Clock is ticking: Universities and the importance of time management

It is a known fact that many state universities and, to a lesser extent, central universities face issues such as faculty shortages, financial problems and a lack of capacity building depending on factors such as location, time of establishment, student preferences, the process of decision-making etc.

The solution to a few of the factors referred to above may be outside the control of the university and subject to decisions of the central and state governments, or other regulatory bodies. An aspect that is largely under the control of the university is time management.

Time is priceless. You cannot own it; instead, one has to use it judiciously to perform the core activities of the institution efficiently despite existing constraints.

Here are a few examples of mismanagement of time. Anyone who visits a university for a few days notices many seminars/workshops/lecture series organised by various departments/schools of the university. When you dig a little deeper into these activities, you inevitably notice that in many cases, particularly in the case of single-day activities, the inauguration and valedictory parts consume a larger proportion of time than the core purpose for which they are organised.

Most of the time, and for obvious reasons, top officers of the university are invited for inauguration and valedictory functions of events (online programmes are not very different). Due to overlapping demands on the top leadership, time overruns in the conduct of these programmes are common, and the main purpose of the activity also gets compromised.

In addition, the cumulative administrative time of the university is lost, affecting other aspects of functioning of the
university.

Another aspect of functioning, which wastes time, is the practice of calling meetings at the drop of a hat while there are hardly any substantial issues to discuss.

These meetings are called in the name of participative decision making, though the presence of many of the participants is not essential. The underlying factor indicates individuals or small groups looking to play it safe and spread the risks of possible failure: a case of leadership deficiency at different levels.

A simple calculation shows that a meeting of say two-hour duration disrupts the system for up to six hours depending on when it is called, travel distance etc. Even online meetings cause disruption, may
be to a lesser extent, if no technical malfunctions occur.

To top it all, as the term of the incumbent leader(s) reaches its last phase, a flurry of activities are likely to be organised in the universities with a possible intent of creating a favourable atmosphere for his/her extension or to pave the way for future opportunities.

Personal ambition, growth, and showcasing achievements is not a bad idea, but the unfortunate ill-effect of these activities is the mechanism used to create the audience, as hapless students and faculty members are forced to occupy the chairs.

It goes without saying that valuable time is lost for non-productive purposes as far as the participants are concerned. The above example does not imply that a university should not try to create a good public image of itself for the benefit of all its stakeholders, particularly the students, but explore different ways to do it.

In addition to this, regulatory agencies propose many activities to be performed by universities and report adherence. These monitored activities generally happen at the cost of other activities as the time available is limited and cannot be expanded beyond a point on a routine basis.

It may be pertinent to indicate here that the number of faculty meetings conducted to accumulate data requirements for an assessment/accreditation exercise in a period of time is mind-boggling, considering the fact that assessment of data requirements is on multiple levels and tends to change fast as it is still evolving.

In a way, the very purpose of the accreditation exercise — to improve quality — is lost if the purpose gets superseded by the process. Technological interventions presently available for creating dynamic databases may need constant tweaking to meet the ever-changing needs and involve time.

Apart from the above intra-university communication processes, the ever-active sycophants, cultural and political aspects of human dynamics in the system, on-
duty leaves for faculty etc., lead to wastage
of time.

A cautious analysis of the above aspects indicate that it is the teaching — learning and research work — that gets compromised.

As Prof C V Raman in his 1926 convocation address at BHU lamented: “Our universities are so engrossed today with the task of conducting examinations and innumerable meetings of boards and faculties, courts and councils, senate and syndicate that they have no time to perform the highest function of a university - which is to stimulate intellectual activity and advance knowledge.”

New policies and funding by itself will not substantially change educational outcomes across universities. The drift that has occurred over time management needs review and self-regulation at different levels.

(The author is a former adviser at the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), Bengaluru)