction and Group
learning
1930 10.6 28.3 36.3 18.5 6.4
19. Support for self-
learning
1941 17.7 33.5 32.7 13 3.1
20. Conferences /
Professional activities and
other Learning events
1928 17 29.3 29.8 16.2 7.8
22. Interaction with alumni 1908 6.9 17.6 28.8 25.3 21.4
(45)ii. Learning
environment and ambiance
1387 8.9 29.8 38.4 17.9 5
Environment for extra-
curricular activities
11.7 23.6 29.4 20.6 14.7
31. Sports / Recreation /
Cultural /Literary facilities
1945 14.7 23.6 28.4 19.4 13.9
32. Hostel facilities 1828 8 19.7 25.9 23.6 22.7
(45)iv. Management and
infrastructure
1396 12.4 27.4 34 18.9 7.4
48
Table 3.5A: Mean level of student feedback on learning environment and ambience
Questions from
Schedule ‘S’ for
Students
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Environment for
curricular learning 3.81 3.11 2.86 3.38 3.24
27. Classroom facilities 3.70 3.00 2.74 3.29 3.13
28. Lab / Workshop
facilities 3.73 3.06 2.81 3.26 3.18
29. Library services
including electronic
resources
3.88 3.08 2.76 3.42 3.23
30. Computer services 3.86 3.12 2.77 3.43 3.24
17. Guidance from
faculty 3.89 3.33 3.26 3.52 3.47
Environment for co-
curricular activities 3.56 3.00 3.00 3.16 3.16
18. Quality of Peer
interaction and Group
learning
3.51 3.09 3.03 3.09 3.18
19. Support for self-
learning 3.82 3.33 3.42 3.48 3.50
20. Conferences /
Professional activities
and other Learning
events
3.80 3.16 3.04 3.38 3.31
22. Interaction with
alumni 3.11 2.34 2.58 2.62 2.63
(45)ii. Learning
environment and
ambiance
3.59 3.10 2.95 3.25 3.20
Environment for
extra- curricular
activities
3.53 2.72 2.58 3.29 2.95
31. Sports / Recreation
/ Cultural /Literary
facilities
3.57 2.85 2.81 3.20 3.06
32. Hostel facilities 3.45 2.31 2.17 3.31 2.67
(45)iv. Management
and infrastructure 3.60 3.12 2.80 3.42 3.18
Scale (5=Excellent, 4=Very Good, 3=Good, 2=Satisfactory, 1=Poor)
49
survey as Table 3.6 and Figure 3.5 show. While the faculty in private institutions have
expressed the strongest agreement on this variable also the government institutions are more
in agreement compared to the faculty in government aided institutions. One would naturally
expect this benefit of faculty development to reflect in the quality of instruction by the faculty
which was borne out by the students’ feedback, as 85% of the sampled students found the
subject knowledge of the faculty to be good. While 69% of the students felt that the teaching
aids used by the faculty were good or better, as one would expect, the faculty response in this
regard was more positive with 82% claiming that the teaching aids are more appropriate, now
(para 3.4). A little more than 70% of the students felt that the quality of teaching notes have
improved and more than 80% were of the view that the teaching skills of the faculty are good.
Table 3.7 summarises the mean level of satisfaction expressed by students on the above
issues. The students gave the most positive feedback about guidance from faculty and support
for self learning (Table 3.5A).
Table 3.6: Faculty response on opportunity to participate in academic conferences and
seminars
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Strongly
Agree
Count 189 164 164 43 560
Percent 70.26% 48.96% 63.81% 45.26% 58.58%
Agree Count 74 145 88 47 354
Percent 27.51% 43.28% 34.24% 49.47% 37.03%
Can't Say Count 5 13 4 2 24
Percent 1.86% 3.88% 1.56% 2.11% 2.51%
Disagree Count 1 6 1 2 10
Percent 0.37% 1.79% 0.39% 2.11% 1.05%
Strongly
Disagree
Count 0 7 0 1 8
Percent 0.00% 2.09% 0.00% 1.05% 0.84%
Total
Valid responses 269 335 257 95 956
Not responded 0 5 4 2 12
Count 269 340 261 97 968
Mean* 4.68 4.35 4.61 4.36 4.51
Standard Deviation .53 .82 .54 .73 .68
*(5=Strongly Agree , 4=Agree , 3=Can't Say , 2=Disagree , 1=Strongly Disagree)
50
Table 3.7: Mean feedback of students on quality of instruction
Questions from Schedule
‘S’ for Students
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
9 Subject knowledge of the
faculty 3.70 3.41 3.35 3.52 3.48
10 Teaching skills of the
faculty 3.53 3.16 3.14 3.20 3.25
11 Teaching aids used by
faculty 3.38 2.90 2.79 2.94 3.00
12 Lecture notes provided
by faculty 3.57 3.03 2.90 3.17 3.15
Scale (5=Excellent, 4=Very Good, 3=Good, 2=Satisfactory, 1=Poor)
3.9 From the faculty’s point of view, 32% of them were very satisfied that there was a change
in the learning and scholastic orientation of the students while around 60% thought that the
students showed a reasonable interest in their academic work (Table 3.8 - Figure 3.6). More
importantly, this feedback from faculty has been somewhat consistent across all the four
institutional groups, as the above table demonstrates, though the faculty in private institutions
are the most satisfied, as with all other measures. Further, as Table 3.9 and Figure 3.7
indicate, more than 90% of the faculty found an improvement in the learning aptitude of the
students and their improvement in performance in exams (Table 3.10 - Figure 3.8). The
4.68
4.35
4.61
4.36
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 3.5: Faculty response on opportunity to participate in
academic conferences and seminars
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Can't Say (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly Agree (5)
Mean
51
perception of the faculty in government institution was more positive on the students learning
aptitude and performance in exams compared to the government aided colleges which can
only be explained by the fact that the former category of institutions attract better students for
admission.
3.10 Indeed, an interesting outcome of TEQIP for institutions has been their ability to attract
better quality of students on the basis that they are participating in the project. This view that
emerged during focus interviews with the HoIs and members of the governing bodies about
TEQIP serving as a ‘brand differentiator’ was corroborated by the sampled faculty, 89% of
whom expressed satisfaction in this regard (Table 3.11 - Figure 3.9). The impact of the
infrastructure improvements discussed earlier in this chapter and the quality of instruction
was also reflected in the students’ take ways from lab work, practicals and assignments, with
75% of them finding the same to be good as Table 3.12 and Figure 3.10 suggest. The very
positive response of the students to questions about the design of curriculum and the
relevance of their project work and internship to quality of learning reinforces evidence of the
improved learning outcomes.
Table 3.8: Faculty response on change in the learning and scholastic orientation of
students.
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Very
Satisfactory
Count 113 80 84 25 302
Percent 42.64% 24.62% 32.68% 26.60% 32.09%
Show
reasonable
interest
Count 141 214 145 56 556
Percent 53.21% 65.85% 56.42% 59.57% 59.09%
Show minimal
interest
Count 2 15 6 11 34
Percent 0.75% 4.62% 2.33% 11.70% 3.61%
Unsatisfactory Count 9 8 18 1 36
Percent 3.40% 2.46% 7.00% 1.06% 3.83%
Very
Unsatisfactory
Count 0 8 4 1 13
Percent 0.00% 2.46% 1.56% 1.06% 1.38%
Total
Valid responses 265 325 257 94 941
Not responded 4 15 4 3 27
Count 269 340 261 97 968
Mean* 4.35 4.08 4.12 4.10 4.17
Standard Deviation .67 .78 .87 .72 .78
*(5=Very satisfactory, 4=Show reasonable interest, 3=Show minimal interest, 2=Unsatisfactory,
1=Very unsatisfactory)
52
Table 3.9: Faculty response on improvement in the learning aptitude of the students
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Very
Satisfactory
Count 94 68 84 25 271
Percent 34.94% 20.42% 32.56% 26.04
% 28.35%
Satisfactory
Count 168 228 153 61 610
Percent 62.45% 68.47% 59.30% 63.54
% 63.81%
Neutral Count 6 29 15 6 56
Percent 2.23% 8.71% 5.81% 6.25% 5.86%
Unsatisfactory Count 1 7 4 3 15
Percent 0.37% 2.10% 1.55% 3.12% 1.57%
Very
unsatisfactory
Count 0 1 2 1 4
Percent 0.00% 0.30% 0.78% 1.04% 0.42%
Total
Valid responded 269 333 258 96 956
Not responded 0 7 3 1 12
Count 269 340 261 97 968
Mean* 4.32 4.07 4.21 4.10 4.18
Standard Deviation .53 .63 .69 .73 .64
*(5=Very Satisfactory, 4 =Satisfactory, 3=Neutral, 2=Unsatisfactory, 1=Very Unsatisfactory)
4.35
4.08
4.12
4.1
3.9
3.95
4
4.05
4.1
4.15
4.2
4.25
4.3
4.35
4.4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 3.6: Faculty response on change in the learning and scholastic
orientation of students
Very unsatisfactory (1)
Unsatisfactory (2)
Show minimal interest
(3)
Show reasonable
interest (4)
Very Satisfactory (5)
Mean
53
Table 3.10: Faculty response on improvement in students' exam performance
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Very
Satisfactory
Count 103 71 83 22 279
Percent 38.29% 21.32% 32.30% 22.92% 29.21%
Satisfactory Count 157 227 157 62 603
Percent 58.36% 68.17% 61.09% 64.58% 63.14%
Neutral Count 6 29 12 10 57
Percent 2.23% 8.71% 4.67% 10.42% 5.97%
Unsatisfactory Count 3 6 5 2 16
Percent 1.12% 1.80% 1.95% 2.08% 1.68%
Very
unsatisfactory
Count 0 0 0 0 0
Percent 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Total
Valid responses 269 333 257 96 955
Not responded 0 7 4 1 13
Count 269 340 261 97 968
Mean* 4.34 4.09 4.24 4.08 4.20
Standard Deviation .58 .60 .63 .64 .62
*(5=Very Satisfactory, 4 =Satisfactory, 3=Neutral, 2=Unsatisfactory, 1=Very Unsatisfactory)
4.32
4.07
4.21
4.1
3.9
3.95
4
4.05
4.1
4.15
4.2
4.25
4.3
4.35
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 3.7: Faculty response on improvement in the learning
aptitude of the students
Very unsatisfactory (1)
Unsatisfactory (2)
Neutral (3)
Satisfactory (4)
Very Satisfactory (5)
Mean
54
Table 3.11: Faculty response on quality of students attracted since 2009-10.
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Very
Satisfactory
Count 108 68 83 21 280
Percent 40.15% 20.73% 32.42% 21.88% 29.50%
Satisfactory Count 143 208 154 59 564
Percent 53.16% 63.41% 60.16% 61.46% 59.43%
Neutral Count 16 30 15 12 73
Percent 5.95% 9.15% 5.86% 12.50% 7.69%
Unsatisfactory Count 2 21 3 4 30
Percent 0.74% 6.40% 1.17% 4.17% 3.16%
Very
unsatisfactory
Count 0 1 1 0 2
Percent 0.00% 0.30% 0.39% 0.00% 0.21%
Total
Valid responses 269 328 256 96 949
Not responded 0 12 5 1 19
Count 269 340 261 97 968
Mean* 4.33 3.98 4.23 4.01 4.15
Standard Deviation .62 .76 .64 .72 .70
*(5=Very Satisfactory, 4 =Satisfactory, 3=Neutral, 2=Unsatisfactory, 1=Very Unsatisfactory)
4.34
4.09
4.24
4.08
3.95
4
4.05
4.1
4.15
4.2
4.25
4.3
4.35
4.4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 3.8: Faculty response on improvement in students' exam
performance
Unsatisfactory (2)
Neutral (3)
Satisfactory (4)
Very Satisfactory (5)
Mean
55
Table 3.12: Students' responses on take aways from lab work / practicals /assignments.
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Excellent Count 106 57 29 14 206
Percent 21.29% 8.10% 5.34% 7.78% 10.70%
Very Good Count 202 171 113 40 526
Percent 40.56% 24.29% 20.81% 22.22% 27.32%
Good Count 157 250 221 78 706
Percent 31.53% 35.51% 40.70% 43.33% 36.68%
Satisfactory Count 27 174 135 36 372
Percent 5.42% 24.72% 24.86% 20.00% 19.32%
Poor Count 6 52 45 12 115
Percent 1.20% 7.39% 8.29% 6.67% 5.97%
Total
Valid responses 498 704 543 180 1925
Not responded 4 9 15 8 36
Count 502 713 558 188 1961
Mean* 3.75 3.01 2.90 3.04 3.17
Standard Deviation .89 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05
*(5=Excellent, 4=Very Good, 3=Good, 2=Satisfactory, 1=Poor,)
4.33
3.98
4.23
4.01
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 3.9: Faculty response on quality of students attracted since
2009-10.
Very unsatisfactory (1)
Unsatisfactory (2)
Neutral (3)
Satisfactory (4)
Very Satisfactory (5)
Mean
56
Academic Progression
3.11 Learning outcomes for students have impacted their academic progression and here too,
the results have been encouraging as Table 3.13 shows. In the Indian technical education
scenario, there are two systems of evaluating students’ performance. In the conventional
university system, the colleges affiliated to a university comply with and participate in the
examination process, but the university owns and executes the process. This system
presumably helps ensure quality and consistency among a large number of constituent
colleges. On the other hand, in autonomous colleges the academic progression is monitored
using internal processes of evaluation. Only in exceptional cases, an external evaluation is
conducted. The students’ preference has been palpably in favour of the autonomous system
because of its agility and consequent speed of declaring results as 32 students (Table 3.14) in
their survey responses have listed autonomy as one of the three major strengths of their
institutions.
3.75
3.01
2.9
3.04
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 3.10: Students' responses on take aways from lab work /
practicals /assignments.
Poor (1)
Satisfactory (2)
Good (3)
Very Good (4)
Excellent (5)
Mean
57
Table 3.13: Students' mean feedback on academic progression
Questions from Schedule
‘S’ for Students
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
23. Your performance in
exams 3.61 3.22 3.09 3.20 3.28
24. Knowledge gained
during the course 3.58 3.20 3.10 3.25 3.28
25. Acquisition of practical
skills 3.43 3.02 2.87 2.96 3.08
26. Additional skills
required for professional
success
3.29 2.73 2.68 2.73 2.86
Scale (5=Excellent, 4=Very Good, 3=Good, 2=Satisfactory, 1=Poor)
Table: 3.14 Students' responses about three major strengths
Institutional Category Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Students considering
autonomy as a major
strength
17 8 4 3 32
3.12 The response cannot be ignored merely on the basis that the proposition of students
identifying autonomy as an institutional strength is small in comparison to the sample size.
Many institutions have migrated from the university system to the autonomous system with
autonomy being a pre-requisite for institutions to qualify for inclusion under TEQIP II. A few
institutions are cautious about changing the syllabus and system in a short span of time but all
the same, pursuing changes that enhance the value of students’ learning and employability.
Irrespective of the system of evaluation, the transition rates in the TEQIP-II colleges have
recorded a positive change. Across all TEQIP-II institutions in the country, this rate was 56%
in 2010-11 which went up to 58% in 2012-13 as per the MIS data on NPIU website.
3.13 For both systems of evaluation, the students believe that TEQIP-II has improved their
academic performance through better modes of instruction, better learning resources and
most importantly through the remedial coaching for potential learners, often labeled as weak
students or slow learners. Overall, 74% students have found the curriculum design to be good
as Table 3.15 and Figure 3.11 show. Further, 84% of the students are satisfied with their
performance in the examinations and out of the 16% who are dissatisfied, only 42% have
expressed satisfaction with the support provided to slow learners, which may be observed
58
from Figure 3.12. From this, it seems that the benefits of support to slow learners is yet to
percolate down to the most needy. The support to slow learners was found satisfactory by
63% of students at the aggregate level and Table 3.16 with Figure 3.13 shows the variation
in satisfaction levels by student cohorts, generally perceived as performing below their
potential.
Table 3.15: Students' feedback on design of course curriculum
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Excellent Count 115 62 55 25 257
Percent 23.19 8.81 10.15 13.59 13.34
Very Good Count 185 153 113 59 510
Percent 37.30 21.73 20.85 32.07 26.48
Good Count 131 266 197 60 654
Percent 26.41 37.78 36.35 32.61 33.96
Satisfactory Count 52 165 130 31 378
Percent 10.48 23.44 23.99 16.85 19.63
Poor Count 13 58 47 9 127
Percent 2.62 8.24 8.67 4.89 6.59
Total
Valid responses 496 704 542 184 1926
Not responded 6 9 16 4 35
Count 502 713 558 188 1961
Mean* 3.68 2.99 3.00 3.33 3.20
Standard Deviation 1.02 1.07 1.10 1.06 1.10
*(5=Excellent,4=Very Good ,3=Good,2=Satisfactory, 1=Poor )
3.68
2.99
3
3.33
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 3.11: Students' feedback on design of course curriculum
Poor (1)
Satisfactory (2)
Good (3)
Very Good (4)
Excellent (5)
Mean
59
Table 3.16: Satisfaction levels by student categories about support for potential learners
Cohort Overall
Female
SC/ST
OBC
Religious
minorities,
physically
Handicapped,
others
Private
Unaided
407
(21.24%)
167
(23.72%)
42
(20.29%)
122
(20.64%)
13
(20.31%)
Government
Owned
296
(15.45%)
102
(14.49%)
40
(19.32%)
135
(22.84%)
17
(26.56%)
Government
Aided
418
(21.82%)
186
(26.42%)
33
(15.94%)
108
(18.27%)
8
(12.50%)
CFIs 83
(4.33%)
27
(3.84%)
4
(1.93%)
14
(2.37%)
5
(7.81%)
Aggregate
Satisfied level
1204
(62.84%)
482
(68.47%)
119
(57.49%)
379
(64.13%)
43
(67.19%)
Dissatisfied
Level
712
(37.16%)
222
(31.53%)
88
(42.51%)
212
(35.87%)
21
(32.81%)
Total Valid
responses
1916
(100.00%)
704
(100.00%)
207
(100.00%)
591
(100.00%)
64
(100.00%)
84%
Satisfied with
perfromance
in Exams
48% Satisfied with
support to slow
leaners
52% Not satisfied with
support to slow
learners
16% not satisfied with
performance in exams
Figure 3.12: Satisfaction level with performance in exams and support
to slow learners
60
3.14 An open ended question was posed to the faculty for their opinion on the drivers of
student performance. Only 418 responded to this question and in their view, the good/
improving performance can be attributed to the following reasons (in descending order of
number of respondents)- remedial classes (18%), pedagogy and curriculum changes (16%),
Quality of students (10%), qualifications of staff and monitoring of student performance. A
smaller section of faculty members believed that rules and regulations at the institute level,
faculty-student relations, lab facilities, practical exposure to industry speakers and academic
programmes/ workshops also contributed to better performance. Among 938 faculty members
who responded to the question on improvement in transition rate from first to second year,
only 18 (2%) believed that the transition rate has not improved. According to them, the
reasons for poor performance was lack of students’ aptitude, inability to work hard and lack
of support environment at home, when they are enrolled as non-residential scholars. In
response to another open ended question on enablers of teaching quality, the faculty
community expressed need for more faculty development programmes, smart classrooms and
demonstrations, recruiting qualified and experienced faculty, lab facilities, industry-institute
collaboration, workshops and seminars, pedagogy, art of teaching, audio-visual aids, good
supporting infrastructure, etc. as illustrated in Table 3.17 with Figure 3.14.
68.5
57.2 64.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Female SC / ST OBC
Fre
qu
ency
Student Cohorts
Figure 3.13: Satisfaction levels by student categories about support for
potential learners
61
Table 3.17: Measures recommended by faculty members for improved quality of
teaching
Measures Frequency Percentage
Faculty development programs 84 13%
Smart classrooms and development programs 38 6%
Recruiting qualified and experienced faculty 32 5%
Better Lab facilities 26 4%
Industry Institute Interaction 26 4%
Workshops and seminars 26 4%
Pedagogy/Art of teaching/Audio Visual Aids 19 3%
Good supporting infrastructure 19 3%
Others 377 58%
Total 647 100%
Competency Development for Employability
3.15 According to studies conducted by various agencies, only one third of the graduating
engineers in the country are employable at the time of graduation. This is generally attributed
to weak curriculum design, lack of life skills and poor interpersonal skills. TEQIP-II
Faculty
development
programs , 13% Smart Classrooms
and development
programs , 6%
Recruiting qualified
and experienced
faculty , 5%
Better lab faciltites ,
4%
Industry Institute
Interaction , 4%
Workshops and
seminars , 4%
Pedagogy/Art of
teaching/Audio
Visual Aids , 3% Good supporting
infrastructure , 3%
Others , 58%
Figure 3.14: Measures recommended by faculty members for
improvement in quality of teaching
62
institutions have given due importance to soft skill development, finishing schools, career
counseling and short term technical training for industry readiness. Apart from final year
students, this training also benefits the faculty members by highlighting the new
technological trends that could be incorporated into the syllabi. As may be seen from Table
3.18, nearly two third of the students surveyed are satisfied with the career guidance, soft
skills training, placement services and placement history of the institution. The case study of
one project institution namely the VNRVJIET, which has introduced a comprehensive career
visioning approach (Appendix 1) can be viewed as a good practice in the context of
enhancing employability.
Table 3.18: Students' mean level of satisfaction with employability initiatives
Questions from
Schedule ‘S’ for
Students
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
34. Career guidance
received 3.53 2.83 2.70 2.59 2.95
35. Soft skills &
Personality development 3.62 2.90 2.68 2.64 3.00
36. Placement related
services of your
institution
3.49 2.80 2.71 2.26 2.90
37. Placement record of
your institution 3.49 2.86 2.86 2.51 2.99
Scale ( 5=Excellent,4=Very Good , 3=Good, 2=Satisfactory, 1=Poor )
3.16 This evaluation study found evidence of a positive sentiment among the UG students
towards higher technical education. A good half of the surveyed UG students want to pursue
further education - in India or abroad, in reputed institutions of technology. The number is
also growing among PG students and research scholars as 35% of them showed interest in
pursuing a career in research and teaching. During focus group discussions, students
attributed their interest in higher studies to influence from expert speakers, faculty and senior
students who have become role-models, in making career choices. Out of 566 UG students
who opted for higher education (Table 3.19), the following reasons emerged as the key to
their choice- passion for research (14%), better prospects of employment (10%) and poor UG
placements (3%). A large number (19%) of students are opting for a job immediately after
their undergraduate courses out of compulsions to support the family income or lack of
63
adequate financial support for their post graduate programme. This statistic further highlights
the need for enhancing the level of financial support to PG students for attracting better
quality as well as quantity.
Table 3.19: Reasons for pursuing higher education
Students opting for
higher education
Reasons for pursuing higher education
Passion
for
Research
Better Prospects
of Employment
Poor
Placements
Compulsion to
seek job
566 79 57 17 107
100% 14% 10% 3% 19%
3.17 Focus interviews with select recruiters and alumni also highlighted the need for revising
the curriculum to make it more rigorous. Majority of industries require practical knowledge
in contrast to the textbook knowledge. Industry recruiters also expect fundamental reasoning
skills, interpersonal communication and reading comprehension. The recruiters emphasized
the importance of team spirit apart from core analytical abilities as key criteria for
recruitment. Absence of soft skills among engineering graduates has driven out many
industries, which now prefer to recruit from urban areas only. A study of Tables 3.20 and
3.20A corroborates this view of the recruiters which must be viewed against the background
of the strong association between the perceived knowledge gained by the students during the
course and career guidance received by them as borne out from the cross-tabulation in Box
3.2. While 82% of students believed that they were gaining knowledge during the course,
only 72% claimed that practical skills were acquired. 65% of students did say that additional
skills necessary for professional success were achieved, but fewer than 50% opined that
interaction with industry was good enough for becoming employable. During focus group
discussions, some students shared their displeasure over the fact that their courses were not
aligned with the industry needs, and needed overhaul. Chapter 5 discusses the challenges of
Industry Institution Interaction and the progress under TEQIP.
64
Table 3.20: Percentage of student responses on employability related factors
Questions from Schedule
‘S’ for Students
Excellent
(%)
Very Good
(%)
Good
(%)
Satisfactory
(%)
Poor
(%)
24. Knowledge gained
during the course
7.4 32.7 41.7 16.1 2
25. Acquisition of practical
skills
7.8 27 37.3 21.4 6.6
26. Additional skills required
for professional success
5.1 21.4 38.8 23.9 10.8
21. Interaction with industry 7.3 15.8 26.6 25.2 25
Table 3.20 A: Mean feedback of student responses on employability related factors by
institutional groups
Questions from Schedule
‘S’ for Students
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
24. Knowledge gained
during the course 3.58 3.20 3.10 3.25 3.28
25. Acquisition of practical
skills 3.43 3.02 2.87 2.96 3.08
26. Additional skills
required for professional
success
3.29 2.73 2.68 2.73 2.86
21. Interaction with
industry 3.07 2.48 2.29 2.18 2.55
Scale (5=Excellent,4=Very Good , 3=Good, 2=Satisfactory1=Poor)
65
Box 3.2: Chi Square Test of knowledge gained during the course by students on
career guidance.
Count
Career guidance received Total
Poor Satisfactory Good Very
Good
Excellent
Knowledge
gained during
the course
Poor 13 18 6 2 0 39
Satisfactory 66 145 81 16 3 311
Good 74 224 351 131 23 803
Very Good 36 68 203 238 89 634
Excellent 4 7 29 64 36 140
Total 193 462 670 451 151 1927
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 552.081a 16 .000
Likelihood Ratio 552.673 16 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 432.955 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 1927
Interpretation: The above test confirms the association between the perceived
knowledge gain by the students during the course and the career guidance provided by
the institutions.
Conclusions
3.18 Faculty groups across all categories of institutions highlighted the crumbling state of
infrastructure and need for investments to upgrade equipments and facilities. The initiatives
under TEQIP in development and maintenance of class room facilities, laboratories and
libraries have brought in a welcome change, particularly for resource strapped government
institutions. Over 87% of the faculty have expressed satisfaction with the improvement in
learning infrastructure and ambiance. Further, close to 75% of students have expressed that
the environment for curriculum learning was satisfactory. The capacity building of faculty
has made an enduring impact. Apart from structured training programmes on technical topics,
pedagogy and management, the faculty have benefitted from networking opportunities like
conferences, seminars and publications. To investigate the relationship between the faculty's
perception of a growing scholastic and learning orientation among students, a regression was
66
run with the students' responses to question nos. S10-S14 and S19-S25. The results are
presented in Box 3.3.
Box 3.3: Regression of faculty perception regarding the scholastic and learning
orientation of the students as dependent on various students' responses.
Model Summary
Model R
R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change
F
Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 .851a .724 .530 .180696 .724 3.721 12 17 .007
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 3.247 .472 6.874 .000
S10 Teaching Skills of the faculty -.278 .291 -.432 -.952 .354
S11 Teaching aids used by the
faculty .430 .230 .768 1.871 .079
S12 Lecture notes provided by
faculty -.304 .261 -.526 -1.164 .261
S13 Take aways from lab work ,
practicals and assignments .443 .253 .835 1.747 .099
S14 Relevance of project work /
Internship to your learning -.429 .206 -.734 -2.084 .053
S19 Support for self learning .157 .234 .239 .670 .512
S20 Conferences/professional
activities and other Learning
events
.424 .140 .789 3.026 .008
S21 Interaction with industry .105 .162 .225 .650 .524
S22 Interaction with alumni -.160 .138 -.313 -1.157 .263
S23 Your performance in exams -.707 .396 -.831 -1.788 .092
S24 Knowledge gained during the
course .992 .495 1.221 2.006 .061
S25 Acquisition of practical skills -.426 .278 -.679 -1.528 .145
Interpretation: Knowledge of students gained during the course stands out as significantly
determining the faculty perception of the former's scholastic orientation followed by
students' take-aways from lab work, practical and assignment as well as quality of project
work. In other words, faculty's perception of the improvement in the scholastic orientation of
67
the students could change as high as 99 units with one unit change in the perception of
students about the knowledge gained by them during the course. Over all, with the R2 value
of 0.72 shown above, the model appears better than other combinations that were tried.
3.21 The expanded horizons of faculty members have started showing results inside the
classrooms and laboratories, as the student feedback has shown. Academic progression of
weak students is beginning to improve. Though there is a need to make customized
intervention to reach out students belonging to socially disadvantaged groups. Updating
curriculum to make it industry relevant remains a pain point particularly in new economy
disciplines, but here too, the accent on autonomy and industry inter-face is driving the
conventional Boards of Studies to rethink. The response from both faculty and students of
private institution has been the most positive followed by the government aided and
government institution in regard to learning ambiance while the government institutions are
more positive about students' academic progression compared to the government aided
institutions.
3.22 There has been an unprecedented increase in awareness about the issues of
employability and well rounded development of engineers. TEQIP II initiatives for
development of soft skills and the concept of finishing school have been well received by
many senior students. Employability of postgraduates remains, however, an area of concern.
Improved quality of technical education requires a conducive physical infrastructure, a
mature culture of learning, proficient faculty, excellent teaching-learning processes, and most
importantly, a matching curriculum. In spite of slower financial releases, TEQIP II has
brought about a vibrant change in the mindset of people and culture of organizations. The
forward movement towards excellence in technical education could be said to have begun
with this impact on basic academic processes.
68
Chapter 4: Growing Research Orientation and Publications
Introduction
4.1 The increased emphasis on excellence in engineering education through TEQIP II is most
visible in the form of a better research culture at the participant institutions. Across the 30
sampled institutions of all categories and states, this reverberated as one of the major
outcomes of TEQIP as there was a consensus among all stakeholders that the interest of
faculty towards research has improved considerably. In every sampled institution, even the
faculty member who was least motivated towards research and publications has aspired for a
conference presentation, a journal paper, or a sponsored research study. Increased number of
postgraduate programmes and increased intake of research scholars particularly in component
1.2 institutions have helped elevate their research profile. This chapter brings out the role and
impact that TEQIP has had on the research profile of the project institutions.
Research Orientation
4.2 Unless there are faculty members with doctorate or post doctoral qualifications with
sustained research exposure, it is very difficult to establish a culture of research excellence in
an institution. At the inception of TEQIP II, in the 190 participating institutions, only 55% of
the faculty members had postgraduate qualification. Another 18% of the faculty were in the
process of upgrading their qualifications. Thus, a meagre 73% of faculty members, in all the
190 TEQIP institutions either possessed or were pursuing a postgraduate/doctoral
qualification. By April 2014, this number went up substantially to 89%. At the level of the
sampled 968 members of faculty, the figure matches at 94% as Tables 4.1A and 4.1B show.
The drop in the percentage of faculty with only undergraduate qualification is a significant
achievement for TEQIP as no research orientation can be developed among the faculty who
do not have post-graduate qualification. Interestingly, faculty in private and government
aided institutions have taken the best advantage of TEQIP in upgrading their qualifications
which also suggests that these two categories of institutions also accounted for a higher
proportion of undergraduate teachers in the pre-TEQIP period.
69
Table 4.1A: Faculty response on qualifications acquired during TEQIP-II
Response Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Yes Count 156 167 92 28 443
Percent 60.00% 51.54% 36.51% 30.11% 47.69%
No* Count 104 157 160 65 486
Percent 40.00% 48.46% 63.49% 69.89% 52.31%
Total
Valid responses 260 324 252 93 929
Not responded 9 16 9 4 39
Count 269 340 261 97 968
* Includes 429 faculty already holding post graduate qualification.
Table 4.1B: Break up of faculty whose response was "No" in Table 4.1A
Pre-TEQIP
Qualifications
of faculty
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
PhD 49 43 76 48 216
PG 48 84 69 12 213
UG** 7 30 15 5 57
Total 104 157 160 65 486
** Excluding the 57 undergraduate teachers who responded with "No" during the survey,
the proportion of faculty with post graduate qualification in the sample of 929 who
responded to the survey stands at 94%.
4.3 As depicted in Table 4.2, faculty members strongly agreed that there has been a positive
change towards research orientation in their respective institutions. Apart from overall
motivation for research, there is an improvement in the support system for research,
networking opportunities, and collaborative research. The association between the level of
academic qualification of the faculty and their perceptions of support system for pursuing
research was established through a chi-square test shown in Box 4.1 and a similar association
between opportunities for faculty to network through participation in conferences and
seminars by their motivation for pursuing research was also confirmed through a chi-square
test (Box 4.2). Among the post-graduate students and research scholars, there was
overwhelming satisfaction over the conferences and other professional events, with 594
(83%) respondents out of 717 expressing satisfaction. Nearly 1/3rd (235 of the 725) of post-
graduate students and research scholars surveyed during the study responded to an open
ended question stating that quality of facilities for research and development is a major area
of strength in their institution, now. Another 50 quoted other research related activities
70
(conferences, IEEE chapter, journal subscriptions etc.) as the major strengths of their
institution. The motivation among institutions to create a brand image around research is a
significant achievement for institutions, as most engineering institutions in the country
generally focus on undergraduate education and teaching.
Table 4.2 Mean feedback from faculty about research culture in TEQIP-II institutions.
Questions from ‘F’ Survey
schedule
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
16 In your institute, collaborative
and multi disciplinary research
have been encouraged and well
supported
4.40 3.96 4.05 4.09 4.12
17 Is there a growth in
opportunities (such as
participation in conferences ,
seminars etc ) for networking
with peers in your field outside
the institute
4.68 4.35 4.61 4.36 4.51
18 The support system for
pursuing research in your
institute now is
4.40 3.92 4.15 3.90 4.11
19 Overall, there is increased
academic freedom and motivation
for pursuing research in your
institute
4.55 4.07 4.34 4.21 4.29
Scale (5=Strongly Agree, 4=Agree, 3=Can't Say, 2=Disagree, 1=Strongly Disagree)
71
Box 4.1: Chi Square Test of faculty's academic qualification by their perception of the
support system for pursuing research
Count
The support system for pursuing research in your institute
Total
Very
unsatisfactory
Unsatisfa
ctory Neutral
Satisfactor
y
Very
Satisfactory
Academic
Qualification
PhD 6 19 12 250 198 485
PG 2 24 38 233 93 390
UG 3 4 17 44 11 79
Total 11 47 67 527 302 954
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 81.315a 8 .000
Likelihood Ratio 77.440 8 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 43.353 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 954
Interpretation: The chi-square test confirms a statistically significant association
between the faculty's academic background and their perception of the support system for
pursuing research in their research institutions.
4.4 In response to another open ended question, 117 or 16% post-graduate students and
research scholars admitted to have benefitted from advanced equipments acquired under
TEQIP and a much higher 260 (36%) admitted to having benefitted from improved library
facilities, patents, publications, research funds, workshops, etc. Another positive outcome of
TEQIP has been the sheer increase in number of postgraduate students and research scholars
on campus. According to heads of 16 out of 30 sampled institutions, the postgraduate/PhD
enrollment that they have had in the last couple of years could not have been possible without
TEQIP. Several TEQIP institutions have also started schemes such as Research Excellence
for Undergraduate students, wherein the UG students get funding for their experimental set-
up or for making prototypes. During focus group discussions with students and faculty, it was
shared that the quality of student projects has improved, and several students are motivated to
undertake patentable projects. Faculty from several institutions were emphatic about the
72
improvements in the quality of postgraduate and PhD dissertations. Thus, from UG students
to senior faculty members, there has been a change in the orientation of the stakeholders with
regard to quality and quantum of research activities.
Box 4.2: Chi Square Test of opportunities for faculty to participate in conferences by
motivation for pursuing research.
Count
Overall, there is increased academic freedom
and motivation for pursuing research in your
institute
Total
Strongly
Agree
Agree Can't
Say
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Is there a
growth in
opportunities
(such as
participation in
conferences ,
seminars etc )
for networking
with peers in
your field
outside the
institute
Strongly
Disagree 2 1 0 5 0 8
Disagree 0 2 2 6 0 10
Can't Say 0 3 3 14 2 22
Agree 2 20 29 239 61 351
Strongly
Agree 2 2 8 216 330 558
Total 6 28 42 480 393 949
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 293.829a 16 .000
Likelihood Ratio 240.945 16 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 186.402 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 949
Interpretation: A statistically significant association is evident from the above test
between opportunities for faculty to participate in academic events like conferences
and seminars and their motivation to pursue research.
73
Publications and Research Projects
4.5 Increased research activity has started showing an increase in the number of publications
- both as papers in refereed journals and conference / seminar proceedings. According to
TEQIP II MIS data collected at national level, the number of research publications in refereed
domestic journals has increased from 2008 in the year 2010-11 to 2641 in 2012-13, as may be
seen from Table 4.3. Further, the number of publications in international journals has gone
up from 4417 to 8178 during the same period. The actual numbers on the ground are likely to
be higher due to delays in reporting. The trend among the TEQIP institutions is unmistakably
towards enhancing the visibility of research work through international publications even if it
meant a drop in the number of books published.
Table 4.3 : Progress of research publications in 190 TEQIP Institutions
Category of Publication
No. of Research Publications
2010-11
(Pre-TEQIP)
2011-12 2012-13 % Change
Research publications in
refereed Indian journals
2008 2710 2641 32%
Research publications in
refereed Foreign journals
4417 7134 8178 85%
No. of Books 1095 465 436 - 40%
Source : TEQIP NPIU-MIS, July, 2014
4.6 Since refereed publications in high impact international journals is a preferred measure of
excellence in research, TEQIP has triggered a positive change in research orientation.
Analysed by institutional categories, as Table 4.4 conveys, the mean level of publications
was the highest for CFIs in the year 2012-13 followed by the government aided, private and
government owned institutions in that order. An ANOVA across the mean performance of the
four institutional categories further confirmed the statistical significance the differential
performance among above institutional categories as Box 4.3 shows. As one would expect,
the institutions implementing sub-component 1.2 have a more impressive record of
publications compared to the sub-component 1.1 institutions and an independent samples t-
test also confirmed the difference in the mean publications of these two categories of
institutions as statistically significant (Box 4.4).
74
Table 4.4 : Cohort-wise break of research publications (domestic & international) for
2012-13
Cohort
No of
Instit
utions
No of
Public
ations
Mean
Component 1.1 Component 1.2
No of
Institu
tions
No of
Publicat
ions
Mean
No of
Institu
tions
No of
Publicati
ons
Mean
Private
Unaided 37 4068 110 23 2118 92 14 1950 139
Govern
ment
Aided
41 4833 118 18 1241 69 23 3592 156
Govern
ment
Owned
87 6109 70 64 3036 47 23 3073 134
CFIs 25 5940 238 8 1290 161 17 4650 274
Aggrega
te 190 20950 110 113 7685 68 77 13265 172
Source : TEQIP NPIU-MIS, July, 2014
75
Box 4.3: ANOVA of 'mean' difference in level of publications (Table 4.4)
No. of Publications
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 547259.709 3 182419.903 9.173 .000
Within Groups 3698749.133 186 19885.748
Total 4246008.842 189
Post Hoc Test Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: No. of Publications
Tukey HSD
(I) Category (J) Category Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig. 95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Private
Unaided
Government Aided -7.932 31.976 .995 -90.83 74.96
Government Owned 39.728 27.677 .479 -32.02 111.48
CFIs -127.654* 36.509 .003 -222.30 -33.01
Government
Aided
Private Unaided 7.932 31.976 .995 -74.96 90.83
Government Owned 47.660 26.713 .284 -21.59 116.91
CFIs -119.722* 35.783 .005 -212.49 -26.96
Government
Owned
Private Unaided -39.728 27.677 .479 -111.48 32.02
Government Aided -47.660 26.713 .284 -116.91 21.59
CFIs -167.382* 32.000 .000 -250.34 -84.42
CFIs
Private Unaided 127.654* 36.509 .003 33.01 222.30
Government Aided 119.722* 35.783 .005 26.96 212.49
Government Owned 167.382* 32.000 .000 84.42 250.34
Interpretation : *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level confirming the
difference in performance in regard to the record of publications across the four institutional
cohorts. However, multiple comparisons through the Tukey HSD test shows that the difference
in performance between the private, government aided and government owned is not
significant.
76
Box 4.4: Independent Sample T-test comparing mean levels of publications between sub-
component 1.1 and 1.2 institutions
Group Statistics
Component N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error Mean
No. of
Publications
Component 1.1 113 67.56 82.037 7.717
Component 1.2 77 172.94 198.140 22.580
Independent Sample T test
No. of Publications
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal variances not
assumed
t-test for
Equality of
Means
t -5.058 -4.416
df 188 93.923
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00 0.00
Mean Difference -105.378 -105.378
Std. Error Difference 20.835 23.863
Interpretation: The above 'means' of publications between sub-component 1.1 and 1.2
institutions are different at a significance level of 0.05.
4.7 Further, TEQIP MIS data at the national level also shows that nearly 100 patents have
been filed every year since 2010-11. Here again, the actual numbers are likely to be higher
due to delays in reporting. For instance, one institution ICT Mumbai alone has filed 22
patents during 2 years of TEQIP II. Table 4.5 shows the progress of the sampled institutions
with regard to sponsored research and patents for the year 2012-13.
Table 4.5: Sponsored research activity in TEQIP-II institutions-2012-13
Cohort Wise Projects from funding
agencies (AICTE / UGC /
CSIR / etc)
Industry
Sponsored
Research
Projects
Patents Filed /
Granted
Private Unaided 42 2 30
Government Aided 126 44 28/12
Government Owned 20 4 5/2
CFIs 26 0 15/4
Aggregate 214 50 78/18
Source : TEQIP NPIU-MIS, July, 2014
77
4.8 The number of networking events has also gone up significantly, as over 200 events were
conducted at the 30 sampled institutions. Table 4.6 gives a breakup of the number of events
organized during the TEQIP II period by the sampled institutions. Across all the institutional
sub-groups, the activity levels have recorded significant growth during the project period as
the CFIs demonstrated a significant growth of over 300% in the conduct of seminars. The
government owned institutions showed appreciable increase in organising workshops
followed by the private institutions. In the matter of organising conferences, again the CFIs
have made very good progress between 2010-11 and 2013-14 with the private and
government owned institutions showing a drop in this category of events. At the aggregate
level, TEQIP has provided an impetus to knowledge exchange and dissemination as all
categories of institutions have shown considerable initiative in promoting one type of activity
or the other.
Table 4.6: Growth in seminars and conferences at the sampled institutions
Cohort Wise Private
Unaided
Governme
nt Aided
Governme
nt Owned CFIs Aggregate
Seminars
conducted
2010-2011 45 23 9 16 93
2011-2012 40 25 3 14 82
2012-2013 82 60 14 39 195
2013-2014 94 50 18 50 212
Workshops
conducted
2010-2011 47 33 7 11 98
2011-2012 43 31 7 16 97
2012-2013 119 48 44 26 237
2013-2014 111 53 55 18 237
Conferences
/ Symposia
Conducted
2010-2011 41 11 24 12 88
2011-2012 17 5 1 10 33
2012-2013 13 10 11 13 47
2013-2014 18 13 7 64 102
Research Intake at TEQIP Institutions
4.9 Heads of TEQIP II institutions, particularly those implementing sub-component 1.2, have
elaborated on the momentous improvements in research related activities in their institutions.
Apart from increase in post-graduate student intake and research projects, the institutions are
attributing their recognition as university research centres (PhD enrollment), creation of
centralised research labs, achieving deemed university status and research publications, etc.
to the support and motivation received under TEQIP II. An analysis of qualitative written
78
responses from the heads is represented in Figure 4.1. The number of PhD registrations (full-
time or part-time) and number of publications were quoted most frequently. The increase in
PhD registrations in case of deemed universities and CFIs is considered to be a major boost to
research activities.
4.10 For many other institutions, setting up of research centres has been a step forward.
Research centres permit the scholars registered with the affiliating university to perform their
thesis related research work. Several heads of institution stressed that presence of research
scholars on campus has provided a push for research, and moved the focus of institutions
from undergraduate teaching to a holistic professional education. TEQIP II has provided a
boost to the sheer number of researchers on campus, through scholarships and creation of
common facilities for research. For instance, at University of Calcutta, Kolkata, the total
number of enrolled researchers today is 309 (2012-13) whereas in the pre-TEQIP II period
(2010-11), the total number of enrolled student had been only 135. A more prominent
example was of the National Institute of Technology Rourkela which saw a quantum jump in
the number of doctoral students as the case study “National Institute of Technology, Rourkela
– Quantum Leap in Research” (Appendix 2) illustrates.
PhD Registrations /
Research center for
part time
27%
Sponsored research
projects
10%
Publications
30%
R&D committee or
other organizational
reforms
10%
Internal revenue
generation
10%
Faculty registering
for PhD
10%
Lab Upgradation
3%
Figure 4.1: Responses from HOIs about changes in research profile
79
4.11 Enhancement in research intake was also complemented with several other measures,
such as better support for sponsored research projects, formation of research and
development committees, encouragement for faculty to publish and upgradation of laboratory
infrastructure. In their response to open ended questions, four institutional heads highlighted
the role of research and development committees in selecting and promoting research
proposals from faculty as well as students. These institutions are considering extension of the
scope of the committees to non-TEQIP funded projects as well.
Conclusion
4.12 It is beyond doubt that TEQIP II has brought about an elevated research orientation
among faculty members and students, making a break from the traditional teaching based
orientation. With availability of funding, the quality and quantity of research output has
visibly improved. In addition, the improvements in support systems for research have been
appreciated by both students and faculty. The management of institutions have begun to
recognize the role of postgraduate and doctoral scholars in bringing excellence to institutions.
Acquisition of higher qualifications by faculty has contributed so much to this change.
Coupled with a spurt in the conduct of academic events and activities aimed at knowledge
exchange and dissemination, the level of research publications has shown a marked
improvement. A notable feature of this progress in published work has been the shift in focus
from domestic journals to international ones which has shown an 85% increase in 2012-13
over 2010-11 and would potentially fetch more visibility to the researchers. At the cohort
level, both in the number of publications as well as organising academic events, the CFIs
have clearly stood out.
80
Chapter 5: TEQIP Impact on Industry-Institution Interaction (III)
Introduction
5.1 Knowledge is a critical resource in today’s economy. Knowledge is being created and
disseminated in various ways by many different players, including the industry which
generates applied knowledge through its own research and development efforts. In this
context, partnership of technical education institutions with industry assumes much
significance, since the knowledge imparted by the institutions to their graduating students
must primarily bear relevance to the industry needs, while addressing the higher level
concerns of the society and the nation at large. A primary deliverable of the TEQIP for
institutions participating in both Sub-components 1.1 and 1.2 of the project has been
increased collaboration with industry to be evidenced by the ability of the institutions to
market their graduates and research/ consultancy services to the industry. This chapter
evaluates the impact of TEQIP on the Industry-Institution Interaction (III).
III Practices- International and National
5.2 Industry-Institution Interaction has been practised the world over in various ways like,
higher education institutions offering industrial extension services, consulting services,
industry coming forward to donate equipment, joint sponsorship of education programmes,
exchange of personnel and industry funded research programmes, etc. Well organized fora
such as the faculty development bodies, innovation centres, research parks, and industry
chambers have traditionally taken the lead in co-ordinating and facilitating III activities,
which mainly aim at (1) Exchange of knowledge and resources, (2) Value creation for mutual
benefit, and (3) Synergy for all stakeholders. As a UNESCO study notes, III can be nurtured
in several ways, including:
attracting additional funds for teaching and research
increasing financial autonomy for higher education institutions
co-operative research with enterprises/industries
acquisition of or access to modern equipments & facilities
opportunities for staff and students to familiarise with state-of-the-art technology
improved interaction and launch of industry-oriented degree programmes;
improved training and employment prospects for students.
81
5.3 In the Indian context, higher educational institutions have been interacting with the
industries mainly for students’ visits to industry and for guest lectures by the industry
personnel. With the liberalization and globalization of economy, there is much scope for the
institutions, particularly those offering technical and professional courses to provide
consultancy services, but the industry’s preference is generally for the premier institutions
like the Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), the Indian
Institute of Science (IISc) and high end research laboratories. With the focus that TEQIP has
brought to III, the project institutions are beginning to approach the industry for both research
and consulting engagements. Though the progress is very slow in regard to III, a few
institutions have managed to obtain funding from the Department of Science & Technology,
GoI and other central and state level departments/ agencies for research and there is evidence
of institutions making varying levels of effort to associate with industries for consulting
work, student internships and placements.
Progress of III in TEQIP Institutions
5.4 TEQIP has laid great emphasis on III as a determinant of quality of technical education in
the project and is monitored closely by the National and State level steering committees as
well as the NPIU and SPFUs as a key performance indicator in the implementation of the
project. Successive project reviews at various levels and the Joint Review Missions have also
been motivating the project institutions to step up efforts towards stronger III linkages. The
project envisaged an organisational structure linking a National Private Sector Advisory
Group to State Level Advisory Groups and further down to III Cells at the state and
institutional levels. The Project Implementation Plan (PIP) sets out the guidelines for
constituting institution level III Cells, with a well defined composition and suggested
activities as well as deliverables. Efforts have been made by the GoI in the MHRD to bring
national chambers of commerce and industry closer to the TEQIP institutions and to promote
memoranda of understanding between the industry and institutions, through national and
regional workshops.
5.5 Despite all these efforts and campaign, the progress on the III front remains modest, as
the evaluation study team discovered during the course of the FGDs with students and faculty
as well as during the focus interviews with heads of institution and members of the BoG. As
Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1 depict, only one half of over 1950 students who responded to the
evaluation survey, found the III to be good or better in their institutions. As in other areas, the
82
feedback from the students of private institutions was more encouraging followed by the
government aided and government owned institutions. Again the reason for this could be the
lower baseline from where the private institutions have been operating. Out of the numerous
indicators of institutional performance on which the students’ views were sought during the
survey, the weakest response has been in regard to III.
5.6 More than the survey feedback, the concern expressed by the students during the FGDs
pointed to a level of despair that could not have been captured in a ‘survey-only' approach,
howsoever well designed and administered. In institution after institution, students would rise
up emotionally in their seats and assert during the FGDs that if only their institution could
provide a reasonable opportunity to interact with the industry, their learning outcomes could
have been richer. This perhaps explains the response of students to a question posed during
the survey to only those who had spent more than two years on the campus (Qn. 45.V of
Annexure 2.3), which indicated that only 67% of them found the efforts of the institutions at
building up their employability skills to be good as may be observed from Table 5.2.
Surprisingly, both CFIs and government institutions score lower than the aggregate mean on
the employability skills imparted by them.
Table 5.1: Students' responses to III
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Excellent Count 64 47 23 6 140
Percent 12.93% 6.72% 4.19% 3.30% 7.27%
Very Good Count 131 107 50 17 305
Percent 26.46% 15.31% 9.11% 9.34% 15.84%
Good Count 147 179 148 39 513
Percent 29.70% 25.61% 26.96% 21.43% 26.65%
Satisfactory Count 83 169 172 62 486
Percent 16.77% 24.18% 31.33% 34.07% 25.25%
Poor Count 70 197 156 58 481
Percent 14.14% 28.18% 28.42% 31.87% 24.99%
Total
Valid responses 495 699 549 182 1925
Not responded 7 14 9 6 36
Count 502 713 558 188 1961
Mean* 3.07 2.48 2.29 2.18 2.55
Standard Deviation 1.23 1.23 1.10 1.08 1.23
*(5=Excellent , 4=Very Good , 3=Good , 2=Satisfactory,1=Poor)
83
Table 5.2: Mean feedback of student responses on improvement in institute (who has
completed more than two years in institute)
Questions from “S”
Survey schedule Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned CFIs Aggregate
(45)i. Quality of
instruction 3.50 3.03 2.85 3.01 3.10
(45)ii. Learning
environment and
ambiance
3.59 3.10 2.95 3.25 3.20
(45)iii. Academic
progression 3.59 3.17 2.93 3.25 3.22
(45)iv. Management
and infrastructure 3.60 3.12 2.80 3.42 3.18
(45)v. Employability
skills 3.41 2.95 2.70 2.63 2.97
Scale (5=Excellent,4=Satisfactory,3=Good,4=Very Good,5=Poor)
3.07
2.48 2.29
2.18
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 5.1: Students' responses to III
Poor (1)
Satisfactory (2)
Good (3)
Very Good (4)
Excellent (5)
Mean
84
Impact of TEQIP on III
5.7 The students’ feedback notwithstanding, it would be wrong to infer that TEQIP has had
no impact on III in the project institutions. The impact could have been more objectively
evaluated if a baseline indicator of the students’ satisfaction levels with III in their institutions
was available for the pre-TEQIP period. If one were to go by the views of the faculty
members who were surveyed and very likely in a better position to compare the III status
with the pre-TEQIP period for obvious reason of longer stay, it certainly points to an
improvement, as Table 5.3 with Figure 5.2 and Table 5.4 with Figure 5.3 bear out. While
the faculty in private institutions are the most satisfied with improvements in III, between the
government and government aided institutions the fomer have conveyed a higher level of
satisfaction over the progress of III and the lower mean is recorded by the faculty of CFIs. An
ANOVA comparing the mean levels of faculty satisfaction with improvements in III across
the institutional categories, confirmed the difference as statistically significant, which may be
observed from Box 5.1. Though the faculty did believe that there was huge scope for
strengthening the III linkages in their institutions and they have made many useful
suggestions in this regard as Table 5.5 highlights, there was considerable evidence that
emerged during the FGDs pointing to the progress made under TEQIP and how the III efforts
were beginning to produce incipient results. For instance, the faculty team at the JNTU,
Kakinada shared that during a III.seminar, the idea of a PG course in Petroleum and Petro-
chemicals was mooted and was effectively followed up.
Table 5.3: Faculty responses on improvement in III
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Very
satisfactory
Count 96 44 36 6 182
Percent 36.50% 13.37% 14.34% 6.45% 19.44%
Satisfactory Count 150 205 165 49 569
Percent 57.03% 62.31% 65.74% 52.69% 60.79%
Neutral Count 12 54 29 25 120
Percent 4.56% 16.41% 11.55% 26.88% 12.82%
Unsatisfactory Count 4 20 20 13 57
Percent 1.52% 6.08% 7.97% 13.98% 6.09%
Very
unsatisfactory
Count 1 6 1 0 8
Percent 0.38% 1.82% 0.40% 0.00% 0.85%
Total
Valid responses 263 329 251 93 936
Not responded 6 11 10 4 32
Count 269 340 261 97 968
Mean* 4.28 3.79 3.86 3.52 3.92
Standard Deviation .66 .82 .77 .82 .80
*(5=Very Satisfactory, 4=Satisfactory, 3=Neutral, 2=Unsatisfactory, 1=Very Unsatisfactory)
85
Table 5.4: Faculty perception about students' benefit from III
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Governmen
t Owned
CFI's Aggregat
e
Strongly
Agree
Count 118 60 66 16 260
Percent 44.36% 18.52% 25.98% 18.18% 27.90%
Agree Count 134 209 157 52 552
Percent 50.38% 64.51% 61.81% 59.09% 59.23%
Can't Say Count 11 35 26 14 86
Percent 4.14% 10.80% 10.24% 15.91% 9.23%
Disagree Count 3 13 5 4 25
Percent 1.13% 4.01% 1.97% 4.55% 2.68%
Strongly
Disagree
Count 0 7 0 2 9
Percent 0.00% 2.16% 0.00% 2.27% 0.97%
Total
Valid responses 266 324 254 88 932
Not responded 3 16 7 9 36
Count 269 340 261 97 968
Mean* 4.38 3.93 4.12 3.86 4.10
Standard Deviation .62 .80 .65 .85 .75
*(5=Strongly agree,4=Agree,3=Can’t Say,4=Disagree,5=Strongly disagree)
4.28
3.79
3.86
3.52
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private Unaided Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 5.2: Faculty responses on improvement in III
Very unsatisfactory (1)
Unsatisfactory (2)
Neutral (3)
Satisfactory (4)
Very satisfactory (5)
Mean
86
4.38
3.93
4.12
3.86
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private Unaided Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 5.3: Faculty perception about students' benefit from III
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Can't Say (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly Agree (5)
Mean
87
Box 5.1: ANOVA of faculty response (Table 5.3) on improvement in III
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Between Groups 55.084 3 18.361 31.646 .000
Within Groups 540.745 932 .580
Total 595.829 935
Post Hoc Tests Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Faculty responses on improvement in Industry- Institute -
Interaction
Tukey HSD
(I) Category (J) Category Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig. 95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Private
Unaided
Government Owned .421* .067 .000 .25 .59
Government Aided .484* .063 .000 .32 .65
CFIs .761* .092 .000 .52 1.00
Government
Owned
Private Unaided -.421* .067 .000 -.59 -.25
Government Aided .063 .064 .755 -.10 .23
CFIs .340* .092 .001 .10 .58
Government
Aided
Private Unaided -.484* .063 .000 -.65 -.32
Government Owned -.063 .064 .755 -.23 .10
CFIs .277* .089 .011 .05 .51
CFIs
Private Unaided -.761* .092 .000 -1.00 -.52
Government Owned -.340* .092 .001 -.58 -.10
Government Aided -.277* .089 .011 -.51 -.05
Interpretation: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level implying that the
mean level of perception among faculty of all the four categories of institutions are
statistically significant. However, as the Post Hoc Test for multiple comparisons shows,
the difference between government owned and government aided colleges is not
significant.
88
Table 5.5: Suggestions from faculty for strengthening III
S.No Response Frequency
1 At least one visit by every batch of students to an industrial unit in each
semester
240
2 Invite senior personnel from industry to deliver guest lectures on various
topics
181
3 Design the project work for students keeping in view their relevance for
industry
155
4 Institutions must sign a minimum no. of Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs) annually
66
5 Active collaborative with industry at the curriculum design stage 63
6 Strengthen R&D linkages between faculty and industry 46
7 Organize technology fairs jointly with industry 42
8 Motivate industry to endow chairs for senior faculty in their institution 21
9 Ensuring a mix of industry personnel and pure academics in the faculty
ranks
20
10 Constitute separate III cell in each institution 18
11 Improve academic performance of the students to attract more industries
for campus placement.
16
12 Establish more centers for innovation and ideation 15
13 Making provision of minimum credits for courses jointly sponsored and
supported by industry
13
14 Modernization of laboratory equipment and computer software
reflecting the industry trends
13
15 Increase participation of students in industry linked projects 12
16 Incentivise faculty so that they escort students during industry visits 12
17 Interaction with alumni who have become entrepreneurs 11
18 Mandatory in-plant training for final year undergraduate students 10
Total 954
5.8 Many faculty members admitted that III did not receive due importance in technical
education institutions before implementation of the TEQIP. It was assumed that the
curriculum finalized by the Board of Studies which seldom had any representation from the
industry, was the best that could be offered, in contrast to the efforts now made to involve
industry in the design of curriculum. In institutions located in the rural areas, there was a
sense of despondency among the faculty that they could do very little to get industry closer to
the institution, but they were also of the view that some traction was being generated through
TEQIP as they could now afford to pay for the travel to visit industrial units and also bear the
89
costs of inviting guest faculty from the industry to share their teaching activity as well as to
take part in various conferences and seminars. Even in a centrally funded institution with
locational challenges like the North Eastern Regional Institute of science and Technology
(NERIST), the faculty team shared their satisfaction with the opportunity provided under
TEQIP to work closely with the hydro-power and other industrial units located in the region.
A chi-square test shown in Box 5.2 confirms the association between faculty's perception of
III improvements in their institutions and the benefits realised by students from III.
Box 5.2: Chi Square Test of faculty responses about students benefit from III by their
perception of improvement in III.
Count
Faculty perception about students benefit from III Total
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Can't
Say
Agree Strongly
Agree
Faculty
responses on
improvement
in III
Very
unsatisfactory 4 0 2 2 0 8
Unsatisfactory 5 15 16 19 0 55
Neutral 0 6 47 53 8 114
Satisfactory 0 4 20 430 109 563
Very
satisfactory 0 0 0 39 140 179
Total 9 25 85 543 257 919
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 860.473a 16 .000
Likelihood Ratio 542.308 16 .000
Linear-by-Linear
Association 404.591 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 919
Interpretation: The test results confirm that there is a statistically significant association
between the faculty's perception of improvements in III initiatives by the institution and the
benefits accruing to students from III.
5.9 The contribution that TEQIP has made to the progress of III in the project institutions can
be summed up from the faculty point of view, as two-fold. First, an unprecedented level of
awareness has been generated among the various stakeholders particularly the heads of
department and the HoIs about the need for III as the basis for improving the academic
quality through its entire value chain, from review of curriculum to employability of the
90
graduates, majority of whom look to the industry for placements. Secondly, TEQIP has
motivated and provided resource support to members of faculty who have had the inclination
to interact closely with the industry but could not move forward either due to lack of resource
support within the institution or simply because III was not a priority for the institutional
management. This also explains the basis for the more positive perceptions about the faculty
in regard to the post-TEQIP improvements in III as compared to the students’ feedback.
5.10 Even in institutions which had a fairly good track record of III such as the Institute of
Chemical Technology (ICT), Mumbai where the locational advantage is very obvious, all the
stakeholders including the industry representatives who were represented on the BoG of the
institute conveyed that TEQIP has provided a fillip to the III systems, even if they were
working well before the introduction of the TEQIP. This comes out clearly in the detailed
case study that has been attempted about ICT, Mumbai which can be seen at Appendix 3.
Institutions located in remote and far flung district towns and rural areas, such as the Co-
operative Academy for Professional Excellence (CAPE) institutions in Kerala or the
institutions located in Jharkhand and rural West Bengal also articulated that TEQIP was
making a difference to the manner in which III was prioritized and pursued by them, though
they would need more time to produce tangible results.
BoG Attention to III
5.11 The most significant contribution from TEQIP to III has been the sensitisation of the
BoGs as reflected in the manner in which III has come to dominate the discussions during the
meetings of the BoG in project institutions. From taking decisions as simple as entering into a
MoU with the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation for transportation of students for
visits to industrial units, which was discussed and decided in the College of Engineering
Perumon, Kollam district, during one of their BoG meetings held in September 2013, to
decisions like setting up incubation facilities for start-up industrial enterprises decided by the
BoG of BVB College of Engineering, Hubli, all the 30 institutions sampled for the evaluation
study demonstrated through their minutes of the BoG meetings that serious attention was
being paid to III related issues in the institutions.
5.12 Most of the observations and recommendations made by the BoG for strengthening the
III processes revolved around steps like inviting more resource persons from industry for
lectures; introduction of new courses in active consultation with industry; enlisting the
91
support of alumni in forging closer relations with industry; increasing consulting activity with
industries and other measures. It was interesting to note that the BoG of GITAM Institute of
Technology, Vizag advised the institute to identify industry experts who were competent and
willing to jointly guide research scholar for their theses. The feedback provided by the HoIs
also confirmed the role of BoG in strengthening the III processes and the growth in the IRG
of some institutions confirms the above. As Table 5.6 shows, 26 HoIs who responded to the
question on growth in internal revenues, point to a 45% growth in the mean level of IRG,
though the share of consulting and research as a proportion of total revenue remains
negligible.
Table 5.6: Growth of IRG in the 30 sampled TEQIP institutions.
Revenue 2009-10 2012-13 % Change
Mean Tuition Fees
( for 26 institutions) 7,82,64,330 12,48,32,050 59.51%
Mean Internal revenue
( for 26 institutions ) 19,80,27,663 28,75,86,508 45.20%
% of Tuition Fees as
proportion of Internal
revenue
(For 26 institutions)
39.52% 43.41% 3.89%
Conclusions
5.13 As envisaged under the TEQIP, the project institutions have been making intense efforts
to increase collaboration with industry with a view to enhancing the employability of the
students. They are also expected to market their research and consulting services to the
industry on the lines that the premier institutions have been able to reach out to the industry.
Owing to several factors , however, the progress of Industry-Institution Interaction (III) in
the project institutions has not been satisfactory as pointed out by the students both in their
survey feedback as well as during the FGDs. While serious efforts have been made by the
GoI in the MHRD and the state governments along with tight monitoring by NPIU and
SPFUs, the fact remains that III is an area of serious concern with high levels of
discontentment among the students on this subject.
5.14 However, TEQIP is beginning to make a difference by bringing in heightened awareness
among the institutions about recognising III as the basis for improving the quality of their
92
academic performance as well as motivating faculty members to bring industry closer to the
institutions by leveraging the resources provided under TEQIP. This is reflected in the faculty
feedback who were able to perceive the difference in the level of III activity before and after
introduction of the TEQIP and more importantly members of the BoG have begun devoting
more time to discuss and resolve problems of III at institution level. Institutions in the remote
rural areas are challenged more than their urban counter parts in forging strong linkage with
the industry but now that TEQIP is impacting the III systems and structures in a positive
manner, more substantive progress can be expected in the remainder of the project period.
93
Chapter 6: Institutional Reforms and Management Systems
Introduction
6.1. Alongside promoting academic progress in terms of support for student learning and
employability; faculty and staff development; promotion of research and innovation; industry
institution interaction; institutional collaborations with IITs and IIMs; and other opportunities
for institutional growth discussed in the previous chapters, TEQIP has provided an impetus
for institution level reforms in terms of academic processes and management systems that
were generally lacking before inception of the programme. While the institutional reforms
relating to matters of autonomy, accreditation and governance will be discussed separately in
the next chapter, this chapter evaluates the impact of TEQIP interventions on both academic
processes as well as management systems in the institutions where TEQIP has been under
implementation.
Enhanced Academic Co-ordination
6.2. The Vice Chancellors of two private universities namely, GITAM University, Vizag and
the IFTM, Moradabad and two government universities namely the Institute of Chemical
Technology, Mumbai and the UP Technological University, Lucknow conveyed strongly
during the focus interviews that three significant changes have been observed by them during
the course of implementing the TEQIP programme. One important aspect of change in the
academic environment has been an inter-disciplinary approach to institutional development,
which began with the preparation of Institutional Development Proposals (IDPs), preparatory
to their participation in the TEQIP. The coordination across different branches/ departments
that began with drafting of the IDPs, continues as the central and departmental coordinators
of TEQIP engage with one another and with the heads of department in planning and
organising various activities and events under the TEQIP for development of faculty and
staff, promotion of research, III, training needs analysis, training of non-teaching staff etc.
6.3 Further, the above institutions also conveyed that a holistic outlook has come about
among senior members of faculty, thanks to the emphasis on strategic planning and
management capacity enhancement. In the process of developing their vision, mission and
long-term goals, the TEQIP institutions have analysed their Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats (SWOT), gaining fundamental insights as to how they could
leverage their strengths and overcome weaknesses, to be able to deal with the opportunities
94
and threats in the institutional environment. As a corollary to the strategic planning and
leadership development concepts that TEQIP has introduced, the need for a robust
performance management system is now being increasingly felt across these institutions. The
heads of most institutions and members of governing bodies agreed that the above changes
are becoming evident as TEQIP has injected a sense of outcome-based orientation with a new
language of ownership and accountability dominating the dialogue on academic excellence.
In other words, what TEQIP has contributed to the participating institutions is a trigger for
change in institutional culture, which is oftentimes the most difficult challenge to weather, in
any type of organisation.
6.4 Further evidence for the above observations was found in the response of Heads of
Institution (HoI) to questions on the role of the Board of Governors (BoG) in ensuring
accountability of various departments within the institution and allocating resources among
them. As Table 6.1 with Figures 6.1A and 6.1B show, over 50% of the institutions
confirmed that the BoG exercises tight control in these matters and that they regularly review
the progress in implementation of TEQIP, which has contributed to a level of co-ordination
not seen before. Similarly, with almost all the HoIs confirming the role of their respective
BoGs in shaping the strategic plans of the institutions (Table 6.2), a sense of direction is
evident in the formulation of vision, mission and objectives, reinforcing a holistic perspective
about the institution amongst the internal stakeholders. While the role and impact of BoGs on
institutions will be detailed in the next chapter, it must be emphasised here that the
knowledge gaps of the BoG members in areas of strategy and leadership is a cause for
concern, which TEQIP has begun addressing through capacity building of BoGs.
95
Table 6.1: HoIs responses on the role of BoG in reviewing TEQIP
Issue Response Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Review of
progress in
Implementation
of TEQIP and
achieving its
goals
BOG level
review
5 6 6 3 20
HOI-Dean-
HOD-
TEQIP
coordinator
0 0 1 0 1
Total Valid
responses
5 6 6 3 21
Not
responded
3 4 1 1 9
Total 8 10 8 4 30
Overseeing
proper
allocation of
resources and
utilization of
funds
Tight Role 4 5 4 3 16
No Role 2 2 4 1 9
Total Valid
responses
6 7 8 4 25
Not
responded
2 3 0 0 5
Total 8 10 8 4 30
BOG level
review, 20
HOI – Dean –
HOD –
TEQIP
Coordinator,
1
Figure 6.1A: Review of progress in implementation of
TEQIP and achieving its goals
96
Table 6.2: HoIs response on the role of BoG in strategising
Issue Response Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Role of BoG
in formulating
institution’s
Vision,
Mission and
strategic
objectives
Yes 7 10 8 4 29
No 0 0 0 0 0
Total Valid
responses
7 10 8 4 29
Not
responded
1 0 0 0 1
Total 8 10 8 4 30
Taking timely
policy /
strategic
decisions
facilitating the
institution’s
vision and
mission
Yes 7 10 8 4 29
No 0 0 0 0 0
Total Valid
responses
7 10 8 4 29
Not
responded
1 0 0 0 1
Total 8 10 8 4 30
Knowledge Incubation Initiative
6.5 Many remarkable initiatives have been launched under TEQIP with a view to promote an
ecosystem of networking and collaboration between the IITs and the IIMs on one hand and
the TEQIP institutions on the other. One such initiative, going beyond the short-term courses
and the workshops that are organized by the IITs under the Quality Improvement
Programmes (QIP), has been the Knowledge Incubation for TEQIP (KIT). KIT is designed
on the analogy of quality circles to create knowledge repositories in the form of Knowledge
Incubation Cells (KICs) that are expected to facilitate knowledge transfer between the IITs
Tight Role, 16
No Role, 9
Figure 6.1B: Overseeing proper allocation of resources and
utilization of funds
97
and TEQIP institutions. The KICs will initially strive to disseminate knowledge (and know-
how) to teachers, researchers and students through short-courses, workshops, seminars and
thematic conferences.
6.6 Knowledge captured from lectures by leading experts in advanced courses, compendium
of projects, question banks, laboratory manuals and proof-of-concept linked demonstrative
experiments are expected to introduce TEQIP institutions to frontiers of new knowledge
through the KICs under KIT. The new knowledge could find place in the curriculum, as and
when revised, as also during national events like student technological meets and
competitions, leading to a derive, draw and drive oriented learning paradigm. By bringing
together the best minds in science and technology, KICs can potentially enhance interaction
and partnership between the Indian intellectual pool and the international pool of expertise,
incubating new teaching and learning paradigms, in the process.
6.7 The KIT/ KIC model was conceived by the IIT-Kanpur who organised the first conclave
of technical educators in December, 2012 followed by other IITs at Hyderabad, Madras,
Delhi, Kharagpur and Mumbai who have been taking active interest in this initiative, with
funding support from the MHRD. All the 190 TEQIP institutions, whether implementing
Sub-Component 1.1 or 1.2, today stand mapped with the quality circle of one of the above
IITs. During the FGDs with faculty and students, almost all were enthused by the concept and
the Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET, Lucknow) conveyed that they have signed
an MoU with IIT-Kanpur for participation of the former’s faculty and students in a series of
activities planned for the summer months, as part of TEQIP. The TEQIP central co-
ordination team as well as the Departmental TEQIP co-ordinators at the Zakir Hussain
college of Engineering of Aligarh Muslim University showed as much keenness to participate
in the KIT initiative. Though it is too early to evaluate the impact, the level and quality of
participation of TEQIP institutions in the teaching conclaves organized by both the IITs in
Kanpur and Hyderabad, point to a potentially growing partnership between TEQIP
institutions and the IITs.
Quality Enhancement in Engineering Education
6.8 While KIT was an initiative of IIT- Kanpur, TEQIP sought to reinforce the linkages
between the project institutions and the IITs through another initiative of the IIT-Madras,
which was aimed at addressing the concerns over the quality of teaching, content and
98
delivery in TEQIP institutions. Labeled as Quality Enhancement in Engineering Education
(QEEE), this ‘direct to student programme’ has been designed to leverage real time and
synchronous technology to integrate high quality scholastic inputs in the form of instructors
and multi-media resources into the current curriculum and pedagogical practices of the
TEQIP institutions. Launched as a pilot project in January 2014 to cover 75 TEQIP and 29
non-TEQIP institutions in the first phase, the QEEE comprises of Live Classes, Tutorials,
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), Virtual Labs and Vocational Augmentation
Courses. The participating institutions have been assisted under TEQIP to procure the
hardware required to receive the live feed from classes delivered by the faculty of IIT-
Madras, IIT-Kanpur, IIT-Hyderabad and IIT-Bombay who are also funded by the MHRD.
The live feed would be transmitted through broadband as well as through satellite. From each
institution, two QEEE facilitators- academic and systems, were identified and adequately
trained at IIT- Madras, to ensure smooth transmission of the live classes and tutorials.
6.9 The programme envisages delivery via a software platform with cloud server at IIT-
Madras in sync with a local server at each participating institute. Virtual Labs have also been
initiated. The TEQIP institutions have been advised to make necessary changes in their
teaching schedules to align to the extent possible with live lectures under QEEE. Each
Institution would also identify two slots for tutorials between 3 and 5 PM on scheduled days.
In one institution namely the SVEC, Tirupathi where the evaluation study team had an
opportunity to observe the live QEEE sessions, the feedback provided by both faculty and
students was quite positive. The Principal of SVEC was of the view that the QEEE inputs not
only complemented the institution’s teaching resources but also had a motivating effect on
their faculty who could follow the sessions to improve their own pedagogical style and
content.
6.10 The Head of the UVCE, Bangalore rated QEEE as one of the four major achievements
of the institution in response to the survey of HoIs. Similarly, the GHRCE, Nagpur
prominently displayed the fact of their participation in QEEE as a major achievement on their
website. Some of the institutions sampled for this evaluation in Kerala were also quite excited
about participating in the QEEE, particularly those that were managed by the Co-operative
Academy for Professional Excellence (CAPE) and the Lal Bahadur Shastry Society for
Science and Technology. Their complaint, however, was that the infrastructural arrangements
for receiving the live feed were getting delayed due to lack of clarity on the specifications of
99
the equipment required and the difficulty in synchronizing the teaching time-table with the
QEEE sessions. As this evaluation study was drawing to a close, the NPIU was planning
review meetings to obtain feedback from the TEQIP institutions on the progress of KIT,
QEEE and other activities where the IITs are involved.
Management Capacity Enhancement Programmes
6.11 Efforts under TEQIP to expose the project institutions to the country’s premier
institutions, as an opportunity for benchmarking as well as providing a perspective from
outside on best academic and management processes to the former, also extend to the design
and delivery of management development programmes (MDPs) and academic leadership
programmes (ALPs) through the IIMs. The IIMs based at Bangalore, Kozhikode, Lucknow
and Indore have been very active, and all of them have delivered two-week programmes
covering modules like people processes; materials and project management; finance and
accounts; knowledge management and information technology; leadership and strategy etc.
By the end of March 2014, 617 faculty members from 155 TEQIP institutions were exposed
to these management capacity enhancement programmes. Of these, two batches comprising a
total of 37 participants attended courses that included international collaboration with the
Illinois University, USA (through IIM, Indore) and the National University of Singapore
(through IIM, Kozhikode) as may be seen from Annexure 6.1. The State Project Facilitation
Units (SPFUs) have also taken the initiative to organise management development
programmes for institutions in their respective states, in which a little over 1000 academic
and non-academic staff have participated.
6.12 The feedback on the management and leadership development programmes has been
quite encouraging as the participants have had an opportunity for the first time in their career
to attend such programmes, as it emerged during the FGDs. Significantly, in none of the
responses from the HoIs to questions 24 and 25 of Annexure 2.1, which were meant to draw
information about the TEQIP interventions that had the highest impact on the institution or
what they thought were the four major achievements of TEQIP, was there any specific
reference to the management capacity enhancement programmes, though they confirmed
during the focus interviews that the MDPs and ALPs had been a source of new and useful
knowledge. The evaluation team could not escape the feeling that MDPs are treated as a
hygiene factor by the TEQIP institutions which implies that the benefit of management
training is not overtly recognised but the lack of it shows up in the institutional performance.
100
Perhaps, there is a need to redesign the MDPs and ALPs with a stronger focus on experiential
learning and problem solving through exercises and case studies that are customised to the
management environment of the technical education institutions.
6.13 Since knowledge of management is not at the core of the learning needs of the
participants from TEQIP institutions, any course designed around examples and illustrations
from the world of business management is unlikely to deeply impact the TEQIP academics
and administrators. The fact remains, however, that both faculty and HoDs/ HoIs who have
attended MDPs and ALPs under the TEQIP readily acknowledge, during discussions and
interviews the value addition to their managerial competencies from exposure to the premier
management institutions. During focus interviews with HoIs, a suggestion was made that
MDPs involving international visits would need to be planned in a more structured way, with
a clear focus on the expected learning outcomes.
Performance and Data Audit
6.14 One of the key objectives of TEQIP is to strengthen the effectiveness of management
systems and enhance the institutional capacity to manage change in sync with changes in
external environment, In pursuit of this, the concept of performance audit has been
introduced as a binding necessity for the state governments and State Project Facilitation
Units (SPFUs) to plan and facilitate audit of performance and data maintained in TEQIP
institutions. Performance and data audits are carried out bi-annually to evaluate the progress
made by all project institutions in terms of their goal setting, achievements in regard to key
performance indicators and over all implementation of various initiatives and reforms
planned and proposed under the TEQIP-II programme for promoting academic excellence.
The evaluation carried out by performance auditors is used as the basis by the SPFUs and
NPIU to grade performance and rank the institutions in the implementation of the TEQIP.
6.15 To ensure objectivity in performance audit, which in the first round has covered 169
institutions at the project level, another group of professionals are engaged to conduct data
audit under the TEQIP programme while simultaneously assisting the performance auditors
in the process of auditing institutional performance. The value addition from the system of
performance audit was found to be quite good as expressed by the faculty and heads of
institution during the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). In response to the survey carried out
during this study, 89% of them expressed satisfaction with the performance and data audit
101
system, as Table 6.3 with Figure 6.2 show. Similarly 81.5% of the faculty was satisfied with
improvements in the management information systems that have come about following the
data audits (Table 6.4 - Figure 6.3). The satisfaction levels among the faculty of the private
and government owned institution was higher in regard to the performance audit as well as
MIS interventions under TEQIP. Leveraging insights from the FGDs, this seems logical as
both these categories of institutions have traditionally been indifferent to performance
management systems, though the reasons for their indifference could vary and an ANOVA
test (Box 6.1) confirms the differential feedback of the faculty across the four institutional
sub-groups.
Table 6.3: Faculty response about performance audit system
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Very
satisfactory
Count 110 52 57 15 234
Percent 42.64% 16.61% 24.46% 18.75% 26.47%
Satisfactory Count 139 202 157 53 551
Percent 53.88% 64.54% 67.38% 66.25% 62.33%
Neutral Count 8 53 16 11 88
Percent 3.10% 16.93% 6.87% 13.75% 9.95%
Unsatisfactory Count 1 5 2 1 9
Percent 0.39% 1.60% 0.86% 1.25% 1.02%
Very
unsatisfactory
Count 0 1 1 0 2
Percent 0.00% 0.32% 0.43% 0.00% 0.23%
Total
Valid responses 258 313 233 80 884
Not responded 11 27 28 17 84
Count 269 340 261 97 968
Mean* 4.39 3.96 4.15 4.02 4.14
Standard Deviation .57 .65 .61 .62 .64
*(5=Very satisfactory, 4=Satisfactory, , 3=Neutral,2=Unsatisfactory, 1=Very unsatisfactory)
102
Table 6.4: Faculty response about improvements in management information systems
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Very
satisfactory
Count 112 49 51 8 220
Percent 43.24% 16.44% 22.17% 10.00% 25.37%
Satisfactory Count 128 167 147 45 487
Percent 49.42% 56.04% 63.91% 56.25% 56.17%
Neutral Count 17 59 27 20 123
Percent 6.56% 19.80% 11.74% 25.00% 14.19%
Unsatisfactory Count 2 19 4 6 31
Percent 0.77% 6.38% 1.74% 7.50% 3.58%
Very
unsatisfactory
Count 0 4 1 1 6
Percent 0.00% 1.34% 0.43% 1.25% 0.69%
Total
Valid responses 259 298 230 80 867
Not responded 10 42 31 17 101
count 269 340 261 97 968
Mean* 4.35 3.80 4.06 3.66 4.02
Standard Deviation .64 .84 .67 .81 .78
*(5=Very satisfactory, 4=Satisfactory, , 3=Neutral,2=Unsatisfactory, 1=Very unsatisfactory)
4.39
3.96
4.15
4.02
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 6.2: Faculty response about performance audit system
Very unsatisfactory (1)
Unsatisfactory (2)
Neutral (3)
Satisfactory (4)
Very Satisfactory (5)
Mean
103
4.35
3.8
4.06
3.66
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 6.3: Faculty response about improvements in management
information systems
Very unsatisfactory (1)
Unsatisfactory (2)
Neutral (3)
Satisfactory (4)
Very Satisfactory (5)
Mean
104
Box 6.1: ANOVA of data in table 6.3 of faculty responses about performance audit
system across institutional groups
49 (ii) Performance audit system
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 27.560 3 9.187 24.380 .000
Within Groups 331.603 880 .377
Total 359.163 883
Post Hoc Tests Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: 49 (ii) Performance audit system
Tukey HSD
(I) Category (J) Category Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig. 95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Private
Unaided
Government Owned .242* .055 .000 .10 .38
Government Aided .432* .052 .000 .30 .57
CFIs .363* .079 .000 .16 .56
Government
Owned
Private Unaided -.242* .055 .000 -.38 -.10
Government Aided .191* .053 .002 .05 .33
CFIs .121 .080 .426 -.08 .33
Government
Aided
Private Unaided -.432* .052 .000 -.57 -.30
Government Owned -.191* .053 .002 -.33 -.05
CFIs -.070 .077 .801 -.27 .13
CFIs
Private Unaided -.363* .079 .000 -.56 -.16
Government Owned -.121 .080 .426 -.33 .08
Government Aided .070 .077 .801 -.13 .27
Interpretation: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level showing that the
perception of faculty about performance audit system varies across the institutional
categories. However, the Post Hoc Test for multiple comparisons indicates that the
difference in the mean perception of faculty in CFIs, government owned and government
aided institutions is not statistically significant.
6.16 From the survey of the non-teaching staff, it has been observed that 71% of 598 valid
respondents agreed that the utilization of MIS reports by top management in their decision
making processes has improved following TEQIP-II as Table 6.5 and Figure 6.4 show. More
importantly 80% of the staff agreed (Table 6.6 - Figure 6.5) that investment in Information
and Communication Technology (ICT) has been growing, leading to enhanced efficiency of
administration. The sense of agreement among the non-teaching staff of government
institutions was slightly lower than those in government aided institutions which is
attributable to high incidence of personnel management related grievances in the former
105
category of institutions. The ANOVA test at Box 6.2 confirms the statistical significance of
the difference in the mean feedback from the non-teaching staff across the four institutional
cohorts on the use of MIS in top management decision making. A reflection of these ground
level perceptions can be observed in the project level performance indicators at the national
level which showed that the MIS system was fully functional in 158 institutions. The MHRD-
NPIU have also embarked on an interesting exercise to rank and grade the performance audit
reports through a panel of experts, to bring greater seriousness and discipline to the process
and to check shallow reporting.
Table 6.5: Non- Teaching staff on top management use of MIS reports
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Strongly
Agree
Count 54 37 21 9 121
Percent 40.91% 19.37% 12.28% 8.65% 20.23%
Agree Count 70 92 90 49 301
Percent 53.03% 48.17% 52.63% 47.12% 50.33%
Can't Say Count 5 58 49 36 148
Percent 3.79% 30.37% 28.65% 34.62% 24.75%
Disagree Count 3 3 8 6 20
Percent 2.27% 1.57% 4.68% 5.77% 3.34%
Strongly
Disagree
Count 0 1 3 4 8
Percent 0.00% 0.52% 1.75% 3.85% 1.34%
Total
Valid responses 132 191 171 104 598
Not responded 5 12 20 11 48
Count 137 203 191 115 646
Mean* 4.33 3.84 3.69 3.51 3.85
Standard Deviation .66 .77 .81 .88 .83
*(5=Strongly Agree, 4=Agree, , 3=Can't Say,2= Disagree, 1=Strongly Disagree )
106
Table 6.6: Non teaching staff on investment growth in ICT
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Strongly
Agree
Count 56 43 30 20 149
Percent 41.79% 22.63% 16.85% 18.35% 24.39%
Agree Count 69 102 109 60 340
Percent 51.49% 53.68% 61.24% 55.05% 55.65%
Can't Say Count 6 40 35 22 103
Percent 4.48% 21.05% 19.66% 20.18% 16.86%
Disagree Count 2 4 1 3 10
Percent 1.49% 2.11% 0.56% 2.75% 1.64%
Strongly
Disagree
Count 1 1 3 4 9
Percent 0.75% 0.53% 1.69% 3.67% 1.47%
Total
Valid responses 134 190 178 109 611
Not responded 3 13 13 6 35
Count 137 203 191 115 646
Mean* 4.32 3.96 3.91 3.82 4.00
Standard Deviation .70 .75 .73 .89 .78
*(5=Strongly Agree, 4=Agree, , 3= Can't Say,2= Disagree, 1=Strongly Disagree )
4.33
3.84 3.69
3.51
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 6.4: Non- Teaching staff on top management use of MIS reports
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Can't Say (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly Agree (5)
Mean
107
4.32
3.96 3.91
3.82
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 6.5: Non teaching staff on investment growth in ICT
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Can't Say (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly Agree (5)
Mean
108
Box 6.2: ANOVA of data in table 6.5 comparing the 'mean' feedback of non-teaching
staff across institutional cohorts on top management use of MIS reports
Top management utilizes the MIS reports generated at different levels.
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 46.308 3 15.436 25.410 .000
Within Groups 360.844 594 .607
Total 407.152 597
Post Hoc Tests Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable:Top management utilizes the MIS reports generated at different
levels.
Tukey HSD
(I) Category (J) Category Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig. 95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Private
Unaided
Government Owned .636* .090 .000 .40 .87
Government Aided .483* .088 .000 .26 .71
CFIs .816* .102 .000 .55 1.08
Government
Owned
Private Unaided -.636* .090 .000 -.87 -.40
Government Aided -.153 .082 .245 -.36 .06
CFIs .180 .097 .246 -.07 .43
Government
Aided
Private Unaided -.483* .088 .000 -.71 -.26
Government Owned .153 .082 .245 -.06 .36
CFIs .333* .095 .003 .09 .58
CFIs
Private Unaided -.816* .102 .000 -1.08 -.55
Government Owned -.180 .097 .246 -.43 .07
Government Aided -.333* .095 .003 -.58 -.09
Interpretation: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level confirming the
differential perception of non-teaching staff among the four institutional groups on the
use of MIS reports by the top management, but the difference between government
aided and government owned institutions is not statistically significant.
109
Mentoring
6.16 Mentoring under TEQIP-II is a means of providing professional support and mature
advice to the management of TEQIP institutions, on a regular basis. Over 80 academics with
rich and proven experience as academic administrators have been identified to serve as
mentors for the TEQIP institutions. While supporting institutional development processes for
promoting academic excellence, the mentors are also expected to play the role of ‘critical
friends' who serve as sounding boards for governing bodies, Heads of Institution (HoI),
faculty, students and other stakeholders of TEQIP institutions. Like performance and data
auditors, mentors are also nominated by the SPFUs while the NPIU nominates them for
centrally funded institutions.
6.17 Unlike the performance audit reports, mentors reports are primarily meant to serve as an
ongoing support system for the institutions, and the first cycle of mentor visits have been
completed in 175 institutions. Where the evaluation study team had an opportunity to interact
with mentors, they expressed much satisfaction with the system and were also quite
appreciative of the guidelines brought out by the MHRD-NPIU to guide the mentors and
performance auditors in their work with the TEQIP institutions. Since mentors are usually
chosen from home states, the benefits of the mentors’ familiarity with the policy environment
and their techno economic knowledge of the geography is often useful in guiding the
institutions' progress. While the professional advice provided by the mentors is not binding
on the management of the institution, during our survey of the faculty, 85% of them
expressed satisfaction with the system (Table 6.7-Figure 6.6) with the private institutions
being the most satisfied followed by the government owned institutions. AChi-square test
also showed a significant association between the faculty's perception of improvements in
MIS and their view on the mentoring system (Box 6.3).
110
Table 6.7: Faculty view on the mentoring system
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Very
satisfactory
Count 121 42 56 14 233
Percent 45.83% 13.59% 23.73% 16.87% 26.12%
Satisfactory Count 135 191 154 47 527
Percent 51.14% 61.81% 65.25% 56.63% 59.08%
Neutral Count 6 64 14 19 103
Percent 2.27% 20.71% 5.93% 22.89% 11.55%
Unsatisfactory Count 1 10 9 3 23
Percent 0.38% 3.24% 3.81% 3.61% 2.58%
Very
unsatisfactory
Count 1 2 3 0 6
Percent 0.38% 0.65% 1.27% 0.00% 0.67%
Total
Valid responses 264 309 236 83 892
Not responded 5 31 25 14 76
Count 269 340 261 97 968
Mean* 4.42 3.84 4.06 3.87 4.07
Standard Deviation .60 .71 .75 .73 .73
*(5=Very satisfactory, 4=Satisfactory, , 3=Neutral,2=Unsatisfactory, 1=Very unsatisfactory)
4.42
3.84
4.06
3.87
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
ses
Institutional Category
Figure 6.6: Faculty feedback on the mentoring system
Very unsatisfactory (1)
Unsatisfactory (2)
Neutral (3)
Satisfactory (4)
Very satisfactory (5)
Mean
111
Box 6.3: Chi Square Test of faculty responses to improvements in MIS by mentoring system for
institution building
Faculty responses on mentoring system for institution building Total
Very
unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory Neutral Satisfactory Very
satisfactory
Faculty
response
about
improvements
in
management
information
systems
Very
unsatisfactory 2 0 0 0 0 2
Unsatisfactory 0 3 4 2 0 9
Neutral 2 9 48 25 2 86
Satisfactory 1 11 45 438 53 548
Very
satisfactory 1 0 3 53 174 231
Total 6 23 100 518 229 876
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 935.816a 16 .000
Likelihood Ratio 553.433 16 .000
Linear-by-Linear
Association 374.529 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 876
A significant association exists between the faculty's perception of
improvements in MIS and the mentoring system.
6.18 During FGDs, both faculty and non teaching staff have indicated that their interaction
with the mentors was generally useful in understanding the best practices prevalent in
different parts of the country and the system of mentoring was contributing to a positive
change in the institutions. The HoIs and the members of the governing bodies also confirm
that the role of mentors as neutral observers and umpires is useful to the institutions in
facilitating their self-discovery. There have been instances in some Colleges where the
mentors' suggestion has led to changes as simple as provision of better drinking water
facilities for the students and to as important as improved research carried out by the faculty
alongside changes in the system of equipment maintenance and laboratories by the non
teaching staff. Twenty seven out of the 30 HoIs who responded to the survey confirmed that
both the systems of performance audit and mentoring have been useful to the institutions.
Representatives of the SPFUs in most states were also satisfied with the mentoring initiative
112
and they have been closely following up with the institutions on the action taken by them
with reference to the suggestions made by the mentors for institution building.
Financial Management and Procurement system
6.19 Academic institutions are known to be weak in their focus on accounting and financial
management. In matters of procurement too, there is generally a lack of systematic evaluation
of bids and tenders even for high-value purchases. TEQIP has brought in considerable
discipline in these areas as 85% of the faculty have indicated their satisfaction with the
improvements in financial management systems under TEQIP (Table 6.8 - Figure 6.7). As
Table 6.9 with Figure 6.8 indicates, a slightly smaller proportion (82%) of the faculty
respondents to the survey was satisfied with the procurement management support system.
Both private and government institutions should higher mean levels of satisfaction in matters
of both financial and procurement management systems. A chi-square test cross tabulating
the faculty's satisfaction levels over financial management system with their satisfaction over
procurement management system showed a statistically significant association as Box 6.4
conveys. On account of certain constraints in the use of procurement software, many TEQIP
institutions were reluctant to use the software initially, but following a series of training
workshops organised centrally, all institutions are now making full use of the same. The
MHRD-NPIU have also been contemplating a road-map for implementation of the electronic
Financial Management Reporting System (e-FMR) backed up by a schedule of training
programmes for the SPFU personnel and officers of TEQIP institutions.
6.20 These developments are also reflected in the feedback from the students, 65% of whom
believe that management systems are good or better now. During the course of FGDs the
HoIs and faculty were vocal about the fact that TEQIP has enabled them to put in place
effective systems for management of financial resources, procurement activity and various
other aspects of institutional development including their ability to attract funding support for
research. The fact that the internal revenue growth (IRG) in technical institutions has
considerably improved (Chapter 5 - Para 5.12), adds evidence to the above. In response to
the series of open-ended sub-questions under question 23 of the survey instrument used for
HoIs, a rich feedback has been received pointing to the transparency and accuracy in the
procurement and financial management systems that TEQIP has made possible, on the back
of a robust MIS. While a tabulation of the open responses would be redundant, it is evident
from the same that the HoIs who were initially feeling burdened by the need for complying
113
with numerous requirements of new management systems under TEQIP, are now finding it
easier to track expenditure, control costs, procure efficiently and generate information about
all academic and administrative activities with greater ease and efficiency. The introduction
of the concept of maintaining four funds- institutional corpus, faculty and staff development
fund, equipment maintenance and equipment replacement funds, has been viewed quite
favourably by the HoIs.
Table 6.8: Faculty satisfaction with financial management system
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Very
satisfactory
Count 102 51 55 10 218
Percent 39.69% 17.59% 24.12% 12.20% 25.44%
Satisfactory Count 138 174 151 51 514
Percent 53.70% 60.00% 66.23% 62.20% 59.98%
Neutral Count 17 52 18 17 104
Percent 6.61% 17.93% 7.89% 20.73% 12.14%
Unsatisfactory Count 0 11 3 4 18
Percent 0.00% 3.79% 1.32% 4.88% 2.10%
Very
unsatisfactory
Count 0 2 1 0 3
Percent 0.00% 0.69% 0.44% 0.00% 0.35%
Total
Valid responses 257 290 228 82 857
Not responded 12 50 33 15 111
Count 269 340 261 97 968
Mean* 4.33 3.90 4.12 3.82 4.08
Standard Deviation .60 .75 .63 .70 .70
*(5=Very satisfactory, 4=Satisfactory, , 3=Neutral,2=Unsatisfactory, 1=Very unsatisfactory)
114
Table 6.9: Faculty satisfaction with the procurement management support system
Scale*
Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Very
satisfactory
Count 87 54 54 9 204
Percent 33.98% 18.43% 23.48% 10.98% 23.69%
Satisfactory Count 139 166 150 45 500
Percent 54.30% 56.66% 65.22% 54.88% 58.07%
Neutral Count 25 62 22 19 128
Percent 9.77% 21.16% 9.57% 23.17% 14.87%
Unsatisfactory Count 4 9 2 8 23
Percent 1.56% 3.07% 0.87% 9.76% 2.67%
Very
unsatisfactory
Count 1 2 2 1 6
Percent 0.39% 0.68% 0.87% 1.22% 0.70%
Total
Valid
responses 256 293 230 82 861
Not responded 13 47 31 15 107
Count 269 340 261 97 968
Mean* 4.20 3.89 4.10 3.65 4.01
Standard Deviation .71 .76 .66 .85 .75
*(5=Very satisfactory, 4=Satisfactory, , 3=Neutral,2=Unsatisfactory, 1=Very unsatisfactory)
4.33
3.9
4.12
3.82
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 6.7: Faculty satisfaction with financial management system
Very unsatisfactory (1)
Unsatisfactory (2)
Neutral (3)
Satisfactory (4)
Very satisfactory (5)
Mean
115
4.2
3.89
4.1
3.65
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 6.8: Faculty satisfaction with the procurement management
support system
Very unsatisfactory (1)
Unsatisfactory (2)
Neutral (3)
Satisfactory (4)
Very satisfactory (5)
Mean
116
Box 6.4: Chi Square Test of faculty satisfaction with financial management system by
procurement management support Count
Faculty satisfaction with the procurement management system
support
Total
Very
unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory Neutral Satisfactory Very
satisfactory
Faculty
satisfaction
with
financial
management
system
Very
unsatisfactory 2 0 1 0 0 3
Unsatisfactory 1 10 4 2 1 18
Neutral 0 4 74 24 0 102
Satisfactory 2 8 41 423 35 509
Very
satisfactory 1 0 5 44 167 217
Total 6 22 125 493 203 849
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1149.395a 16 .000
Likelihood Ratio 709.663 16 .000
Linear-by-Linear
Association 428.195 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 849
Interpretation: The association between faculty's satisfaction with
financial management system and procurement management system is
statistically significant.
Monitoring and Evaluation
6.21 TEQIP has put in place a comprehensive system of monitoring and evaluation as Table
6.10 sums up. Project monitoring and evaluation is normally done by means of surveys,
performance audits, data audits, studies and reviews at multiple levels. TEQIP has utilised all
these tools apart from holding regional and national workshops to review and monitor the
progress of the project. Such reviews, often organised with external resource persons from
premier academic institutions, industry, science and technology system and other sectors,
have been feeding in to the state level and national level review carried out by the state and
national steering committees.
6.22 The evaluation team has had an opportunity to attend and make presentations at one
such state level steering committee and to the National steering Committee on TEQIP which
helped appreciate the scrutiny and quality of dialogue that characterises the M&E system
117
under TEQIP. The seriousness with which the JRMs have been monitoring the KPI targets
and achievements under the project has added much value to the M&E measures already in
place and in taking corrective actions wherever needed. Matters of financial releases by the
states to the institutions however, is not entirely under the control of the project management
teams.
Table 6.10: M&E Structure for TEQIP II
Ser.
no.
Project task Responsibility Centre for M&E
1 Compliance with PIP guidelines Joint Review Mission/ MHRD/
World Bank responsible for joint
bi-annual reviews of the projects
assisted by the NPIU.
2 IDPs submitted by institutions
3 Coordination and Execution at NPIU and SPFU NPD / NPIU
4 Implementation at the level of institutions:
Disbursement of grant to institutions
Preparing institutional budgets as per IDPs
Activity level monitoring
SPFU / State Governments
BoG of institutions
Heads of Institution and TEQIP
Co-ordination team with HoDs
reporting to BoG
Conclusions
6.23 TEQIP has led to substantive reforms at the level of institutions, in regard to both
academic processes as well as management systems. Exposure of TEQIP institutions to the
premier technology and the management institutions of the country - IITs and IIMs, has
provided an opportunity for the institutions to find a benchmark towards which they can push
the frontiers of academic excellence, besides an external prospective on how the standards of
technical education are evolving within and outside the country. In other words, the series of
initiatives launched under TEQIP for knowledge incubation through the KTCs/KITs and live
classes and tutorials under the QEEE, have contributed to a credible eco-system in which the
TEQIP institutions can forge and sustain partnerships with the IITs and the IIMs. The
participation of TEQIP institutions in various MDPs and ALPs organized by the IIMs and
other management development institutions has added a new learning experience to the
faculty and heads of TEQIP institutions.
118
6.24 In any organisation, unfreezing the mind set and opening up departmental silos is a big
barrier to change. TEQIP has helped institutions to develop an inter disciplinary approach
through their strategic planning exercises for academic excellence. In the processes, the
traditional organizational structures have been shaken up as different branches and
departments are working together towards a holistic institutional vision, mission and goals.
As the World Bank team observed at the draft stage of the report, these changes are not
institutionalised yet at the project level. It is also difficult to quantify these changes in the
absence of focused orgnisational climate studies but what is important is that the winds of
change are being felt, even if the change curve is incipient. Further, a sense of accountability
for performance has come to dominate the academic dialogue at all levels from the HoIs
down to the non teaching ranks.
6.25 Significant progress has also been registered by the TEQIP institutions in reviewing and
reorienting most management systems particularly in the areas of financial management,
procurement, management information system, monitoring and evaluation. The need to
update the MIS on a dynamic basis and to adopt e-FMR and PMSS which most TEQIP
institutions initially resisted, have now been accepted and these processes are now adding
value to institutional efficiencies. The role of performance and data auditors and mentors is
increasingly making an impact by providing a neutral assessment of various tangible and
intangible assets that the TEQIP institutions have been creating and maintaining. It must be
appreciated that there is greater scope for progress in terms of honing the managerial
competencies of senior and academic administrative staff in TEQIP institutions through more
customized interventions and TEQIP has triggered the forward movement through awareness
and an action oriented approach to refining both academic and management systems.
119
Chapter 7: Autonomy, Accreditation and Governance Reforms
Introduction
7.1 In the saga of unbridled growth that technical education in the country has witnessed
during the last couple of decades, the issue of institutional governance has received very
scant attention. While the regulators and other stakeholders in the corporate sector across the
world have been seeking to centre-stage ‘corporate governance’ as the over-arching
framework to guide sound decision-making by managements, matters of governance in
educational institutions at large have seldom come under the scrutiny of regulatory authorities
like the University Grants Commission (UGC) or even the sectoral regulators like the All
India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), which has a statutory role to play in
regulating technical education in India. In matters of institutional autonomy and accreditation
of the courses, the awareness and inclination have been stronger but the seriousness for
accreditation has grown with advent of TEQIP technical education institutions. This chapter
discusses the role and impact of TEQIP in bringing about what can easily be described as a
paradigm shift in the autonomy and governance of the project institutions.
Accreditation and Autonomy
7.2 TEQIP has aggressively promoted the autonomy of technical educational institutions and
accreditation of the courses offered by them, by making these qualifying criteria for
institutions to participate in the project. Accreditation and certification of academic courses
by independent agencies that specialize in performance based evaluation is viewed globally
as a good practice and as a vital component of any academic quality assurance system. It
inspires confidence in both external and internal stakeholders that the institution has the
resources to deliver the aims and objectives with which the accredited course was introduced.
Accreditation of both UG and PG courses is strongly emphasized under the TEQIP with a
target that at least 50% of the UG and PG programmes achieve accreditation by the end of the
second year of the project and 80% of the courses by the conclusion of the project. With close
monitoring by the MHRD and NPIU, 45% of the courses offered by the project institutions at
the aggregate level, have either obtained accreditation of the eligible courses, or applied for
the same to the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) which is the authorized body of the
AICTE to accredit both UG and PG courses in the country.
120
7.3 This performance has been satisfying, viewed against a baseline of 30%, and it is
expected that by the end of the December, 2014, at least 50% of the courses offered by
TEQIP institutions will be duly accredited. This progress in accreditation was also reflected
in the thirty institutions sampled for the evaluation study, as 22 (73%) of them have got over
50% of the courses duly accredited (Table 7.1). Most HoIs claimed during the focus
interviews that the process of accreditation has brought in both a sense of discipline and
confidence among TEQIP institutions. Since NBA accreditation is usually granted for two
years on a provisional basis, unless the assessment score is exceptionally high, faculty in
most institutions expressed that the process of seeking confirmation of the provisional
accreditation for a full five year period and re-accreditation after five years was quite an
educative process, providing them an opportunity of self-assessment. It is also significant to
note that seven of the sampled institutions were also accredited by the National Assessment
and Accreditation Council (NAAC) with ‘A’ grade.
Table 7.1: HoIs response to question on accreditation of eligible courses
Response Frequency Percentage
Yes 22 73.3
No 7 23.3
Total Valid Responses 29 96.7
Not Responded 1 3.3
Total 30 100
7.4 Institutional autonomy under the UGC scheme is also an important criterion to be met by
TEQIP institutions. Benefits of autonomy to an institution cannot be over emphasized as the
autonomous institution has the freedom to:
Determine and prescribe its own curriculum and redesign courses to suit local needs;
Prescribe rules for admission as per policy of the State Government;
Evolve its own methods of assessment of students’ performance
Conduct examinations and notify results on its own;
Use modern tools of educational technology to achieve higher standards
121
Under TEQIP, which advocates a very holistic concept of autonomy, 115 out of 190
institutions at the national level have obtained the status of autonomous institutions, while
another 66 institutions have applied and their applications are pending consideration either
with the UGC or at the level of affiliating universities. Some universities such as the
University of Ranchi in Jharkhand and the Cochin University of Science and Technology
(CUSAT) in Kerala have been repeatedly rejecting or delaying the applications for autonomy
of the institutions sampled in these states for the evaluation study. Within the sample of 30
institutions, 23 (77%) institutions have achieved autonomy and the remaining ones are at
various stages of application.
7.5 During the course of interaction with HoIs and faculty in these 23 institutions, it was
widely shared that autonomy has generally enabled them to manage their academic,
administrative, managerial and financial matters more efficiently. Some commented that
BoG’s appetite for autonomy needs whetting as they have not been used to exercising such
powers as have now been conferred on the BoG with the autonomous status. It would not be
an exaggeration to affirm that autonomy means different things to different stakeholders. If
the students believe that it helps in timely announcement of examination results, the faculty
in the senior ranks consider it an opportunity to reframe their curriculum and evaluation
systems. For the members of BoG and promoters of private institutions, it is a harbinger to a
deemed university status in the longer run. That there is an association between the students'
perception of autonomy and their perceptions on the curriculum design as well as
performance in examinations is established through two separate chi-square tests (Boxes 7.1
and 7.2). Further, the difference in perception of students in the autonomous institutions
versus the students perception in non-autonomous institutions were compared deploying the
independent samples t-test which confirmed that the difference in mean levels of students
perception between autonomous and non-autonomous institutions were statistically
significant as Boxes 7.3 and 7.4 indicate. Similarly, the perception of faculty about students'
performance in exams and their knowledge of the subject was found to be significantly
associated with the autonomy of institutions (Box 7.5) and further an independent samples t-
test (Box 7.6) also confirmed that the perception of faculty in autonomous institutions
differed significantly from those in non-autonomous institutions. TEQIP has served to
motivate institutions participating in the project to embrace autonomy as a step forward
122
though the full import of autonomy will take more time to percolate into the institutional
culture of academic decision making and implementation.
Box 7.1 : Chi Square Test of students’ perceptions of autonomy by their perception
of curriculum design
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Design of Course
curriculum on Has
your institute has
autonomy
1926 98.2% 35 1.8% 1961 100.0%
Count
Has your institute has
autonomy
Total
Yes No
Design of Course
curriculum
Poor 68 59 127
Satisfactory 256 122 378
Good 504 150 654
Very Good 449 61 510
Excellent 238 19 257
Total 1515 411 1926
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 132.159a 4 .000
Likelihood Ratio 132.710 4 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 128.189 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 1926
Interpretation: There is a statistically significant association between the way students
perceive institutional autonomy and the design of academic curriculum.
123
Box 7.2: Chi Square Test of students' perception of autonomy by their perceived
performance in exam
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Your performance in
exams on Has your
institute has autonomy
1929 98.4% 32 1.6% 1961 100.0%
Count
Has your institute has autonomy Total
Yes No
Your performance in
exams
Poor 15 12 27
Satisfactory 202 83 285
Good 659 222 881
Very Good 507 80 587
Excellent 130 19 149
Total 1513 416 1929
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 53.557a 4 .000
Likelihood Ratio 54.604 4 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 47.369 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 1929
Interpretation: There is a significant association between the way students perceive
autonomy and their performance in examination.
124
Box 7.3: T-test comparing mean level of students' perception of curriculum design in
autonomous and non autonomous institutions.
Group Statistics
Has your institute
has autonomy
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Design of Course
curriculum
Yes 1515 3.35 1.072 .028
No 411 2.66 1.044 .051
Independent Sample T-test
t-test for Equality of Means
t df. Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
difference
Design of
Course
curriculum
Equal variances assumed 11.716 1924 .000 .695 .059
Equal variances not
assumed 11.900 663.789 .000 .695
.058
Interpretation: There is a statistically significant difference between the perception of
students about the design of curriculum in autonomous institutions vis-à-vis students in non-
autonomous institutions.
Box 7.4: T-test comparing Mean level of students’ perception about their performance
in exams in autonomous and non autonomous institutions.
Group Statistics
Has your institute
has autonomy
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Your performance
in exams
Yes 1513 3.35 .853 .022
No 416 3.03 .831 .041
Independent Sample T-test
t-test for Equality of Means
t Df. Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Your
performance
in exams
Equal variances assumed 6.967 1927 .000 .327 .047
Equal variances not
assumed 7.070 674.539 .000 .327 .046
Interpretation: There is a statistically significant difference between the perceived levels of
performance of students in autonomous vis-à-vis non-autonomous institutions.
125
Box 7.5: Chi Square Test of faculty perception of autonomy by their perception of
students' performance in exams and their knowledge of subject improving.
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
In your branch, the
performance of students
in exams and their
knowledge of the
subject is improving on
Has your institute has
autonomy
954 98.4% 16 1.6% 970 100.0%
Count
Has your institute has autonomy Total
Yes No
In your branch, the
performance of students
in exams and their
knowledge of the
subject is improving
Unsatisfactory 8 8 16
Neutral 36 21 57
Satisfactory 459 143 602
Very
Satisfactory 242 37 279
Total 745 209 954
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 28.202a 3 .000
Likelihood Ratio 27.472 3 .000
Linear-by-Linear
Association 27.935 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 954
Interpretation: There is a significant association between the faculty's perception about
institutional autonomy and the way they perceive the performance of students in exams and
the gain in their subject knowledge.
126
Box 7.6: T-test comparing mean level of faculty perception of students' performance in
exams and their subject knowledge in autonomous Vs non-autonomous institutions
Group Statistics
Has your
institute has
autonomy
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Performance of students in
exams and their knowledge
of the subject is improving
Yes 745 4.26 .593 .022
No 209 4.00 .658 .046
Independent sample t-test
t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
Performance of
students in exams
and their knowledge
of the subject is
improving
Equal variances
assumed 5.362 952 .000 .255
.048
Equal variances
not assumed 5.058
309.13
0 .000 .255
.050
Interpretation: There is a statistically significant difference between the faculty's perceived
level of students' academic performance in autonomous vis-à-vis non-autonomous
institutions
Model of Governance
7.6 Constitution of the Boards of Governor (BoGs) in the project institutions and setting out a
model of governance can be viewed as a strategic intervention under TEQIP. For the first
time in the country’s technical education system, the role and relevance of Board of
Governors (BoG) to the institutions' strategic and operation planning systems on one hand
and oversight and transparency in the decision making processes on the other, has been
brought out as a determinant of academic excellence. The project envisaged that each project
institution will constitute a BoG as per the UGC guidelines, and as per the NIT Act 2007 in
case of central funded institutions, with an eminent educationist or industrialist as the
chairperson in each institution. The guidelines for composition of the BoG under TEQIP –II
are more or less similar to the UGC guidelines. Thanks to the efforts made by the state
governments and the SPFUs, BoGs have been constituted in all the project institutions except
four in Rajasthan, as the State had been exempted from this requirement. The thirty
institutions sampled for the study were all found to have BoGs in place.
127
7.7 The governance guidelines under TEQIP require that BoGs must meet at least once in a
quarter and publish the minutes of the meetings on the institutions’ websites. In the context of
TEQIP, the BoGs shall carry out various functions including faculty development initiatives
and fiduciary requirements under TEQIP as well as other statutory requirements. With the
release of the ‘TEQIP Good Practice Guide for Governing Bodies’ in December 2012, there
has been growing emphasis on the governance related issues, both in the private and
government institutions. The governance model was also discussed in the learning forums
organized by the NPIU with support from the World Bank between the 15 and 18 January,
2013, following which BoG members are slowly though reluctantly, beginning to appreciate
that their own capacity to guide and shape the destiny of the institutions, could be enhanced
through appropriate learning.
Contribution of Governing Bodies
7.8 While the primary condition of constituting the BoGs has been fulfilled by all the
institutions, the levels of commitment of the BoG members and their performance was found
to be a matter of concern, during the evaluation study. Institutions that performed well on the
key performance indicators under TEQIP, clearly reflected the supervision and sense of
engagement that their BoGs had demonstrated through the frequency of meetings and the
quality of discourse reflected in the minutes of the BoG meetings. Both during focus groups
discussion and focus interviews with HoIs, it was found that the members of the governing
board have been contributing substantive value to the quality of decision making as well as
review of the implementation of TEQIP project in institutions where performance was
appreciable and the converse was true in institutions where the performance was less
satisfying. Further, as already highlighted in para 6.4 of the previous chapter, half of the HoI
respondents expressed that there was tight oversight by the BoG in the allocation of resources
to different branches/ departments and the BoGs have contributed to the strategic planning
process in almost all the institutions.
7.9 It has been interesting to observe that the frequency of BoG meetings has been
progressively improving as in some institutions where the BoG met only once in the first year
of the project, could manage two meetings in the following year and later three and four
meetings in the subsequent years. The progress is reflected in Table 7.2 with Figure 7.1
which shows that the number of sampled institutions where the BoG meets four times a year
128
or more has doubled from six in 2009-10 to twelve in 2012-13. What is more encouraging is
the growing attention of the BoGs to the institutional challenges. For instance, in one of the
meetings of JNTU, Kakinada, it was decided to induct two additional members from industry
to enrich III processes in the institution. Similarly the governing body of BVB College of
Engineering, Hubli has been adding new centers of specialization in collaboration with
industry as well as new UG and PG courses following guidance of the BoG. A case study of
the institution’s governance planning is at Appendix 4.
Table 7.2: HoI responses on BOG meetings held in the years 2009-10 and 2012-13
No of Meetings No of Institutions in
2009 -10
No of Institutions in
2012 -13
1 6 4
2 6 6
3 3 6
>= 4 6 12
Not Responded 9 2
Grand Total 30 30
6 4
6 6
3 6
6
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2009-10 2013-14
No. of
mee
tin
gs
in a
yea
r
Growth in frequency of BoG meetings
Figure 7.1: HoI responses on BoG meetings held in the year 2009-10
and 2012-13
More than four
meetings
Three meeting
Two meeting
One meeting
129
7.10 As Table 7.3 and Table 7.4 with Figure 7.2 suggest on the basis of the responses of the
HoIs, members of the BoGs have been overseeing the work of various academic and
administrative committees within the institutions. Though to a lesser extent, they have also
been obtaining feedback on the institutional performance from mentors and stakeholders
including faculty and students. In response to open ended question about the role of the BoG
in performance appraisal of HoIs, faculty and officers, a range of interesting responses
emerged from the HoIs which did indicate that within the ambit of the UGC guidelines, BoGs
added value to their professional growth by guiding them to pursue certain research and
teaching goals or administrative and leadership responsibilities. For instance, the SSIT,
Tumkur claimed that the report of the academic advisory committee which includes experts
from international institutes along with the self-appraisal report of the faculty was shared
with members of the BoG for their information and feedback.
7.11 It is obvious, however, from Tables 7.5 and 7.6 that the BoGs are constrained from
exercising any significant influence in matters of recruitment and reviewing service rules of
teaching and non-teaching staff as the institutions are bound by the UGC and the state
governments’ rules in this regard. Both, from the HoI responses in the above tables and from
focus interviews, it was evident that the issue of autonomy was not uniformly understood.
While UGC guidelines have contributed to a degree of academic autonomy in matters of
curriculum and evaluation systems, administrative autonomy remains hazy with universities
and state governments exercising strong control over institutions.
Table 7.3: BoG oversight of various academic and administrative committees
Response Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Yes 8 9 7 4 28
No 0 0 0 0 0
Total Valid
Responses
8 9 7 4 28
Not
Responded
0 1 1 0 2
Total 8 10 8 4 30
130
Table 7.4: BoG obtains periodical feedback from all stakeholders
Response Frequency Percentage
Yes 22 73.3
No 8 26.7
Total valid Responses 30 100
Not Responded 0 0
Total 30 100
Table 7.5: BoG’s role in developing policy for recruitment of faculty and staff
Response Frequency Percentage
Recruitment – State Government 5 16.7
As per the NIT act approved by
BoG
1 3.3
At UGC/ university level 19 63.3
Total Valied reponses 25 83.3
Not Responded 6 20
Total 30 100
22
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
Yes No
Fre
qu
ency
Type of response
Figure 7.2: BoG obtains periodical feedback from all
stakeholders
131
Table 7.6: Reviewing service rules for faculty and staff
Response Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Government and
UGC norms
5 6 7 3 21
NIT & MHRD /
NIT Council
0 0 0 1 1
University level 1 0 0 0 1
Total Valid
Responses
6 6 7 4 23
Not Responded 2 4 1 0 7
Total 8 10 8 4 30
7.12 Overall, the concept of governance is making its way in to the TEQIP institutions in
varying ways and at different speed, as the governance self-reviews by the institutions
demonstrate. 161 out of 190 institutions at the aggregate level, have submitted the “Self
Governance reports” and 15 institutions are ready with their “Governance Development
Plans”. While it has taken quite sometime for the individual institutions to identify suitable
persons and get them to agree to accept positions on the BoG’s, and institutions have also
struggled to get necessary clearances for appointment of the government nominees, the key
outcome from TEQIP has been the realization that the BoG is the capstone of institutional
governance. Further, with the minutes of the BoG meetings being hosted on the institutional
websites, greater transparency has been introduced in matters of both academic and
administrative decision-making.
7.13 As Table 7.7 shows, 83% of the faculty members surveyed during the study agreed that
the BoG has added value in promoting III initiatives. The perception of both private and
government institutions is stronger on this aspect compared to the government aided
institutions and the CFIs. ANOVA of the 'mean' feedback from faculty across the institutional
categories confirmed the statistical significance in terms of varying perception among the
faculty of the institutional groups as Box 7.7 demonstrates. Similarly 66% of the non-
teaching staff who participated in the survey conveyed that the BoG was involving the former
more actively in decision making processes (Table 7.8 - Figure 7.3). It seems that the TEQIP
institutions have the potential to move to the next level of governance where the board room
processes can come under deeper scrutiny, requiring the BoG members to perform in a more
accountable manner with a clear sense of role and goal clarity. It is here that the capacity
132
building programmes for the members of the BoG can help close their knowledge gaps and
empower them with the concepts and practices of good governance. The evaluation study
team could gauge the potential benefits that institutions can reap from a competent and
committed BoG, in the course of delivering such capacity building programmes for TEQIP
institutions.
Table 7.7: Faculty response on the role of BOG in promoting III
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Strongly
Agree
Count 103 61 66 16 246
Percent 38.9% 18.8% 26.8% 17.4% 26.5%
Agree Count 142 185 148 46 521
Percent 53.6% 57.1% 60.2% 50.0% 56.2%
Can't Say Count 17 60 26 22 125
Percent 6.4% 18.5% 10.6% 23.9% 13.5%
Disagree Count 1 10 5 6 22
Percent 0.4% 3.1% 2.0% 6.5% 2.4%
Strongly
Disagree
Count 2 8 1 2 13
Percent 0.8% 2.5% 0.4% 2.2% 1.4%
Total
Valid responses 265 324 246 92 927
Not responded 4 16 15 5 41
Count 269 340 261 97 968
Mean* 4.29 3.87 4.11 3.74 4.04
Standard Deviation .67 .84 .69 .90 .79
*( 5=Strongly agree, 4=Agree, 3=Can't Say,2=Disagree, 1=Strongly Disagree )
133
Box 7.7: ANOVA of 'mean' perception among the faculty of different institutional
categories (Table 7.7) on the BoG support for III initiatives
The Board of Governors ( or equivalent body ) actively supports your initiatives
for networking to promote Industry-Institute- Interaction
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between
Groups 36.332 3 12.111 20.773 .000
Within Groups 538.110 923 .583
Total 574.442 926
Post Hoc Tests Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: The Board of Governors ( or equivalent body ) actively supports
your initiatives for networking to promote Industry-Institute- Interaction
Tukey HSD
(I) Category (J) Category Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig. 95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Private
Unaided
Government Owned .185* .068 .033 .01 .36
Government Aided .427* .063 .000 .26 .59
CFIs .555* .092 .000 .32 .79
Government
Owned
Private Unaided -.185* .068 .033 -.36 -.01
Government Aided .242* .065 .001 .08 .41
CFIs .371* .093 .000 .13 .61
Government
Aided
Private Unaided -.427* .063 .000 -.59 -.26
Government Owned -.242* .065 .001 -.41 -.08
CFIs .128 .090 .487 -.10 .36
CFIs
Private Unaided -.555* .092 .000 -.79 -.32
Government Owned -.371* .093 .000 -.61 -.13
Government Aided -.128 .090 .487 -.36 .10
Interpretation: *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level showing that there
is a difference in the faculty's perception about the role of BoG in promoting III, except
between government aided institutions and the CFIs as the Tukey HSD Test points out.
134
Table 7.8: Non-teaching staff on whether BoG involves them more actively in
administrative decision making.
Scale* Respondents Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Strongly
Agree
Count 36 35 24 4 99
Percent 26.67% 18.42% 13.26% 3.96% 16.31%
Agree Count 69 89 105 37 300
Percent 51.11% 46.84% 58.01% 36.63% 49.42%
Cant Say Count 21 38 33 28 120
Percent 15.56% 20.00% 18.23% 27.72% 19.77%
Disagree Count 8 22 12 18 60
Percent 5.93% 11.58% 6.63% 17.82% 9.88%
Strongly
Disagree
Count 1 6 7 14 28
Percent 0.74% 3.16% 3.87% 13.86% 4.61%
Total
Valid responses 135 190 181 101 607
Not responded 2 13 10 14 39
Count 137 203 191 115 646
Mean* 3.97 3.66 3.70 2.99 3.63
Standard Deviation .85 1.01 .92 1.13 1.02
*( 5=Strongly agree, 4=Agree, 3=Can't Say,2=Disagree, 1=Strongly Disagree )
3.97
3.66
3.7
2.99
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs
Mea
n R
esp
on
se
% o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Institutional Category
Figure 7.3: Non-teaching staff on whether BoG involves them more
actively in adminstrative decision making.
Strongly Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Can't Say (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly Agree (5)
Mean
135
Conclusions
7.12 TEQIP has brought in seriousness among the project institutions to accelerate their
efforts towards accreditation of all eligible courses and to seek autonomy from the UGC,
even if they had the above intentions before TEQIP. Being participants in the TEQIP project
has made it easier for many project institutions to get their applications for autonomy past the
affiliating universities to UGC. The HoIs confirmed that the very process of seeking
accreditation and autonomy has been an educative one facilitating self-assessment at the
institutional level besides giving them a sense of confidence that the courses offered by them
are duly accredited. From the progress of accreditation achieved by 73% of the institutions
sampled for the study, it seems reasonable to assume that all the project institutions would be
able to get 50% of their eligible courses accredited by the NBA. It is significant that seven of
the sampled institutions have also received accreditation from the NAAC.
7.13 In terms of institutional governance, it would not be an exaggeration to state that the
very introduction of the concept of governance in all the project institutions has been nothing
short of a paradigm shift. The feedback from the HoIs on the role of BoGs in promoting
strategic planning, speedy decision making and review of various policies and committees set
up for good institutional governance, has been encouraging though there is scope for
improvement. Challenges remain, however, in terms of knowledge gaps of the members of
the governing bodies themselves in regard to the exercise of powers that autonomy has
conferred on them, and more importantly in being able to contribute to areas like strategy
formulation, III and talent management at the level of faculty and HoIs. The initiative at
capacity building of BoGs is beginning to produce results as improvements could be seen on
issues of governance as fundamental as frequency of board meetings to the more substantive
issue of quality and content of discussion in the BoG meetings, as could be discerned from
the minutes of the meetings. The faculty of both private and government institutions have
conveyed a more positive perception of the role of BoG in promoting III initiatives with an
ANOVA, confirming the statistical significance of the differing perception among the faculty
of various institutional categories. The feedback from non-teaching staff has also been
encouraging in regard to the role of BoG.
136
Chapter 8: Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations for Way Forward
The TEQIP II
8.1 Building on the progress of TEQIP I, which was implemented between 2003 and 2009
covering 127 institutions, the TEQIP II has been a logical successor with a sharper focus on
academic progression of students, faculty and staff development, III, research and innovation
and most importantly, ushering in reforms in academic and administrative spheres of
institutional development. 190 institutions including 25 CFIs have been participating in the
project across 23 states / UTs. TEQIP II has flagged off a journey towards excellence in
technical education with an impact on basic academic processes and very importantly
influencing the mindset of people and culture of organizations. It is important to reiterate here
that the TEQIP has intervened effectively enough to trigger the process of change as all the
previous chapters have shown and the institutions would hopefully pursue the goals beyond
the formal project period to allow the process of change to stick.
Student Learning Outcomes
8.2 Though infrastructure development in terms of procurement of hardware was confined to
the government aided and government owned institutions, an improvement in the learning
environment has been observed across all categories of institutions, including private and
government managed, irrespective of whether they have been participating in subcomponents
1.1 or 1.2. The upgradation of classrooms, laboratories and expansion of central academic
support facilities apart, faculty have been using modern teaching aids and their style as well
as effectiveness of delivery has improved. The perception of the faculty in private and
government aided institutions has been more positive in regard to the improvements in the
learning environment. The differential perception was also confirmed through an ANOVA.
Students feedback from government owned and government aided colleges was lower in
comparison with private unaided and centrally funded institutions.
8.3 Apart from structured training programmes on technical topics, pedagogy and
management, the faculty have benefitted from networking opportunities like conferences,
seminars and publications. Over 95% of faculty across all categories of institutions agreed on
the opportunities that TEQIP has provided for professional networking and development.
With 85% of the students sampled for the study finding the subject knowledge of the faculty
137
to be good, the evidence in support of an improved quality of learning following TEQIP, has
been convincing. Academic progression of weak students has started showing an
improvement as measured by their transition rate. It has also been found that the faculty's
perception about improvement in the scholastic orientation of the students was strongly
related to the students' perception of the knowledge gained by them during the course as well
as the latter's take-aways from lab work, practicals and assignments.
8.4 While only 16% of the surveyed students expressed that they were not satisfied with their
performance in examinations, it was interesting to find that 52% of this 16% dis-satisfied
students have not benefited from the support provided to the slow learners which underlines
the need for getting the target group of slow learners to participate more actively in the
remedial classes. Updating of curriculum in tune with industry requirements has been
initiated, but still remains a pain point, particularly in new economy disciplines. There has
been an increase in awareness about the issues of employability and well rounded
development of engineers. The finishing school support has contributed to improved
confidence levels among students, who, however, feel that more needs to be done to align
their learning with the industry needs.
Research Orientation
8.5 One of the major outcomes reverberating through the project institutions has been the
heightened interest of faculty in research and publications. There was a consensus among all
stakeholders that even those faculty who had little or no inclination for academic research
have begun showing a marked increase in interest and initiative to present papers at
conferences and seminars that could further be advanced as journal publications. With
availability of funding, the quality and quantity of research output has visibly improved, also
supported by higher academic qualifications acquired by the faculty and a rise in the
admission of postgraduate and doctoral students. While 94% of the faculty in the sampled
institutions had acquired post-graduate qualification during the TEQIP project period,
fulfilling the fundamental requirement for a culture of research to take shape, 16 out of 30
HoIs confirmed an appreciable increase in the enrollment of post-graduate students.
8.6 The feedback from all the stakeholders particularly faculty community has pointed to
better collaborative and multidisciplinary research and more opportunities for networking
with academics from premier institutions and industry experts. The mean level of perception
138
among the faculty of the private institutions was the highest on the increased academic
freedom and motivation for pursuing research followed by the faculty in the government
owned institutions. The growth in academic publications, recorded in the central MIS of
NPIU confirms the appreciable rise in the awareness as well as inclination among faculty of
the project institutions to publish in international refereed journals which has recorded a
growth of 85% in 2012-13 over 2010-11. The institutions like UOC and NITR have achieved
phenomenal growth in the enrollment of research scholars as well as research output while
most other institutions have been motivated under TEQIP II to institute systems that are
conducive to research such as centralized laboratory support, R&D committees, and
incentivising faculty to make proposals to various funding institutions.
Industry-Institution Interaction
8.7 Owing to several factors, the progress of III in the project institutions has not been
satisfactory as pointed out by the students both in their survey feedback as well as during the
FGDs. While serious efforts have been made by the GoI in the MHRD and the state
governments along with tight monitoring by NPIU and SPFUs, the fact remains that III is an
area of serious concern with high levels of discontentment among the students on this subject.
However, TEQIP is beginning to make a difference in two ways. First, an unprecedented
level of awareness has been generated among the HODs and HOIs about the need for III as a
basis for improving academic quality. Secondly, TEQIP II has motivated and provided
resources to faculty to proactively approach the industry and bring the industry closer to the
institutions. This is reflected in the faculty feedback who were perhaps better able to perceive
the difference in the level of III activity before and after introduction of the TEQIP.
Institutions in the remote rural areas are challenged more than their urban counter parts in
forging strong linkage with the industry but now that TEQIP is impacting the III systems and
structures in a positive manner, more substantive progress can be expected in the remainder
of the project period.
Academic and Management Reforms
8.8 TEQIP has positively contributed to substantive reforms at the level of institutions, in
regard to both academic processes as well as management systems. Exposure of TEQIP
institutions to the premier technology and the management institutions of the country - IITs
and IIMs, has provided an opportunity for the institutions to find a benchmark towards which
139
they can push the frontiers of academic excellence, besides affording an external perspective
on how the standards of technical education are evolving within and outside the country. The
series of initiatives launched under TEQIP for knowledge incubation through the KICs/KITs
and live classes and tutorials under the QEEE, have contributed to a credible eco-system in
which the TEQIP institutions can forge and sustain partnerships with the IITs and the IIMs.
The participation of TEQIP institutions in various MDPs and ALPs organized by the IIMs
and other management development institutions has added a new learning experience to the
faculty and heads of TEQIP institutions, though a more customised approach to the design of
the programmes is needed, particularly where international visits are involved. The faculty
and HoIs seemed to consider MDPs and ALPs as add on knowledge, not central to their
academic interests.
8.9 TEQIP has helped institutions to develop an inter-disciplinary approach through their
strategic planning exercises for academic excellence. In the process, the traditional
organizational structures have been shaken up as different branches and departments are
working together towards a holistic institutional vision, mission and goals. Even if the
process of change is incipient, the project institutions are begining to see the benefits. The
faculty from both private and government institutions have conveyed higher levels of
satisfaction with the performance audit and management information systems. The non-
teaching staff also believe that the top management in all categories of institutions is making
better use of MIS in decision making. Significant progress has also been registered by the
TEQIP institutions in reviewing and reorienting most management systems particularly in the
areas of financial management, procurement, management information system, monitoring
and evaluation. The role of performance auditors, data auditors and mentors is increasingly
making an impact by providing a neutral assessment of various tangible and intangible assets
that the TEQIP institutions have been creating and maintaining even as one system is
synergising with the other. A strong association could be statistically established between
faculty's perception of improvements in MIS and their perceived value from mentoring.
Accreditation, Autonomy and Governance
8.10 In terms of institutional governance, it would not be an exaggeration to state that the
very introduction of the concept of governance in all the project institutions has been nothing
short of a paradigm shift. The feedback from the HoIs on the role of BoGs in promoting
strategic planning, speedy decision making and review of various policies and committees set
140
up for good institutional governance, has been quite encouraging though there is scope for
improvement. Over 80% of the faculty agreed that the members of the governing boards were
actively supporting III initiatives and more fundamentally the frequency and content of
discussion in the board meetings has acquired a tone of serious business. Challenges remain,
however, in terms of knowledge gaps of the members of the governing bodies themselves in
regard to the exercise of powers that autonomy has conferred on them, and more importantly
in being able to contribute to areas like strategy formulation, III and talent management at the
level of faculty and HoIs.
8.11 TEQIP has also brought in seriousness among the project institutions to accelerate their
efforts towards accreditation of all eligible courses and to seek autonomy from the UGC.
TEQIP has exposed the project institutions to the need for accreditation as a step towards
quality assurance of their academic systems and processes. While most institutions have been
able to get more than 50% of their eligible courses accredited and 23 out of the sampled 30
institutions have also achieved autonomy, the more important outcome has been the
educative experience that accreditation processes have provided to the institutions. The
institutions also feel that the image of the institutions has gained strength with these reforms.
Though a common understanding of autonomy among all the stakeholders is yet to emerge,
what is significant to note is the statistical significance of the perception of both students and
faculty in autonomous institutions being more positive on issues like curriculum design,
students performance in exams and their knowledge take-aways from the courses, as could be
inferred from the relevant statistical tests.
Miscellaneous
8.12 Several benefits have accrued to the project institutions ranging from as intangible as
growth in their brand equity to realizing systems improvements that rarely receive attention
in the normal course of institutional management. Some institutions, for instance, have
reported that department level budgeting systems have brought in more accountability even at
the level of research scholars who are required to align their goals to the institution or
sponsoring agency/ scheme. Similarly, the potential value of developing and sustaining
alumni relations has triggered more vibrant alumni development processes in the project
institutions. There were examples of institutions seeking the support of alumni in bridging
critical resource gaps covering physical infrastructure, economic support to students and
linkages with industry. The case study of GCT Coimbatore at Appendix 5 is illustrative.
141
There have also been instances of unique gains in terms of institutional upgradation in the
course of implementing TEQIP as it happened at IET, Lucknow which has been identified by
the Government of U.P. for up gradation into an Innovation University. A summary of the
institutional cohort-wise indices of feedback from faculty and students and non-teaching staff
on key elements of the project implementation can be seen from Box 8.1.
8.13 In pursuit of their III endeavors, some institutions have developed innovative
organisational structures to reinforce their industrial consulting services, as the caselet on
GNDEC Ludhiana (Appendix 6) shows. The GNDEC has created a two tier consultancy
services structure, at the central and departmental levels, with appropriate systems for
providing customer focused services. The triple caselet based comparative study of the
human resource practices in three TEQIP institutions brought out in Appendix 7 is
instructive about how excellence suffers if the bench strength of the faculty is not in place.
Some institutions like GHREC Nagpur have recruited faculty, but the new faculty outnumber
the older faculty to such an extent that it will take time for the organization to integrate them
into a team and work towards the institution's vision and mission. The SSIT Tumkur has a
balanced composition of faculty at all levels and TEQIP II has come in as a timely
intervention to begin their journey towards excellence.
Recommendations
8.14 Considering the fact that the journey towards excellence has begun in all the TEQIP II
institutions, the uppermost concern for the evaluation study team has been the sustainability
of the momentum that the project has generated. Whether the institutions would continue to
invest in faculty development, III initiatives and continue to strengthen their institutional
systems and governance will depend entirely on the leadership of the institution. While it is
reasonable to expect that the institutions will continue to pursue these initiatives in their own
interest and to cope with competition, the evaluation study team recommends that a list of
initiatives like utilization of the four funds for the purposes for which they were initiated
under TEQIP II, continuance of the BOGs, continued student support in the form of remedial
classes, etc. should be identified as areas that will continue to be monitored for a period of at
least 5 years after closure of the project by the MHRD.
142
Box 8.1: Indices of section-wise feedback from questionnaires for faculty, students and non-
teaching staff on key indicators of project implementation
Indices of section wise responses to faculty questionnaire
Section Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Level
Section –II : Academic and
Professional Growth 2009-
10 3.82 3.27 3.53 3.17 3.47
Section –III : Performance
of Students since 2009-10 4.31 4.03 4.18 4.00 4.15
Section –IV :Institutional
systems and management
since 2009-10 4.21 3.82 3.83 3.72 3.92
Section V : TEQIP
Interventions 4.33 3.85 4.09 3.78 4.05
Indices of section wise responses to Students' questionnaire
Section Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Level
Section –II: Quality of
Instruction 3.57 3.04 2.96 3.13 3.16
Section –III : Learning and
Environment Ambiance 3.54 2.96 2.94 3.06 3.11
Section –IV : Academic
Progression 3.48 3.04 2.94 3.03 3.13
Section – V : Management
and Infrastructure 3.64 2.87 2.67 3.24 3.05
Section – VI :
Employability 3.53 2.85 2.74 2.49 2.96
Section – VII : Institutional
Assessment ( excluding
open ended questions) 3.54 3.07 2.85 3.11 3.14
Indices of responses to the questionnaire administered to non teaching staff
Section Private
Unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned
CFIs Aggregate
Level
Section –II: Improvements
in organization systems
and procedure Under
TEQIP-II 4.24 3.88 3.74 3.56 3.86
Section –III : Job
Satisfaction 4.25 3.95 3.93 3.83 3.98
143
8.15 There should also be a provision for disincentivising institutions that fail to sustain the
above initiatives by excluding them from potential support schemes of UGC, AICTE and
other bodies of the GoI. These and other recommendations that follow are based entirely on
the understanding developed by the study team about the project in the course of the
evaluation study combined with the experience and insights of a management development
institution, and are submitted for the consideration of the client system.
8.16 Throughout the study, it has been observed that the adequacy and competence of the
faculty is the key to achieving academic excellence. If the ability and willingness of faculty
respondents to provide complete answers to open ended questions soliciting suggestions for
improving quality of instruction and research in their institutions is to be viewed as a proxy
indicator for faculty competence, it can be seen that only 50% of the sampled faculty could
provide more than one suggestion (Tables 8.1 and 8.2). Further, this reluctance or inability
was more pronounced among the private unaided colleges. While TEQIP has emphasized
upgradation of faculty qualifications, there is a need for the MHRD and NPIU to release
guidelines that should be uniformly followed by TEQIP institutions in regard to human
resource practices like recruitment, promotion and compensation, particularly in regard to the
practice of hiring faculty on temporary basis. Similar criteria should also be laid down for
non-teaching staff who are in acute shortage.
Table 8.1: Frequency of responses to the question on recommendations for improving
the quality of teaching.
Respondents
Private
unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned CFIs
Aggregate
Suggested one
measure
187
(69.5)*
233
(68.5)
167
(64.0)
60
(61.9)
647
(66.9)
Suggested second
measure
98 (36.4)
142 (41.8)
104 (39.8)
42 (43.3)
386 (39.9)
Suggested third
measure
54 (20.1)
57 (16.8)
43 (16.5)
21 (21.6)
175 (18.0)
* Figures in brackets are percentages reflecting the frequency of respondents to the question,
as proportion of total sample.
144
Table 8.2: Frequency of responses to the question on recommendations for improving
the quality of research.
Respondents
Private
unaided
Government
Aided
Government
owned CFIs Aggregate
Suggested one
measure
221
(82.2)*
246
(72.4)
191
(73.2)
75
(77.3)
733 (75.8)
Suggested second
measure
119 (44.3)
150 (44.2)
129 (49.4)
51 (52.6)
449 (46.4)
Suggested third
measure
46 (17.1)
45 (13.3)
57 (21.8)
26 (26.8)
174 (17.9)
* Figures in brackets are percentages reflecting the frequency of respondents to the question,
as proportion of total sample.
8.17 In terms of faculty development, while continuing to support initiatives like KIT and
QEEE, a system of professional certification could be considered which enables faculty
members to be evaluated and certified by a credible and competent body to the effect that the
faculty are part of a national pool of technical education teaching professionals. The same
professional body recommended above can also be tasked with setting up and managing a
centralized academic staff college to cater to faculty development needs of technical
education institutions.
8.18 Design of a relevant and rigorous curriculum is a compelling concern for the technical
education system in the country. In order to achieve it, a concerted effort is necessary from
institutions, university regulators (AICTE, UGC, NBA and NAAC), industry and the
government. With the proliferation of engineering colleges and courses in the country,
measures for rationalization of syllabi need to be addressed on a priority. A standardised
syllabus across the country is neither desirable nor achievable. But a model syllabus that
ensures a minimum learning content could be considered for TEQIP institutions, as a step
towards facilitating the evolution of a bare minimum standard for an ‘engineer’. More subject
matter expertise, technological challenges, industry forecasts, labour economics and changing
patterns of student aptitude can be brought to bear on changes effected during the time of
revision of syllabus by the boards of studies in individual institutions and universities.
Professional support from premier institutions may be made available to the aspiring
institutions.
145
8.19 International travel related to conferences and seminars has become easier under TEQIP.
However, in government engineering colleges of states like in Maharashtra and Madhya
Pradesh, the faculty members are officers of government and are subject to the civil service
rules. The service rules require the faculty to seek administrative approvals from state
headquarters. This process creates delays and often results in faculty missing the academic
events. Thus, more administrative autonomy is required for the state government controlled
institutions.
8.20 All the 190 institutions under TEQIP II operate at varying points of competence in
research standards. There are institutions like ICT Mumbai, NIT Rourkela and NIT Nagpur
that can legitimately be proud of their record of publications in top journals in several fields.
On the other hand, there are institutions in remote areas, where the distinction between high
impact factor journals and average journals is still not recognised. Consequently, the faculty
appraisal on sincerity of their research effort and quality of output gets affected. There is a
need for greater mentorship and guidance by the lead institutions to the institutions with
potential to excel in research. Networking of such institutions may be facilitated under
TEQIP. Such networks could benefit both the parties by providing guidance and development
to the mentees and also providing experimental validation support to the mentors’ own work.
8.21 Industry Institute Interaction (III) remains an area of weakness for TEQIP institutions,
notwithstanding aggressive efforts on the part of all the stakeholders. Understandably, there
cannot be a one-point solution to this problem, as no more than one third of the faculty
respondents who participated in the survey, could provide more than one suggestion for
strengthening III in their institutions (Table 8.3). The case study of ICT Mumbai and the
caselet of GNDEC Ludhiana have shown how a concerted, proactive and structured effort is
required on the part of institutions to build strong and sustainable III linkages. Clearly, a
cultural reorientation is needed among the stakeholders driven by the HoIs to deepen the
linkages with industry.
146
Table 8.3: Frequency of responses to question on recommendations for improving III
Respondents
Private
unaided
Government
Aided
Government
Owned CFIs
Aggregate
Suggested one
measure
173
(64.3)*
194
(57.1)
144
(55.2)
58
(59.8)
569
(58.8)
Suggested second
measure
79 (29.4)
100 (29.4)
74 (28.4)
26 (26.8)
279 (28.8)
Suggested third
measure
29 (10.8)
37 (10.9)
26 (10.0)
17 (17.5)
109 (11.2)
* Figures in brackets are percentages reflecting the frequency of respondents to the question,
as proportion of total sample.
8.22 As one of the institutions suggested, having an industry representative as a III
coordinator within the institutions could help formulate a situation specific strategy for
progressing with III. Similarly, exchange of faculty and industry experts is an initiative that
must be stepped up along with setting up special purpose fora for institutionalising such
exchange of human resources between industry and academia. This can pave the way for
effective III. Further, the state governments should involve their Departments of Industries
and Commerce and the District Industries Centres to help map technical education
institutions with industries located closest to them.
8.23 There is a need to deepen linkages with the IITs going beyond initiatives like KICs,
pedagogical training programmes and QEEE. Select faculty of TEQIP II institutions may be
encouraged to spend 6 months to 1 year on a sabbatical, or as scholars in residence, where
one-to-one coaching can happen between senior members of faculty at IITs and the faculty
drawn from project institutions. Similarly, there is a need for more comprehensive training
needs analysis of management and leadership development needs so that customized MDPs
and ALPs can be designed and delivered by the IIMs, adding better value. Select members of
faculty with aptitude for administrative positions can also be encouraged to participate in the
advanced management programmes offered by premier management institutions.
8.24 To streamline the general management systems and practices in TEQIP institutions, a
comprehensive manual providing uniform guidelines on matters of financial prudence,
budgeting, costing, procurement, estate management, campus discipline, deployment of ICT,
human resource management, marketing of programmes and courses, and other related areas
may be brought out, on the lines of the TEQIP Good Governance Guidelines. Such an
147
initiative would also help fill the current literature gap in the management of academic
institutions, besides serving as a hand-book for ready reference.
8.25 Governance being the capstone of institutional development, serious effort is needed in
designing governance development programmes that are customized to the need of technical
education institutions. Since there is a knowledge gap in areas of strategy and leadership
among the members of the BOGs in most institutions, their participation in governance
development programmes that provide learning support in the above areas must be made
mandatory along the same lines that corporate governance codes require the independent
directors in some countries to go through such courses. There is a need to ensure a minimum
number of independent members to be represented on the BOG of every institution,
particularly the private institutions where the controlling trust or society often holds complete
sway over the BOG.
8.26 There have been a few issues of confusion with regard to operational implementation of
various project components, particularly in remote institutions and states. Better clarity
between NPIU, SPFUs, institutional TEQIP coordinator, head of the institution and the
beneficiaries regarding rules and procedures is necessary. An organized repository of
circulars and rules can be prepared and shared online. The project implementation plan which
looks like a maze of components and sub-components with multiple criteria for selection of
institutions and a multiplicity of performance indicators, perhaps needs a review. It may be a
good idea to get the institutions to perform more concretely on a few fronts rather than
pushing them to implement several activities in a check-list fashion. These may be considered
without of course, diluting the holistic nature of the current project design.
8.27 There was slight variation observed in the constitution of SPFUs of different states. For
instance, the SPFUs of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra have been constituted
with full time deputation of officers of state government, whereas members of Punjab SPFU
hold additional charge, in addition to their charge as deputy directors in the state technical
education department. In Uttar Pradesh, the SPFU is staffed by academics drawn on a part
time basis from amongst the project institutions. The size of the team could be proportionate
to the number of project institutions in the state, but drafting them on part-time duty to staff
SPFUs can be avoided, in the interest of effective project implementation. This results in
varying levels of quality in monitoring and support by the SPFU to the project institutions.
148
The status of the TEQIP Co-ordinator in the assisted institutions also needs a review as they
are often reluctant candidates.
8.28 A successor programme to TEQIP II can potentially include additional components like
support for incubation of new technologies, products and processes, chair endowments,
centralized research laboratories, without discriminating against any category of institutions.
As mentioned earlier, a Central Staff College for Technical Education (one of the existing
technical teachers' institutes could be upgraded) dedicated to meeting the technical and
management capacity building needs of TEQIP institutions could be considered as part of the
next phase of the project. The proposed college can also serve as an e-repository of all
knowledge resources relevant to the technical education institutions, besides actively
engaging with research and consultancy to identify training needs, evaluate capacity building
programmes and provide project related services to the TEQIP institutions.
1
Evaluation Study of the Technical Education Quality
Improvement Program (TEQIP) Phase-II
Volume – II
October - 2014
Submitted to
Ministry of Human Resource Development
Government of India
Study Team
Dushyant Mahadik (Team Member)
G. Surender Reddy (Team Member)
Hemnath Rao H. (Team Leader)
Support Team
M. Jagadish Kumar / Mahaboob Tanda / Manju Vani
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE OF INDIA
BELLA VISTA, HYDERABAD 500 082.
2
List of Appendices and Annexures
List of Appendices
Appendix 1 : Enriching Student Learning Outcomes: The VNR-
VJIET Way!
Appendix 2 : National Institute of Technology, Rourkela – A Case of
Quantum Leap in Research
Appendix 3 : Weaving Industry Institution Interaction (III) in to the
Institutional Culture: The Case of the Institute of
Chemical Technology, Mumbai
Appendix 4 : Driving Good Governance at BVB College of
Engineering: A Case study
Appendix 5 : GCT, Coimbatore: The Case of a Vibrant Alumni
Association.
Appendix 6 : Facilitating Industrial Consultancy : A Case Let of
GNDEC
Appendix 7 : Human Resource Management of Faculty : Three
Comparative Caselets.
List of Annexures
Annexure 1.1 : Key Performance Indicators of the TEQIP II Project
Annexure 1.2 : Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme
(TEQIP) Phase‐II - List of Project Institutions
Annexure 2.1 : Survey Schedule-H: Survey of Heads of Institution
Annexure 2.2 : Survey Schedule–F: Survey of Teaching Staff / Faculty
Annexure 2.3 : Survey Schedule–S: Survey of Students / Research
Scholars
Annexure 2.4 : Survey Schedule–A: Survey of Non-teaching Staff
Annexure 2.5 : List of Persons Contacted/Interviewed
Annexure 2.6 : Profiles of Core Study Team
Annexure 6.1 : List of Programmes for Management Capacity
Enhancement at IIMs
3
Appendix 1
Enriching Student Learning Outcomes: The VNR-VJIET Way!
Introduction
1. A single holistic case study has been attempted to highlight the innovative steps taken by the
Vallurupalli Nageswara Rao Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering & Technology (VNR-
VJIET), Hyderabad, which has been supported under the Sub-component 1.1 of the TEQIP. With
the institution as the unit of analysis, the case study demonstrates how learning outcomes could
be strengthened in favour of the students through innovations, motivated by various components
of the TEQIP which are primarily aimed at enhancing the quality of students’ learning. The
analysis is at various stakeholder levels but mainly focused on the perceptions of faculty and
students about how the institutional initiatives have benefited the latter.
About VNR-VJIET
2. Sponsored by the Vignana Jyothi Society, the VNR-VJIET was established in the academic
year 1995-1996 with the permission of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), New
Delhi and the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Located in Vignana Jyothi Nagar, near
Bachupally Village on the outskirts of Hyderabad city, the Institute offers eight UG and ten PG
courses with an annual intake of 1372 students. Seven UG courses and eight PG courses which
are eligible for accreditation stand duly accredited by the National Board of Accreditation
(NBA). The Institute has been conferred autonomous status by the UGC under sections 2(f) and
12(B) of the UGC Act, 1956. It has also received accreditation with A-Grade from the National
Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC).
3. The Institute is spread across a 7.33 hectare campus and is managed by a governing council
which includes representatives from the Vignana Jyothi Society, the AICTE, the Government of
Andhra Pradesh, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University- Hyderabad (JNTU-H), experts
from Industry and academia. The Institute’s formal vision is to be ‘A deemed university of
academic excellence for national and international students meeting global standards with social
commitment and democratic values’. Its mission statement says, ‘To produce global citizens with
knowledge and commitment to enhance quality of life through meeting technological,
4
educational, managerial and social challenges. The widely communicated Quality Management
Policy of the Institute has a strong focus on student learning as follows;
Impart up-to-date knowledge to the students to make them quality engineers.
Expose the students to engineering applications on quality equipment and tools.
Provide quality environment and services to all stakeholders.
Provide systems, resources and opportunities for continuous improvement.
Maintain global standards in education, training and services.
Approach to Student Learning
4. One of the important stated goals of the Institute is to provide integrated knowledge of theory
and practice to the student by cretating opportunities for work on projects as well as summer
internship in industries. Drawing inspiration from the focus that TEQIP has put on pedagogical
training to faculty and experiential learning for students, Dr. D.N. Rao, Chairman, BoG shared
that the Institute has stepped up efforts to integrate class room learning with actual work
experience in industry. During the first year, special stress is laid on development of manual
skills, work culture, communication skills and courses on general education and introduction to
engineering, through a Mentoring-Training-Placement (M-T-P) system implemented and
monitored from the day of admission to the day of graduation. A more structured initiative is the
‘Career Vision Approach’ (CVA) that is built into the academic curriculum to enable students to
harness their creative talent in pursuit of emerging as rounded engineers.
5. The CVA envisages a four tier process which allows the students to blend their class-room
learning with practicals and industry exposure through the following phases:
I Year: Career Visioning
Orientation and matrixing with the senior students
Insights into engineering career options
II Year: Working with Career Vision
Shadow Engineering
Self appraisal on industry linked competencies
5
III Year: Fine-tuning Career Vision
Exposure to workplace technologies
Independent papers and projects
Assessment on personality development
IV Year: Realising Career Vision
Industry relevant project/ internship
Corporate readiness programme
Among the above phases, the shadow engineering stands out as a good practice that students
have found very value adding to their learning processes.
Shadow Engineering
6. Shadow engineering is a critical stage of the CVA process which allows students to spend a
full week with professionals in a real industry environment. The students get an opportunity to
watch, listen, learn and comprehend how their core subject of study translates into a career. At
this stage, the second year students are taken to the site of a cement factory in batches
accompanied by the faculty concerned. They would be divided into batches depending on their
specialization– Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, Electronics and Computers to facilitate intensive
training. This process would continue round the year until all the second year students of all
branches have undergone the training. Participation in shadow engineering at VNRVJIET is
compulsory and TEQIP has enabled the management to structure the programme in the III
mould.
7. Through shadow engineering, a student of mechanical stream would know more about
automation of manufacturing systems, plant layout and its suitability for the product besides how
the functional areas are integrated. The electrical engineering student will know variable
frequency drives, ratings of induction motor drives along with signal conditioning and
transducers. For a civil engineering student, the learning focus would be on the manufacturing
process of cement, quarrying operations, raw material, additives, material composition along
with practical aspects of silos and other structural aspects like trusses, columns etc. The students
of electronics would concentrate on practical working of several measuring instruments used
6
(pressure, temperature and flow) in the process and different calibration procedures along with
control mechanisms and tuning methods. Computer sciences and information technology
students are expected to understand maintenance of information, integrating systems through
network, analysis and control, ethernet and fiber optics besides gaining practical knowledge of
communication between different electronic devices in an industry. Shadow engineering
provides a platform to the second year students of all branches of engineering to know what their
branch contributes in a typical industrial unit and how different branches of engineering interface
with each other. Above all, students get to see, first hand, the manufacturing processes, the
handling of the equipment, industrial safety, pollution control measures, plant maintenance etc.
The Finishing School
8. The finishing school under TEQIP serves as the finale to CVA in VNRVJIET as it provides an
opportunity to further improve their performance to the corporate readiness level. The teaching-
cum-tutorial classes with 50 hours of additional teaching support are meant to help the students
close their knowledge and skill gaps, in close consultation with the faculty team, in the M-T-P
tradition. As one faculty member observed, out of 96 students who failed the exam, 75 students
re-appeared for the exam and 41 of them cleared the same which would have been difficult to
implement in the absence of TEQIP. One of the members of the BoG conveyed that it was not
the financial assistance under TEQIP that made the difference but the spirit of quality
enhancement that the project stresses which has motivated institutions to streamline past learning
initiatives and creatively scout for new ways of strengthening learning outcomes for students.
The ‘Show and Tell’, an initiative to motivate students of all levels to demonstrate their project
work to open audiences was one such creative activity that is exciting the student community.
7
Appendix 2
National Institute of Technology, Rourkela – A Caselet on Quantum Leap in Research
Introduction
1. In the modern times, right from the Industrial Revolution onwards, man’s progress has been
linked to the research output of scientists and engineers both in the academia and outside it. All
technological progress that man has been able to achieve is linked to the basic and applied
research that is being carried out in the universities and in the industry in the form of R&D.
Knowledge is said to be doubling almost every decade. That is the speed at which knowledge is
progressing.
2. Research and university have now become synonymous to each other. Today, the universities
are not merely educational institutions but the driving forces behind the economy through the
research done in their portals. Several universities file more than a hundred patents every year,
which is an indication of the research that is being done by their faculty. The University of
California, with 277 applications in 2011, is the largest filer among educational institutions,
followed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (179), the University of Texas (127),
Johns Hopkins University (111) and the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
(103). US universities account for 30 of the top-50 educational institutions filing for patents,
followed by Japan and the Republic of Korea with 7 institutions each.
Potential in India
3. With globalization underway, the patterns and locations of knowledge production and the
international flows of ideas are rapidly changing. For decades, the US, Western Europe, and
Japan have dominated the global production of knowledge, but there is a major shift underway:
recent years have seen an increasing globalization of R&D and a shifting of knowledge-intensive
activities from advanced industrialized countries towards emerging economies. As knowledge is
key to growth, competitiveness and employment, global shifts in knowledge production and
international knowledge flows also induce a global redistribution of wealth. India has the
potential to capitalise on these shifting patterns by enhancing its share of R&D achievements.
8
4. India can increase its innovation output dramatically from its technical education institutions
by focusing on research based approaches like subject specific assignments, dissertations and
industry specific projects in every discipline like science, engineering and business. Independent
research by faculty and dissertations with rigorous research by students need more
encouragement. The results of engineering research can emerge in journal articles, at academic
conferences, and in the form of new products on the market. By offering exclusive rights for a
limited period, an inventor can recover R&D costs and investments. It also promotes investment
to commercialize and market new inventions so that the society can enjoy the fruits of
innovation. Following is the case study of NIT Rourkela (NIT-R) about a growing culture of
research in the institution following implementation of TEQIP.
Research at NIT-R: Encouragement to students
5. NIT Rourkela (NIT-R) was established as Regional Engineering College (REC) Rourkela on
15 August 1961. It was granted autonomy by the Ministry of Human Resource Development in
2002, thus becoming the National Institutes of Technology, Rourkela (NITR). Without the
support from dedicated postgraduate students and full time research scholars, it is not possible
for faculty to come out with quality publications. After being granted the status of an institution
of national importance, NITR has gradually shifted its focus towards excellence in research. The
intake of postgraduate students has been increasing at NITR. The research activity at NIT
Rourkela is reflected in the number of research theses by level of degree of students submitting
the theses (Table 1).
Table 1: Degree wise growth in the number of dissertations/theses
Thesis 2009-10 2013-14
Phd 15 29
Mtech 125 362
MSC 19 80
MA 0 9
Btech 224 379
Total 383 859
9
6. The total number of theses submitted in 2013-14 was 859 increasing from 623, 509, and 437
in the preceding three years. That number was as low as 383 in 2009-10. During the course of the
study, 24 research scholars and 13 postgraduate students were focus interviewed. Of these, as
many as 21 identified the TEQIP scholarships as a major benefit of the scheme. Another 15 said
that the funding available for research projects and activities is a major benefit availed by them.
Attracting quality students and providing them with small research grants quickly has played a
major role in improving the research profile of the institution. The students also expressed that
development of labs and infrastructure facilitated their research work.
7. "ethesis@nitr" is the official repository for electronic theses submitted to NITR. This
repository is an attempt to make all locally produced theses more visible to global users. It is
mandatory for students of all courses (BTech, MTech, MTech by Research, MSc and PhD) and
from all diciplines to upload the final version of the theses submitted in partial fulfillment of
degree. This repository is an Open Access repository and all uploaded theses can be downloaded
by any interested user in order to use and and build upon. It is an institutionally defined
repository, so "Create Login" facility is restricted to campus intranet users only. Only NITR
students can upload their theses. This repository is powered by "eprints".
8. Technical Society is one of the most active societies in Student Activity Centre, NIT Rourkela
with eighteen Satellite Clubs functioning under its auspices. The aim of this society is to promote
and encourage technical innovation and entrepreneurship among students by organizing
modeling workshops, technical seminars, training courses etc. The subject areas where the
satellite clubs of Technical society are involved presently include: Astrophysics, Automobiles,
Aerospace, Robotics, Fluid Dynamics, Software, Infrastructure, Mathematics, Business
Management and Entrepreneurship. Technical Society also organizes a national level techno-
management festival every year that attracts participation from various organizations and
institutions of our country.
Support for Faculty Research
9. DSpace@nitr collects, preserves and disseminates the intellectual output of NIT-R to the
global audience. Presently, it archives journal articles, pre-prints and conference papers authored
by NIT-R researchers. Documents in this archive are now indexed by OAISTER where one can
10
access several millions of open access scholarly documents of other academic institutions around
the globe. Total number of documents in this Archive is 2007. The number of sponsored research
projects of the faculty is currently 116. The sponsors vary from government organizations like
Department of Science and Technology (DST) and Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO)
to Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and Council of Scientific & Industrial
Research (CSIR).
10. The NIT-R is also in the process of installing a High Performance Computing (HPC)
environment to support computationally intensive research in diverse fields, from chemistry and
mathematics to process simulation, Bioinformatics, Structural Mechanics and Industrial Design.
The centre also offers a wide range of software ranging from Auto CAD drafting package and
Matlab to Ansys and Solidworks. Industrial consultancy to solve problem in identified industries
is undertaken by NIT-R as projects which may involve human resource and laboratory resources.
Concerned industry may directly contact a faculty member who may be fit to solve their problem
and details of their research fields are available in the individual department’s site. Such viable
projects are registered duly within the institution before commencing the work with a mutually
agreeable fee formulated under NIT’s standard guidelines.
12. All these efforts have resulted in to a tremendous improvement in faculty satisfaction. They
recognise a positive wave in research culture. As seen from the Table 2 below, a vast majority
agrees that there have been improvements during TEQIP II period in collaborative research,
multi-disciplinary research, opportunities for networking, support system, academic freedom and
motivation.
11
Table 2: Response of NITR faculty about research culture
Question Strongly
Agree
(%)
Agree
(%)
Can’t say /
Neutral
(%)
Disagree
(%)
Strongly
Disagree
(%)
16 Collaborative and multi-
disciplinary research
42.9 42.9 14.3 0.0 0.0
17 Growth in opportunities for
networking, outside the institute
44.8 51.7 3.4 0.0 0.0
18 Support system 28.6 60.7 10.7 0.0 0.0
19 Overall academic freedom
and motivation for research
46.4 50.0 3.6 0.0 0.0
12
Appendix 3
Weaving Industry Institution Interaction (III) in to the Institutional Culture:
The Case of the Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai
Introduction
1. The case study of Institute of Chemical Technology (ICT), Mumbai is a single holistic case
which highlights the genesis and progress of Industry Institute Interaction (III), an area where
ICT has distinguished itself over the years as a model institution and TEQIP has helped
accelerate progress of III at the Institute. The case study involves various levels of analysis –
Board of Governors (BoG), faculty and students to illustrate how different actors have
contributed to the evolution and fortification of the institute’s linkages with the industry since its
inception. The institution is the unit of analysis. There could be valuable lessons for other
institutions to draw from this case study in taking forward their own initiatives for forging III
linkages. Though not meant to be used as a teaching case study, it can however, add value to a
classroom discussion on the subject of III in faculty development programmes for TEQIP
institutions.
Institutional Profile
2. Established on October 1, 1933 as the UDCT - University Department of Chemical
Technology of the University of Bombay (now Mumbai), to advance India's knowledge reserves
in chemical sciences and technology, the Institute has since grown in to an institution of
excellence devoted to education, training, research and industrial collaboration in chemical
engineering, chemical technology, applied chemistry, pharmacy, biotechnology and bio-
processing. The ICT which celebrated 80 years of its existence in 2012, has produced several
distinguished alumni with rich track record of achievements in industry, academia, government
and public service in India as well as abroad. Some of them have been bestowed international
honours.
3. The UDCT grew in stature over the years and was granted partial autonomy by the University
of Mumbai in 1985, which was taken to the next echelon under the concept of autonomy
propagated by the University Grants Commission (UGC). Upon the strong recommendation of
13
the UGC through a peer review process, the autonomous status was finally converted in to a
deemed University under Section 3 of UGC Act of 1956 by the Ministry of Human Resource
Development (MHRD), Govt. of India (GoI), on 12 September 2008 with a recommendation that
the deemed University should commence functioning from the academic year 2009-10. Based on
its stellar performance over the years, the Government of Maharashtra granted it the an elite
status as a Centre of Excellence in the State Assembly on April 20, 2013.
TEQIP at ICT
4. The Institute of Chemical Technology (ICT) participated in the Phase-1 of the Technical
Education Quality Improvement Program (TEQIP) and is currently implementing sub-
component 1.2 of the TEQIP II. One of the purposes of TEQIP is the capacity enhancement of
institutions, including management and leadership competencies, to achieve academic excellence
by creating and promoting a quality conscious culture, besides being able to respond effectively
to rapid economic and technological changes that require dynamic review of curriculum and
learning processes for students so that they remain relevant to potential employers. A Centre of
Excellence in Process Intensification for support to Process Industries also has been sanctioned
by the MHRD, GoI under the TEQIP programme.
5. The Institute has shown tremendous progress in implementing TEQIP II with significant
improvements in research output and infrastructure growth. As Prof. G.D. Yadav, the Hon’ble
Vice Chancellor of ICT emphasizes, ‘TEQIP has propelled the Institute to become an
Autonomous Institute and later a Deemed University’. ICT was recognized by TEQIP-I as the
best performing Institute in the country. In the second phase of TEQIP, ICT is treated as the peer
mentor for its excellent linkages with industry. The Institute has signed a large number of MOUs
with several industries and research organizations, surpassing targets proposed in the
Institutional Development Proposal. ICT has been leveraging each component of TEQIP to
promote excellence at all levels of the institution particularly for productive engagement with III.
In the last three years between 2011-12 and 2013-14, ICT, Mumbai has obtained 40 patents
while filing 50 applications for grant of patent.
6. As an institution participating in the sub-component 1.2 of the TEQIP program, ICT strives to
improve the quality of Masters’ students and Ph.D.s in Chemical Engineering, Chemical
14
Technology, and Allied Sciences keeping a fine balance between the fundamental sciences and
technological developments for applications in Industry and for the benefit of society and the
nation. ICT’s strategic plan lays much thrust on human resource development, focusing on
innovation for environmentally friendly and widely replicable technologies. As a National
Resource Centre, it provides excellent training in traditional engineering and technology
disciplines that not only provide better employment opportunities but also open up a window for
entrepreneurship in frontier areas of science and technology. The annual enrollment of post-
graduates and doctorates has increased by 25% under TEQIP, according to Prof. Yadav.
The III Eco-System in ICT
7. Since inception in early 1930’s, the ICT has created and sustained an eco-system in which
industry has been viewed as a partner in its teaching, research and consulting activities.
Capitalizing on its location in the commercial capital of the country, ICT recognized, according
to a senior member of faculty and Dean, Dr. Pandit, that both chemical and textile industries had
a strong presence in the city of Mumbai and that theoretical teaching and lab based research, had
little or no relevance to industry. Beginning with this early realization and driven strongly by the
advocacy of the academic – administrators like Prof. K. Venkata Raman and Prof. G.B. Kane
who were both associated with the institute in the 1940s and 1950s, the ICT has emerged today
as an institution whose academic agenda across all activities, is shaped by various industry
partners, in all the branches of the institution.
8. Further, the institution has always had focus on socially relevant research that contributed
value to minor forest produce such as karanja seeds, palm kernels, etc and to horticultural
produce such as mango kernels. TEQIP has further helped in promoting inter disciplinary as well
as inter-departmental coordination in approaching III related issues, through the strategic
planning and institutional reform processes, that are built in to the programme implementation
processes. In a survey of 28 members of the faculty of the ICT, 92% expressed satisfaction over
the improvement in the level of III and all of them expressed the view that collaborative and
multi-disciplinary research have been encouraged and well supported under TEQIP II. The
impact has been superior institutionalization of the III systems and more importantly, new inter
disciplinary courses are being introduced at undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
15
9. There has been a long standing tradition in ICT to induct reputed industrialists and
entrepreneurs from chemical industry on the governing body of the institution. In the current
BoG, three eminent industrialists, Shri Kishore V. Mariwala from Marico Industries, Shri. A.S.
Dhani from Asian Paints and Shri Lalith Chadha from Goodwill Group of Industries, are
represented. Both Mr. Kishore Bhai and Mr. Chadha conveyed to the case research team that
following the review of TEQIP progress in the meetings of the BoG, there was wider discussion
about bringing the industry problems and perspectives to guide the activities of the ICT,
including matters of curriculum design. The view that the BoG has been increasingly supportive
of the ICT’s networking with the industry was supported by 78% of the faculty.
Faculty Contribution to III
10. A formal business development unit or a Consultancy unit does not exist at ICT since it is the
institutional belief that every member of the faculty would take personal initiative to work with
the industry or industry segment related to the faculty member’s area of specialization. The
faculty team at ICT believes that talking the industry language rather than the pedantic approach
of academics, is the starting point in cultivating and sustaining relationships with industry
partners. Whether the relationship begins with participation of industry experts in one of the
academic events such as a seminar or conference hosted by the institution; an industry
representative comes into contact with the institution for testing or analytical services; or faculty
members of the institute seek to approach the industry for students in-plant training or regular
industry visits, the head of the department and the individual member of faculty who established
initial contact with industry, make it a point to deepen the relationship with a win-win outlook.
11. This is how even multi-national companies like the Hindustan Unilever which traditionally
worked only with the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) for their consulting and product
development support, are now drawn towards ICT. TEQIP has deepened the commitment of the
faculty at ICT to addressing the industry as strategic partners pursuing academic excellence. A
four member team of faculty oversees all III related initiatives, mainly planned under the scope
of TEQIP II.
16
12. In the pre-TEQIP years, it was usually the Heads of Department and senior members of
faculty who initiated big ticket consulting and research assignments but post TEQIP, the sense of
ownership among the faculty members has improved considerably in matters of III, since it is
one of the key performance indicators under the project. The rank and file of the faculty at the
institute are inclined to accept III as a priority in achieving the over all goals and objectives of
TEQIP. The senior faculty members are now increasingly serving as link between members of
ICT and the alumni who have set up industries or are pursuing entrepreneurial opportunities. The
younger faculty also helps in identifying ideas to develop new products and guide the alumni in
evaluating project opportunities. The faculty team of ICT has belief in strengthened culture of
providing knowledge support to such entrepreneurs.
Role of Students
13. There is a widely shared belief among the students at ICT that III contributes to richer
learning processes as 85% of a sample of 67 students who responded to a survey indicated that
industry internship and industry linked project work was very relevant to their quality of
learning. This view was also echoed by the faculty, 93% of whom agreed that III benefits the
students’ learning. The sense of pride and confidence among the students that their institution
affords strong exposure to industry during the course of their study at ICT was also evident
during the focus group discussions with both undergraduate and post graduate students. The post
graduate students were particularly happy that industry members on the BoG and the alumni
came forward to disburse scholarships as bridge assistance, whenever there were delays by the
UGC/ AICTE in transferring payments of the sanctioned scholarships. The Institute repaid the
amounts on receipt of the sanctioned payments. Over 80% of the students have expressed
satisfaction with the III support at ICT and the practical value of their learning.
14. The students believe that the faculty’s willingness and eagerness to involve them in all
interactions with industry, has been a key driver of III at ICT. When industry experts are invited
to deliver endowment lectures, roughly 100 of which happen annually, the students are
encouraged to interact with them. As the under graduate and post graduate students share their
project work with the industry experts, both formally and informally, much knowledge is
exchanged with a degree of facilitation by the faculty, which often leads to students attracting the
attention and at times an invitation from the industry to share their project findings with relevant
17
divisions of an industrial unit. Depending on the progress of the students’ project, the linkages
between the Institute and the industrial unit grow stronger which have the potential to lead to
more research and consulting engagements. Similar opportunities arise for students’ interaction
with industry when the latter visit ICT to participate in technology-transfer workshops and
conferences.
15. Industry representatives from all levels of management participate in various technology
related short-term training programmes at the Institute. During such courses, final year
undergraduate and post graduate students are given opportunities by the faculty in-charge of the
short term courses to assist the industry managers in carrying out the practical experiments in the
laboratories. While interpretation of results and linking the same to the learning objectives
remains the responsibility of the concerned faculty, students feel that they gain rich insights in to
how industry perceives the application of new technologies and related processes. There are
trade associations of manufacturers from the dyes and pigments; paints; and other chemicals
related industries who are supported with logistics and knowledge based services by ICT, which
serves as a bridge between the industry and both faculty and students of the Institute.
16. As Dr. Rathod, the Training and Placement Co-ordinator opines, the proof of the III is the
extent to which industry welcomes the students of ICT for exposure visits, internships and in-
plant training, which are an integral part of the pedagogy and the learning strategy for students.
This also paves the way for the placement of the graduating students. An in-plant training
programme of 45 to 60 days is compulsory for the third year undergraduate students during
which period, the students also make vital career decisions about joining the industry or pursuing
higher studies. Usually, the students visiting a particular industrial unit for in-plant training also
get an opportunity to do their industry internship at the same unit with the intervention of a
faculty member who has a rapport with the industry. The new website developed by the Training
and Placement Cell of ICT gives adequate details of the in-plant and internship exposure of the
students with other details of academic and non-academic achievements of the students which
makes it easier for potential employers to pick and choose students for joining the selection
process.
18
Non-Teaching Support for III
17. The non-teaching technical and administrative staff also contribute effectively to the progress
of III at the ICT. The technical non-teaching staff are sensitive to the functional maintenance of
equipment under their charge and are quite prompt in supporting the industry personnel with
product testing and other services involving the use of equipment, software and various services
including the library resources. This positively creates a goodwill for the Institute. The
administrative staff also play a very important role in keeping the accounts of expenditure
incurred under various industry sponsored projects. A quarterly review of the expenditure is
communicated to the sponsors with 25% overheads charged on industry sponsored projects and
15% on government sponsored studies. All savings in expenditure against the budgets are
promptly refunded to the sponsors while any surplus expenditure is also reported well in advance
which the industry appreciates and usually takes a supportive stand in favour of the ICT.
Conclusion
18. The above case study demonstrates that III is more about rich culture of industry orientation
within the technical education institutions and that TEQIP facilitates promotion and deepening of
III linkages in institutions. A pro-active effort this event on the part of all stakeholders within the
institution including the member of BoG, Heads of Institution, faculty and non-teaching staff to
come closer to the institution and the students. Dr. Gaikar, Coordinator of the TEQIP at ICT
some set up of TEQIP has made a conscious value of relationship have been built up with a
industry and the culture of nurturing a III orientation has deepen in the last couple of years. One
way for a second call from the industry even travel with a weekends academic work to make the
industry’s among for our services.
19
Appendix 4
Driving Good Governance at BVB College of Engineering: A Case study
Introduction
1. As discussed in Chapter 7 and elsewhere, TEQIP has ushered in wide ranging institutional
reforms, at an academic as well as administrative level. Traditionally, the subject of institutional
governance occupied very little mindspace of academics, as it was taken for granted that
academic processes were at the heart of an educational institution and matters of governance
were best left to the central or state governments in the case of government owned and aided
colleges and to the governing bodies of the trusts and societies that managed the technical
education institutions in regard to the privately managed ones. A single holistic case study of the
progress made by the BVB College of Engineering in strengthening institutional governance
systems under TEQIP has been highlighted here, with the institution as the unit of analysis.
Profile of the BVBCE, Hubli
2. Established in 1947 by the parent educational society namely the KLE Society, the BVB
College of Engineering (BVBCE) at Hubli offers twelve undergraduate and nine postgraduate
Programs with an annual student intake of 5,400 and faculty strength of 330. The College has
been enjoying an autonomous status since 2007 and has been selected for implementing sub-
component 1.1 of the TEQIP. The formal vision of the college is ‘to be one of the nation’s
premier engineering colleges by achieving the highest order of excellence in teaching and
research. We will be the preferred choice of students seeking Engineering and Management
education’. The statement of mission claims;
To impart quality technical education that meets the needs of present and emerging
technological world.
To strive for student achievement and success, preparing them for life and leadership.
To provide a scholarly and vibrant learning environment that enables staff and students
achieve personal and professional growth.
To contribute to advancement of knowledge, in both fundamental and applied areas of
engineering and technology.
20
To forge mutually beneficial relationships with governmental entities, industry, society
and the alumni.
Good Governance Initiative
3. The BVBCE is one of the institutions studied by an expert team from the World Bank that
developed the TEQIP Good Practice Guide for Governing Bodies. The BoG of the Institution
recognized very early in the process of implementing TEQIP that efforts at faculty development
and up gradation of physical infrastructure were important for quality improvement but cannot
be sustained in the long run without developing institutional capabilities based on sound
governance systems and processes. Their belief that good governance facilitates informed and
transparent decision making leading to higher organisational effectiveness that can in turn foster
sustained academic excellence, culminated in the governance development initiative that has
received wide acclaim among the project institutions. The starting point for the initiative was a
shared understanding of the key attributes, primary accountabilities and performance norms
among all members of the BoG based on a thorough study of the good practice guide with
considerable guidance from the World Bank expert team that authored the guide.
4. The BoG also made a set of assumptions about the anticipated institutional outcomes from the
good governance initiative, which were as follows;
A. The BoG would be able to learn from international best practices and develop good practices
that can guide the contribution of the present and future members of BoG to the institution. Best
practice or good practice was also defined as a method or technique that has consistently shown
results superior to those achieved with other means, and that could be used as benchmark.
B. Ensure openness, transparency and honesty in their operations for becoming well-known and
competitive, both nationally and internationally
C. Gain stakeholder confidence, respect and admiration which enhances the image, visibility,
reach and credibility of the BoG members.
21
The assumptions were also reflected in the responses of the HoI to the various questions about
the role of the BoG in enhancing the institutional performance. For instance, the HoI expressed
that the BoG regularly monitors the performance of students on their academic performance,
faculty on their research and teaching performance and the work of various committees in an
open and transparent manner that contributes to the image and credibility of the BoG.
Governance Development Plan
5. Once the assumptions were internalised, the BoG of the BVBCE embarked on a self review as
mandated in the TEQIP guidelines to identify the strengths in the functioning of the BoG and pin
point gaps with plan for development. As if to set an example, the BoG demonstrated utmost
candour and courage in making their self-assessment in regard to the multiple criteria laid down
in the TEQIP formats including issues like the accountability of the BoG in matters of financial
prudence, transparency in procurement, quality of degrees and diplomas, exercise of autonomies
and above all the composition of the BoG and their role in formalizing the strategic plan of the
institution with its vision and mission statements. All through the self assessment process, the
executive leadership of the College led by the HoI was fully involved. As the HoI shared during
the focus interview, there were moments of tension and disagreement between them and the BoG
but they were resolved constructively with several rounds of discussion, which in itself was a
learning experience for the BoG as well as the executive team.
6. Even as the self- review process helped the BoG in discovering and internalising the issues
related to governance with a sense of acceptance and ownership, the BoG learnt the rather
practical way that there were fundamental issues which generally prevented stakeholders from
appreciating good governance practices and could even hinder governance. These were;
Inadequate understanding and experience of the BoG members themselves in areas of
strategic planning, risk management, performance management and benchmarking.
Lack of well defined institutional processes to address issues like measuring effectiveness
of the BoG, conflict of interest, independence of BoG members and student participation.
Lack of active involvement of members of BoG in the Board discussions and willingness
to accept ownership for the implications of the decisions taken by them.
22
The above constraints were also highlighted by members of BoG even in mature, well governed
institutions such as the ICT, Mumbai and the evaluation team could not escape the perception
that the bottle-neck to institutional excellence was ‘right at the top of the bottle’ in terms of
competency gaps that the BoG of the BVBCE, Hubli has so humbly recorded.
7. Based on the self review, the BoG has developed the governance development plan which
envisages closing all the gaps that have been identified during the self-review, with which the
transition for the institution from the current state to the desired state would happen. The plan
incorporates the resources and actions needed to overcome the obstacles to good governance
highlighted in the preceding paragraph and more significantly draws the attention of the
management team and the HoI to what needs to be done to harvest the benefits of good
governance, as assumed by the BoG at the very outset of the governance initiative. With
reference to each gap that surfaced during the self-review, the HoI and his team has spelt out the
development intervention that would enable the institution to close the gap, with a time frame for
achieving the same. The persons responsible for making the intervention happen have also been
identified. Mostly, cross cutting teams of BoG members and the faculty/ HoI have been made the
responsibility centres for implementing the governance development goals.
Advice of the BoG, BVBCE
8. The BoG of BVBCE also offers advice based on their own experience with piloting the good
governance initiative, which could guide other institutions contemplating similar interventions
for good governance. The points of advice are;
• Do not adopt TEQIP good governance program just because, it is a project requirement
mandated by the GoI/ World-Bank/ NPIU/ SPFU.
• Adopt it with a genuine belief that it can make a positive difference to the long-term
development of your Institution.
• Buy-in and support of the chair of the governing body and members is essential.
• Have an empowered sub-committee of the BoG to oversee good governance initiatives.
• Goal and role clarity between the executive leadership and the BoG must be established.
The case study also offers valuable learning in terms of the need for having an independent
and diversified BoG and their ability and maturity to work in partnership with the academic
23
and executive team of the institutions. Good governance provides a framework for sustaining
quality and academic excellence in institutions of higher education in general and technical
education institutions in particular.
24
Appendix 5
GCT, Coimbatore: The Case of a Vibrant Alumni Association
Introduction
1. Today no engineering college of some standing can be without an active and vibrant alumni
association. Alumni as a body define the college more than any other stakeholder. The image of
the college largely depends on the quality, character and accomplishments of its alumni. Further,
alumni can be a source of great strength and support to an institution. They can act as brand
ambassadors, raise funds for their alma mater, arrange/ facilitate institute-industry interaction,
provide placement support and, if requested, even help identify good faculty for their school. The
terms generally used to describe an alumni association and to capture its role and responsibilities
are: an umbilical link, a vehicle, a medium and a platform. Whichever way these bodies are
described, the fact remains that their role in institutional excellence can be very fulfilling as the
single holistic case of the Government College of Technology (GCT), Coimbatore illustrates.
About the GCT, Coimbatore
2. The Government College of Technology (GCT), Coimbatore, was established in the year
1945. About 64 batches of students have passed out of this institution, which is an autonomous
state- funded engineering college located in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. It is a constituent of
Anna University of Technology, Coimbatore. Originally set up as Arthur Hope College of
Technology under the patronage of the philanthropist Gopi Naidu, the college was offered the
offices, workshops, and hostels of National Electrical Works for its facilities. In June 1950, the
college moved to the present site of about 45 hectares on Thadagam Road, Coimbatore. In 1951,
the college was renamed Government College of Technology (GCT) and was initially affiliated
to the University of Madras, later to the Bharathiar University .Since the academic year 2001-
2002, all undergraduate and postgraduate courses of GCT are affiliated to Anna Univerasity and
six new PG courses have been started . Since 2001.
25
Role of Alumni in Institutional Development
3. The alumni of this institution are located in various parts of the world. The contribution of
alumni towards the institutional growth has been diverse and phenomenal, including their role as
members of the institution’s BoG. Some of the areas where the alumni have made an impact on
the institution are as follows;
i. Academic Development: The alumni have been making substantial contribution towards
curriculum development to ensure that the students’ learning remains relevant to the job market.
Every engineering department of the institution has a Board of Studies (BoS) which has alumni
members who help in adding value to the content which they feel is important to bridge the gap
between industry and academics. Similarly, every engineering department offers an Industry
based elective subject. These subjects are fully or partially taught by alumni who are from the
industry. For example, Er. Lakshminarayanan from the 1984 batch who owns an automotive
company called M/s. Autozone Pvt. Ltd is a Member of the BoS in Mechanical Engineering
branch. Similarly, Er. Balaji of the 2003 batch is represented on the BoS in the Department of
Electrical and Electronics Engineering. He is a senior engineer with Robert Bosch and has been
contributing as a guest faculty on the subject of ‘Automotive Electronics’.
ii. Role in the Board of Governors: The following alumni of the institute are on the BoG;
1. Er. Ilango of 1985 batch (MD, RSM Autokast Limited) is the Chairman, BoG
2. Er. Lakshminaraynana of 1984 batch (MD, Autozone Pvt Ltd.) is the industry nominee on the
BoG
3. Dr. S. Subramaniam of 1970 batch is the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor of Karpagam University
and is also the member of the BoG.
4. Dr. Samuel Knight of 1986 batch is a senior professor at the Anna University and is the
University nominee on the BoG.
5. Er. Viswanathan of 1980 batch, a reputed builder is also a member of the BoG.
The above alumni members of the BoG take active interest in matters of governance, III and
devote much time for the institutional development as the faculty responses in Table 1
demonstrate. There is good improvement in the level of III, thanks to the effort of the alumni
26
members on the BOG who facilitate active networking with the industry and almost all students
are benefiting from it. As may be seen from Table 2 added to this there is very good level of
interaction between students and the alumni as Table 3 shows.
Table 1: Faculty views on role of BOG in promoting III
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Agree 25 35.7 36.8 36.8
Agree 39 55.7 57.4 94.1
Cant Say 3 4.3 4.4 98.5
Disagree 1 1.4 1.5 100
Total valid
responses 68 97.1 100
Not Responded
2 2.9
Total 70 100
Table 2: Faculty perception of improvement in III
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Very Satisfactory 10 14.3 14.7 14.7
Satisfactory 45 64.3 66.2 80.9
Neutral 7 10 10.3 91.2
Unsatisfactory 5 7.1 7.4 98.5
Very unsatisfactory 1 1.4 1.5 100
Total valid responses 68 97.1 100
Not Responded
2 2.9
Total 70 100
27
Table 3: Students responses about interaction with alumni
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Excellent 7 4.9 4.9 4.9
Very Good 21 14.6 14.7 19.6
Good 52 36.1 36.4 55.9
Satisfactory 47 32.6 32.9 88.8
Poor 16 11.1 11.2 100
Total valid responses 143 99.3 100
Not Responded
1 0.7
Total 144 100
iii. Infrastructure Development: The old students have constructed an ‘Alumni Building’ with
an investment Rs. 2.5 crores. The construction work was taken up by an old student Er.
Viswanathan of 1980 batch who is a leading builder in Coimbatore. The architectural design of
the building was done by Er. Raghavendran from 1980 batch– a leading architect in Coimbatore.
The building has a big auditorium of 1000 people capacity, a mini auditorium, 7 guest suites and
a conference hall.
iv. Scholarships: Several alumni are contributing towards scholarships every year, benefiting
around 200 to 250 students every year. Students who are in need of financial support approach
the Alumni Office and draw support through the alumni.
v. Hostel Renovation: Being a government institution, hostels do not get the required financial
support for repair and maintenance. The old students are taking up repairs and repainting of the
hostels. The alumni of 1988 batch spent Rs. 50 lakhs and renovated the final year boys’ hostel.
Alumni of 1989 batch are contributing to the repairs of the third year students’ hostel. The living
condition of students has improved significantly with the alumni support.
vi. Alumni Connect Event: Yearly Alumni Connect event invites old students who are
entrepreneurs to set up stalls to showcase their products. This will be supplemented with talks
28
and panel discussions. The college students visit these stalls inside the campus and this motivates
them to take up entrepreneurship as a career option and also obtain guidance from seniors.
vii. Laboratories with Industry Link: Laboratories have been established through alumni. Er.
Madhu of 1988 batch, working in Texas Instruments, helped in establishment of a Texas–GCT
Laboratory in the campus. Equipment worth about 20 lakhs has been set up. Training has also
been imparted to faculty and students in the laboratory.
viii. GCT Diaries: The old students are also developing a website for interaction with current
students. The website’s beta version has been launched. It helps the current students to discuss
with alumni and get project work guidance, financial help, mentoring etc. The official version of
the website will be launched soon.
ix. Alumni Health Fund: Students of the institution, who get seriously ill or are hurt in the
event of an accident or die, need financial support. The alumni of the institution have set up an
Alumni Health Fund which supports students financially during such emergency situations.
4. As the case of GCT, Coimbatore demonstrates, there are multifarious ways in which the
institution can harvest benefits from the relations that can be maintained and nurture with the
past students of an institution. The strategy for networking with the alumni and drawing them
closer to the institution has to be driven by the top management team in active co-ordination with
the BoG. During the course of this evaluation study, there have been few other success stories of
fostering healthy alumni associations and drawing on their strengths to support student learning
processes as was observed at the JNTU- Kakinada and the ICT- Mumbai.
29
Appendix 6
Push for Industrial Consultancy: A Caselet on GNDEC
About Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College
1. Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College is a 58 year old institution located in the industrial
town of Ludhiana, Punjab. The college is implementing TEQIP II subcomponent 1.1 and
falls under government aided, minority co-ed category. The institution is managed by a not-
for-profit trust - Nankana Sahib Education Trust (regd 1953), which has a unique admission
criterion reserving 70% of intake for rural students. Its 88 acre residential campus is located
at just 5 kms from city centre. Affiliated to Punjab Technical University, Kapurthala; the
institution offers 7 UG courses and 12 PG courses. The annual intake is over 400 for UG and
over 200 for PG courses. Apart from 7 core engineering departments, there are 2 departments
offering MBA and MCA courses and 1 department of Applied Sciences. The responsibilities
of central administration are shared between the Director and 5 Deans, one each for
Academics, Post Graduate Studies & Research, Students Welfare, Testing & Consultancy
and Training & Placement.
Industrial Consulting Support at GNDEC
2. Located in the hinterlands of Punjab, the institution is inaccessible to bigger industries
mostly headquartered in the metro cities of India. Like any tier-II city, the industries around
Ludhiana have limited appetite for collaborations with academic institutions. As a result,
generating internal revenue through consultancy can be very challenging for institutions
operating in such areas. As most institutions operate with minimal initiative on this front,
some are contented with providing elementary testing services to neighboring industries or
government departments (such as pollution control board, public works departments, etc.).
Working against this tide, GNDEC developed an innovative structure in the form of a
dedicated Testing & Consultancy Cell, to boost its industrial consultancy services.
3. The Cell acts as a single point of contact between the industry clientele and the institute,
and is responsible for overall coordination of each testing and consultancy assignment. The
30
cell is manned by a team of 2 dedicated personnel and led by a professor. In each department,
there is a team of one faculty member and lab assistants who coordinate testing and
consultancy at the department level. The complete consultancy project may be carried out by
a project leader or principal investigator, but the responsibility of coordination rests with the
Testing & Consultancy Cell. The institution also has a Dean level position to drive Testing &
Consultancy activity, in addition to Deans for PG Studies & Research and Training &
Placement. The creation of the Testing & Consultancy Cell shows the emphasis put by the
management on the industrial consultancy activities.
4. In addition, there is a well defined structure for sharing incentives from consultancy
revenues, with the members of a project team. This practice was also observed in many other
government institutions but not widely communicated and fully understood. Without
complete clarity of ‘what is in it for the faculty’ the incentivisation processes do not yield
results in motivating the faculty team. Therefore, having a dedicated and empowered
‘Testing and Consultancy Cell’ as in the case of GNDEC may help promote focus on
meaningful industrial consultancy, which could also add value to the III efforts. The
information brochure used by the Testing and Consultancy Cell of the GNDEC as part of
their publicity and promotional literature, highlights the strengths of the institution in various
departments. Snippets 1 to 4 are drawn from the brochures for of four departments.
According to the faculty in-charge of the Cell, the objective is to project the institution as an
end-to-end solution provider in industrial consultancy services.
Impact of Testing & Consultancy Cell
5. The Testing and Consultancy Cell of the GNDEC has helped the institution execute
projects for various national and international companies. The Cell has enabled the institution
to make better use of assets and processes developed under TEQIP. Annually, the institution
has been implementing projects worth over Rs 10 million on an average. Apart from the
growth in internal revenue generation, the major contribution from the Cell has been the
learning opportunities it provides to the faculty and students. The battery of available live
experiences excites the students whose creativity also gets ignited. In the words of a
postgraduate student, “the excitement in creating a prototype PCB [printed circuit board] for
31
industry is totally different from creating that for a textbook assignment.” No wonder that the
Cell finds prominent mention in the institutional literature and that of the management
studies department of the institution.
Snippet 1: Civil Engineering Department
32
Snippet 2: Electrical Engineering Department
Snippet 3: Electronics Engineering Department
33
Snippet 4: Mechanical Engineering Department
34
Appendix 7
Human Resource Management of Faculty: Three Comparative Caselets
Introduction
1. The most evident contributing factor to academic excellence as the evaluation team
discovered during the study was the salient role that faculty and non-teaching staff play in the
technical education institutions, of course motivated and supported by the BoG and the
executive leadership. The institutions that were endowed with a dedicated team of competent
faculty have demonstrated a phenomenal rise in performance under TEQIP. Hence while
contemplating any academic or non-academic initiative for quality improvement, it is a pre-
requisite to get the faculty bench strength in place. A vibrant campus buzzing with activity
catches the eye of a visitor in no time. This triple-caselet (Table 1) brings out the human
resources issues across institutions, and the role of talent management in building up
motivated human capital. Needless to emphasise that numbers imply quantity with quality
and not just hiring faculty on temporary basis for the sake of ‘record’ as some have done.
Table 1: List of Institutions taken for Comparative Study
Sr. No Name of Institution State Category TEQIP
Component
1 Government College of
Engineering, Karad
Maharashtra Government 1.1
2 Sri Siddhartha Institute of
Technology, Tumkur
Karnataka Private Unaided 1.2
3 GH Raisoni College of
Engineering, Nagpur
Maharashtra Private Unaided 1.2
35
Government College of Engineering (GCE), Karad
2. Established in 1960, the institution is located in rural western Maharashtra. Spread over 40
acre land, the institute campus houses 9 academic departments (including MCA),
instructional facilities (classrooms / labs / workshops), student hostels and staff residence.
The institute offers 6 undergraduate programmes and 5 postgraduate programmes in core
engineering disciplines, with a total intake of 485. This well established institution receives
100% grant from the government and is equipped with state of the art facilities in several
departments.
3. The faculty requirement as per AICTE norms comes to about 111, which would ensure the
faculty: student ratio of 1:15. However, the actual strength is only 46 as Table 2 shows,
resulting in a ratio of 1:34. A similar picture was cited for non-teaching administrative staff
and non-teaching technical staff during FGDs. This severe shortage of human resources puts
tremendous strain on the faculty resources. Scheduling classes becomes a nightmare for the
institution, and many theory classes as well as practicals have to be entrusted to either adhoc
teachers or postgraduate students or lab assistants. Even a talented faculty member
overburdened with too many classes and practicals would not be able to perform and deliver.
Moreover, the faculty members, being Class I gazetted officers of the state government, are
subject to frequent transfers across colleges in the state. During informal interactions with
students, their resentment and the consequent tension between the students and the
establishment was evident.
Table 2: Faculty position in GCE, Karad
Sr
No
Description Number of faculty members
1 AICTE Norms for faculty 111
2 Regular full time faculty 37
2a Of which PhD 11
2b Of which ME / MTech / MSc, but not PhD 25
2c Of which not holding ME / MTech 1
36
3 Adhoc / Contractual full time 9
3a Of which PhD 0
3b Of which ME / MTech / MSc, but not PhD 3
3c Of which not holding ME / MTech / MSc 6
4 Vacancies 65
4. Discussions with the head of the institution revealed that the recruitment for permanent
faculty happens through the State Public Service Commission. The entire cycle of
recruitment takes more than 12 months. Moreover, the joining rate of selected candidates is
also not 100%. The shortfall in staff strength is made up through temporary hiring with
college level advertisements in local dailies. However, the quality of candidates opting for
these temporary positions is not up to the mark. Thus the short term contractual appointments
also get delayed due to lack of suitable candidates fulfilling the quality norms. A state level
recruitment drive to fill the vacant positions cannot wait as the learning outcomes for the
students can be adversely affected. This case let reflects the situation with faculty strength in
most government colleges not only in Maharashtra state but in other states, too.
G H Raisoni College of Engineering (GHRCE), Nagpur
5. GHRCE is the flagship institute of Raisoni Group of Institutions operating out of a 25 acre
campus. Established in 1984, the institution today offers 7 undergraduate programmes and 12
postgraduate programmes, with an annual intake of about 1284. During interaction with the
senior leadership, it was discovered that the number of vacancies and the number of
undergraduate faculty was kept at the lowest. Though the AICTE mandatory disclosure in
this regard could not be accessed to get accurate figures on faculty strength, it can be said
that the pre-requisite to building academic excellence exists in terms of numbers. But the
challenge was that nearly 50% of faculty had joined the institution recently during the last 5
years. The newer faculty has not settled in yet and they are not motivated to think beyond
their routine job description. Thus a culture of academic excellence is yet to evolve, even if
numbers are in place, and TEQIP is helping break the ‘rookie culture’ through FDPs and
other networking events.
37
Sri Siddhartha Institute of Technology (SSIT), Tumkur
6. SSIT was established by Sri Siddhartha Education Society, Tumkur in the year 1979. The
institution is spread over a 55 acre campus with 33,000 sq. m built up area that houses
academic blocks, residential hostels and a host of student friendly amenities. A beautiful
geodesic building that functions as central library adorns the campus like a jewel. The
Institute runs 9 undergraduate programmes and 8 postgraduate programmes (including
MCA), with an annual intake of 836. As may be seen from Table 3, faculty numbers are
right and it seemed that the composition was also balanced in terms of their academic
background. Here, the prerequisite to academic excellence did exist in terms of numbers, and
presumably quality too, and the team is beginning to leverage TEQIP more effectively in its
journey towards academic excellence.
Table 3: Faculty position in SSIT, Tumkur
Sr
No
Description Number of faculty members
1 AICTE Norms for faculty 196
2 Regular full time faculty data not available for regular vs
contractual positions
3 Full time faculty members 189
3a Of which PhD 32
3b Of which ME / MTech / MSc, but not PhD 157
4 Vacancies 6
Notes :
1) 1 faculty member is on sabbatical leave for completing PhD (full time).
2) 58 faculty members have registered for PhD in part-time mode
7. From the case lets above, three distinct stages of talent management in technical education
institutions, could be discerned with respect to the faculty component of human resources.
The first institution highlights the lack of numbers in faculty strength and the constraints to
38
recruitment that government institutions are typically confronted with. In the second
institution, numbers were in place but they were yet to establish a team based culture of
performance due to the predominant proportion of younger recruits. The third institution had
an established faculty team and seemed well poised to begin its journey towards excellence.
These stages serve as the building blocks in the continuum of talent management, at the
faculty level.
39
Annexure 1.1
Key Performance Indicators of the TEQIP II Project
Sr. No
Indicator 2009-2010 Baseline
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual
1 Share of supported programs that are accredited or applied for
30% 35% 20.79% 40% 26.47% 45% 34.88% 50% 48.54%
2 Percentage Faculty with at least an M. Tech (regular and contract)
45% 45% 85.92% 50% 85.11% 55% 86.07% 60% 87.20%
3 Total number of Master and PhD students 30000 32000 36135 33000 36184 34000 41289 34000 41246
4 Number of publications in refereed journals (within the field of Engineering)
7032 7500 10066 8000 14911 8500 16229 9000 14565
5 Percentage of Faculty with or pursuing M. Tech and PhD (regular and contract)
63% 63% 86.88% 64% 86.28% 68% 87.49% 73% 88.85%
6 Percentage of externally funded research and development projects and consultancies in total revenue
6% 7% 8.85% 8% 8.82% 9% 11.67% 10% 11.35%
7 Transition rate of all students from the first year to the second year of under graduate study
0% 48% 59.25% 51% 63.48% 54% 61.16% 58% 18.51*
8
Transition rate of students from disadvantaged backgrounds from the first year to second year of undergraduate study
45% 45% 56.46% 48% 59.76% 51% 56.95% 55% 17.85*
9
Direct Beneficiaries (number) 300000 300000 376219 320000 375954 335000 398377 350000 395928
of which female (percentage) 26% 26% 28.06% 27% 28.85% 28% 29.08% 30% 29.37%
10 Percentage of institutions with academic autonomy
30% 40% 51.28% 50% 57.05% 60% 57.89% 65% 61.05%
11 Number of faculty members that have benefitted from the teaching effectiveness training (under sub-component 1.3) through IITs
---
---
---
---
--- --- 180 1000 838 (c)
12 Share of TEQIP Supported Engineering Institutions from lagging states as agreed by DEA and World Bank (i.e. Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh)
17.7% 20% --- 20% --- 20% 19% 20% 19%
13 Number of governance self reviews received ---
---
---
---
--- ---
65 80 166 (c)
14 Number of Governance Development plans received
---
---
---
---
--- ---
--- 20 38 (c)
15 Fully functional MIS : Number of institutions reporting at least 70% of the indicators
---
---
---
---
--- ---
43 150 167
Source: NPIU September, 2014
40
Annexure 1.2
Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme (TEQIP) Phase‐II
List of Project Institutions
Sl.
No.
Name of State/CFIs
Sub‐component
1.1
Sub‐component
1.2
Total No. of
Institutions
1 Andhra Pradesh 13 11 24
2 Bihar 2 ‐‐ 2 2 -- 2
3 Chhattisgarh 4 -- 4
4 Gujarat 7 -- 7
5 Haryana 3 3 6
6 Himachal Pradesh 1 -- 1
7 Jharkhand 1 1 2
8 Karnataka 4 15 19
9 Kerala 19 -- 19
10 Madhya Pradesh 3 2 5
11 Maharashtra 7 10 17
12 NCT‐Delhi 0 1 1
13 Odisha 2 -- 2
14 Punjab 7 1 8
15 Rajasthan 9 -- 9
16 Tamil Nadu 5 4 9
17 Tripura 1 -- 1
18 UT-Chandigarh 2 1 3
19 UT-Puducherry 1 -- 1
20 Uttar Pradesh 2 5 7
21 Uttarakhand 1 2 3
22 West Bengal 11 4 15
23 CFIs 8 17 25
Total 113 77 190
41
Annexure 2.1
Survey Schedule-H: Survey of Heads of Institution
Section I: Profile of the Respondent
(Please tick the appropriate response, in case of multiple choice questions)
1. Name :
2. Age : Years
3. Gender : Male Female
4. Highest Academic Qualification:
(including post-doctoral)
5. Specialization / Department:
6. Designation:
7. Social Category;
SC General Others (Pl. Specify)
ST Minorities
OBC Physically Challenged
8. Cumulative Teaching experience: Years
9. Of which, experience with the present institution: Years
10. No of years in the present position as Head of
the Institution: Years
42
Section II: Autonomy and Funding
11. Has your institution been granted autonomy? Yes No
12. If yes, please mention the year when autonomy was granted:
13. How do you perceive the level of autonomy? (Please tick as appropriate)
Type of Autonomy Full Substantial Minimal
Academic-Policy
Academic-Operational
Financial
Administrative
14. Have you been receiving any grant-in-aid from the
State/Central Government? Yes No
15. If YES, mention the amount of grant-in-aid
A) 2009-10 - Rs. in Lakhs
B) 2012-13 – Rs. in Lakhs
16. Indicate the sources of internal revenue and levels of utilization / surplus;
(Rs. in Lakhs)
Revenues 2009-10 2012-13
a) Tuition fees
b) Hostel rent
c) Application & examination fees
d) Alumni & other donations
e) Others (Pl. specify)
Total Internal Revenue Earned
Revenue Utilization
Surplus/Deficit (excluding grant-in-aid)
43
17. Indicate the availability of various funds identified below; (Rs. in Lakhs)
Type of Funds 2009-10 (31-3-10) 2012-13 (31-3-13)
Institutional Corpus Fund
Institutional Development Fund
Infrastructure Maintenance Fund
Staff Welfare Fund
Faculty & Staff Development
Student welfare Fund
Depreciation Reserve
Others (Pl. Specify)
Section III: Governance and Management
18. Do you have the Board of Governors (BoG)/ Equivalent Body?
Yes No
19. If yes, year of establishment:
20. Constitution of the BoG, Board of Studies, Academic Council
No. of
Members
No. of Meetings in a
year
2009-10 2012-13
BoG
Central Govt.
State Govt
Faculty
Staff
Industry
Educationists
Others (please specify)
Board of Studies
Academic Council
44
21. What improvements have been there since 2009-10 in the performance of the BoG in the
following areas; (Please furnish evidence/examples in support of your responses and use
additional sheets, if necessary)
i. Role of BoG in formulating institution’s Vision, Mission and strategic objectives
ii. Taking timely policy/ strategic decisions facilitating the institution’s vision and mission
iii. Examination and approval of proposals of various committees such as Academic
Committee, Finance Committee, Building/ Works Committee, Purchase Committee etc.
iv. Review of progress in implementation of TEQIP and achieving its goals
v. Suggesting measures for enhancing reach and effectiveness of industry interaction
45
vi. Ensuring institutional compliance with regulatory systems
Regulatory Body Status of fulfillment of Regulatory
Requirements
AICTE
NAAC
NBA
UGC
Affiliating University
State Government – DTE
vii. Ensuring accountability of various departments and support functions of the institution
viii. Overseeing proper allocation of resources and utilization of funds
ix. Utilising Information Technology / Management Information Systems (MIS)
x. Obtaining periodical feedback from mentors and other stakeholders including students
faculty and non-teaching staff
46
xi. Developing policy for recruitment of faculty and staff
xii. Reviewing service rules for faculty and staff
xiii. Considering and reviewing schemes for performance appraisal of faculty and
administrative officers
xiv. Reviewing and revising schemes for compensating and incentivising faculty and staff
xv. Developing and reviewing policies for procurement of goods and services
47
Section IV: Academic Excellence
22. What improvements have been made in the following aspects of academic excellence
since 2009-10 in your institution? (Please furnish evidence/examples in support of your
responses and use additional sheets, if necessary)
i. Benchmarking quality norms and curriculum for various subjects of study with premier
institutions
ii. Research profile of your institute
iii. Exchange programmes with reputed institutions (please ignore, if not applicable)
iv. Interaction with industry and potential employers to understand the market for your
graduate / post-graduate courses
v. Assessment of the course content and design with help from outside experts
vi. Improvement in transition rate for students from first year to second year of the
undergraduate courses
48
vii. Increase in faculty with Post-graduate/ doctoral qualification
viii. Efforts to leverage TEQIP for promoting academic excellence in your institution
ix. TEQIP’s contribution to the enhancement of employability of your graduates / post-
graduates
x. TEQIP’s contribution to the growth of IRG of your institution
Section V: TEQIP Interventions
23. Please comment on the following initiatives introduced under the TEQIP programme?
(Please furnish evidence/examples in support of your responses and use additional sheets, if
necessary)
i. Mentoring system for institution building
ii. Performance audit system
49
iii. Governance programme for enriching the role of the board of governors
iv. Management information system
v. Procurement management system support
vi. Financial management system
vii. Faculty Development Programmes
viii. Teaching, Training and Learning Resources
ix. Upgradation of Physical Infrastructure
x. Enhancing R&D Profile of the Institution
50
xi. Post Graduate fellowships
xii. Learning support to weak students
24. Among the intervention listed in Q.No.23 above, please identity the intervention which
received, the highest priority of your institution?
25. Can you identity four major achievements of your institution that are directly attributable
to TEQIP-II?
1.
2.
3.
4.
26. a) Please comment on the release of funds to your institution under TEQIP programme
51
b) What are your suggestions for ensuring timely release of TEQIP funds
1.
2.
3.
4.
27. What are your suggestions to make overall implementation of TEQIP more effective.
1.
2.
3.
4.
28. Identity two major areas where you need additional support from TEQIP for your
institution to grow.
i.
ii.
Thank You
52
Annexure 2.2
Survey Schedule–F: Survey of Teaching Staff / Faculty
Section I: Profile of the Respondent
(Please tick the appropriate response, in case of multiple choice questions)
1. Name :
2. Mobile No. / Email ID :
3. Age : Years
4. Gender : Male Female
5. Academic Qualifications :
Level Degree
Undergraduate
Post-graduate
Doctoral
Other relevant qualifications
(including post-doctoral)
6. Specialization/ Department :
7. Designation
Professor Lecturer
Associate Professor Others (Pl. specify)
Assistant Professor
8. Any other quasi-academic/ administrative responsibility held by you?
Yes No
53
9. If yes, Please specify the nature of the responsibility.
10. Social Category
SC General Others (Specify)
ST Minorities
OBC Physically Challenged
11. Teaching experience: Years
12. Of which, experience with the present institute: Years
Section II: Academic and Professional Growth since 2009-10
(Please tick the appropriate response, in case of multiple choice questions)
13. Whether any qualification has been/is being acquired by you since 2009-10?
Yes No
14. If yes, then provide the following details
Qualification 1) 2)
Discipline
Year of joining
Year of passing*
Sponsoring Scheme
*Write “Pursuing” if degree is not awarded yet.
15. Post 2009-10, has there been an increase in the proportion of post-graduates
(ME/M.Tech) among the regular faculty?
Yes No
54
16. Has there been an increase in the proportion of doctorates among regular faculty ?
Yes No
17. In your institute, collaborative and multi-disciplinary research have been encouraged
and well supported.
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
18. Is there a growth in opportunities (such as participation in conferences, seminars, etc.) for
networking with peers in your field outside the institute.
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
19. The support system for pursuing research in your institute now is
Very Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory Very Unsatisfactory
Neutral
20. Overall, there is increased academic freedom and motivation for pursuing research in
your institute.
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
21. Are you satisfied with your contribution to the internal revenue growth (IRG) of your
Institution?
Yes No
55
22. What concrete measures do you recommend for improving the quality of research in your
institute?
1.
2.
3.
Section III: Performance of Students since 2009-10
(Please tick the appropriate response, in case of multiple choice questions)
23. Is there a change in the learning and scholastic orientation/ preparation of the students in
your institute ?
Very Satisfactory Show minimal interest
Show reasonable interest Unsatisfactory
Very unsatisfactory
24. The improvement in the learning aptitude of the students in your branch of the institute is
Very Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory Very Unsatisfactory
Neutral
25. In your branch, the performance of students in exams and their knowledge of the subject
is improving
Very Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory Very Unsatisfactory
Neutral
56
26. Overall, how do you feel about the quality of students attracted by your institute and your
branch since 2009-10?
Very Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory Very Unsatisfactory
Neutral
27. The transition rate in your branch of the institute from first year to second year has been
improving
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
28. If you do not agree with the preceding statement, what could be the reasons for the low
transition rate?
1.
2.
3.
29. If the transition rate in your institution was more than 75%, then what could be the
reasons for this?
1.
2.
3.
57
30. What concrete measures do you recommend for improving the quality of teaching in your
institute in relation to the TEQIP?
1.
2.
3.
31. What do you think about the job placements for your institute's students over the past
three years?
Very Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory Very Unsatisfactory
Neutral
Section IV: Institutional Systems and Management since 2009-10
(Please tick the appropriate response, in case of multiple choice questions)
32. The library facilities in your institute (including access to online databases) have
improved.
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
33. The teaching aids in the institute such as audio-visual aids, demonstration kits, etc. are
appropriate now.
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
58
34. The laboratory equipments, simulation software and their maintenance in your
organization have improved?
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
35. Overall, how would you rate the improvement in the infrastructure of your institute?
Very Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory Very Unsatisfactory
Neutral
36. There is more transparency now while making key decisions like recruitment,
promotions, procurement, etc. in your organization.
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
37. In your organization, generally decisions are now taken in a more participatory manner.
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
38. Does your institute meet the minimum norms of AICTE/University regarding
faculty:student ratio?
Yes No
59
39. Faculty recruitment to fill any vacancies in your organization now happens with a sense
of urgency.
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
40. What is the system of compensation being followed in your case?
UGC 6th
Pay Commission Any others (Specify)
Scale
Independent Scales Not sure
IIT Scale
41. How do you feel about the compensation and benefits attached to your job?
Very Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory Very Unsatisfactory
Neutral
42. What non-monetary benefits does your job offer?
60
43. Keeping the compensation and benefits aside, the human resource management practices
in your institution, have improved?
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
44. Does your organization have a policy for sharing fees or income generated from
research, consultancy, etc. with faculty?
Yes No
45. If yes, please provide an outline of the policy.
46. There is improvement in the level of industry-institute-interaction in your institute.
Very Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory Very Unsatisfactory
Neutral
47. The Board of Governors (or equivalent body) actively supports your initiatives for
networking to promote industry-institute-interaction.
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
61
48. The students have benefited from industry-institute-interaction.
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
49. What concrete measures do you recommend for improving the industry-institute-
interaction in your institute?
1.
2.
3.
Section V: TEQIP Interventions
50. What is your level of satisfaction with the following initiatives introduced under the
TEQIP programme. (Please tick as appropriate)
i. Mentoring system for institution building
Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very unsatisfactory
ii. Performance audit system
Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very unsatisfactory
iii. Governance programme for enriching the role of the board of governors
Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very unsatisfactory
iv. Management information system
Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very unsatisfactory
62
v. Procurement management system support
Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very unsatisfactory
vi. Financial management system
Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory Very unsatisfactory
51. Can you identity four major achievements of your institution that are directly attributable
to TEQIP-II?
1.
2.
3.
4.
52. a) Do you agree that release of funds to your institution under TEQIP programme is
timely and well scheduled
Yes No
b) If you do not agree what are your suggestions for ensuring timely release of funds
1.
2.
3.
4.
53. What are your suggestions to make overall implementation of TEQIP more effective.
1.
2.
3.
4.
63
54. Identity two major areas where you need additional support from TEQIP for your
institution to grow.
i.
ii.
Thank You
64
Annexure 2.3
Survey Schedule–S: Survey of Students / Research Scholars
Section I: Profile of the Respondent
(Please tick the appropriate response, in case of multiple choice questions)
1. Name:
2. Mobile number / e-mail ID :
3. Age:
4. Gender: Male Female
5. Course of Study: UG / PG / Research Scholar
6. Branch of Study:
7. Year of study:
8. Social category:
SC General Others (Specify)
ST Minorities
OBC Physically Challenged
Section II: Quality of Instruction
How do you rate the following? (please tick as appropriate)
9. Subject knowledge of the faculty
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
65
10. Teaching skills of the faculty
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
11. Teaching aids used by faculty
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
12. Lecture notes provided by faculty
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
13. Take-aways from Lab work, Practicals and Assignments
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
14. Relevance of Project work / Internship to your learning
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
15. Support to slow learners (remedial classes, special coaching etc.)
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
16. Design of Course curriculum
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
Section III: Learning Environment and Ambiance
How do you rate the following? (please tick as appropriate)
17. Guidance from faculty
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
66
18. Quality of Peer interaction and Group learning
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
19. Support for self-learning
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
20. Conferences / Professional activities and other Learning events
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
21. Interaction with industry
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
22. Interaction with alumni
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
Section IV: Academic Progression
How do you rate the following? (please tick as appropriate)
23. Your performance in exams
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
24. Knowledge gained during the course
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
25. Acquisition of practical skills
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
67
26. Additional skills required for professional success
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
Section V: Management and Infrastructure
How do you rate the following? (please tick as appropriate)
27. Classroom facilities
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
28. Lab / Workshop facilities
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
29. Library services including electronic resources
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
30. Computer services
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
31. Sports / Recreation / Cultural /Literary facilities
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
32. Hostel facilities
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
68
33. Administrative support services like redressal of student grievances, courtesy of
office staff, etc.
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
Section VI: Employability
How do you rate the following? (please tick as appropriate)
34. Career guidance received
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
35. Soft skills & Personality development
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
36. Placement related services of your institution
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
37. Placement record of your institution
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
38. What is your career choice after completing the course?
Higher Education Own business or Entrepreneurship
Job Others (please specify)
39. Please state reasons for your above choice:
69
Section VII: Institutional Assessment
40. What are the 3 major strengths of your institution?
i.
ii.
iii.
41. What are the 3 major weaknesses of your institution?
i.
ii.
iii.
42. What are your suggestions for improving the quality of your course?
43. Have you heard of the Technical Education Quality Improvement program (TEQIP)?
Yes No
44. If yes, identify 2 major benefits from TEQIP to your institution:
i.
ii.
70
45. What do you think about the improvements in your institution between the time of your
joining and now, in the following areas? (Please answer this question ONLY IF you have been a
student of this institution for more than two years.)
i. Quality of instruction
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
ii. Learning environment and ambiance
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
iii. Academic progression
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
iv. Management and infrastructure
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
v. Employability skills
Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
Thank You
71
Annexure 2.4
Survey Schedule–A: Survey of Non-teaching Staff
Section I: Profile of the Respondent
(Please tick the appropriate response, in case of multiple choice questions)
1. Name :
2. Mobile No. / Email ID :
3. Age : Years
4. Gender : Male Female
5. Qualifications
Level Title
Undergraduate
Post-graduate
Other relevant
qualifications
6. Designation
Finance Officer Administrative Officer
Registrar Procurement Officer
Librarian IT Administrator
Others (Specify)
7. Any other responsibility held by you? Please specify.
Yes No
72
8. Total experience : Years
9. Of which, experience with the present institute: Years
Section II. Improvements in Organization Systems and Procedures Under TEQIP II
10. You are better aware since 2009-10, of the basis on which administrative decisions like
procurement, recruitment, promotions, postings, etc. are taken in your organization.
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
11. Infrastructure in your institute such as library, laboratories, class rooms, etc. has improved?
Very Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory Very Unsatisfactory
Neutral
12. Since 2009-10, there is increased investment in ICT for efficient administration.
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
13. Top management utilizes the MIS reports generated at different levels.
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
73
14. The board of governors (or equivalent body) involves you more actively since 2009-10, in
making decisions on your administrative proposals.
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
15. Following TEQIP II, recruitment to fill key vacancies of administrative positions happens
with a sense of urgency.
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
Section III. Job Satisfaction
16. What is the system of compensation being followed in your case ?
UGC 6th
Pay Commission Scale Not sure
Independent Scale Any others (Specify)
17. How do you feel about the compensation and benefits attached to your job?
Very Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory Very Unsatisfactory
Neutral
18. Keeping the compensation and benefits aside, do you have any issues related to the
employment?
Yes No
74
If yes, list them in order of importance. You may also include issues already highlighted
in the questionnaire so far. Attach separate sheet if required.
1.
2.
3.
19. In your institution, TEQIP tools, mechanisms and support have brought a positive change.
Strongly Agree Disagree
Agree Strongly Disagree
Can’t Say
20. In what ways can TEQIP help you and your sub-ordinates perform better ?
1.
2.
3.
Thank you
75
Annexure 2.5
Profiles of Core Study Team
Prof. Hemnath Rao H (Team Leader)
Hemnath Rao H, is currently the Dean of Management Programmes at the Administrative
Staff College of India, besides being the Director, Centre for Poverty Studies and Rural
Development at the College. Dr. Hemnath Rao holds a Doctorate in management, with Masters'
degrees in Business Administration from both JNTU, Hyderabad and the University of Durham
in the United Kingdom. He has designed and delivered programmes in strategic management,
agribusiness strategies, rural management and advanced general management for senior and top
management of large public and private sector enterprises, senior civil servants, technocrats and
entrepreneurs from within India, South Asia, Pacific Region and across Continental Africa.
Has been lecturing at leading management institutions across the country and abroad and is a
Visiting Professor at the Institute of Public Enterprise, Hyderabad and at the University of
Ljubljana, Slovenia. While on the faculty of ASCI since 1996, he served as Head, Tata
Management Development Centre, Jamshedpur for a year (2003-'04). He is actively associated
with the formulation of corporate and competitive strategies for large and small businesses, he
has significantly contributed to strategic restructuring of various departments/ institutions of
Government of India and State Governments. He has also researched and published papers in
many refereed journals. His widely read book, 'Tryst With Global Competition' published by
BSP, Hyderabad, analyses the strategic response of Indian businesses to the forces of global
competition and globalisation while his book ‘Study of MGNREGA: A case in Implementation
of an Anti Poverty Programme in A.P.‘ captures the strategic issues in implementing India’s
flagship programme for alleviating rural poverty.
His areas of interest include Strategic Management, Agribusinesses and Rural Management,
Rural Co-operatives, Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), Strategic Leadership, Good Public
Governance and Strategic Management of Change. Has been working on management training
and consulting projects sponsored by international agencies like the UNDP, Commonwealth
Secretariat, Aureos Advisors, Norfund, World Bank, IFC-Global Corporate Governance Forum,
EU’s Centre for Development of Enterprise and others. He is actively involved with
76
strengthening the management processes and institutions for implementing key social sector
development programmes as a member of various expert groups of the Government of India in
the Ministry of Rural Development and the Cabinet Secretariat.
Dushyant Mahadik (Team Member)
1. Proposed Position on Team: Team Member
2. Name of Firm: Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI)
3. Name of Staff: Dushyant Ashok Mahadik
4. Date of Birth: 13th
October 1979 Nationality: Indian
5. Education:
Program Year Institute (Affiliation) Major
PGDM 2009 Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad Finance
Exchange
MBA
Fall
2008
McCombs School of Business (University of
Texas at Austin)
Strategy
M.Tech. 2002 Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Aerospace
Propulsion
B. E. 2000 TKIET, Warananagar, Maharashtra (Shivaji
University)
Mechanical
Engineering
6. Countries of Work Experience: India, United States.
7. Languages : English, Gujarati, Hindi, Marathi
8. Employment Record
a) Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad January 2012 onwards
Assistant Professor, Centre for Economics and Finance
b) Xavier Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship, Bengaluru, India
October 2010 – January 2012 , Assistant Professor , Teach finance and strategic
management; Support placement process; Research work
c) Sanghvi Forging and Engineering Limited, Vadodara, India 2009 – 2010
General Manager
d) Cummins India Limited, Pune, India 2008
Summer Intern, Corporate Strategy
e) General Electric, India Technology Center, Bangalore, India 2005 – 2007
Gas Turbine Operability Engineer, Conceptual Design, Advanced Technology
Operations, GE Energy Business
77
f) Infotech Enterprises Limited, Hyderabad/East Hartford (USA), 2002 – 2005
Engineer, Engineering Services Division, Strategic Business Initiatives Vertical
Prof. G. Surender Reddy (Team Member)
Present Positions
Director M. C. Gupta College of Business Management
Corporate Advisor & Mentor Butterfly Fields, and Core Software
Visiting Professor JNTU, Hyderabad
Advisor APITCO Limited
Previous Positions Held
Dy GM IDBI
Professor of Banking & Management IPE
Director In-charge JNIDB
Sr Project Consultant Marubeni Corporation (Fortune 500 company)
Consultant (Infrastructure ASCI
& Regulatory Studies)
Advisor APSFC
Educational Qualifications
BE (Mech) Osmania University
MTech (Industrial Management) IIT, Madras
PGDPEM IPE, Hyderabad
PGDIPR PG College of Law, O.U.
LL.B. Osmania
CAIIB Indian Institute of Banking & Finance, Mumbai
Special Achievements / Recognitions
Awarded National Merit Scholarship
Recipient of two Gold Medals
A Silver Medal from the World Bank Institute, Washington, D.C.
Appreciation from GOI for training in-service IAS Officers
Served on the Boards of over ten companies as Nominee / Independent Director
On the Visiting Faculty of several prestigious institutions and universities
Resource Person @ UGC sponsored programmes for university teachers
Associated with many NGOs as member on their Governing Boards
An active Rotarian
A Trustee of Triveni Foundation
78
Annexure 2.6
List of Persons Contacted by the Study Team
S.
No.
Name Designation Department Institution Institute
Location
1 Mr. Bhanoji Rao Hon Professor
& Governing
Body Member,
GITAM Society GITAM University Visakhapatnam
2 Dr. Vijay Kumar
A.
DST-Inspire
Faculty
Chemistry Institute of
Chemical
technology (ICT)
Mumbai
3 Prof. Dr. Lele S.S. Professor Prof. of
Biochemical
Engg. &
Controller of
Examination
ICT
Mumbai
4 Prof. Dr.(Ms)
Padma V.
Devarajn
Professor &
HoD
Dept. of
Pharmaceutical
Sciences and
Technology
ICT
Mumbai
5 Prof. Aniruddha B.
Pandit
Prof. & Dean Research
Consultancy &
Resource
Mobilization
ICT
Mumbai
6 Mr. P.V. Johsi
OSD Finance &
Accounts
ICT
Mumbai
7 Prof. Dr. Sunil S.
Bhagwat
Professor and
Head
Chemical
Engineering
ICT
Mumbai
8 Prof. Ch.
Ramakrishna
Member &
BoM
UGC Affairs &
Research
Activities
GITAM University Visakhapatnam
9 Mr. Lalit Chadha Managing
Director
Member, ICT Goodwill Ltd. Mumbai
10 Prof. K. Lakshmi
Prasad
Principal -- GITAM Institute of
Technology
Visakhapatnam
11 Dr. A. B.
Koteswara Rao
Principal Gayatri Vidya
Parishad College of
Engineering
(Autonomous)
Visakhapatnam
12 Prof. P. Srinivasa
Rao
Advisor (TE
and R&D) &
Member BoG
Scientific and
Industrial
Research Centre
Gayatri Vidya
Parishad College of
Engineering
Visakhapatnam
13 Dr. D. Nageswara
Rao
Chairman &
BoG
-- Vignana Jyothi
Group of
Secunderabad
79
Institutions
14 Mr. C.D. Naidu Principal -- VNR Vignana
Jyothi Institute of
Engineering &
technology
Hyderabad
15 Dr. M.U.
Deshpande
Consultant
(Engg.
Education)
-- Mentor and
Performance
Auditor
101, Gandhi
Nagar,
Nagpur-440
010
16 Prof. L.S. Yadav Professor -- North Eastern
Regional Institute
of Science &
Technology
(NERIST)
Nirjuli–
(Itanagar)
Arunachal
Pradesh
17 Prof. Dipankar Pal Director -- NERIST Nirjuli –
(Itanagar)
Arunachal
Pradesh
18 Prof. Jai Prakash Ex. Vice-
Chancellor
-- GLA University Mathura, U.P.
19 Prof. V. Vasudeva
Rao
Principal -- Srinidhi Institute of
Science &
Technology
(SNIST)
Yamnampet,
Ghatkesar,
Hyderabad
20 Prof. Siva Sai
K.S.R
TEQIP Co-
ordinator
Bio-technology SNIST Yamnampet,
Ghatkesar,
Hyderabad
21 Dr. K. Padma Raju Principal and
Professor
Electronics &
Communication
Engg.
University College
of Engineering,
Kakinada
(Autonomous)
JNTUK,
Kakinada
22 Dr. A. Subhananda
Rao
Member BoG -- VNR VJIET &
VNR Vignana
Jyothi Institute of
Management
(VJIM)
Bachupally,
Nizampaet
(S.O.),
Hyderabad-090
23 Dr. S.
Venkateswara Rao
Founder
Principal
-- VNR VJIET Hyderabad
24 Mr. S. Krishnan Member
NSC, TEQIP
-- L&T Ltd., Mumbai
25 Dr. Potharaju
Malasani
Registrar Civil
Engineering
GITAM University Visakhapatnam
-530045
26 Dr. K.C. Principal -- LBS Institute of Poojappura,
80
Raveendranathan Technology for
Women
Thiruvanantha
puram
27 Dr. Thampi paul Prof. & Head, ECE LBS Institute of
Technology for
Women
Poojappura,
Thiruvanantha
puram
28 Prof. Shyam Lal
Soni
Professor Mech. Engg. Malaviya National
Institute of
Technology
Jaipur,
(Rajasthan)
29 Dr. H.C. Taneja Prof. & Head, Applied
Mathematics
Delhi
Technological
University
Delhi
30 Lt. Gen. Zameer
Uddin Shah (Retd)
Vice Chancellor -- Aligarh Muslim
University
Aligarh, U.P.
31 Dr. Asfar Ali khan Professor Electrical
Engineering
Aligarh Muslim
University
Aligarh, U.P.
32 Shri Abid Ali
Khan
Associate
Professor,
Ergonomics
Research
Division
Mech. Engg.
Aligarh Muslim
University
Aligarh, U.P.
33 Prof. Mohibullah Principal
Zakir Husain
College of
Engineering &
Technology,
Aligarh Muslim
University
Aligarh, U.P.
34 Shri Omar Farooq Reader Electrical
Engineering
Zakir Husain
College of
Engineering &
Technology,
Aligarh Muslim
University
Aligarh, U.P.
35 Dr. Joseph O.A. Principal -- College of
Engineering
Vatakara
Vatakara,
Kozhikode,
Kerala
36 Shri Sanjeev
Agarwal
Registrar -- IFTM University
Moradabad,
(U.P.)
37 Dr. Arun Kumar Dean School of Engg.
& Technology
IFTM University
Moradabad,
(U.P.)
38 Dr. Anuj
Srivastava
TEQIP Co-
ordinator
Controller of
Examinations
IFTM University
Moradabad,
(U.P.)
39 Dr. P.C. Principal -- Sree Vidyanikethan Tirupati, (A.P.)
81
Krishnamachary Engineering
College
(Autonomous)
40 Mr. Damodaram Associate
Professor
Electronics &
Communication
Engineering
Sree Vidyanikethan
Engineering
College
(Autonomous)
Tirupati, (A.P.)
41 Dr. J.N. Jha Professor &
Head
Civil
Engineering
Guru Nanak Dev
Engineering
College
Ludhiana
42 Dr. S.B. Jaju Professor &
Dean (R&D)
Mechanical
Engineering
G.H. Raisoni
College of
Engineering
Nagpur
43 Dr. K.K. Dhote Director -- Raisoni Group of
Institutions
Nagpur
44 Dr. A.Y.
Deshmukh
Professor Electronics
Engg.
G.H. Raisoni
College of
Engineering
Nagpur
45 Dr.(Ms.) Preeti
Bajaj
Director -- G.H. Raisoni
College of
Engineering
Nagpur
46 Prof. Siddharth K.
Soni
Prof. & Head Civil Engg &
Applied
Mechnics/
TEQIP
Coordinator
Shri G.S. Institute
of Technology &
Science
Indore
47 Dr. D.J. Tidke Professor Mechanical
Engineering
G.H. Raisoni
College of
Engineering
Nagpur
48 Dr. Prakash D.
Vyavahare
Prof. & Head Electronics &
Telecom Engg.
Shri G.S. Institute
of Technology &
Science
Indore
49 Mr. M.P.S.
Chawla
Associate
Professor
EED Shri G.S. Institute
of Technology &
Science
Indore
50 Mr. Vikram Rajput Training and
Placement
Officer
-- Madhav Institute of
Technology and
Science
Gwalior
51 Dr. Padma V.
Devarajan
Professor &
Head
Dept. of
Pharmaceutial
Sciences and
Institute of
Chemical
Technology
Mumbai
82
Technology
52 Mr. Mahipal Singh
Jeena
Registrar -- Shri G.S. Institute
of Technology &
Science
Indore
53 Dr. Manish Kumar
Sagar
Associate
Professor
Mechanical
Engineering
Madhav Institute of
Technology and
Science
Gwalior
54 Dr. Lele S.S Professor &
Controller of
Examination
Biochemical
Engineering
Institute of
Chemical
Technology
Mumbai
55 Prof. Debapriyo
Nag
Dean ITM School of
Business
Gwalior
56 Mr. Piyush
Chourasia
Chief Risk
Officer &
Strategy
Member, BoG ICCL Mumbai
57 Mr. Chandresh
Maithil
Founder -- Maverick Edutech Hyderabad
58 Er. Sham Goyal Deputy Director -- Directorate of
Tehnical Education
Chandigarh
59 Dr. B.M.
Rajaprakash
Professor Mechanical
Engineering
University
Visvesvaraya
College of
Engineering
Bangalore
60 Dr. Raghavendra
B. Deshmukh
Professor Electronics
Engineering
Visvesvarya
National Institute of
Technology
Nagpur
61 Mr. M. Srinivas Senior Scientist - --- ISRO Bangalore
62 Ms. Tejaswini
Chalam
Manager SAP Labs India Hyderabad
63 Mr. Hemanth
Kumar
Head HR &
Operations
Airwatch Hyderabad
64 Mr. S. Narasinga
Rao
Senior Manager -- SBM Hyderabad
65 Mr. Rahul Kahate -- -- Persistent Systems
Ltd.
Hyderabad
66 Mr. Ashish
Agrawal
-- -- Entrepreneur
67 Mrs. G. Aparna Indian Railways Tumkur
68 Mrs. Sudha C.K. House Wife -- Parent Tumkur
69 Mrs. Preetham
B.P.
Business -- Parent Tumkur
83
70 Mr. T.N. Nagendra Retired -- Parent Tumkur
71 Dr. R. Harish
Kumar
Professor -- SSIT Tumkur
72 Mr. N.
Nagarajaiah
Instructor Mechanical
Engineering
SSIT Tumkur
73 Mr. T.N.
Manjunatha
Teacher -- Parent Tiptur
74 Prof. Ranjan
Bhattacharya
Vice Chancellor West Bengal
University of
technology
Kolkata
75 Dr. Syed Rafikul
Islam
Registrar West Bengal
University of
technology
Kolkata
76 Prof. Dr. M.
Rajaram
Vice Chancellor Anna University Tamilnadu
77 Dr. G. Ravi Kumar Director Centre for
Entrepreneurship
Development
Anna University Tamilnadu
78 Mr. Kumar Jayant,
IAS
Commissioner Dept. of Technical
Education
Tamilnadu
79 Dr. S. Dasgupta Director Dept. of Technical
Education
West Bengal
80 Dr. V. Suresh Sr. Techno
Economic
Officer
Centre for
Industrial
Consultancy &
Sponsored
Research
IIT Madras
81 Mr. K.V.
Ganapathi
President CODISSA INTEC
Technology Centre
Coimbatore
82 Dr. K. Raghunath Chief Camp
Officer
Engineering
Admissions in
Andhra Pradesh
Hyderabad
83 Dr. P. N. Reddy Executive
Director
Sreenidhi Institute
of Science and
Technology
Hyderabad
84 Prof. V. Vasudeva
Rap
Principal Sreenidhi Institute
of Science and
Technology
Hyderabad
85 Dr. T. Mahhe Secretary Sreenidhi Institute
of Science and
Technology
Hyderabad
84
Annexure 6.1
List of Programmes for Management Capacity Enhancement at IIMs
IIMs Training batches organized Total no. of
trained participants No. From to
Indore 7 16th
January 2013 25th
January 2013 24
29th
April 2013 8th
May 2013 21
22nd
May 2013 31st May 2013 23
*15th
June 2013 21st June 2013 09
9th
July 2013 18th
July 2013 17
24th
Sep 2013 30th
Sep 2013 26
24th
Nov 2013 30th
Nov 2013 27
Lucknow 6 11th
February 2013 15th
February 2013 25
10th
June 2013 14th
June 2013 25
8th
July 2013 12th
July 2013 22
19th
Aug 2013 23rd
Aug 2013 25
23rd
Sep 2013 27th
Sep 2013 28
21st Oct 2013 25
th Oct 2013 20
Bangalore 1 11th
March 2013 23rd
March 2013 40
Kozhikode 5 12th
March 2013 22nd
March 2013 25
3rd
June 2013 13th
June 2013 23
30th
July 2013 9th
August 2013 26
*1st Sep 2013 6
th Sep 2013 28
11th
Nov 2013 16th
Nov 2013 30
Raipur
Trichy
Udaipur
Total 19 464
Note: * LDP programmes with Illinois University, USA and NUS Singapore