Transformation in Indian Engineering Education through Academic Autonomy to High Performing Faculty Teams

Authors

  • Vedhathiri Thanikachalam Chennai-600041

Abstract

In the twenty first century, engineering education in India has to contribute to the fast developing economy through high end knowledge and human capital. The leaders need high performing faculty and staff teams for sustenance of excellence. The Board of Governors, CEO, administrators and the faculty association have to support the high performers.Through research studies, it is found that the transformation in engineering education is desirable only through cultural change and decentralization of administration. The sustenance of excellence is possible through delegation and empowerment with adequate accountability. The traditional water tight compartments and bureaucratic approaches would not support excellence. There is a need for multidisciplinary approach for solving many field problems, and the faculty needs of appropriate interdisciplinary teams. To develop industry relevant programs in engineering and technology, institute's vision and mission not only relevant but also essential for sustaining the initial efforts. Besides resources, faculty members need supportive leadership and linkages with the governments, industry and national laboratories. The institutes have to redefine the doctrines which would accelerate the growth. Excellence has to be recognized and supported. There is a need for periodical assessment of institute's culture and views of the faculty. Transformation and reengineering of the departments have to be undertaken periodically so that the faculty may be facilitated for growth.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2016-07-01

How to Cite

Thanikachalam, V. (2016). Transformation in Indian Engineering Education through Academic Autonomy to High Performing Faculty Teams. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 17–25. Retrieved from https://journaleet.in/index.php/jeet/article/view/1412

Issue

Section

Articles

References

Emily Abbott et al (2011) “Five Essential Elements of a Successful Twenty-First century University Corporate Relation Programâ€, Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers Bench marking Committee

Institution of Engineers Australia (1996)â€Changing the culture: Engineering Education into the Futureâ€, Report of the Review of Engineering Education, 1996,p16

Dr.James Gover and Dr.Paul Hurvay, “Educating 21st Century Engineersâ€, IEEE-USA E BOOKS, Washington DC, www.ieeeusa.org

Julio A. Pertuze et al (2010)â€Best Practices for IndustryUniversity Collaborationâ€, MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer 2010, V 51, N 4, p 82-90, (Reprint No. 51416), www.sloanreview.mit.edu

Katherine Chudoba, Mary Beth Watson and Kevin Crowston (2012)â€Innovation in Academic- Industry Partnerships: Measuring Challenges to Effective Performanceâ€, TIM Submission ID 17445, Boston, MA: Technology and Innovation Management Division, Annual Meeting of Academy of Mangement

Mark L. Gorden, “University Controlled or owned technology: The State of commercialization and Recommendationsâ€,http://www.gbkecbaiigmenfmjfclcdgdpi mamgkj/views/app.html

Merrill Schwartz, Richard Skinner and Zeddie Bowen (2009) “Faculty, Governing Boards, and Institutional Governance,†TIAA-CREF Institute

NACRO Writing Team and Benchmarking Committee (2011) “Five Essential Elements of a Successful Twenty First Century University Corporate Relationsâ€Program Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Economic Development Administration in consultation with National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship,

New York State Universityâ€Administrative Re-engineeringA Follow-up to John Sexton’s Memoâ€

https://www.nyu.edu/about/leadership-universityadministration/ office-of-the-president/ofice-oftheexecutivepresident/ redirect/administration

Paul Lingenfelter, Richard Novak, and Richard Legon (2008)â€Excellence at Scale- What is required of public leadership and governance in higher education?†Virginia, Charlottesville: Miller Center of Public Affairs, Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

Pierre Gurdjian, Thomas Halbeisen and Kevin Lane (2014) “Why leadership- development programs fail? “ McKinsey Quarterly, www.mckinsey.com/insights/leadinng_in_the21st_century/ why_leadership-development_programs_fail

Randy LConyers “A Review of leadership Theories and Possible Changes to Police Leadershipâ€.

http://www.chroomeextension://gbkeegbaigmenfmjfcledgdpimamgkj/views/app.html

Renu Khater (2013) â€Forging Strategic Business Partnership to Develop the 21st Century Workforce, A Case Study of the University of Houston’s Undergraduate Petroleum Engineering Programâ€, The Business –Higher Education Forum, www.bhef.com

Roger L.Geiger “ Corporate-Sponsored Research at Penn State: Report to the Office of the Vice President for Research “, Center for the Study of Higher Education, The Pennsylvania State University, USAhttp://www.ed.psu/cshe/wrking-papers/wp-1

Senate Task Force on University-Industry Partnershipsâ€Principles and guidelines for Large –Scale Collaborations between the University and Industry, Government and foundationsâ€

Stephanie Bertels, James Gray, Omar Romoero Hemandez and Stave Hahn “Six challenges to Collaborative Research and Solutions for Addressing them. Network for Business Sustainability“, Ontario, Canada: Western University

UIDP Projects (2013) “10 Case Studies of High-Return University–Industry Collaborations†USA

University of Newcastle (2004) “Bench Marks in Cultural Change in Engineering Educationâ€.

U.S. Department of Commerce (2013) “The Innovative and Entrepreneurial University, Higher Education, Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Focus,†Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Development