Education Quality Assurance

Over the years, during my visits to thousands of educational institutions across India and abroad, one thing has become clear- good intentions and talented educators alone can’t sustain quality. What truly separates well-run institutions from those constantly battling issues isn’t infrastructure or funding, but their process-based approach - the invisible system that drives consistency, accountability, and growth. Without it, even passionate teams end up in cycles of confusion, rework, and firefighting. Here are 10 hard truths I’ve learned about institutions still finding their footing in system readiness: 1️⃣ Passionate teachers alone can’t build great institutions. Without processes, even passion fails. I’ve seen brilliant educators fail because systems failed them. 2️⃣ Without systems, quality depends on people- and people change. 3️⃣ Teaching styles vary, assessments differ, and students get uneven learning. No process = no consistency. 4️⃣ Most institutions are reactive. Problems are fixed only after they explode. 5️⃣ Accountability becomes a game of blame because roles aren’t defined, they're only assumed. 6️⃣ When key staff leave, work collapses. Not because people were bad, but because there was no process to hold it together. 7️⃣ Student services suffer - delays, confusion, unanswered emails- because no one knows who should do what, when, and how. 8️⃣ Decisions are made on assumptions, not data. Then we wonder why progress feels stuck. 9️⃣ During audits or accreditations, documents appear magically and vanish right after. That’s not compliance, that’s chaos! Too often, a ‘quality system’ is reduced to just paperwork. 🔟 The biggest loss? Trust - from students, parents, faculty and other stakeholders who expected better. Lesson learned: Good systems don’t limit people - they protect good work from getting lost. Process = institutional memory+accountability+sustainability+growth

Is Running a University Difficult? As I near the completion of 3 years as Chancellor of Abu Dhabi University and having served for over 8 years as President of Applied Science University Bahrain, I have been reflecting on the subject of running a university. Running a university is a complex and multifaceted endeavor, filled with unique challenges and responsibilities. However, success in this role can be significantly simplified by adhering to several key principles and practices. 1. Strong Governance Support The foundation of any successful university is the unwavering support from the Chairman and Board. 2. A Capable Senior Team A competent senior leadership team is essential for effective administration. The right individuals in key positions can drive the university forward, implementing ideas and policies that align with the institution's goals. 3. Empowering People Empowering faculty and staff is crucial for fostering a positive academic environment. When individuals feel trusted and supported in their roles, they are more likely to take initiative and contribute meaningfully to the university. 4. Investment in Development Ongoing professional development is not just a benefit; it’s a necessity. Investing in the growth of faculty and staff enhances their skills and effectiveness, directly benefiting students and the institution. 5. Genuine Care for the Community A leader who truly cares about their team creates a healthier, more collaborative culture. This commitment to well-being fosters a sense of belonging and loyalty among faculty, staff, and students. When individuals feel valued, their enthusiasm and dedication to the university’s mission typically increase. 6. Creating Opportunities Time spent creating opportunities for faculty, staff, and students translates into a more dynamic and engaged community. 7. Prioritizing Stakeholders Putting faculty, staff, students, alumni, and collaborators at the forefront of decision-making is vital. A university’s success is intrinsically linked to its relationships with these stakeholders. 8. Clear Strategic Planning A well-defined strategic plan provides direction and clarity for the university’s goals and initiatives. Furthermore, a solid implementation framework is crucial for translating plans into action. Risk management is also very important. 9. Robust Infrastructure Finally, having a solid infrastructure—both physical and organizational—is essential for smooth operations. This includes everything from technological systems to facilities and administrative processes. While the role of running a university may seem daunting, it can be manageable with the right foundations in place. Prioritizing community, care, and collaboration is key to creating an environment where everyone thrives. #UniversityLeadership #HigherEducation #Leadership #Empowerment Hamad Odhabi Professor Barry O'Mahony Mohammad Fteiha Dr. Anas Najdawi Prof. Sherine Farouk Khulud Abdallah

Boards reproduce professional norms, often unintentionally. Good governance is typically presented as a safeguard against bias. In practice, boards can also become one of the quietest mechanisms through which professional bias is reproduced. Board composition is usually assessed through credentials, independence, and experience. These matters, but they are not neutral. Directors bring assumptions about what counts as risk, competence, and sound judgment. When those assumptions are widely shared, they are easily mistaken for governance quality rather than recognised as a narrow institutional lens. At that point, the issue shifts from representation to design. Boards do not simply oversee organisations; they shape internal legitimacy, what strategies appear credible, which concerns are taken seriously, and which forms of expertise remain marginal. The effects are gradual. Institutional learning narrows, new signals are interpreted through old assumptions, and continuity is mistaken for rigour. The implication is straightforward: board renewal should be treated less as a symbolic exercise and more as a question of institutional capability under changing conditions.

𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐍𝐄𝐏 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟎: 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐀𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐀𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐄𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡-𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐃𝐫. 𝐕𝐢𝐣𝐚𝐲 𝐊𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝, 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧-𝐟𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐍𝐄𝐏 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟎 𝐛𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐮𝐦 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐬. While most universities have already implemented structural reforms like #AcademicBankofCredits (ABC), #multiple entry-exit options, and #curriculum revisions, this piece shifts focus to what still remains to be done—and how. It explores how NEP 2020 can truly transform higher and technical education in India through strategic academic governance, institutional restructuring and administrative readiness. What makes this article especially useful is a detailed implementation #table that acts as a #roadmap for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). It outlines not just what needs to be done, but who within the university must act—be it the Academic Council, IQAC, Board of Studies or other institutional bodies. The final column in the table is particularly actionable, as it explains exactly what universities must implement at the ground level to bring NEP’s vision to life. If you are an #academicleader, policymaker or administrator, do read this article. It is designed to help you strategically implement NEP recommendations across every layer of your institution. 𝐃𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞: https://lnkd.in/d9m4-JTj #NEP2020 #HigherEducation #AcademicLeadership #StrategicImplementation #BeyondCurriculum #UniversityGovernance #IQAC #EdReform #AcademicCouncil #IndiaEducation

Every year, MBA institutes across India wait anxiously for their NIRF rankings. The framework heavily weighs faculty outcomes, student outcomes, research, and perception. While these are important, there’s a glaring omission – Governance and Leadership Effectiveness. Think about it. A visionary Director, proactive Board, and empowered Deans shape long-term institutional excellence. Faculty productivity and student success are often the symptoms of deeper systemic health. Yet, NIRF does not directly measure or score how effectively an institute is governed and led. This neglect creates a paradox: institutes chase faculty publications, placement numbers, or perception campaigns, but rarely pause to ask – are we well-led? Are our governance systems transparent, agile, and ethical? If NIRF incorporated governance and leadership as a measurable dimension, it would: Push B-Schools to professionalize leadership practices Encourage accountability and transparent decision-making Inspire Boards and Directors to prioritize long-term vision over short-term optics Ultimately improve student and faculty outcomes in a sustainable way Until then, institutes may continue to optimize for what is measured, not for what truly matters. Maybe it’s time for policymakers to ask: Can Indian management education claim to build leaders, while its own leadership quality goes unmeasured? #NIRF #HigherEducation #MBA #Leadership #Governance #Policy

Why has improving Indian higher education proved so difficult? The usual explanations point to inadequate funding, excessive regulation, poor infrastructure, or flawed policies. While these factors certainly matter, I believe they do not fully explain the problem. India has demonstrated world-class capability in science, technology, medicine, entrepreneurship, and research. Our challenge is therefore not a lack of talent. The real barriers, in my view, lie deeper. They can be understood through three challenges: 1. The Challenge of Intention Do we consistently place merit, integrity, fairness, and the long-term interests of institutions above all other considerations? Are appointments and admissions based on merit, or are they sometimes influenced by factors that should have no place in academic decision-making?  Without the right intentions, no reform can produce lasting change. 2. The Challenge of Concept Even with good intentions, are we solving the right problems in the right way? Universities are neither government departments nor corporate offices. They are unique learning communities and therefore require governance models that are distinct from those of government (as is often the case in public institutions) and of corporate organizations (as is increasingly the case in many private institutions). Misunderstanding the very nature of a university can lead to well-intentioned but counterproductive policies. Can we develop responsible adults by treating university students as children? Can we expect institutions to excel if we deny them meaningful autonomy while demanding accountability for outcomes? Can academic excellence flourish in an environment of excessive control rather than trust and shared responsibility? Good intentions alone are not enough. We must also ensure that our understanding of how universities function is conceptually sound. That requires the humility to question our assumptions and the openness to learn from successful institutions and higher education systems around the world, while thoughtfully adapting those lessons to our context. 3. The Challenge of Execution Even the best intentions and the soundest concepts fail without effective execution. Building great academic institutions requires capable leaders, robust processes, continuous learning, and the humility to acknowledge and learn from mistakes. A culture driven by fear of failure discourages initiative; a culture that learns from failure fosters innovation, experimentation, and continuous improvement. Equally important, we must invest in developing our academic leaders through systematic coaching, mentoring, and leadership development so that they acquire the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed to translate good ideas into effective institutional practice. Do you agree that these are the three fundamental challenges? Or would you add a fourth? #HigherEducationIndia #EducationPolicy #InstitutionBuilding #HigherEducationReform #Governance  

STATE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN INDIA The current state of higher education in India indeed reflects a crisis that cannot be overlooked. The roots of this crisis extend beyond mere administrative inefficiencies or lack of resources; they are deeply entwined with the politicization of academic institutions. When Vice Chancellors and faculty members are appointed based on their political affiliations rather than their academic credentials and commitment to education, the very foundation of our universities is compromised. This erosion of academic integrity is detrimental not just to the universities themselves but to the nation as a whole. Universities are meant to be sanctuaries of knowledge, places where intellectual freedom and critical thinking are nurtured. However, when political considerations dictate academic appointments, the focus shifts away from educational excellence and toward the fulfillment of external agendas. This shift undermines the trust that students, parents, and society place in these institutions to provide a quality education. The appointment of Vice Chancellors and faculty members who lack the necessary academic distinction and integrity leads to a cascade of negative effects. Poor leadership at the top trickles down, affecting the morale of faculty, the quality of education, and the overall functioning of the university. Without leaders who are genuinely dedicated to the academic and personal growth of students, our universities will fail to fulfill their primary mission: to prepare the youth of India to face the challenges of the future. To address this crisis, it is essential to gather accurate and detailed information about the current state of our universities. This information will provide a clear understanding of the specific challenges facing these institutions and guide the development of targeted strategies to address them. However, gathering information is only the first step. We must also engage in constructive dialogue and collective action to restore the academic standards of our universities. This means advocating for the appointment of Vice Chancellors and faculty members who possess the required academic qualifications, experience, and a deep commitment to the educational mission of their institutions. It also means ensuring that non-teaching staff are efficient and supportive of the academic mission, creating an environment where students and faculty can thrive. Restoring academic glory to institutions is not just a matter of institutional pride; it is a necessity for the future of our country. A strong higher education system is the bedrock of a nation's intellectual and economic development. By taking the necessary steps to depoliticize our universities and prioritize academic excellence, we can secure a brighter future for the youth of India and, by extension, for the country as a whole.

𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞, 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐑𝐞́𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞́𝐬. Across education, charities, and chambers, I’ve worked with capable, committed boards. Even strong boards underperform. The issue is 𝑵𝑶𝑻 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. It is STRUCTURE. Singapore prides itself on strong governance, clear codes, fiduciary discipline, and accountability. Yet board effectiveness remains uneven, with role ambiguity and decision-light meetings. In today’s environment of geopolitical shifts, rapid technological change, and tighter resources, governance is not administrative. It is STRATEGIC. 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 A persistent gap is in meeting design. Papers are detailed but lack clarity of decision. Without explicit asks, discussion drifts, and accountability weakens. High-performing boards deliberate on every paper to drive a decision: what the options are, and what the risks are. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐑𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐬 Boards drift into operations, management hesitates, and ownership weakens. Governance is clarity, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭; boards govern, management executes. This discipline matters most where informality can mask accountability gaps. 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐋𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐚𝐬 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 Financial oversight is often assumed, not assured. When only a few understand the numbers, decision-making weakens, risks are overlooked, and options narrow. Financial literacy is not the Treasurer’s role; it is the board’s responsibility. Boards that get this right move faster and with greater confidence under pressure. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐈𝐬 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝, 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐝 Governance cannot rely on 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐞. Trust built on sentiment is fragile; trust built on structure, process, and discipline is durable. Under stress, weak boards 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐚𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬. Strong boards default to process. That difference is decisive. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 The most underestimated risk is the 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬'𝒔 silence. Unasked questions, unchallenged assumptions, and unspoken concerns. In many boards, deference and harmony are valued. In governance, silence compounds risk. What isn’t surfaced early becomes harder and costlier to fix. Effective boards don’t avoid challenge. They structure it not as conflict, but as discipline. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞? Strengthening governance requires a few shifts: Design meetings as decision engines, shorter papers, clear asks, & structured debate. Establish governance architecture early, clear authority, escalation, & documentation. Build board capability in financial, risk, & digital fluency. “𝐵𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑠 𝑑𝑜𝑛’𝑡 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒" Jamuna Follow Jamuna for her thoughts on leadership and board governance.

Who owns learning in your organization? Over the years, I’ve become increasingly convinced that one of the biggest differentiators between organizations that deliver training and those that build capability is Learning Governance. I’ve captured that thinking in the simple framework below. How can organizations move learning from being an L&D function to becoming a shared business responsibility? Many organizations rely on managers or L&D to identify training needs. While that has its place, a structured governance model creates a more strategic, transparent and business-driven approach to organizational learning. Learning Governance is not about approving training requests. It is about ensuring that learning investments are aligned with business priorities and translated into organizational capability. One effective way of operationalizing Learning Governance is through a Departmental Learning Committee. When thoughtfully designed, such a committee can: • Represent the different functions within a department, ensuring diverse perspectives are considered. • Include senior representation and subject matter experts to balance strategic direction with technical capability needs. • Operate with clearly defined governance, including roles, responsibilities, tenure and accountability. • Develop their department’s learning plan after considering business priorities, capability needs and expected business outcomes - not simply training requests. • Serve as the primary interface between the department and the Learning & Development function on all learning matters, including planning, budget utilization, implementation and progress tracking. • Receive periodic development so members can confidently identify capability needs, prioritize interventions and evaluate learning impact. Perhaps the greatest strength of this approach is that it shifts learning from being an L&D responsibility to a shared business responsibility. When business leaders actively participate in deciding what people need to learn, why they need to learn it and how success will be measured, learning becomes far more aligned with organizational strategy. In my view, governance is one of the strongest predictors of whether learning investments translate into improved capability and better organizational performance. As learning professionals, we spend significant time designing learning programmes. Equally important is designing the governance that ensures those programmes address the right priorities in the first place. How does your organization govern learning? Do you have a formal Learning Governance structure, or is responsibility managed differently? I’d love to learn how others are approaching this. #LearningGovernance #LearningAndDevelopment #OrganizationalLearning #CapabilityDevelopment #LeadershipDevelopment #HRStrategy #WorkforceDevelopment #LearningCulture

SHARED GOVERNANCE: WHY THE PRESIDENT’S ROLE IS THE HARD ONE Having come to my presidency through the academic ranks, I did not struggle to understand the role of the faculty in shared governance. I struggled to understand my own role as president. Years ago, a wise mentor told me, “When things aren’t going well, start by looking in the mirror and asking yourself some hard questions.” That advice has stayed with me. Because, too often, the things that cripple our leadership in what should be our best moments begin with our own lack of preparation. Shared governance does not fail because faculty have too much power. It fails when presidents misunderstand—or misuse—their own. In healthy institutions, the president is not “one voice among many.” Nor is the president the final decider on everything. The president is the architect and steward of the governance system itself—the integrator of authority. Shared governance exists precisely because authority in a university is distributed, but not equal. Best practice distinguishes: -- Board authority → fiduciary oversight, mission, presidential evaluation -- Faculty authority → curriculum, academic standards, degree integrity -- Administrative authority → operations, execution, resource alignment The president sits at the intersection of all three—living in an unavoidable tension: honoring the authority of board and faculty, while still owning the obligation to lead, decide, and execute. Presidents do not surrender authority to faculty. They define that authority, protect it, and rely on it—while retaining responsibility for strategy, resources, and institutional direction. That requires clarity about where faculty authority is primary, where consultation is required but not determinative, and where decisions are non-delegable presidential or board responsibilities Avoiding these distinctions in the name of collegiality does not strengthen shared governance. It destabilizes it. The same is true for “the administration.” Administrators are not a fourth governance body. They are the operational extension of presidential leadership—responsible for execution, systems, and institutional coherence. When administrations bypass governance, trust erodes. When they fail to lead, faculty fill the vacuum. Neither ends well. Finally, the president owns the climate of trust that makes this work. No policy can compensate for a leader who avoids decisions, blurs authority lines, or seeks safety through unanimity—or who governs through intimidation and bluster. Best practice presidents understand this: Shared governance does not reduce presidential responsibility. It concentrates it. The strongest presidents design—and insist on—a culture that respects defined authority structures, especially when decisions are difficult. #highereducationleadership #highereducationsharedgovernance #presidentialleadership #boardleadership