Pankaj Jalote
Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering
I.
Hence, if we are to upgrade the quality of education in these universities, colleges, and institutes, an impetus must be given to enhance R&D in these places. Of course, in this increasingly knowledge-based world where development of new technologies and intellectual property is important for economic growth, R&D growth is needed for other reasons as well. Only the countries that will do well in these areas are the ones who will move ahead.
Given the history of most of these institutes and universities, reorienting them to become R&D centers will require changes in the way they are governed such that individuals are motivated to do more R&D. In particular they will require a change in how the faculty resources of these institutes are managed as they are the key assets for doing R&D.
A basic paradigm of human resource management is that the performance of an individual must be appraised with respect to some objectives so as to identify strengths and areas of improvement. As no performance appraisal is meaningful unless it is backed with suitable incentives and disincentives, action based on the outcome of the appraisal is essential.
Currently, in universities and Institutes there is no regular appraisal of the faculty based on which incentives for doing good R&D (and disincentives for not contributing much on the R&D front) are given. This lack of any system for recognition is the most significant systemic issue which must be resolved satisfactorily if our universities and Institutes have to make an impact on the R&D front, and in the process improve the quality of education as well.
Given the past history and the culture of these places, an incentive system where salaries can be freely decided is neither possible, nor desirable as in these institutes of higher learning compensation should never be the only reward mechanism. It will be best if the reward or incentive system can be built within the salary-scale-increment concept, with which the Government and the faculty are quite comfortable.
One simple way to achieve this is to have a system of variable increments. In this system, there is an appraisal of the academic performance of each faculty member at the end of each year. The criteria for appraisal should attach suitable weight to the R&D performance, and should be clearly articulated. Based on the outcome of the appraisal, performance can be grouped in a few categories, and people in the different categories can be given different number of increments. To keep the whole exercise manageable, perhaps three to four categories can be created. Two approaches are possible here, assuming that four categories are created.
First approach is to state that though each individual has a right to the dearness allowance, the increment is not a right and has to be earned. With this philosophical shift, based on the performance, the top 10% of the performers can be given substantially more increments (say 4), and the next 25% should also be given additional increments (say 2). The average performer should be given the regular 1 increment, and the bottom 10% may not be given any increment.
The other approach is to avoid getting into the issue of whether the increment
is earned or a right, and give 1 increment to the lowest 10%, 2 increments to
the average, 3 increments to the top 25%, and 4 increments to the top 10%. These
percentages should be fixed suitably such that it creates the desired
differentiation.
This scheme creates some differential in the reward structure while maintaining
an overall balance, which is important in an academic institution where great
disparity in financial rewards is perhaps not desirable. However, the key
aspect of this scheme is that it requires
a performance appraisal every year of all
the faculty members, and this appraisal separates the performers from the
average and under performers. That fact that the salary for next year is
determined based on the outcome of this appraisal will ensure that appraisals
are indeed done in time and seriously.
To implement this scheme, it will be best if each scale has a larger range but smaller increments. For example, a range of Rs 4000 with an increment of Rs 100 to 200 permits a total of 20 to 40 increments – sufficient to provide the incentives as envisaged above. With small increments, the net financial impact will be minimal.
Conducting the appraisal will require some structure to be evolved, as in a relatively flat structure of a university, the methods used by hierarchic organizations cannot be applied. This, will need detailed discussion within each University. One possible method is to have a wide-based feedback at the department level on an individual’s performance e.g. by all colleagues, or by a large sub-group. Based on the departmental evaluation, a university-wide committee can then do the final evaluation. Clearly, as the focus of the initiative is to promote R&D, the appraisal criteria used should be focused around R&D.
If this simple mechanism can be implemented in Universities and Institutes, we can see a sea change in how R&D is viewed by faculty and the administrators. This will slowly lead to other systems being developed to support and promote R&D. Without some mechanism of this type, it is unlikely that we will be able to create strong desires and incentives for individuals to engage and excel in R&D. It should be added that such a system, in the end, should also be rewarding for individuals as its basic purpose is to provide timely and regular feedback, so individuals can improve their performance.
Performance-based-reward system is the way the world is moving – most professional setups will not remain professional or competitive without it. There is no reason why these mechanisms should not be used in educational systems. In fact, education places should take the lead and show to the rest – after all education is about showing way to others.