PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT AT
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
MANAGEMENT
Case Study Analysis

Case Analysis: Some insights

NIM Campus were highly appreciative of the transparent, Unit based work
measurement system
Location of NIM (CI) was not preferred by faculty members. Thus getting
good faculty to work and industrial interface was very difficult
The incentive system was the only motivation among faculty to work with
CI campus.
Faculty drastically opposed any change in current measurement system
Quality of intellectual capital provide an institute with the only source of
sustained competitive advantage.
Emphasis was to be given to EED programs as they are one of the main
revenue streams and also helpful in industry interaction and reputation
building.

Board of Directors views

Minimum work load specified was too low
Also the measurement system was not accurate since as mentioned in case
many faculty members earned a no.of units that was as per directors
believe was DIFFICULT to achieve.
Large Discrepancy between units earned by faculty at two different
campus.
Advisory Committee was of a view that current measurement system didnt
include and qualitative analysis

Difference between new incentive system introduced in

April 2006 with the old one
Defining the minimum and maximum limits of work activities expected
Defining minimum and maximum hours of CORE ACTIVITY i.e. teaching.
Incentives for contribution in activities classified as organizational
priorities like EEDs
Introducing the units for students feedback as students as major stake
holders
New system was launched at both campuses at almost same time but
there comes to be difference in the units earned. One primary reason was
the difference in the organization structure at top level.

Dean
Program Chairperson
program Chairpersons
Administrative Chairpersons
Hostel Warden
Chairperson Placement Committee
Chairpersons

Open Management Development Programs

Off-campus Programs
Consulting

Research
Conferences

PGDM and other long duration programs

Supervision of PhD thesis
Evaluation of Internships and student projects

Administrative
Responsibilities
Executive education
program and
consulting
Research and
publication
Teaching and Student
Guidance

Faculty work measurement system

Executive education and consulting

Short term programs(2-15 days)
Major competitor of NIM in this field is IIMs and several other B-Schools
taking the advantage of location as industries prefer local courses.
In 2008, Under specific conditions by BODs, focus was given for conducting
such programs and specific units could be earned by the faculty under this
Faculty could get the benefit out of this in 2 forms: by earning money and
by earning units per session.

Faculty hiring and retention

A campuss ranking is highly effected by its faculty.
With already existing problem of maintaining a Student-faculty ratio of 10/1,
the plan of addition of more students to campus demands more faculty.
The change in management performance system and hold back of
appraisal and delay has already resulted in the resignation of some faculty
members and others also finding alternatives for the same.
This causes problem for AC to change the existing appraisal system.
The core purpose of concern was not being solved.
AC should propose a solution where the concern should not be to gain
points by only bare completion of teaching hours but also by completion of
level of syllabus and also the level of satisfaction amongst the students.

ANALYSIS

Parameters for Business School Rankings

Ranking
institute.

is

critical

for

every

Since NIM(CI) campus was to get

its
independent
ranking
,so
parameter wise analysis is crucial.
As per a survey, the most critical
parameters
are
Intellectual
capital(i.e.
the
faculty),the
placement
performance
and
Industry Interface

10

19

21

23
19

Placement
performance
Intellectual Capital
Industry Interface
Infrastructure and
Facilities
International Linkages
Recruiter's
Satisfaction survey
score

Parameters for Business School Rankings

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

In another survey as mentioned in case study,

the most important parameter in Intellectual
capital evaluation is Paper Published in
International Journals.

Also this aligns with the vision statement of

NIM

Hence faculty should be encouraged more for

this.

Intellectual Capital

24%7%
12%
5%
24%
7%
5%
5%
5%
5%

Books published (Last

Year)
Papers Published in
International Journals
Journal
No. of permanent
faculty numbers sent to
international
conference/seminar
Faculty with PhD/
student ratio

Papers Published in
Indian Journals
Cases Authored
Doctoral program
Faculty / Student ratio

Faculty perception

Parameters for Business School Rankings

The other important parameter in ranking is
Industrial Interface.

Industry Interface

The NIM(CI) campus is already at location

disadvantage thus reducing the chances of
industrial interface.

No. of seminars

The situation can be taken care by improving MDP(

Management Development Program)
Thus faculty should be encouraged to involve in
more
MDPs
Also through network building and through
improving reputation in industry, this can be done
For example: students and teachers could be
encouraged to indulge in live case study
preparation and analysis of industry and the
analysis can be shared with industry for their
benefit.
This will build the trust.

Revenue from consulting

28%

6%
14%

Revenue from MDP

No. of research projects
undertaken with industry
Incubation cell
Corporate visitors

7%
3%
7%
8%

28%

Projects launched by
Incubation cell
Faculty Perception

Change in engagement of faculty after revision of

performance measurement system
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

2007-2008
2006-2007

Involvement of faculty in Research work

It was also seen that the total
units earned by 15 members
from
research
work
got
increased in consecutive years
With further calculations, the
average units earned in research
work by faculty in year 20062007 was 15% approx , whereas
the average raises to 31%
(approx) in year 2007-2008

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

Units allotted for

Feedback
Equalisation of unit
allocation

A hostel warden earn 50 points

Two times evaluating and grading the class earns a teacher 40 points.
The efforts required to be on administrative positions like warden needs more
engagement in no. of hours than evaluating the class .Hence not justified.

Multiple
administrative
responsibilities

some people through their networks and expertise can easily hold several or
multiple administrative positions at a time
say : Corporate communication, student counseling, international relations,
program chairperson PGDM program
135 units i.e. 45% of minimum units earned only through the case

Implementation Issues

 The Vision of the college is To be a premium management college and

technology institute , a student focused learning community and recognized

for its research and teaching.

But proper focus is not made to justify the very Vision statement of the
institute.
Units earned by Publication in International Journal(non-referred) is just 20
Whereas by just managing 2 OMD programs in campus, a faculty can earn
23.5 points
It requires an effort of 12 months (approx) for publishing whereas a OMD
program is held for just 10-15 days

Units
allotted
for
research
and
Publicatio
ns
Implementation Issues

Feedback
Since mentioned in the case, there was requirement to make system
more robust and less vulnerable to change and misuse.
But on the other hand any changes would lead to decrease in income of
faculty leading to large scare exodus of faculty members
So, changes should be made which will directly not affect the income level of

members or work load addition but a better evaluation of qualitative factors like
efficiency and effectiveness of teaching. This can be done by checking the
corporate readiness and relevance of students on regular basis and feedback on
the same to faculty.
Case review committee should also be present at NI campus (and not CI campus
alone) as this will effect the average points earned by the faculty members in terms
of cases being published or approved. At CI campus, the process is very rigorous.
The organization structure should be same for all the campuses at top level. This is
reduce the gap coming between the units earned by faculty of different campus

Feedback
Some faculty members may publish research papers in
journals in which they themselves serve on the editorial board.
The system has no mechanism in place to control such
actions. Such issues should be taken care of
Issue of incentive plans and their utility in motivating
academicians.
Research has shown that financial benefits actually undermine
intrinsic motivation (Kohn, 1993). Most top academicians
would derive immense satisfaction by publishing in top-quality
journals.
System does not encourage faculty members to target top
rated journals

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