Objectives and Key Results for Higher Educational Institutions– A Blended Approach as Part of Post Covid-19 Initiatives for Keeping the Institutions Abreast of the Industry Innovations,
Create Future Leaders and Build the Nation
Dr. Mruthyanjaya Rao Mangipudi
Head, Academics & Industry Partnerships,
IIHRD, Hyderabad
Dr. KDV Prasad
Adjunct Professor,
IIHRD, Senior Officer, ICRISAT, Patancheru, Hyderabad
Dr. Rajesh W. Vaidya
Assistant Professor,
Shri Ramdeobaba College of Engineering and Management,
Nagpur, India
Abstract
There is an urgent need that the Higher Educational Institutes continuously enhance and advance its systems, in particular, whilst evaluating the performance in its entirety. There is a disproportionate upsurge in costs for providing excellent education however, there is a serious mismatch between the costs incurred and students’ expectations as well as the industry. The orthodox and traditional model of appraising does not help the institutions or universities to meet the dynamic requirements of the business. It is essential that the Higher Education Institutions also develop a new-age performance management system similar to the industry to evaluate the available resources and assess the performance. The researchers here present performance management system Objectives and key results to abstract design and apply robust assessment strategies to test the performance of an institution, the faculty, the learning community, and other stakeholders or team involved in the system to align the objectives collectively to achieve the desired goal. Primarily, three and four objectives can be set up with four to five key results, in order, to signify each of the objectives. The Objectives and key results framework can be set up at several levels – Individual, department, and Institution levels. The framework presented will enhance the efficacy of the institute and improves engagement, interpersonal relations, engagement at all levels, accountability, and cultural visibility. The suggested framework is believed to be not only improving the efficiency of the institution but also enhances communication, engagement, accountability, interpersonal relations, and cultural prospects.
Keywords: Objectives and Key Results, Higher Education, Institutions, Universities, Post Covid-19 initiatives by HEIs
The ‘search’ for the reason for a gap among academia and the industry always seems to be ending with pointing fingers at each other without a thorough ‘research’ and understanding the actual challenges. The authors delve into the study, explored various reasons, and the need for bridging the gap between these two imperative constituents in society to build a better nation. The authors found out two different perspectives about educational institutions and the industry. The establishments of higher institutions have a perception of predominant subjective learning and know-how of a variety of cultures, attitudes, aspirations of the people, gain knowledge in the areas of interest at learner per according to their learning abilities and the needs. The educational institutions such as colleges, universities, business schools are being expected to share the knowledge to the fullest extent and in-depth in the respective subjects, and in the process, more branches of study viz., Engineering, Fine Arts, Social Sciences, Humanities, Business Management, etc., have emerged with specializations again in each of these areas. Therefore viewpoint concerning higher educational institutes is concerned, by and large, is that the HEIs are only knowledge dispensaries and persist under the category of non-profit entities. Whereas the expectations from these institutions are enormous and they are believed in such a way that they do not deliver what the industry requires. On the other hand, globalization, the standards of living of people, changes in the socio, legal, economic, political cultures, and privatization of public sector units including the education sectors threw a challenge to the organizations to deliver according to the changing business landscapes with a commercial, business and profit motive (Bakhtiari &Shajar, 2006). Thus, there exists a gap, and the divide is wide between the educational institutions and the commercial organizations. Eventually, it is evident that, with the establishment of business schools and technological premium institutions, the gap is now slowly narrowing for the reason the objectivity is realized. Hence, the apparent reason could be more or less the difference between subjectivity versus objectivity. Today’s organizations operate in a tough competitive space with objectivism in mind where the objective is to satisfy the business needs of the organizations and to enhance the value of the stakeholders on one hand and deliver the best service or solutions to the satisfaction of the customers. It is highly impractical to assume that the human resources in the organization shall carry and continue with the same spirit as they are in the educational institutions (Broekkamp & Bernadette van Hout-Wolter, 2007). In the current scenario, the tole any student is moving a from just learner and knowledge attainer to the implementer of the knowledge gained in the industry once placed with industry. So is the case with the students or learners expecting them to switch their frame of mind and approach immediately towards objectivism as soon as they join a business entity or commercial organization?
Performance Management Systems in HEIs: In Higher Educational Institutions or Universities, there does not seem to be a wing to oversee and measure the performance and evaluate the impact of the outcome. In Europe, and in the United States of America, several Institutions are slowly adapting to the innovative performance management systems to bring necessary reforms (Arbo, 2008). It is evident through the second study that the authors made that the periodic accreditation activities by the Universities are inadequate, and they do not meet the ever-changing business requirements at both national and international levels, and they fail to play an effective role. It is therefore recommended to implement a PMS that monitors the inputs, processes, and outputs in such a way that it improves the performance of the institution and strive towards improving the urgent developmental needs of the country.
Salau et al., (2020)in their study applying structural equational modeling, on a data set of 384 academic staff on retention outcomes of public universities in south Nigeria reported inadequate and obsolete infrastructure is the main reason for retention and impact of workplace environments. This study further reported disparities in student-teacher ratio, promotion policies, congested classrooms are significantly influencing the retention outcomes. Decramer et al. (2013) revealed in their study on performance management culture system and its relationship with employee performance management satisfaction in survey y with 589 employees of Flemish University, Brussels, reveal enhanced communication with internal consistencies among the employees and management, associated with performance management satisfaction of academic employees (Adelien Decramer, 2013). Awanand Karim (2018), reported how they could bring the required change through the implementation of PMS European University, and they also reminded that there exists PMS in Higher Educational Institutions but needs tremendous improvement to suit the industry requirements, and the authors strongly recommended the necessity of having a mechanism to improve the performance and align the goals of the learning community, faculty and the universities/institutions. Achem Krausert commented in his paper published in a journal, Human Resources Management Review, that PMS quantifies the performance in numbers and let the management know how well a resource has been performing comparatively in an organization/institution, and that is important (Krausert, 2017)
Key factors of PMS in HEIs: The authors identified certain key factors based on the necessities of the new age universities, deemed-to-be-universities, autonomous institutions. Industry-oriented multi-disciplinary research, learning by doing projects, diverse culture in vibrant campus, methodologies based student aspirations, making students related industry-ready for the holistic development of a student, sessions for interpersonal skills, industry-oriented innovative curriculum, regular internship, and placement programs, engaging distinguished faculty including the guest faculty or adjunct faculty from the industry in the respective domains/education field, ICT enabled learning, etc., are some of the significant factors that help institutes as well industry. If a PMS is designed through developing OKRs considering the above-mentioned factors, with the required modifications that suit the respective institutions, and the volatile industry environment, the academic must pursue the strategies to a limited gap between the industry and (Mathew, 2020).During the pandemic situations like the Covid-19, the contactless sessions such as the ICT (Information and Communication Technology) enabled learning gives much respite to the learning community. With Governments across the world, including India gives much importance to Digitalization, the delivery of information/lessons through ICT would be the best mode of delivery of education even to reach unreachable (Team, 2017). In addition to the above, it is pertinent to note that the institutions should have to take into consideration the “Sixas” as to remain competitive and relevant in the race, and they are - Actualize, Adaptive, Agile, Align, Analytical, Automate that facilitate the possibilities to enhance the value of each process or method under OKRs and improves performance in total, within the Institution in conformity with its objectives (Mruthyanjaya Rao & Prasad, 2020).Boniface Niyivuga et al., (2019) suggested the policymakers to design a policy to assess the performance of higher education staff, studying the association among monitoring and evaluation practices and motivation of Rwandan higher education staff. The authors concluded that peer evaluation and active participation of academic staff are essential for continuous improvement and the staff is motivated with autonomy, overwork recognition. Camilleri & Camilleri (2018), suggested that academic institutions should evaluate the performance outcomes routinely and outcomes need to be monitored to visualize that the academicians are optimally managing the resources and capacities using and the authors suggested the use of HRM systems. Ning Zhou et al., (2009) reported a mulity-layer, service-oriented architechture and implemented the same concerning framework with digital campus for higher education systems. Micahel Moody (2019) suggested Streamline and implement tools flexibly, Design systems as a formative feedback process, Support evaluators to be coaches, more people involvement, Use of video tools to focus on meaningful feedback to improve the performance system of the faculty and ensure quality teaching an opportunity for growth.
Given the background as narrated above, the objectivism shall start with the educational institutions, too. The industry is clear in what they require, and it is apparent that they require resources that contribute to the business from day one. Why the institutes doest not adopt a method for their faculty? The assumption is that the that an institute organization offer services, solution, and end products to the consumers and creating an economical value to the organizations. Therefore, the HEIs should start assessing the available systems, human and financial resources, and methodologies similar to the industry. In the present system, there is an urgent need to transform the teaching methods to be related to outcome-based education. Therefore, why can’t a PMSassess and measure the teaching fraternity which is the catalyst for delivering the education to the students? The authors, therefore, tried to find out a rationale behind introducing Objectives and Key Results to assess the performance of the teaching faculty by an independent unit within the university/college/institution to maximize the efficiency of not only the institution but also to gauge the students’ ability to learn and understand what they are taught and measure the impact of such framework at a later stage.
With the introduction of OKRs in the educational institutions, some of the following key elements and objectives can be achieved, and make use of the new system to meet the industry and Nation demands and in the race. OKRs may be framed to achieve the following objectives which are indicative but not exhaustive:
The following questions arise during the study. They are:
The most needed and challenging aspect of academia is to find out mechanisms to narrow the gap and sail along with the industry, and, more importantly maintaining the core ideology of an education system to create a vibrant knowledge society by providing high-quality education, develop an inclination towards values and ethics, commitment to human rights and global well-being (LinkedIn, 2020). It has to strike the right balance between its core educational principles and stakeholders’ business value proposition. That is the crux for maintaining academia-industry linkage and the academic institute should be ahead of industry for imparting education, with business simulations as part of student education strategies to make them industry and nation ready. The performance management system, should consider all these factors, identify or whatever name that one could give it to it, it is necessary for the institutions and establishesan independent unit within its system for carrying out a third-party evaluation.
Usually, the institutions have collegiate academic bodies that lack autonomy over certain aspects of performance management or talent management (Baporikar, 2019). These bodies operate following the State or Central Government or national level regulatory bodies. For Example, in India, the University Grants Commission (UGC). There are also certain accreditation bodies and assessing agencies such as the National Board of Accreditation (NBA), established by the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) for ensuring quality and relevance to technical education; National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) an autonomous institution of UGC for making quality assurance an integral part of the functioning of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Certain Key Indicators (KIs) have been identified by NAAC for the criteria set by it for each of the significant areas pertain to the dispensation of education, and each of those indicators carries stipulated weightage distributed for all the universities, autonomous colleges, affiliated and constituent colleges. Out of all, under the criteria by name, “Teaching-Learning and Evaluation”, the weightage distributed for the key indicator, “Evaluation process and reforms” is only 40/200. One could assume the importance that has been given to “evaluation process and reforms”, which is 20 percent in the subject case. It must be appropriate at the NAAC level to distribute only 20 percent of importance out of 200 points to the evaluation process and reforms. However, it is for the Universities, Autonomous Colleges, and the affiliated/constituent colleges to devise the ways and means and design the appropriate methodology as to how do they oversee the overall performance of their university or institution. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a separate strategic unit within the campus, preferably, Human Resources Department, and delegate this responsibility of facilitating the performance management system and also designing the objectives and key results (OKRs) for every aspect that NAAC, NBA, UGC and AICTE touched upon. The authors listed some of the OKRs vide Annexure that does seem to be of greater importance for the benefit of the Institutions/Universities National Policy Board for Educational Administration. New York: NPBEA (Va, 2015), and Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, NCEERA (Washington DC, 2015)
The study is majorly focused upon the industries with a profit motive or commercial objectives. The rationale behind this study is to bridge the gap between academia and industry and the ways and means of how this gap can be narrowed through a mechanism and to identify the lapses, deficiencies of thoughts and beliefs and the reasons for the institutions being deprived of this consideration by most of the people who hold the faculty and the educational institutions responsible for these gaps. Of course, this study may not be applicable for the situations where the ‘aim and objective’ is to ‘study and gain knowledge’ in the said educational institutions or universities only to ‘impart similar knowledge’ in another university or college, for the reason there does not exist any application of knowledge to the satisfaction of industry or there does not exist any element of business advantage.
Most of the surveys, reports, studies have been conducted by various eminent researchers across the world including in India based on what could be done through PMS and how it acts on the well being of academic employees and higher education institutions, and how do they perceive the PMS and its impact on employees. Even, the Government agencies and regulatory bodies in India such as UGC, AICTE, NAAC, NBA, and the elders emphasize the dispensation of qualitative education but do not give specific attention to the evaluation of the performance of the faculty and the administrators of an institution/university through PMS. The authors could see a gap in such research as to how do we bridge the gap between the industry and academia, and how does an effective PMS through designing OKRs could help overcome the difficulty of bridging the gap and ensure better synergy, a collaboration between both the significant constituents in nation-building.
Research Hypothesis
The Framework is based on the model based on Yoon et al., 2007 (Figure 1), a three-step framework where Academician’s qualification and learning enhance his/her knowledge and skills, enhanced improved teaching and improved teaching raises student achievement. Based on this the following model was developed.
Figure 1: Professional Learning - Effect on Student Achievement
5.1 Data Collection
A research methodology is a procedure used to scientifically perform a research study. The methodology permits the reader to significantly assess the article’s overall authenticity and consistency. There are two questions answered by the authors here, and they are – how has been the data collected or gathered by the researcher? How was the data investigated to arrive at conclusions? The research paradigm for this study is by applying practical tribulations being faced by the institutions and the organizations, and by close observation of these two constituents in the ecosystem of higher education and learning space. The researchers collected all the relevant data and information validly and reliably via a qualitative research approach, which is subjective and inductive. Content analysis has been done extensively using the website of universities, regulatory bodies, autonomous institutions’ websites, etc. As far as surveys are concerned, the researchers used the surveys which have already been conducted by the research scholars for the subject under study. The authors are satisfied that the results through the surveys conducted by external agencies are sufficient enough to support the study. Extensive exploration was conducted by going through ethnographies, history, case studies, newsletters, and sufficient documents and models were observed to acquire more knowledge and information. Thus, the researcher used and depended mostly on secondary data.
5.2 Data Analysis:
The authors applied some of the relevant statistical procedures and methods, such as descriptive, exploratory, inferential, and predictive types which are found to be specific and helpful for this study (Khan et al. (2015). The thematic presentation of data is done by emphasizing pinpointing, evaluating, recording different patterns of data (Khan et al. 2017). The research has also been conducted by applying Diagnostic analytics, Predictive Analytics, and Prescriptive analytics to devise the framework to suit the objectives of the study. That helped the researchers to get better learning and understanding of the causes of situations, events, and necessities for the institutions to adopt the best way possible to get closer to the industry. It also helped the authors to recognize the best opportunities for the institutions and universities through framing a robust PMS using OKRs. The use of descriptive methods helped the authors to acquire simple summaries. The data aggregation and data mining areas equivalent as possible for a study conducted under quantitative as they used the surveys conducted by the predecessors.
After having analyzed the data and information available at the disposal of the researchers/authors, the researchers found justifications and the solutions to the setbacks, and thus, they could answer the following research questions as follows:
Unless the higher institutions of learning follow what the industry follows and requires, and implement the methodologies, and use the same scale similar to what an organization does in assessing the performance of their resources, the institutions cannot achieve the objective of bridging the gap, and it remains as an illusion as long as they use a different scale in measuring the performance. At the same time, one would say that everything will fall in line automatically and happens on its own in achieving the institutional goals if a PMS is implemented without giving the required importance and gone a rigorous thought process into it. There must be an alignment of goals, and the goals must be defined in a crystal clear manner. For example, implementation of ICT is a goal for which shall be considered all aspects that are helpful to achieve ICT goals. Quality of resources, regular assessment, getting updated with the online teaching tools available for better dispensation of classes/coaching. So is the innovative pedagogy. When innovation occurs, quality checks must be followed to fructify the results achieved out of the said objective.
Further, PMS can be a catalyst to devise the objectives and goals according to the industry requirements, and there must be a continuous collaboration between these two. For example, for an IT company, a programming language, called Angular JS version 8 is required, whereas, the institution is imparting Angular basic version or Java programming language, which is not helpful and is not syncing with the requirements. Here, through PMS, one of the objectives could be devised exactly to match the requirement to measure the said objective later if any deviation occurs. Even at the least, they will be able to know the reason where the gap is. Hence, PMS is an essential tool for educational institutions to get their goals aligned in every aspect.
After the identification and categorization of objectives according to the institution's vision and mission, each of these goals should have measurable key results in terms of numbers. All parameters, criteria, indicators, and metrics that the evaluator would assess shall be converted to numbers to easily identify and track the progress that is being made from time to time. The following table explains what are the OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) and how have they been given weightage. The table and the OKRs and the weightage are only indicative figures and numbers, and the actual OKRs can be varied based on the importance that they would like to assign to each of these OKRs.
Table – 1 – Objectives at Faculty Level (Individual)
|
IIHRD - Faculty Objectives for Semester-I |
Objective Tracking |
||
|
Teaching Objective |
39% |
||
|
Key Results: |
Progress |
|
|
|
Outcome of students/Semister results (pass %age) |
75% |
|
|
|
Feedback/satisfaction level (%age) |
20% |
|
|
|
Syllabus completed (%age) |
15% |
|
|
|
No. of MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses -- edX, Coursera, NPTEL) completed |
35% |
|
|
|
No. of FDPs (Faculty Development Programmes/Workshops) attended part of upskilling |
50% |
|
|
|
|
Objective Tracking |
||
|
Best Practices Objective |
15% |
||
|
Key Results: |
Progress |
|
|
|
Active Learning Methods (brainstorming sessions, flipped classrooms, game-based teaching) |
5% |
|
|
|
Business simulations |
15% |
|
|
|
Case studies developed |
25% |
|
|
|
|
Objective Tracking |
||
|
Research Works Objective |
0% |
||
|
Key Results: |
Progress |
|
|
|
Papers/Articles published (with faculty) in SCOPUS/Web of Science/UGC CARE indexed |
0% |
|
|
|
Books/Chapters published (with Students) in SCOPUS/Web of Science/UGC CARE indexed |
0% |
|
|
|
Citation Count (h-index / i-index) |
0% |
|
|
|
Total progress across objectives: |
18% |
||
|
OKR Method Explained: |
|||
|
1. Objectives Tracking % = Average % (KRP1, KRP2, KRP3……KRPn) |
|||
|
2. Total progress % = Average % of Objective Tracking |
|||
|
3. KRP = Key Result Progress |
|||
Table – 2 – Objectives at the Institutional Level (Organizational)
|
IIHRD's Institutional Objectives for the Semester-I |
Objective Tracking |
||||||||
|
Industry Collaboration Objective |
54% |
||||||||
|
Key Results: |
Progress |
|
|||||||
|
CSRs entered with Industries through MoUs |
75% |
|
|||||||
|
Projects obtained by respective Dept from Industry |
20% |
|
|||||||
|
Adjunct Faculties appointed |
15% |
|
|||||||
|
No. of Companies added for placements |
80% |
|
|||||||
|
Funding obtained (% age based on total volume) |
75% |
|
|||||||
|
Training Programmes by the industry for Faculty Development (Re-skilling/Up-skilling) |
58% |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Objective Tracking |
|||||||
|
ICT Initiatives Objective |
59% |
||||||||
|
Key Results: |
Progress |
|
|||||||
|
MOOCs in total organized |
80% |
|
|||||||
|
No. of Students registered for virtual classes |
70% |
|
|||||||
|
Virtual classes conducted |
60% |
|
|||||||
|
Modern Pedagogy - Online Infrastructure Development (Infra & Learning Resources) |
25% |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Objective Tracking |
|||
|
Patents & Research Objecive |
51% |
||||||||
|
Key Results: |
Progress |
|
|||||||
|
No. of Patents registered |
20% |
|
|||||||
|
Papers/Articles published (with faculty) in SCOPUS/Web of Science/UGC CARE indexed |
40% |
|
|||||||
|
Funding obtained (% age based on total volume) |
40% |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Objective Tracking |
|||||||
|
Accreditational Objective |
50% |
||||||||
|
Key Results: |
Progress |
|
|||||||
|
NAAC Grading enhancement to A++ from A |
45% |
|
|||||||
|
NBA Grading enhancement to A from B |
70% |
|
|||||||
|
Student Suppport & Progression |
60% |
|
|||||||
|
Institutional Values & Best practices (ISO Certification, etc.) |
25% |
|
|||||||
|
Curricular Aspects |
80% |
|
|||||||
|
Total progress across objectives: |
54% |
||||||||
|
OKR Method Explained: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
1. Objectives Tracking % = Average % (KRP1, KRP2, KRP3……KRPn) |
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
2. Total progress % = Average % of Objective Tracking |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
3. KRP = Key Result Progress |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Table-1 above shows how the OKRs can be designed at an individual level i.e., the goals for each faculty, depending on the department, unit in which s/he works. There is no rigid rule or compulsion that the objectives must be written only in a particular way. However, each and every goal must be aligned with the desired outcomes. Keeping the outcomes/results in view, the goals must be identified and categorized. Any deviation or wrong perception about the vision and mission of the University/College/Institution will result in that way. It simply follows the input >> process >> output model. The more quality of the inputs that are keying in, the higher will be the quality of outputs that are coming out.
Once the institution has the mechanism in place, it takes care of the evaluation at every stage. As the process is continuous, the results will be visible and obvious as it runs. The progress can be viewed through dashboards on a real-time basis. For example, at an institutional level, 6 patents have to be developed over an academic year, and the institution could achieve only 3, the progress in the dashboard displays as 50% of the objective is achieved so far, and it is known where does the institution stand as far as ‘Patent’ objective is concerned. So are the other objectives, key results, and their respective progress. This mechanism enables the institution and the individuals (who are faculty members in this case) to save time, effort, and energy, as they need not wait till NAAC or NBA visit and then give a report stating that they complied with the norms or not. The same accreditation rules or criteria can become the objectives and key results for the PMS of an Institution, and the progress can be monitored on a real-time basis, and necessary modifications or change in the processes, systems, and pedagogies can be made so as to be on track and achieve the desired result. That is how the HEIs (Higher Educational Institutions of learning) can measure the impact continuously.
Figure 2. OKR’s Performance measurement in Higher Educatinal institutions (Thematic Diagram)
|
|
The thematic diagram above represents the OKRs in PMS for Higher Educational Institutions and how the objectives can be categorized into six areas, i.e, academics, research projects, extension activities, non-teaching activities, rewards and incentives, and motivational elements. This diagram is just an indicator of how the objectives and key results can be designed but may vary from the actual model depending on the institution’s requirements.
The said OKRs in the PMS can be modified as and when the situation demands. For example, the Covid-19 situation challenged the way the educational institutions operate, and it an opportunity for the institutions to immediately alter the OKRs to meet the exigencies. A separate objective can be defined and key results can be designed for each of them. The pandemic demands the teachers and institutions with a window to change, and the significant paradigm is the examination system.
Therefore, based on the above discussions we accept that
Adapting to the Performance Management System requires a change of internal culture and consent by all the participants. No one could implement it as it seems to be beneficial or helpful or a competitor-institution has implemented it. It requires deep brainstorming, and different communications must be made at all levels enlightening the team on the importance of implementing the same. The stakeholders must be convinced and the results must be encouraging and they must help them progress and develop in their career and bring the name and fame to the institution through the participants. If they understood what the process actually means and how does it help to progress for their career, then only it will be successful. During the initial stages, there may be a resistance to implementation, but if the management involves and assures that it is for the benefit of all, the resistance gets minimized. Of course, there must be a separate unit or section, preferably a Human Resources Department, that should take the responsibility of facilitating this process taking everyone into their stride. It is a challenging task during implementation, as rigorous discussions, thought processes should go on in identifying the goals and their categorization and fixing the responsibilities and accountabilities for each individual. It becomes easier for the institution if the goals are set based on the positions rather than individuals. Whoever holds the position, must achieve the desired result/outcome. This ensures transparency, too. For example, OKRs for Professor level, OKRs for Associate Professor, OKRs for Dean, OKRs for Course Coordinator, OKRs for Administrative Officer/Director, etc., Most importantly, these OKRs under PMS should be able to give as much flexibility as possible to facilitate/accommodate the changes according to the circumstances, business demands, industry requirements or pandemic situation like Covid-19. Because of Covid-19, online pedagogy, among other models on quality in higher education has been at the forefront. It is a collective responsibility during Covid-19 kind situations where all stakeholders involved in the ecosystem i.e., the students/learners, faculty members, administrative team, the management team of institutions, senate, academic counselors, parents, and the organizations those recruit the students either for full-time employment or for internships to create physical viability for online pedagogy. The Government must ease the process and give certain relaxations.
The Universities/Autonomous Institutions/Colleges affiliated must pose questions to themselves while implementing the OKRs by PMS, as to whether the institution moves forward in achieving its goals; how can they improve their OKR setting and processes; what are the learnings for the first semester (or the period/frequency that they decide); do they focus taking into account every relevant aspect; how do they support the teams that could not succeed; which are the teams that are being performed well during implementation to reflect the same to the other team; how could the results meet the criteria set by either Industry/Management/NAAC/NBA or Govt or personally? If they introspect this way, the results can be encouraging. Check-in progress (i.e., evaluation continuously) must be implemented every week or at every fortnight to monitor the progress. This ensures the team without losing any valuable time and helps to rectify the situation if they are about to fail in achieving their objectives.
Dedicated team, as the authors suggested above that the facilitator (HRD) should keep noting every change and the requirements from every quarter including the industry, to convert them later as an objective for the respective participant. This is most important for keeping the institution abreast of the industry innovations, and then only the Institutions could create future leaders and be part of building the nation effectively.
The central message of the article, new, useful, and important idea: Institutions and organizations of different sizes are implementing OKRs because of their many distinct creating and controlling qualities that guarantee the transformation. Strategic goals are cascaded from top-down to bottom-up in an organization. The Higher Educational Institutions are encouraged to share their objectives with the faculty, the learning community, and other employees associated at all levels and must be empowered to align their actions to the objectives of the institution. Alignment amongst all stakeholders involved in the ecosystem is possible through OKRs. The institution must nurture a culture of excellence by empowering the faculty and the management team to go beyond their comfort zone to realize how to progress continuously. Regular check-ins and evaluations from time to time help foster the culture of accountability. The teaching fraternity is encouraged to focus on results and not the tasks. It is no more routine teaching or learning, but with an objective thereby ensuring experiential learning.
Tre real-world implications of the proposed article and how the central message be applied in businesses today: Since OKRs are observable and visible by those who are involved in the mechanism, there is a sense of awareness and transparency that people are working on. The awareness of everyone’s OKR in the structural levels of an institution makes it easier for all the members involved to align themselves with the OKRs. This results in reminding the faculty members of the vision, mission, and other ideals of the institution.
The audience for the article any why academicians and policy makers should read the article: Therefore, it becomes imperative for every Higher Educational Institution, Autonomous College, University, or affiliated constituents of the university to switch over to PMS by OKRs mechanism so that interpersonal communication happens because everyone has to communicate and work with other people to achieve the key results they’re aiming for their objectives. For example, enhancing the grade "b" to "A" or "A+" or "AAA" from NAAC is an objective which every department irrespective of the subject that they teach should aim for. So also, 100% placement for the Institution is a collective responsibility of the institution rather a single unit/department.
The kind of research conducted to support the argument and logic of the article: The researchers have gone through extensive data and information via a qualitative research approach and through secondary data. Content analysis has been done using the websites of universities, regulatory bodies, autonomous institutions, and the surveys that had already been conducted in this regard. The authors believe that the results through the surveys conducted by external agencies as illustrated in this article prove that the efficiency has been increased and productivity has gone up after implementing the PMS in the institutions.
The source of the authority and what academic, professional, or personal experience will you draw on to make the argument convincing: The researchers, having recruited hundreds of students for the companies they work with and having interacted with a number of faculty members and the heads of institutions/universities including IITs, BITS campuses in India, form an opinion that the efficiency can further be enhanced, and have thoroughly convinced that if PMS system through OKRs is implemented, the central objective of the institution can be explained to all the stakeholders involved in the education system, and they can design an objective which cascades from top-bottom or bottom-top so that it remains as collective objective to achieve the desired goal.
Limitations of the Study
The only limitation for the study is that this model has not yet been implemented by any institution so far, for the reason; the solution identified here through PMS by OKRs is a framework and a methodology that is ‘prescriptive’ in nature. This tool was devised based on the scenarios, circumstances, and the necessity for the institutions to have a mechanism of this kind as to minimize the gap between the industry and academia.
Suggestions for future study
This study has been conducted, having reviewed the literature in respect of the lapses, deficiencies for the gap between industry and academia, and suggested to the extent of how a PMS through the OKRs approach could be beneficial for all the stakeholders involved in the ecosystem i.e., students/learners, faculty, administrative personnel, researchers, management of the institutions, university authorities and the business community as a whole that represent the industry. The authors leave the scope for further research, either by them or by any other researcher to conduct another study on the impact that it has on both the institutions and the industry.
References
[1] Arbo, P., & Benneworth, P. (2007). Understanding the regional contribution of higher education institutions: A literature review.
[2] Bakhtiari, S., & Shajar, H. (2006) Globalization and education: Challenges and opportunities.International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER) 5.2
[3] Baporikar, N., &Smith, A. (2019). Talent Management in Higher Education Institution." International Journal of Applied Management Sciences and Engineering (IJAMSE) 6.2 (2019): 36-57.
[4] Broekkamp, H., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2007). The gap between educational research and practice: A literature review, symposium, and questionnaire. Educational research and evaluation, 13(3), 203-220.
[5] Camilleri, M. A., & Camilleri, A. (2018). The performance management and appraisal in higher education. Camilleri, MA & Camilleri, AC (2018). The Performance Management and Appraisal in Higher Education. In Cooper, C. Driving Productivity in Uncertain and Challenging Times.(University of the West of England, 5th September). British Academy of Management, UK.
[6] Decramer, A., Smolders, C., & Vanderstraeten, A. (2013). Employee performance management culture and system features in higher education: relationship with employee performance management satisfaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(2), 352-371.
[7] Khan, H. U., Lalitha, V. M., & Omonaiye, J. F. (2017). Employees' perception as internal customers about online services: A case study of banking sector in Nigeria. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 13(2), 181-202.
[8] Talib, F., & Faisal, M. (2015). An analysis of the barriers to the proliferation of M-commerce in Qatar. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 17(1), 54-81.
[9] Krausert, A. (2017). HR differentiation between professional and managerial employees: Broadening and integrating theoretical perspectives. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 442-457.
[10] LinkedIn. (2020, July 20). LinkedIn. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com: https://www.linkedin.com\’\®”: An auxiliary new-age model decoded for measuring the effectiveness of performance of both and organization and the employees International Journal of Management (IJM), 11(7): 1156-1174
[11] Mathew. (2020). Malayala Manorama Press. Hyderabad: The Week.
[12] Michael Moody. (2018). 5 ways to improve teacher evaluation systems. Edutopia. George Lucas Educational foundation. https://www.edutopia.org/article/5-ways-improve-teacher-evaluation-systems
[13] Muhammad Tanveer Awan, A. M. (2018). Higher Education Institutions and Performance Management. Library Philosophy and Practice e-Journal, 1-9.
[14] Niyivuga, B., Otara, A., & Tuyishime, D. (2019). Monitoring and evaluation practices and academic staff motivation: Implications in higher education within Rwandan context. SAGE Open, 9(1), 2158244019829564.
[15] Salau, O., Worlu, R., Osibanjo, A., Adeniji, A., Falola, H., Olokundun, M., ... & Ogueyungbo, O. (2020). The impact of workplace environments on retention outcomes of public Universities in Southern Nigeria. Sage Open, 10(2), 2158244020930767.
[16] Team, L. (2017, January 19). ICT Enabled Education. Retrieved from Stories-Linways: https://stories.linways.in/ict-enabled-education-d190bcc91bf0
[16] Va, R. (2015). National Policy Board for Educational Administration. New York: NPBEA.
[17] Washington, DC: U.S Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest, Austin, TX. Retrieved 26 May, 2015, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/rel_2007033.pdf.
[18] Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement. Issues & Answers. REL 2007-No. 033. Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest (NJ1).
[19] Zhou, N., Han, X., Zhang, X., & Xu, G. (2009, December). Performance appraisal system for academic staff in the context of digital campus of higer education institutions: Design and implementation. In 2009 International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Software Engineering (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
