Pratap Bhanu Mehta's article in the Indian Express on the devil being in the detail of educational reforms is very interesting. It makes us look around for successful models and one that strikes the eye is obviously the Stock Exchange mechanism -- that is perhaps one of the most successful model that has emerged from Indian reform process. To see if this model can be used as a reference, let us see some of the regulatory issues that a "company" needs to address before it can transact business and earn money.
At its minimum, a company must adhere to the conditions of the Companies Act and register itself with the Registrar of Companies. We note that the RoC does not really approve or reject the application on the basis of the quality of the companies products or that of its promoters. All that the RoC ensures is that the company meets certain basic disclosure norms in terms of ownership and financial issues. The focus is on accurate disclosure -- or transparency -- not on the actual facts and figures that are being disclosed.
As the company gets bigger and needs access to more funds, it seeks listing in a stock exchange. A stock exchange is not a monopoly government organisation -- it is run by its members as per rules that dictate a certain minimum level of financial competence and ensures a far more rigorous level of financial and administrative transparency. Once again, the focus is on transparency of the organisation, not on the quality of products or services offered. A stock exchange has two interesting aspects : first there can be more than one stock exchange, so there is no threat of a monopoly and second they are supervised by SEBI to ensure compliance with the laws of the land.
However the stock exchanges do not provide financial support to any company. That is done by individual investors in the capital market based on their personal or institutional perception of the company's performance.
So the three components of financial sector are (a) Registrar of Companies and the Companies Act (b) Listing in the Stock Exchange under SEBI supervision and (c) Funds from the Capital Markets. For foreign companies wanting to do business there is the fourth agency -- FIPB that has a wider mandate of protecting India's strategic interests.
Let us now map these components into the Education sector.
First the role of the Registrar of Companies can be performed very well by the AICTE -- provided we remove its authority to approve or accredit institutions. This authority used with malafide intentions has been the bane of education in India because it has kept out the best and allowed in the worst operators. The powers of the AICTE should be restrictively defined in a new Education Act and should be modelled on that of the RoC.
Any institution registered with the AICTE should be allowed to offer any educational services subject to the Consumer Protection legislation in the country. Consumers in India are quite conscious of their rights and if they have the choice -- as they now have in telecom or air travel, not to mention on soaps, shampoos or cars -- there is no fear that educational service providers will be able to cheat them. Let us have some respect for the Indian customer.
But if an institute wants to move into the next, higher league, we need a self-managed organisation like the industry association that will ensure discipline and transparency in its members. One or two leading institutes -- some from the government sector like IIT, IIM and some from the private sector like BITS, ISB -- can take the initiative to form these associations. Initially this might lead to multiple organisation -- like multiple stock exchanges -- but in the long run, through a natural process we might end up with two or three, similar to the BSE/NSE model that we have today. These associations would ensure transparency and consistency in the behaviour of its members and could be supervised by a government body like the AICTE. Institutes accredited through these associations would be ranked higher in the perception of students -- who are the customers of educational services.
Finally funds ! And this is where both the government and private organisations must step in with generous support -- but we must use a market driven approach. Both the government and the private sector should set up multiple funding organisations each with its own goals and objectives. The UGC is an obvious candidate but the Department of Space could provide separate funding for programs leading to astrophysics and the Department of Minority Affairs could have a separate funding for Muslims. Similarly Tata Steel could fund institutes operating within 50 kms of Jamshedpur and an NRI in California could fund institutions in his native Bankura district -- to each his own !
Whatever may be the source and intent for funds we need transparency on two fronts (a) the criteria for funding and (b) the actual distribution of funds in each year. Each funding agency could have its own criteria publicly available and any "registered" institute can in principle apply for funding provided it meets the requirements of the funding agencies. Agencies would distribute funds to eligible institutes based on their perception of how "good" the institute is -- in terms of how published criteria. This is where metrics like "student-teacher ratio", "placements", adherence to social goals in terms of gender and caste equity, quality of research, patents can be introduced. All funding agencies may not have the same set of criteria -- each should have the liberty to specify its requirements and institutes will have to compete for funds.
Some of the funding may be automatic and statutory – for example HRD funds to IITs and IIMs – while others may be discretionary based on the extent to which an institute meets the criteria. However all funding agencies , especially those based on tax payer's money, must make available to the public all information on funds disbursed to each institute AND the justification for the same in terms of the adherence to the funding criteria.
Potential students can study the pattern of fund disbursals and draw their own conclusions about how good or bad an institute is as perceived by funding experts who have voted with their purse ! In a sense, market forces will drive both funding and students to the best institutes in the country.
In fact honest competition is what is completely missing in the education sector and this has led to an immense complacency in the public sector education system in the country. What makes it worse is that public sector institutes are so dependent on the bureaucrats in the HRD ministry for money that they have no option but to toe the sarkari line. Both these issues can addressed through the structure that is proposed here.
And finally what about foreign universities ? If as a nation we are brave enough we can allow them to come and operate through this route but otherwise we can have the equivalent of an FIPB to ensure that trashy organisations are kept out -- but this is neither necessary nor sufficient for quality and is best kept in abeyance for the time being.
As a part of the Prime Ministers 100 day program, may I request Mr Kapil Sibal to organise a conference on Higher Education where ideas like these – and those from other, more eminent people – can be formally considered for speedy execution.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Reforming Higher Education
With the departure of the control-and-caste-conscious (3C) politicians from the Ministry of Human Resources Development there is a window of opportunity for Mr Kapil Sibal, the new incumbent, to finally get India going on the road to high quality education. Newspaper editorials written by sane and civilized people have made numerous suggestions and -- not surprisingly -- most of these would like to see a sharply diminished role of the AICTE and similar sarkari inspectors. Let me add my 2-paise worth of ideas to this great melting pot.
Education policy in India has been motivated crass crony capitalism masquerading as concern for the customer. We are asked to believe that if the government -- consisting of the corrupt neta and the inefficient babu -- does not control all aspects of a service then the poor customer would be fleeced by the unscrupulous businessman. This is the same set of lies that kept preserved government monopolies and government supported oligopolies in telecom, aviation, postage, steel until the great bankruptcy of the 1980s forced the government to liberalise and the results are there for all to see.
Going forward we need the government to play two kinds of roles -- that of a lean regulator and of an honest financier.
While SEBI and TRAI have often been showcased as instances of positive regulation, I would suggest that we go even further and take the Registrar of Companies as a model. The Registrar of Education ( why just Higher Education ) should be the nodal agency for simply registering -- and not approving -- any educational entity in India. All that this body needs to do is to keep track of who the owners are and whether they are in compliance with the laws of the land. The Registrar of Companies does not go about the evaluating or approving the goods or services that a company provides ... it simply ensures adherence to the Companies Act. In the same vein, we could have an Educational Institutes Act and the Registrar of Education should ensure compliance with the same.
What should be there in the Educational Institutes Act ? As little as possible to ensure that Institutes declare who they are, what they offer and how much they charge. Nothing in the Act should allow the Registrar to decide who should offer what course and how much should they charge -- just as the Companies Act does not specify what goods or services are offered by any company nor how much should they charge for the same. The Act and the statutory disclosures under the Act should ensure total transparency in terms of ownership and financial status.
The second role that the Government can and should play with far more vigour is that of financial support. Here we should have bodies like the UGC that would lay down funding criteria an decide how much money should go to each Institute. All Institutes -- private or government owned -- can apply for funds and all allocations should be based on a appropriate guidelines and made visible on appropriate public platforms like websites.
We can have a multiplicity of funding bodies -- for example, in addition to the UGC, there can be state level bodies, bodies funded by specific government departments like Biotechnology or Space, or even public-private bodies set up with private participation. Each funding body can have its own criteria -- based on courses, locations, caste status of students or any other condition that is not in violation of Constitution of India -- but the information about their disbursements should be in the public domain. This will reduce arbitrariness and unfair discrimination.
The Institutes, on the other hand, by having to publicly compete for these funds will have to make sure that they meet and exceed the various criteria and this to an extent will improve the quality of education that is delivered.
This two track approach -- with a lean regulatory framework supporting a robust financial support mechanism -- would need to be thought through in greater detail but if established and operated honestly will ensure a solid foundation for higher education in India.
Education policy in India has been motivated crass crony capitalism masquerading as concern for the customer. We are asked to believe that if the government -- consisting of the corrupt neta and the inefficient babu -- does not control all aspects of a service then the poor customer would be fleeced by the unscrupulous businessman. This is the same set of lies that kept preserved government monopolies and government supported oligopolies in telecom, aviation, postage, steel until the great bankruptcy of the 1980s forced the government to liberalise and the results are there for all to see.
Going forward we need the government to play two kinds of roles -- that of a lean regulator and of an honest financier.
While SEBI and TRAI have often been showcased as instances of positive regulation, I would suggest that we go even further and take the Registrar of Companies as a model. The Registrar of Education ( why just Higher Education ) should be the nodal agency for simply registering -- and not approving -- any educational entity in India. All that this body needs to do is to keep track of who the owners are and whether they are in compliance with the laws of the land. The Registrar of Companies does not go about the evaluating or approving the goods or services that a company provides ... it simply ensures adherence to the Companies Act. In the same vein, we could have an Educational Institutes Act and the Registrar of Education should ensure compliance with the same.
What should be there in the Educational Institutes Act ? As little as possible to ensure that Institutes declare who they are, what they offer and how much they charge. Nothing in the Act should allow the Registrar to decide who should offer what course and how much should they charge -- just as the Companies Act does not specify what goods or services are offered by any company nor how much should they charge for the same. The Act and the statutory disclosures under the Act should ensure total transparency in terms of ownership and financial status.
The second role that the Government can and should play with far more vigour is that of financial support. Here we should have bodies like the UGC that would lay down funding criteria an decide how much money should go to each Institute. All Institutes -- private or government owned -- can apply for funds and all allocations should be based on a appropriate guidelines and made visible on appropriate public platforms like websites.
We can have a multiplicity of funding bodies -- for example, in addition to the UGC, there can be state level bodies, bodies funded by specific government departments like Biotechnology or Space, or even public-private bodies set up with private participation. Each funding body can have its own criteria -- based on courses, locations, caste status of students or any other condition that is not in violation of Constitution of India -- but the information about their disbursements should be in the public domain. This will reduce arbitrariness and unfair discrimination.
The Institutes, on the other hand, by having to publicly compete for these funds will have to make sure that they meet and exceed the various criteria and this to an extent will improve the quality of education that is delivered.
This two track approach -- with a lean regulatory framework supporting a robust financial support mechanism -- would need to be thought through in greater detail but if established and operated honestly will ensure a solid foundation for higher education in India.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Save the JEE, Kill the KEE
The IIT system, that was born in the early, optimistic years of the young Indian state, was truly one of kind. It articulated the scientific and technological aspirations of a nation, that had just found its feet in the global community, and exemplified -- what Thomas Friedman would later refer to as -- the process of "drilling for talent" : the search for the best and finest minds in the country -- irrespective of where they came from and who they were related to. By raising the bar on exclusivity and fairness, the JEE, that guarded the portals of the IIT system from the general mediocrity of the population, has become such a legend in itself that Brand JEE dominates Brand IIT by miles ! This is evident in the difference in the market esteem ( if not market value ) between IIT students who have cracked the JEE ( undergraduates) and those who have not ( for example the M.Techs, PhDs and what not ).
But like all other institutions in the country, the JEE is under attack and is in mortal danger of being subverted by the poisonous ambience of what Nirad Chaudhury referred to as the Continent of Circe. "India" has a way of debilitating people -- from the Aryaputra's of yore, through the Huns, Kushans and Turks right upto the British, whose conquest of the country spelled the doom of their Empire. Killing the JEE, and the excellence that it embodies, is KEE, the Kota Examination Enhancer, the Rajasthan based set of coaching classes that converts dross into (fool's) gold.
With due respect to the 10000+ youngsters who have cracked JEE-2009 ( and that includes my son) we observe that there is a marked difference in the success rates in different parts of the country. Success is highest in the western region -- which includes Kota, where most of the KEE coaching classes are located -- and lowest in the east. At the risk of being politically incorrect and possibly chauvinistic, we do know that the Residents of Rajasthan are not exceptionally brilliant ! In the absence of any firm evidence of foul play, once is forced to admit that it is the ultra-rigorous, possibly brutal, practice regime enforced in these coaching classes that equip otherwise mediocre students with the skills to somehow crack the JEE and lay claim to the value of a brand that has been built by far smarter predecessors.
Can sheer practice help ? I am sure it does -- under high pressure and temperature, graphite does get converted into diamond, but never of the quality that is used in jewellery. If you rub a brick long enough and hard enough it just might shine like a slab of marble ! But are we interested in bricks that look like marble and diamonds made from graphite ? Or are we interested in actual marbles and gem quality diamonds ?
The answer is obvious : we would like the JEE to help locate the gems, and reaffirm our faith in the brand. But the BIG QUESTION is HOW ?
Should we bring in ham handed legislation and ban coaching schools ? That would be patently illegal and unfair (though such lofty considerations have hardly deterred our legislators from passing obnoxious laws )
Should we consider Class XII marks for IIT entrance ? Obviously not because all state boards are manipulated by local politicians to push through politically correct candidates ( In West Bengal, it used to be "rural" candidates who would get high marks and now, after the Sachar Revelations, it is "muslims" who are seen to be successful)
Should we change the pattern of questions so that they reveal more of the innate ability than rote learning ? Of course we should but AGAIN, HOW ? I am sure the JEE organisers have agonised over this but have not found a way to do this. So there is no hope for an immediate breakthrough on this front.
Perhaps PAN-IIT, the umbrella organisation for all IIT alumni should take this up a subject for intense debate and deliberations. If the best and brightest in the land cannot come up with a way to protect and preserve their own brand equity then who will ? Such a debate could throw up interesting ideas ...
For example : can we consider percentile ranks ( not percentage ) in Class X and Class XII examinations, convert the raw JEE rank into a corresponding percentile and then define a modified JEE rank based on the weighted average of the percentiles in Class X, Class XII and the JEE ? There is some research that indicates that the average of Class X and Class XII marks is a good indicator of a persons ability and this scheme is an extension of this line of thought.
This is one suggestion. I am sure that there will be other ways by which we can save the JEE and kill the KEE !
But like all other institutions in the country, the JEE is under attack and is in mortal danger of being subverted by the poisonous ambience of what Nirad Chaudhury referred to as the Continent of Circe. "India" has a way of debilitating people -- from the Aryaputra's of yore, through the Huns, Kushans and Turks right upto the British, whose conquest of the country spelled the doom of their Empire. Killing the JEE, and the excellence that it embodies, is KEE, the Kota Examination Enhancer, the Rajasthan based set of coaching classes that converts dross into (fool's) gold.
With due respect to the 10000+ youngsters who have cracked JEE-2009 ( and that includes my son) we observe that there is a marked difference in the success rates in different parts of the country. Success is highest in the western region -- which includes Kota, where most of the KEE coaching classes are located -- and lowest in the east. At the risk of being politically incorrect and possibly chauvinistic, we do know that the Residents of Rajasthan are not exceptionally brilliant ! In the absence of any firm evidence of foul play, once is forced to admit that it is the ultra-rigorous, possibly brutal, practice regime enforced in these coaching classes that equip otherwise mediocre students with the skills to somehow crack the JEE and lay claim to the value of a brand that has been built by far smarter predecessors.
Can sheer practice help ? I am sure it does -- under high pressure and temperature, graphite does get converted into diamond, but never of the quality that is used in jewellery. If you rub a brick long enough and hard enough it just might shine like a slab of marble ! But are we interested in bricks that look like marble and diamonds made from graphite ? Or are we interested in actual marbles and gem quality diamonds ?
The answer is obvious : we would like the JEE to help locate the gems, and reaffirm our faith in the brand. But the BIG QUESTION is HOW ?
Should we bring in ham handed legislation and ban coaching schools ? That would be patently illegal and unfair (though such lofty considerations have hardly deterred our legislators from passing obnoxious laws )
Should we consider Class XII marks for IIT entrance ? Obviously not because all state boards are manipulated by local politicians to push through politically correct candidates ( In West Bengal, it used to be "rural" candidates who would get high marks and now, after the Sachar Revelations, it is "muslims" who are seen to be successful)
Should we change the pattern of questions so that they reveal more of the innate ability than rote learning ? Of course we should but AGAIN, HOW ? I am sure the JEE organisers have agonised over this but have not found a way to do this. So there is no hope for an immediate breakthrough on this front.
Perhaps PAN-IIT, the umbrella organisation for all IIT alumni should take this up a subject for intense debate and deliberations. If the best and brightest in the land cannot come up with a way to protect and preserve their own brand equity then who will ? Such a debate could throw up interesting ideas ...
For example : can we consider percentile ranks ( not percentage ) in Class X and Class XII examinations, convert the raw JEE rank into a corresponding percentile and then define a modified JEE rank based on the weighted average of the percentiles in Class X, Class XII and the JEE ? There is some research that indicates that the average of Class X and Class XII marks is a good indicator of a persons ability and this scheme is an extension of this line of thought.
This is one suggestion. I am sure that there will be other ways by which we can save the JEE and kill the KEE !
Monday, May 19, 2008
Education : From Darkness to Light
Today's copy of the Economic Times carries two articles that, taken together, highlight the disastrous corner that India has painted itself into in the area of education, and then offers some hope of finding a path through which it could extricate itself ! If this is too confusing, consider the following :
First, Rajrishi Singhal [ End License Raj in Education ] has very elegantly made the point, known to most of us in academia that it is the license-control mindset India's bureaucracy -- led by the last two, regressive and venal, education ministers -- that is at the heart of the darkness that has eclipsed the academic landscape. Jurassic institutions like the AICTE -- that insist that educational institutions cannot have a profit motive but must pretend, hypocritically, that they are charitable organisations -- have ensured that educational services cannot be delivered to the citizens unless it is through entities that are controlled by politicians. This includes both the Public Sector Institutes ( like IITs, IIMs) as well as private institutes owned by crony capitalists. Can this control mindset change ? Can it be made to change as has been the case in telecom or airlines ?
Which brings us to the second article by Niranjan Bharati & Rajeev Jayasway[ The Professor as a Businessman ] where we see a glimmer of hope. Apparently, the government is considering the option of allowing academic institutions to pick up an equity stake in companies formed by faculty. While this may certainly benefit the entrepreneural academician, what is at stake is something that is far more fundamental. An entity that delivers educational services could now be allowed to behave like commercial -- and god forbid, profit seeking -- entity ! Which is a revolutionary thought for our fossilised socialists. For to make this happen, the AICTE/UGC -- or hopefully the Higher Education Regulator -- must discard the requirements for a hypocritical, not-for-profit business model and replace it with the more pragmatic and efficient corporate structure ... and then who knows Dalal Street might start dreaming of and IIM or an IIT coming out with an IPO.
But that could be too much to hope for. Let us be happy to dream about publicly owned, board managed corporate institutes that give Public Sector Institutes a run for their money.
First, Rajrishi Singhal [ End License Raj in Education ] has very elegantly made the point, known to most of us in academia that it is the license-control mindset India's bureaucracy -- led by the last two, regressive and venal, education ministers -- that is at the heart of the darkness that has eclipsed the academic landscape. Jurassic institutions like the AICTE -- that insist that educational institutions cannot have a profit motive but must pretend, hypocritically, that they are charitable organisations -- have ensured that educational services cannot be delivered to the citizens unless it is through entities that are controlled by politicians. This includes both the Public Sector Institutes ( like IITs, IIMs) as well as private institutes owned by crony capitalists. Can this control mindset change ? Can it be made to change as has been the case in telecom or airlines ?
Which brings us to the second article by Niranjan Bharati & Rajeev Jayasway[ The Professor as a Businessman ] where we see a glimmer of hope. Apparently, the government is considering the option of allowing academic institutions to pick up an equity stake in companies formed by faculty. While this may certainly benefit the entrepreneural academician, what is at stake is something that is far more fundamental. An entity that delivers educational services could now be allowed to behave like commercial -- and god forbid, profit seeking -- entity ! Which is a revolutionary thought for our fossilised socialists. For to make this happen, the AICTE/UGC -- or hopefully the Higher Education Regulator -- must discard the requirements for a hypocritical, not-for-profit business model and replace it with the more pragmatic and efficient corporate structure ... and then who knows Dalal Street might start dreaming of and IIM or an IIT coming out with an IPO.
But that could be too much to hope for. Let us be happy to dream about publicly owned, board managed corporate institutes that give Public Sector Institutes a run for their money.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
NScAI : National School Authority of India
I have always been fascinated by the possibility of high volume education delivery and the immense potential this has to transform the country ... without taking recourse to divisive tactics like reservation.
My first attempt to articulate this was in 1999 when I participated in the CSIR sponsored New Millenium Indian Technology Leadership Initiative and proposed the idea of Shikshaajaal. The proposal, like most proposals sent to the government went -- i suppose -- straight into some bureaucratic dustbin.
My second attempt was in the CII Eastern Region Meeting on Talent Management in 2007 where I delivered the keynote address and presented the idea once again ... but all to no avail. The distinguished delegates, had their lunch, dozed through the lecture and went back to their mundane existence.
My third attempt was directed at
Big Idea Contest that asked participants to send in ONE Big Idea that can change the face of the country and to articulate this in less than 50 words
My ideas was as follows : Modelled on NHAI, the National Schools Authority of India, will raise finance through tax-free bonds, and build a network of primary schools in every district of the country. After construction, the schools will be leased out to local entities through transparent bidding and operated as franchisees of NSAI.
This idea has been adjudged by the FE panel as the best idea and the results were announced in the paper on 11 April 2008. New Delhi Edition, Page 2 - International section.
I am unable to find the link but here is an imagefile of the news :
Financial Express has kindly promised to present me with an HCL Laptop computer for which I am very grateful but will this idea go anywhere after this ? I hope it does but am also very sceptical ... If you like this idea please spread the word.
My first attempt to articulate this was in 1999 when I participated in the CSIR sponsored New Millenium Indian Technology Leadership Initiative and proposed the idea of Shikshaajaal. The proposal, like most proposals sent to the government went -- i suppose -- straight into some bureaucratic dustbin.
My second attempt was in the CII Eastern Region Meeting on Talent Management in 2007 where I delivered the keynote address and presented the idea once again ... but all to no avail. The distinguished delegates, had their lunch, dozed through the lecture and went back to their mundane existence.
My third attempt was directed at
Big Idea Contest that asked participants to send in ONE Big Idea that can change the face of the country and to articulate this in less than 50 words
My ideas was as follows : Modelled on NHAI, the National Schools Authority of India, will raise finance through tax-free bonds, and build a network of primary schools in every district of the country. After construction, the schools will be leased out to local entities through transparent bidding and operated as franchisees of NSAI.
This idea has been adjudged by the FE panel as the best idea and the results were announced in the paper on 11 April 2008. New Delhi Edition, Page 2 - International section.
I am unable to find the link but here is an imagefile of the news :
Financial Express has kindly promised to present me with an HCL Laptop computer for which I am very grateful but will this idea go anywhere after this ? I hope it does but am also very sceptical ... If you like this idea please spread the word.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Kollaborative Klassroom : A Web 2.0 Platform
Web 2.0 means different things to different people but perhaps the most authentic -- and original -- definition is given by Tim O'Reilly in his now classic articulation of What is Web 2.0.
One of the key aspects of his articulation was the premise that Web 2.0 is less of technology and more of a platform -- or if you use the analogy of "Hindu" sanatan dharma, less of a dogma and more of way of life !
The word platform -- like the word architechure -- is widely used and abused in the world of computers. So to make things easier for us, let us first look at a more traditional platform : the ERP as implemented in SAP or Oracle. An ERP consists of a collection of applications developed using a one or more technologies. At the core there would be a database management software and on top of this would reside application, integration and presentation software. Woven into this is a set of business logic which in a sense should be common to or at least relevent to a vast number of business entities.
This platform is now used to support a wide range of business requirements : finanancial accounting, human resource management, sales and distribution, material management etc., for companies ranging from steel plants to retail stores. The magic lies in the fact that the platform is flexibile enough to meet the requirements of almost any company. All that is needed is some customisation of the platform and some flexibility of the client company to adapt itself to the platform.
What are the components of a Web 2.0 platform
One of the key aspects of his articulation was the premise that Web 2.0 is less of technology and more of a platform -- or if you use the analogy of "Hindu" sanatan dharma, less of a dogma and more of way of life !
The word platform -- like the word architechure -- is widely used and abused in the world of computers. So to make things easier for us, let us first look at a more traditional platform : the ERP as implemented in SAP or Oracle. An ERP consists of a collection of applications developed using a one or more technologies. At the core there would be a database management software and on top of this would reside application, integration and presentation software. Woven into this is a set of business logic which in a sense should be common to or at least relevent to a vast number of business entities.
This platform is now used to support a wide range of business requirements : finanancial accounting, human resource management, sales and distribution, material management etc., for companies ranging from steel plants to retail stores. The magic lies in the fact that the platform is flexibile enough to meet the requirements of almost any company. All that is needed is some customisation of the platform and some flexibility of the client company to adapt itself to the platform.
What are the components of a Web 2.0 platform
- A network of trust -- or as they say, a social network best exemplified by Orkut or Facebook and others of the same genre. Web 2.0 needs the wisdom of the crowd and a social network is perhaps the best way to create one.
- User generated content. A network cannot be built by one or a restricted group of people. That is why company sponsored networks -- like AOL or MSN could never keep up with the Internet. The content in the network must be generated by the users. The best example of this is of course Wikipedia where legions of users generated tons of content to overwhelm established brands like Brittanica or Encarta.
- Rich content. Human beings are accustomed to the audio-visual experience -- certainly not text. Hence the content in the network must consists of images, music and video. This is why image networks like Flickr and video networks like YouTube are essential icons of the Web 2.0 platform. Of late, 3D virtual worlds like Second Life offer a whole new experience in terms of rich content
- Web 2.0 is ever evolving and it is impossible to state that the platform is NOW ready for use. It will never be ready .. it will always be under construction and so the technology that will drive it has to compatible to what is loosely referred to as "mashup"s. There will never be a SAP for Web 2.0. There will be hundreds of small components -- and widgets are a good analogy -- which will be assembled and made to work together to deliver results.
- Finally -- and perhaps axiomatically -- Web 2.0 cannot run either on isolated machines or on restricted networks. By its very nature it must run on the internet : it is a living example of Sun's tagline "The network is the computer"
- be based around a social network
- encourage user generated content
- support rich media
- extend through mashups
- A social network based on technology from Ning that is used to support the community of students and faculty
- A wiki created with Zoho that is used to create teaching material in a collaborative manner
- Rich multimedia that is supported on FlickR, YouTube and the virtual world of Second Life
- Extensions like widgets, calendars that can be integrated to the main platform.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
The (not-so)Innocents Abroad : The case against IIMs
The Globalisation mantra is one that is routinely chanted by most sections of Indian civil society with the possible exception of those of at the xenophobic fringe, both left and right. However in the case of IIM-Bangalore we need to look at the issue from a slightly different perspective.
Comparing an IIM with a Indian multinational like Infosys, L&T, Telco, ONGC or SBI or the IIM brand to something like Kingfisher is erroneous and to understand why let us look at the structure and charter of IIM vis-a-vis these other organisations.
A shareholder owned company, whether listed or otherwise, exists for the creation and enhancement of shareholder wealth. If by expanding abroad, the management feels that it will earn more business and hence enrich its shareholders ... then there is no question that it must do so.
But in the case of IIM, who is the shareholder ( or stakeholder ) ? It is the people of India, the tax-payer, acting through the Government of India who have set up these Institutes. How does this shareholder, or stakeholder, benefit by the IIM setting up a branch in Singapore ? He does NOT and this is the simple reason why both Arjun Singh as well Murali Manohar Joshi is, perhaps for the first time in their respective lives, correct in their opposition to IIMs setting up branches outside India.
But let us analyse why the IIMs are so enthusiastic about setting up branches outside the country. The reason is money, not so much for the Institute but for individual professors. And we cannot really deny them this (ulterior) motive. After all what does an IIT or IIM professor earn ? Something around Rs 500,000 / year and that too at the end of their career. Their students on the other hand routinely earn an identical amount on the day they step out of the institute. Naturally, this huge discount from the market price makes a professor's job extremely unattractive for talented people. [ It is of course a different matter that when talented people seek teaching assignments, even at these abysmal salaries, they are kept out by the old, incompetent incumbents ... but that is a different story ]
Net-net this attempt at opening IIM branches abroad is a ploy by some of the smart and enterprising professors to earn more money. Which is perfectly commendable but falls foul of the basic ground rules ... so is there any way by which the rules can be changed ? Here are two options ..
[a] Let faculty salaries be market driven. Which means that a professor of Computer Science should be paid what his or her counterpart in the IT industry makes and a professor of sociology or history or bengali should expect what a graduate or post graduate in these disciplines currently gets in the industry. By adhering to phony socialistic principles and paying the same money, at "UGC scales" to all teachers we have created a severe distortion in the market that results in smart teachers having to take such dubious and devious ways to get money that they should be getting anyway.
the other option is more radical.
[b] Let us 'privatise' the IIMs and IITs through an IPO. Education is a service business that has enormous potential and there will be no dearth of individuals who would want to invest in the same. The proceeds of the IPO, the money raised from the market, belong to the people of India and should be invested by the Government in more schools and colleges within the country. Given the huge brand value of the IITs/IIMs this money should be fabulous and if used well can create twenty more Institutes in the country.
The existing Institues on the other hand would now be accountable to their new owners, the shareholders, and would have the freedom to pursue whatever course they wish to choose. Should that lead them outside India, so be it, it is none of our business ... just as it is none of our business to ask where Infosys decides to open its next office.
Comparing an IIM with a Indian multinational like Infosys, L&T, Telco, ONGC or SBI or the IIM brand to something like Kingfisher is erroneous and to understand why let us look at the structure and charter of IIM vis-a-vis these other organisations.
A shareholder owned company, whether listed or otherwise, exists for the creation and enhancement of shareholder wealth. If by expanding abroad, the management feels that it will earn more business and hence enrich its shareholders ... then there is no question that it must do so.
But in the case of IIM, who is the shareholder ( or stakeholder ) ? It is the people of India, the tax-payer, acting through the Government of India who have set up these Institutes. How does this shareholder, or stakeholder, benefit by the IIM setting up a branch in Singapore ? He does NOT and this is the simple reason why both Arjun Singh as well Murali Manohar Joshi is, perhaps for the first time in their respective lives, correct in their opposition to IIMs setting up branches outside India.
But let us analyse why the IIMs are so enthusiastic about setting up branches outside the country. The reason is money, not so much for the Institute but for individual professors. And we cannot really deny them this (ulterior) motive. After all what does an IIT or IIM professor earn ? Something around Rs 500,000 / year and that too at the end of their career. Their students on the other hand routinely earn an identical amount on the day they step out of the institute. Naturally, this huge discount from the market price makes a professor's job extremely unattractive for talented people. [ It is of course a different matter that when talented people seek teaching assignments, even at these abysmal salaries, they are kept out by the old, incompetent incumbents ... but that is a different story ]
Net-net this attempt at opening IIM branches abroad is a ploy by some of the smart and enterprising professors to earn more money. Which is perfectly commendable but falls foul of the basic ground rules ... so is there any way by which the rules can be changed ? Here are two options ..
[a] Let faculty salaries be market driven. Which means that a professor of Computer Science should be paid what his or her counterpart in the IT industry makes and a professor of sociology or history or bengali should expect what a graduate or post graduate in these disciplines currently gets in the industry. By adhering to phony socialistic principles and paying the same money, at "UGC scales" to all teachers we have created a severe distortion in the market that results in smart teachers having to take such dubious and devious ways to get money that they should be getting anyway.
the other option is more radical.
[b] Let us 'privatise' the IIMs and IITs through an IPO. Education is a service business that has enormous potential and there will be no dearth of individuals who would want to invest in the same. The proceeds of the IPO, the money raised from the market, belong to the people of India and should be invested by the Government in more schools and colleges within the country. Given the huge brand value of the IITs/IIMs this money should be fabulous and if used well can create twenty more Institutes in the country.
The existing Institues on the other hand would now be accountable to their new owners, the shareholders, and would have the freedom to pursue whatever course they wish to choose. Should that lead them outside India, so be it, it is none of our business ... just as it is none of our business to ask where Infosys decides to open its next office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)