Institutions at the crossroads
Aimed at modernising the country’s higher education framework, NEP 2020 seeks to enhance quality, inclusivity, and technological integration to achieve scale, multi-disciplinarity and holistic learning experiences. Despite the potential benefits, the effective execution of NEP 2020 is impeded by various institutional limitations, resource allocation issues, and the difficulty of aligning educational practices with rapidly evolving industry demands. These challenges are further magnified and more pronounced in the context of management education space.
The landscape of Indian management education is quite wide and complex with over a third of global management institutions being in India producing over 430,000 management graduates every year. Over 3,246 AICTE-approved institutions offering full-time management programmes come in various configurations, such as ‘stand-alone autonomous single discipline institutions’ (22 IIMs, 330+ PGDM institutions); ‘single programme single discipline institutions’ affiliated to state/Central Universities; ‘Department of management studies’ at Engineering institutions (IITs, NITs and several other engineering colleges); ‘B-Schools’ at private universities, etc.
With such a scale and complexity of management education, coupled with the fact that more than 90 per cent of the institutions are languishing at Tiers III & IV towns and below, surviving on shoe-string budgets and scant resources, implementation of the NEP 2020 poses a complex array of challenges.
In this article, we look at the three major challenges leaders at PGDM institutions (AICTE approved autonomous) have to navigate as they grapple with being NEP compliant. They are: identity and survival crisis; multi-disciplinarity; and technological integration & digitalisation.
Issue of identity
To be or not-to-be a Business school: (Options and challenges of graduating to a degree granting institution). Standalone PGDM institutions are facing a severe identity crisis as Diplomas issued by them are losing the sheen and perception war ever since IIMs were accorded with degree granting status through IIM Act 2017.
In fact, PG Diploma in Management as a new category of academic credential (often considered better than MBA degree offered by a university) was introduced to create special identify for programmes offered by IIMs and the same status was eventually granted by AICTE to hundreds of institutions that operated in this segment for the last few decades.
Now that IIMs have become a degree granting institutions offering MBA degree instead of a PG diploma (PGDM) certificate to their graduates, the entire segment of institution granting PGDM is at the crossroads.
It is inevitable for PGDM institutions to graduate to a ‘degree granting’ status for them to stay relevant and also would a prerequisite for them to be able to introduce multiple degree programmes at UG/PG levels to achieve scale to be NEP compliant. Currently, PGDM institutions have limited, mostly unviable or impractical, options in this direction. Here are a few choices explained:
Cluster University: In this model, multiple institutions can come together under the umbrella of a common sponsoring body (society/trust) and merge into one degree granting institution – either deemed university or state private university. Though, this model looks very intuitive and straight forward, there are practical issues that makes it near impossible to implement.
Private or deemed university: This option is fairly straight forward but suitable only to those with a large corpus, scalable infrastructure (land and buildings) and administrative capabilities. This model is out of bounds for almost 90 per cent of the PGDM institutions that operate in lower tiers with single PGDM programme.
However, the catch even for the large institutions in this model is that of achieving both scale and multi-disciplinarity without losing their identity and/or compromise on academic quality and standards.
As a university, the institution would be compelled to offer programmes in multiple disciplines often going beyond their core competencies as well as compromising on their core identity & positioning as a premiere B-School.
Further, the challenges of scaling up to 3,000 students need huge amount of financial and administrative resources to build both soft and hard infrastructure.
Deemed university in distinct category: This is an improvised version of the above option, whereby an institution can scale up to become an university under a ‘distinct deemed-to-be university’ category with a special focus on a designated distinct domain of education.
However, the conditions prescribed to set up a university under this category are prohibitively restrictive (especially, corpus requirement of Rs25 crore) making it out-of-bounds for even some of the top and mid-tier management institutions let alone institutions at the bottom of the pyramid.
Further, the ambiguity around whether management education be qualified as a distinct area (such as nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, etc); and, even if so considered, the question of how many universities under such distinct category shall be permitted under the provisions of UGC, adds to the complexity.
Degree-granting status by an Act of Parliament: The most viable and highly suitable solution to address this challenge is that all the AICTE approved autonomous institutions offering PGDM can be accorded with status of a degree-granting institutions by an act of Parliament in-lines with IIM Act 2017.
This shall enable PGDM institutions to expand their capacities add more programs at UG and PG level without any compromise on their core competencies and identity. However, the challenges of scaling up infrastructure, academic & faculty resources, digitalisation etc remain to be addressed.
However, the fact that all 300+ PGDM institutions are not of equal standing in terms of their categorisation (by AICTE) and status of accreditation by national and international agencies, further complicates the matter.
Multi-disciplinarity
The NEP 2020 calls for a comprehensive curriculum redesign that moves beyond traditional teaching methods and focuses on practical, skill-based, multi-disciplinary education. With regard to achieving multi-disciplinarity, the fundamental question is about achieving multi-disciplinarity at programme level or at institution level?
Introducing multi-disciplinarity in management institutions is a tricky affair as a typical management program, unlike engineering or natural sciences programs, is multi-disciplinary by its very nature as it draws from a wide range of disciplines starting from economics to mathematics to statistics to ICT to accounting to behavioural sciences and many more.
Therefore, what is expected out of management institutions, esp. single discipline standalone institutions, in this context is quite ambiguous. Should they be expected to start programmes in engineering or sciences or humanities or other disciplines in which they have neither inherent competencies nor requisite resources and limited complementarity with the existing programmes? There is no clear answer to this question as NEP is by and large silent on management education.
Integration & digitalisation
The integration of digital technologies into education at all levels is a central pillar of NEP 2020. However, mid-tier management institutions face significant obstacles in adopting technology-enhanced learning:
Inadequate digital infrastructure: Institutions in mid & lower tiers, particularly those located in towns and smaller cities, struggle with the lack of reliable digital infrastructure. High-speed internet, advanced learning management systems (LMS), and well-equipped digital classrooms are either unavailable or prohibitively expensive for these institutions.
Faculty’s digital proficiency: The transition to digital learning platforms demands that faculty members become proficient in using tools such as AI-driven learning systems, virtual simulations and online assessments. However, many faculty members, particularly in lower-tier institutions, lack adequate training in these areas.
Digital divide & equitable access to digital resources: Even when institutions invest in digital platforms, students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds may not have access to the necessary devices or reliable internet connections. This digital divide poses a serious constraint to ensuring equitable access to quality education in a digital learning environment.
Leadership gaps: Effective leadership is crucial for navigating the complex reforms required by NEP 2020. However, many mid-tier PGDM institutions struggle with leadership that is either unprepared or unwilling to embrace the changes needed to align with the policy’s objectives. This lack of visionary leadership can slow down the efforts to achieve technological integration and overall digitalisation.
Thus, while NEP 2020 offers a forward-thinking framework for transforming education, the practical challenges it poses are significant and difficult to overcome. Financial limitations, inadequate digital infrastructure, and a lack of industry connections are deeply rooted issues that require considerable resources and time to address. The structural issues and leadership gaps further complicate matters, leaving these institutions at a disadvantage.
The reality is that all most all of mid and lower-tier institutions are staring at twin crisis of survival and identity. The likelihood of overcoming these challenges without substantial support from policy makers and regulators is slim.
The high costs of scaling up the student intake, introduce multiple programmes, curriculum overhaul, digital transformation, and faculty upskilling are prohibitive for many of these schools, and their dependence on tuition fees alone makes it practically impossible to invest in long-term growth.
Without targeted funding and collaboration with industry and government, these institutions may continue to struggle to align with NEP 2020, limiting their ability to even survive in this new regime forget about delivering quality education and improve student learning experiences and outcomes. The path ahead for these institutions is fraught with hurdles, and while it may look like solutions do exist, their successful implementation will be far from easy.