The document discusses performance management issues at the National Institute of Management. It analyzes insights from the case study, including that faculty opposed changes to the measurement system as the incentive system was their main motivation. It also notes key parameters for business school rankings like intellectual capital, placement performance, and industry interface. The board of directors proposed a new incentive system in 2006 with changes like defining work activity limits and incentives for organizational priorities. However, implementation issues included concerns about equalizing work units across roles and an overemphasis on certain activities over research. Overall, the system required improvements to better measure qualitative performance and align with the institution's goals.

1. PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT AT
NATIONAL INSTITUTE
OF MANAGEMENT
Case Study Analysis

2. 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.

3.  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 didn’t include
and qualitative analysis
Board of Director’s views

4. 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
EED’s
 Introducing the units for student’s 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.

5. Faculty work measurement system
• PGDM and other long duration programs
• Supervision of PhD thesis
• Evaluation of Internships and student projects
Teaching and Student
Guidance
• Research
• Conferences
Research and
publication
• Open Management Development Programs
• Off-campus Programs
• Consulting
Executive education
program and consulting
• Dean
• Program Chairperson
• program Chairpersons
• Administrative Chairpersons
• Hostel Warden
• Chairperson Placement Committee
• Chairpersons
Administrative
Responsibilities

6. Executive education and consulting
 Short term programs(2-15 days)
 Major competitor of NIM in this field is IIM’s 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.

7. Faculty hiring and retention
 A campus’s 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.

8. ANALYSIS

9. Parameters for Business School Rankings
•Ranking is critical for every institute.
•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
21
23
19
19
8
10
Placement
performance
Intellectual Capital
Industry Interface
Infrastructure and
Facilities
International Linkages
Recruiter's
Satisfaction survey
score

10. 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.
7%
12%
25%
5%5%5%5%
7%
5%
24%
Intellectual Capital
Books published (Last
Year)
Papers Published in
Indian Journals
Papers Published in
International Journals
Cases Authored
Journal

11. Parameters for Business School Rankings
The other important parameter in ranking is
Industrial Interface.
 The NIM(CI) campus is already at location
disadvantage thus reducing the chances of
industrial interface.
The situation can be taken care by improving
MDP( Management Development Program)
Thus faculty should be encouraged to involve in
more MDP’s
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.
5%
14%
28%
8%
7%
3%
7%
28%
Industry Interface
No. of seminars
Revenue from consulting
Revenue from MDP
No. of research projects
undertaken with industry
Incubation cell
Corporate visitors
Projects launched by
Incubation cell
Faculty Perception

12. Change in engagement of faculty after revision of performance
measurement system
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
2007-2008
2006-2007

13. 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 2006-2007
was 15% approx , whereas the
average raises to 31%(approx) in
year 2007-2008

14. Implementation Issues
• 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.
Equalisation of unit
allocation
• 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
Multiple administrative
responsibilities
• 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

15. • 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
Publications
Implementation Issues

16.  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

17.  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

18.  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.
Feedback