The evolution of management education or any education for that matter depends on the intent and capacity of policy-makers. The previous articles on MBA education demonstrated the need for an enabling policy to help providers align with contemporary processes, stay with a relevant purpose and ensure that MBA education is meaningful and adds incremental value to stakeholders.
An enabling policy environment is no doubt a catalytic fuel for the MBA engine to chug its way on course for a management education track that is optimally aligned to the needs of stakeholders. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is the statutory body responsible for norms, standards and coordinated development of technical education, with management education also under its purview. The comparison of evolution of management education in USA and India presents a widely contrasting story, with the American approach being incrementally progressive and the Indian approach being regimentally progressive, and both still grappling with issues, but of differing proportions.
Management education in the U.S.
Stage 1 – Inception stages to 1950s
This period saw the growth of B-schools based on decision-making by various private and public universities which started business degree programmes to capitalise on the post-world war opportunity. There was no clear vision or articulated growth with purpose. There seemed to be a demand (problem), allowing many universities (participants) to start business education programmes (solution).
Stage 2 – 1960 to 1990
The foundation reports (Ford & Carnegie) and emerging criticisms left a huge impact on the curriculum review and the quality of MBA graduates. Many B-schools started re-looking their curriculum and content and started optimising on various possible alternatives. The B-schools were analysing future possibilities and trying to optimise their solutions based on the resources available. This stage also saw a rapid increase in the number of B-schools which were started to fulfil the growing demand.
Stage 3 – 1990 to 2005
The Porter & McKibbin study and various other criticisms on the quality of MBA graduates provided an impetus for the B-schools to sequence their priorities and take informed decisions. This period also saw the consolidation of B-schools with a majority of them accredited by AACSB and aligned towards quality objectives, both at input and output stages. Some B-schools still continued to do everything without any focus.
Stage 4 – 2005 and after
B-schools have started looking at management as a profession and also focused their efforts on faculty improvement and research. There seemed to be a conscious shift towards quality processes resulting not only in quality dissemination of knowledge but creation of new management concepts for a changing paradigm disrupted by globalisation and technology.
Management education in India
Stage 1 – 1950 to 1988
This stage represents the formative years of management education in India in which more concern was understandably on the systems, procedures, control, etc. Almost all the new initiatives were by the government machinery and hence issues that dominated the decisions-making were governance, control, admission policy, faculty appointments, etc. This stage was predominantly for creation of government institutions and the extent to which the growth happened could not match the rate at which U.S. management education grew in its first stage.
Stage 2 - 1990 to 2005
On the one hand, the management education development was still dominated by policy- level decision-making which concentrated on the administrative issues of governance, structure, admission, fees, etc., and on the other hand, there was a surge in the number of B-schools due to policy level changes. The formation of AICTE which was merely acting as an approval agency encouraged private initiative with unprecedented growth in the number of management institutes. More than 90% of them satisfied the minimalist norms and were found wanting in various parameters because of this growth pattern which was quantitative and not qualitative.
Stage 3 – 2005 and after
This stage saw an accelerated growth in the number of new B-schools in the same pattern that prevailed in Stage 2. Also a few B-schools began to lay emphasis on quality and started implementing options that were positioned for improving quality.
With growth being a constant factor in both the U.S. and India, the fundamental difference lies in the type of decision-making at the macro level. In the USA, issues pertaining to academic inputs and quality outputs dominated the factors influencing decision-making. There was a critical analysis of various factors, and various reports indicated the need for change in academic content and quality.
In India, issues pertaining to governance and control dominated the decision-making process. The various committees and studies missed the bigger picture of quality in programme design and students. There was an excessive inclination towards non-academic factors like control, fees, admission policy, administration, etc. Though these factors are also important, they are not significantly important when compared to other crucial factors like course design, skill development, faculty development, research, etc.
If accreditation is a barometer of quality, the difference is self-explanatory. The two agencies responsible to ensure quality are The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) in USA and National Board of Accreditation (NBA) for India. Of the estimated 1,800 business schools in America, nearly 550 are accredited by AACSB and five Indian business schools are also accredited by AACSB. However, of the 3,300 business schools in India, the percentage accredited by NBA is definitely less than 30%, notwithstanding the fact the accreditation process of AACSB is far ahead of NBA in terms of rigour and parameters.
I distinctly recall my discussions with one of India’s management educators Dr. Dharni P.Sinha in 2003 who was instrumental in establishing the Association of Management Development Institutions in South Asia (AMDISA). He remarked, “We need regional bridge between our poor accreditation standards and the advanced standards of AACSB”, and later on, he was instrumental in establishing a SAARC-level accreditation mechanism through the South Asian Quality Assurance Systems (SAQS) with initial support from European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD). Still, the accreditation score for B-schools in India is comparably low despite the process being relatively easy when compared to AACSB or EQUIS or SAQS.
Is accreditation the only driver of quality growth in management education? How to institutionalise this and also put in place a multi-dimensional approach in policy reforms? Answers in the next article.
The writer is Dean of Planning and Development, SASTRA University, Thanjavur.
