‘As we know, quality is not free’

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

• Discount UK Shopping

Related Articles

Gold the most preferred investment

: Established in 1981, International Management Institute (IMI), New Delhi, claims to be India’s first corporate-sponsored management school—about 60 corporates funded its establishment, including the Williamson Magor Group and the RPG Enterprises that gave Rs 50 lakh each. The IMI has been approved by AICTE and offers management education and training. It has over 300 students. It undertakes sponsored research and consulting for national and international organisations. In recent surveys by leading business magazines, IMI has been ranked among the top five business institutes. CS Venkata Ratnam, director, IMI, speaks to C Jayanthi about the strengths of the institute and its focus on quality and innovation.

To what extent do you attribute the success of International Management Institute (IMI)? It has got a ranking in recent surveys?

During the past 30 months, we doubled our faculty to 40. Our students’ intake quality has improved substantially. One measure is the increase in CAT cut-off for admission in IMI from 87.5 per centile to 95 per centile. We have renovated and modernised our infrastructure. We added a two-year programme in human resources and we have increased revenue from consultancy and training four times. We have got the approval, accreditation and equivalence to MBA for the PGDM from the AICTE. Among the various parameters used in the surveys, we rank fairly well on all except infrastructure. The campus is small, but integrated and modern enough to meet our requirement. We should actually get full marks for optimal resource utilisation.

The profit motive is considered the main reason for the existence of private management institutions—save a few that have focused on quality. What is your view?

I would say that even non-profit organisations like ours have to take care of the need for continuous renewal including modernisation and upgradation, unforeseen fluctuations and future liabilities. Even the fee-determination committees appointed by some state governments seem to realise this and agree that up to 15% surplus is alright.

Profiteering is bad, but return on investment should at least equal cost of capital to induce further investment in education. What is happening now in the government sector is that there is no accountability for the investments made and making a virtue of subsidies while keeping millions without access to education. Such a policy does not meet any of the goals the government is seeking: inclusive access, quality and expansion.