Creating and Managing Value in Indian Management Education

Abstract

Stakeholder theory and stakeholder engagement (SE) concepts have been widely used in management and marketing literature. In this study, we extend the SE concept to investigate value creation and management in Indian management education. Specifically, for an Indian management institute, we (a) define value, (b) identify nine value categories in which value can be created and managed, (c) advance a SE approach in creating and managing value, (d) identify and categorize value measures as contiguous and future measures, and (e) recognize the resources and capabilities needed to create and manage value. This is the first study in the Indian context to focus on value creation and management through the SE perspective. We conclude the study by discussing the implications of the proposed value categorizations for an Indian management institute and identifying areas for future research.

Keywords

Stakeholder engagement value creation value measures Indian management education resources capabilities

Introduction

With the ongoing liberalization of the higher educational institutions (HEIs) in India (Majumdar & Jain, 2021), India is witnessing an increase in public–private partnerships in Indian higher education, along with an increase in domestic and international educational institutes players. Particularly, HEIs in India continue to implement changes as evidenced by, for example, the establishment of the National Educational Alliance for Technology (NEAT)—a public–private partnership between the Government of India and the education technology companies of India. Table 1 presents additional change-inducing initiatives of Indian HEIs involving various stakeholders. As a result, such changes are ushering in a renewed focus on the quality and quantity of management education in India.

Table 1.

Select Stakeholder Engagements in Indian Management Education.

Purpose of Stakeholder Engagements	Description	Select Marketplace Practices
Establishment of campus	Management institutes have been established in association with a combination of governments, industrialists, foreign universities, companies and donors	Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA) was set up in 1961 by a collective initiative by the Indian government, Dr Vikram Sarabhai (scientist), Mr Kasturbhai Lalbhai (industrialist), Ford Foundation (donor) and Harvard Business School (https://www.iima.ac.in/web/about-iima/) Indian Institute of Management Calcutta (IIMC) was set up in 1961in collaboration with the Alfred P. Sloan School of Management (MIT), the Government of West Bengal, The Ford Foundation and the Indian industry (https://www.iimcal.ac.in/about) XAVIER-EMLYON Business School (XEBS) was formed by a partnership between Xavier University, Bhubaneswar (now XIM University), and Emlyon business school, France. (https://xebs.edu.in/)
Joint programmes	Collaboration between Indian and foreign institutions for joint programmes	Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IITB) has partnered with Monash University, Australia to offer PhD programmes to conduct high-impact, outcome-driven research. (https://www.iitbmonash.org/)
Global partnerships and multiple campuses in India	Management institutes that partner with reputed international universities and have multiple campuses in India	The Indian School of Business (ISB) has multiple campuses in India (e.g., Hyderabad and Mohali), and academic alliances with the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, London Business School (LBS), and MIT Sloan School of Management and The Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy, Tufts University. (https://www.isb.edu/en/about-isb/isb-advantage.html)
Sustainability and socially responsible citizens	Management institutes are nurturing students’ leadership skills, social responsibility and awareness about sustainability issues	S P Jain Institute of Management and Research (SPJIMR) was recognized for its innovative community-based actions, environmental, and socially responsible culture and governance, and for its strong teaching focus on responsible leadership. The Positive Impact report (PIR) recognized it as a ‘pioneering school’ with the highest ‘Level 5’ rating for its social impact and sustainability achievements (https://spjimr.org/content/spjimr-recognised-pioneering-school-social-impact)
International campus	Indian management institutes that have set up global campuses	Institutes such as XLRI Jamshedpur, SP Jain School of Global Management, Manipal Global Education Services, BITS Pilani and the Institute of Management Technology have set up global campuses. (https://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/best-b-schools-going-global-36814-2012-10-19).
Online courses: Government initiative	The Indian government has launched initiatives to make education more accessible and to bridge the digital divide. It has partnered with leading institutions to offer online courses.	SWAYAM stands for ‘Study Webs of Active Learning for Young Aspiring Minds’. It is a programme by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, to offer online courses to learners across India. Credits can be transferred to the academic record of the students for courses done on SWAYAM. SWAYAM platform has been developed by the Ministry of Education and NPTEL, IIT Madras, with the help of Google Inc. and Persistent Systems Ltd. (https://swayam.gov.in/nc_details/).
MOOCs	Management institutions have also partnered with EdTech partners to offer MOOCs.	Indian Institute of Management Bangalore (IIMB) offers management courses, courses on SWAYAM platforms, EdX and its platform. They have partnered with EdX—a not-for-profit online initiative of Harvard and MIT (https://www.iimb.ac.in/iimbx).
Policy reforms regarding EdTech players in India	The government allows Edtech firms and higher education institutes to collaboration	In 2022, University Grants Commission (UGC) reforms allowed Edtech firms to tie up with universities to develop online courses. (https://indianexpress.com/article/education/ugc-reforms-ed-tech-firms-can-tie-up-with-universities-to-develop-e-courses-7784634/).
Promoting start-ups	Initiatives by institutions to promote start-ups	Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IITM) Incubation Cell coordinates and leverages the synergies in various strands of excellence driving innovation and entrepreneurship at the Indian Institute of Madras (IIT Madras). It supports the students, faculty, staff and alumni of IITM, and external entrepreneurs, and it rolled out more than 200+ start-ups and filed 125 patents. (http://www.incubation.iitm.ac.in/). Indian Institute Technology Bombay (IITB) has set up the Society for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (SINE), an umbrella organization for fostering entrepreneurship and nurturing tech start-ups. It has rolled more than 190 start-ups. (https://sineiitb.org/). The Centre for Innovation Incubation and Entrepreneurship (CIIE) is the incubator-cum-accelerator arm of the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA) (https://ciie.co). Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, IIMB’s, start-up incubation hub offers programmes for social entrepreneurs and their challenges (https://www.nsrcel.org).
Government-initiated hackathons	The government encourages institutions to organize hackathons to solve India’s pressing problems	The Smart India Hackathon is a nationwide initiative to provide students a platform to solve critical problems, which inculcates a culture of product innovation and a mindset of problem-solving (http://www.sih.gov.in/).
Collaborative hackathons	Management schools in association with agencies in organizing hackathons to address local challenges.	Prin. L. N. Welingkar Institute of Management Development & Research (WeSchool), Pears Program for Global Innovation, Tel Aviv, TIE and Arambham Group together conducted Med4dev. Med4Dev was a 36-hour hackathon that took place parallelly across four locations (Mumbai, Tel Aviv, Bangalore and Hyderabad) for creating affordable healthcare solutions for India. It was also supported by Start-up Nation Centre (Tel Aviv), The Indus Entrepreneurs (TiE, Mumbai), T-HuB (Hyderabad),10,000 start-ups (A NASSCOM Initiative, Hyderabad) and Creators (Tel Aviv). (https://www.welingkar.org/sites/default/files/media/news_and_press_release/9.%20Press%20release-%20MED4DEV%20India-Israel%20Innovation%20in%20Affordable%20Healthcare.pdf).

Source: Authors’ compilation.

Consider the quality of Indian management education. The first-ever global study of diversity conducted by the Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC) found India to possess the second largest pool of MBAs, globally. Further, the study also featured India among the top 10 nations containing an active prospective MBA community (GMAC, 2021). In this regard, the aspect of employability attains prominence. For instance, the 2022 India Skills Report found that India’s overall employability increased from 38.12% to 46.2% between 2016 and 2022. In the same period, the report found the percentage of employable Indian management graduates to increase from 44.56% to 55.09% (Wheebox, 2022). Considering the vast student potential, offering a high-quality management education becomes a social imperative and a business necessity (Bhattacharya & Bhattacharya, 2014). Moreover, management education in India faces several challenges such as paucity of qualified faculty, inconsistent sources of funding, complex regulatory system, technological disruptions, competing factors related to quality, access and equity, and changing expectations from students and recruiters, among others (e.g., Khatun & Dar, 2019; Mahajan, 2012). These quality-related aspects indicate the need for ensuring the delivery of high-quality management education in India.

Regarding the quantity of Indian management education, substantial variation can be observed. For instance, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)¹ dashboard for 2019–2020 shows more than 3,000 business schools in India, of which almost 90% are unaided private institutes (AICTE, 2022). Further, the total enrolment in 2019–2021 was around 245,000, with nearly 88% belonging to the unaided private institutes. A closer look into the student intake (i.e., the maximum number of students that can be admitted) versus student enrolment (i.e., the number of students enrolled in a programme) reveals that only 65% of seats are being filled in Indian management institutes. This substantial gap in unfilled seats creates severe pressure on the education system to produce well-qualified students. Moreover, when student enrolment is viewed alongside institute rankings, stark findings are revealed. For instance, in the 2021 National Institute Ranking Framework (NIRF) by the Ministry of Education, the Government of India finds only four private institutions among the top 20 national management institutes (NIRF, 2022). Moreover, only a handful of Indian business schools (private and public) feature in the global ranking lists (e.g., FT Global MBA Ranking 2022, QS World University Rankings 2022 and Poets & Quants International Top 50 MBA Ranking 2021–2022), and even their rankings show a declining trend (Jack, 2022; Umarji, 2022). The poor results regarding the rankings indicate that while fewer students pass through the Indian management education system, the problem is confounded by declining rankings.

We believe that the issues about the quality and quantity aspects of management education indicate a value problem, that, value to the students, value to the institution and value to the society. In delivering such value, the challenge is in balancing quality and quantity at the institute level. Here, the regulatory framework through education policies and reforms (e.g., the National Education Policy [NEP] 2020) serves as a catalyst in shaping and leading the educational outcomes while ensuring that the key outcomes regarding the knowledge, skills and competencies required in the future are met. Other important entities involved in the determination and delivery of value include the industry (who hires the students), the faculty members, the governance boards of institutes and the administrative staff of the institutes, among others.

Considering this, a value perspective is needed to identify, measure and manage value in the context of the Indian management education. Essentially, this study’s core premise is to identify the following for an Indian management institute: (a) the categories in which value can be created, (b) the potential measures of value (for contiguous and future), and (c) the organizational resources and capabilities that can lead to the creation of value in the identified value categories. In doing so, we recognize and incorporate the role of stakeholder engagement (SE) to create value. Moreover, we adopt a management institute view to study value creation. That is, while we recognize the two-way nature of value in any exchange setting (Kumar & Rajan, 2017), in this study, we consider the value created for the stakeholders by the management institute. Such a perspective makes this study retain the focus on the functioning of the management institute while addressing the relevant stakeholders involved.

This study is organized as follows. The next section presents the theoretical background upon which this study is developed. Then, we describe the methodology adopted to identify the value creation aspects. Then, we present the value categories, the respective SEs and the resulting value outcomes (contiguous and future). We then identify the required resources and capabilities for the management institute to unlock the identified value categories. Then, a discussion related to the proposed value categories is presented. Finally, the study concludes by offering future research directions.

Theoretical Background

To investigate value creation in Indian management education, this study relies on well-established theories in management and marketing. This section provides the relevant theoretical foundation needed to develop the proposed framework. Particularly, this study draws from the following streams of literature: (a) resources and capabilities, (b) the stakeholder theory and (c) the SE.

Resources and Capabilities

The resources and capabilities literature informs us about how firms can sustain competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). Resources are defined as ‘stocks of available factors (tangible and intangible) that are owned or controlled by the firm’ (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993, p. 35). Capabilities are defined as ‘the firm’s abilities to effectively utilize tangible and intangible resources for achieving strategic goals’ (Teng & Cummings, 2002, p. 82). From a value creation standpoint, Grant (1996, p. 377) defined organizational capability as ‘a firm’s ability to perform repeatedly a productive task which relates either directly or indirectly to a firm’s capacity for creating value through effecting the transformation of inputs into outputs’. For this study, we use this stream of literature to identify an Indian management institute’s resources and capabilities that are required for creating value.

Stakeholder Theory

The stakeholder theory has received wide attention since the pioneering work of Freeman (1984). Notable studies in this area include investigations on the impact on firm outcomes (Freeman, 1984), the exchange setting (Cornell & Shapiro, 1987), identification of stakeholders (Gummesson, 1994) and risk (Clarkson, 1995) in addition to comprehensive overviews on stakeholder theory (e.g., Hult et al., 2011; Mitchell et al., 1997). Further, value creation in a stakeholder setting has been identified to be a two-way process—‘value-to’ and ‘value-from’. That is, enterprises create value for their stakeholders, while also deriving value from their stakeholders (Kumar, 2018). In this regard, Kumar and Rajan (2017, p. 3) define stakeholder value as ‘the net accrued benefits (tangible and intangible) over the associated costs that firms and individuals realize in a commercial exchange process’. In doing so, they identify the following three characteristics of the firm-stakeholder exchange process: (a) all stakeholders are expected to contribute value to ensure the continuity of the exchange relationship, (b) value destruction may occur in some situations and (c) value is best realized in an exchange process continuously. The third feature of continuous value realization in an exchange setting, as proposed by Kumar and Rajan (2017), is particularly relevant to this study.

Studies on stakeholder theory in a firm context have devoted attention to the creation and distribution of value (e.g., Boaventura et al., 2020; Freeman et al., 2010; Tantalo & Priem, 2016). Importantly, the need to focus on improving relationships that create value (over the identification and prioritizing of the needs of select stakeholders) has been emphasized (de Freitas Langrafe et al., 2020). Additionally, value creation is known to be implanted in the relationship between the organization and its stakeholders (Bosse & Coughlan, 2016). Whereas stakeholder insights from existing research largely correspond to the firm context, insights about an educational context are limited (e.g., Stankevičienė & Vaiciukevičiūtė, 2016). In this regard, research in an HEI setting has identified that relationships between interfacing organizational entities can be leveraged for the overall advantage of the organization (Williams, 2014).

Stakeholder Engagement

The SE construct is anchored in stakeholder theory and is generally understood to include processes and strategies that firms and other organizations implement in their stakeholder relations (e.g., Freeman et al., 2017; Kujala et al., 2022). Using this base, studies have used SE theory to investigate various business-related issues such as organizational leadership (e.g., Patzer et al., 2018), corporate social responsibility (e.g., Kujala & Korhonen, 2017; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010), entrepreneurship (e.g., Leonidou et al., 2020), value creation (e.g., Freudenreich et al., 2020), business ethics (e.g., Noland & Phillips, 2010), stakeholder management (Hollebeek et al., 2020) and innovation (e.g., Bendell & Huvaj, 2020), among others. The SE construct has also been used to investigate topics in non-business-related settings such as community health (e.g., Goodman & Thompson, 2017), environmental management (e.g., Delgado-Ceballos et al., 2012) and higher education (e.g., Bolton & Nie 2010; de Freitas Langrafe et al., 2020), among others.

Whereas studies have investigated the application of SE in the higher education setting, it has not been extended to the management education context. Here, the importance of connecting with stakeholders in an HEI setting has been identified (Stocker et al., 2020) and linked to value creation (Kettunen, 2015). The benefits of SE in leading to value creation have also been identified in the case of cross-border education or transnational higher education (Bolton & Nie, 2010). Additionally, the importance of considering tangible and intangible benefits (as present in an HEI) to measure value creation has been presented (Stankevičienė & Vaiciukevičiūtė, 2016). Moreover, the consideration of SE aspects, especially the dynamics among stakeholders in service systems (as is the case with HEIs), has been identified to be important in managing value-creating stakeholder relationships (Letaifa et al., 2016, Pansari & Kumar, 2017). Other studies have also promoted the incorporation of collaborative engagement among stakeholders to derive value from the relationships (e.g., Stadtelman et al., 2019, Viglia et al., 2018). Management education, being part of higher education, would also benefit from the adoption of a SE approach from a value perspective.

Research Gap

Whereas de Freitas Langrafe et al. (2020) empirically demonstrated the value creation potential of managing stakeholder relationships in HEIs in Brazil, their study does not delve into the engagement concept of stakeholder relationships. Further, considering that value in an educational institution goes beyond economic profits and that educational institutions are largely classified as not-for-profit institutions, the concept of value applies differently. Therefore, the concept of value needs to be examined differently in an educational context, and the precise identification of the stakeholders is central to the determination and management of value creation. Moreover, no scholarly study exists that has investigated value creation in Indian management education. By adopting a value perspective, this study fills this research gap by addressing the varying roles of value-creating potential exhibited by the relevant stakeholders in Indian management education.

Defining Value in Indian Management Education

In this section, we propose a definition of value as it applies to Indian management education. To develop the proposed definition, we consider key definitions of two concepts that are core to our study context: value and SE. Moreover, for the current study, we contend the creation of value for management institutes to constantly change. This value accrues over time and is realized through SEs.

The value perspective: Value, as a concept, continues to face definitional problems (Bowman & Ambrosini, 2000). Recognizing this, they differentiate value creation to comprise of use value and exchange value. Researchers from across the management domains have conceptualized value creation from various perspectives (e.g., Brytting & Trollestad 2000; Haksever et al. 2004; Porter 1985), thereby leading to a lack of consensus on a unified definition of value creation. Additionally, Lepak et al. (2007) identify the difficulty in defining value creation to be related to (a) the multidisciplinary nature of management and organizations, (b) the difficulty to discern the distinction between the content and process of value creation, and (c) the potential confusion with the process of value capture or value retention. Whereas the development of a broad-based definition of value is beyond the scope of this article, a general definition for the term value is proposed here. For this purpose, we adopt the following definition of value proposed by Baier (1966)—value is the capacity of a good, service or activity to satisfy a need or provide a benefit to a person or legal entity. This definition is broad-based to accommodate the uniqueness of the management education context while capturing the essence of the value concept. Further, the excellence of education is contained not only in the achievement of educational outcomes but also in how much value is being created in doing so (Salmi & Liu, 2011).

The stakeholder engagement perspective: The conceptual confusion in defining value, as mentioned earlier, gets accentuated when viewed alongside the stakeholder concept. For instance, consider the students as a stakeholder group in management education. Whereas students’ apparent value from a management education is high-quality education, that value outcome is the result of a combination of several smaller value-creating engagements such as regular class attendance, periodic interactions with industry experts, exposure to research activities, higher starting salaries, personalized career development actions and so on. Therefore, the value derived by students from a management education is gradually realized by the student as they progress through the course of study. Moreover, considering the general nature of educational outcomes, students will continue to derive value well after their graduation (e.g., application of knowledge in relevant workplace settings, expansion of professional networks, preparedness to qualify for future work appointments based on the skills acquired during the management programme and so on). Additionally, the value for the students is contributed by the institute by ensuring quality compliance and considering the graduation rate of the institute. Overall, the temporal nature of value creation as exemplified through a sequence of SE events can be distinguished in management education. Recognizing this, we consider the following definition based on Freeman (1984): A stakeholder of an organization is any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the organization’s activities.

Combining the aforementioned two perspectives, the Indian management institute ‘ecosystem’ can be viewed to comprise a continuous series of value-creating events and engagements among stakeholders. Moreover, each engagement event in a management institute can be further decomposed into smaller events (Cobb, 2007). Therefore, it is important to identify the categories of value for a management institute.

Further, we adopt the view that the value of Indian management education can be unlocked only through a series of SEs. Therefore, such value would emerge not only from knowledge creation and dissemination activities but also from activities such as technology focus, societal focus and brand building. Accordingly, we define value created by an Indian management institute to be ‘the accrued benefits (contiguous and future) to the stakeholders through the institute’s targeted, timely and ongoing engagement efforts’.

The proposed definition recognizes the following characteristics in a management institute-stakeholder value-creation setting:

The management institute and its stakeholders create value continuously. As expected, the creation of value by the management institute to its stakeholders would be continuous. Such a format of ongoing value creation by the management institute would ensure its continued sustenance. This is because the value created by the management institute will subsequently loop back to the institute, thereby ensuring its continuity. Research has also identified the importance of focusing on other aspects such as societal value by educational institutions, in addition to the academic contributions of the institute (Di Benedetto, 2019; Lindgreen et al., 2021). Such a varied focus is expected to create value for all parties involved.

Engaging with stakeholders unlocks value. While there may be many ways to realize the value (e.g., focusing on efficiency, effectiveness, financial responsibility, etc.), we advance that by engaging with stakeholders, management institutes are better positioned to unlock value. This is because the formats of engagements serve the needs of the management institute and the concerned stakeholder, and it primes the relationship for the value to be created.

Stakeholder interaction is not the same as stakeholder engagement. In management institutes, there are existing stakeholder interactions (e.g., faculty interacting with practitioners, alumni interacting with students, etc.). However, such interactions do not necessarily constitute engagement. We propose that stakeholder interactions that are (a) continuous (as opposed to discrete events), (b) timely (as opposed to intermittent efforts), and (c) targeted (as opposed to generic interactions) to the type of stakeholders constitute SEs.

Value is realized over time. The SEs yield benefits over time. Some of these benefits accrue upon programme completion (referred to as contiguous value) and others in the future (referred to as future value). Considering the knowledge-, capability-, and competency-building goal of management education, the realization of value for the management institute and its stakeholders is rarely instantaneous but builds over time. For instance, in the area of placement performance (including student entrepreneurship), the contiguous value created by the institute may include overall placement performance, campus interviews and pre-placement offers, among others. However, the institute also creates value in the future (i.e., after the graduation of the students) through alumni performance and the ability to attract bright students to the institute.

In this study, we consider a typical Indian management institute to exhibit the following characteristics: (a) offers AICTE-approved programmes; (b) is nationally accredited; (c) is governed by a combination of promoters and trustees; (d) is led by the dean/director as part of the management/leadership; (e) comprises of students, qualified faculty members, administrative and support personnel, industry, alumni and other key stakeholders; (f) promotes faculty-students-industry interactions such as teaching, research, training and consultancy; (g) enrols students through a combination of a nationally recognized competitive test and a selection process; (h) requires students to undergo internships during the programme of study; (i) expects students to accept job offers or pursue entrepreneurial ventures upon graduation; and (j) possesses the necessary technology, infrastructure and capabilities for the generation of resources. While the proposed value categories are developed to apply to many Indian management institutes, we believe this categorization to also be amenable to unique institutional needs and requirements, thereby ensuring the generalizability of this study.

Creating and Managing Value in Indian Management Institutes

In this study, we adopt a value and SE perspective that considers the targeted, timely and ongoing actions by the management institute to drive specific SEs to create and manage value. Further, we also include the necessary resources and capabilities required by the management institute to unlock value. Figure 1 illustrates this approach.

Figure 1.

Source: Authors’ creation.

To create and manage value in an Indian management institute, we propose that value can be created by focusing on nine distinct value categories through specific SEs and outcomes. Accordingly, we propose the value categories as (a) teaching and learning, (b) research and innovation, (c) consultancy and training programmes, (d) placement and entrepreneurship, (e) technology initiatives, (f) quality and performance assessment (beyond statutory compliance), (g) domestic and international alliances, (h) brand development and (i) societal contributions. In all the nine categories, we place the students (i.e., learners) at the centre of the management institute’s value creation agenda. As a result, while student-centricity does not feature as a separate value category, it forms a vital component in all the nine value categories.

To identify the proposed nine value categories, this study builds on the accreditation criteria established by the National Board of Accreditation NBA and National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC ; Gholap & Kushare 2019), and the AACSB (2021). That is, we view the accreditation criteria from value and SE perspectives to identify the distinct value categories. Most notably, within our proposed categorization, we have identified three value categories— domestic and international alliances, brand development and technology initiatives—that do not feature prominently among the accreditation criteria. From a value creation standpoint, we believe that the distinct identity of the value categories is important. Therefore, the proposed value categorization would not only ensure meeting quality standards (as listed by the accreditation agencies) but also provide pathways for the management institute to create and manage value.

Table 2 provides the value categories, the corresponding engagements, and the measures. Additionally, Table 2 also provides the resources and capabilities that are required by the management institute to create value.

Table 2.

Creating and Managing Value in Indian Management Institutes.

Value Categories	What Can Be Done? (i.e., Select Stakeholder Engagements)	What Could Happen? (i.e., Potential Stakeholder Engagement Outcomes)	Potential Value Creation		Exemplar Resources (Knowledge-related and Supplementary Resources)	Exemplar Capabilities
Value Categories	What Can Be Done? (i.e., Select Stakeholder Engagements)		Contiguous Measures (Within Programme Duration)	Future Measures (Beyond Three Years)		Exemplar Capabilities
Teaching and learning	Ongoing interactions via curriculum delivery, feedback and assessment Student learning and development	Students acquire the necessary knowledge, skills and competencies Receive stakeholder inputs and feedback on curriculum, new subjects/programmes, pedagogies and student assessments	Percentage increase in student grades, attainment and engagement levels Faculty rating	Pipeline for nurturing employable talent Leveraging and enhancing the acquired knowledge, skills and competencies Enhanced student and faculty development and engagement Immersive student experience (e.g., choice, self-paced modules) Design and deliver contemporary and futuristic offerings Better placements Brand image Institute excellence awards	Knowledge-related: Curriculum (which is contemporary and progressive) Student performance Supplementary: People (e.g., faculty, industry professionals, academic partners and alumni) Physical assets (e.g., classrooms, labs, library, etc.) Digital assets (e.g., smart classrooms, teaching aids, LMS, etc.) Monetary assets (tuition fees, endowments and grants)	Ability to: Design and deliver innovative courses Adopt learner-centric pedagogies Provide education that encompasses multiple formats (offline, online, blended, hybrid, etc.) Offer experiential education (that includes technology) Continuously improve using stakeholder inputs, feedback and performance assessments Possess technical know-how in incorporating technology in the content and delivery Respond to THE changing market needs in an agile manner Incorporate societal and global citizenship perspectives into the curriculum
Research and innovation	Conducting research conferences, workshops, roundtables, networking events, hackathons and competitions to undertake research and innovation opportunities	Creation and dissemination of new ideas, knowledge and potential solutions	Number of academic publications Number of IPRs developed Number of citations/publication h-index Number of research awards Institution research ranking	Contributing to knowledge, discipline and community	Knowledge-related: Thought-leadership Developing innovative ideas Supplementary: People (faculty, research scholars, experts, industry, academia, research funding organizations, government, and professional and trade associations) Infrastructure (research centres and library resources) Research support (grants, travel grants, endowments and awards)	Ability to: Identify and investigate issues and latent needs of the market Update research skillsets Establish networks with THE researcher and innovator community Spot and promptly respond to research and innovation opportunities
Consultancy and training programmes	Meetings with industry to undertake research, training and consulting opportunities	Sharing of knowledge and expertise for talent development, and for solving real-world problems	Increase in consultancy Income from management development programmes	Future consulting engagements Industry-academia networking opportunities	Knowledge-related: Awareness of industry needs Domain expertise Problem-solving skills Supplementary: Industry connections Participation in networking events Learning and training resources Investments into knowledge resources Upskilling	Ability to: Customize solutions and training programmes to cater to industry needs Use technology Network with industry and peers
Placement and entrepreneurship	Student grooming and mentoring sessions for industry placements and entrepreneurship (e.g., mock interviews and resume preparation)	Student-preparedness for enhanced roles and packages Expand recruiter base	Placement packages (median salary) Number of new recruiters added Number of repeat recruiters Number of start-ups created Number of pre-placement offers Placement period Alumni recruiters	Graduate outcomes (knowledge and behaviours) and competencies Alumni performance Ability to attract prospective students	Knowledge-related: Information about market needs and industry trends Supplementary: Recruiters (including alumni) Start-up ecosystem Career placement cell Incubation centre Presence of design labs Funds to promote entrepreneurial initiatives, commercialization of IPRs	Ability to: Identify and cater to evolving job roles Expand the recruiter base by leveraging the institute’s brand Identify and encourage promising ideas which can evolve into successful entrepreneurial ventures
Technology initiatives	For knowledge-creation and dissemination, and efficient institute administration	Technology integration (in areas of curriculum design and delivery, processes and formats, and in the institute’s governance and administration)	Number of technology-related topics, courses, programmes, and initiatives introduced Number of technology-related profiles and placements Reduction in time, effort and costs due to tech-enabled processes (e.g., through the use of ERP and LMS) Number of online programmes and enrolments Additional revenue generation	Enhanced quality and programme outcomes that support the institute’s digital transformation strategy Nurturing students; and faculty’s digital skills and mindset Achieving greater access, affordability, quality and outcomes in education Offering students choice through self-paced modules More contemporary and futuristic offerings Enhanced employability and better placements Enhanced revenue-generation capacity Improved brand image	Knowledge-related: Awareness of technological advancement Adoption of cutting-edge technology tools Smart classrooms Supplementary: People (technology vendors/partners, leadership, faculty and student) Investment allocation for technology deployment Technology grants	Ability to: Match technological advancements with the institute’s needs and its offerings Design and implement technology initiatives
Quality and performance assessment (beyond statutory compliance)	Self-initiated reviews and inspections (risk, quality assurance and financial) Voluntary participation in ranking and ratings of external agencies	The prominence of the institute and its offerings in the domestic and global markets	Higher quality performance score for the institute Longer accreditation tenure Improvement in ranking Number of awards and recognition	Enhanced outcomes Enhanced ability to attract faculty, students, partners and recruiters Access to funding and networks Mentorship to other institutions Allied benefits from regulators	Knowledge-related: Awareness of standards on quality Metrics for institute performance Supplementary resources: Access to quality- and performance-assessing agencies	Ability to: Maintain overall quality standards in programmes and offerings Continuously improve the offerings based on stakeholder feedback, market needs, and stakeholder needs Develop and implement systems and processes
Domestic and International alliances	Partnerships, collaborations, alliances, joint programmes, workshops, conferences and seminars	Knowledge-creation and dissemination activities through alliances and partnerships Access to professional networks Establishment of joint initiatives	Number of partnerships and joint initiatives (e.g., knowledge creation/ dissemination, faculty, know-how, exchange programmes, study tours, conferences and global campus) The number of international faculty and international students attracted International student tuition fees	Nurturing a multifaceted mindset for the institute Cultural sensitivity Access to international faculty and students Continued engagements leading to future opportunities	Knowledge-related: Awareness of competitive trends and requirements Possessing core competencies Supplementary: Network of institutions, professional and trade associations, and industry Investments towards networking events and learning resources	Ability to: Network and identify growth opportunities for the institute Identify areas of mutual interests and establish connections Update the domain expertise
Brand development	Promotion and brand-development initiatives (e.g., sponsored events, accreditation rating and ranking)	Overall market standing for the institute	Stakeholder satisfaction index (e.g., student, faculty, staff, recruiters, alumni, parents and partners)	Brand equity Ability to attract talent and partners Access to funding and networks	Knowledge-related: Unique programmes offerings market intelligence Supplementary: People (e.g., marketing & media professionals) Marketing and media budgets	Ability to: Launch initiatives to targeted audiences Command a premium for its programmes and offerings Attract high-quality talent
Societal contributions	Interactions with stakeholders for creating social impact (e.g., community-focused grassroots initiatives and research projects)	Students are nurtured as responsible citizens by undertaking society-linked initiatives (aligned to SDGs, national missions, local community and social/community causes)	Number of initiatives with the local community and linked to national missions Instilling responsible citizenship and values in students Number of courses/topics incorporating environmental, ethics and social perspectives	Continued stakeholder association leads to opportunities Nurturing responsible citizen leaders Furthering management education and discipline Advocacy role	Knowledge-related: awareness and integration of the principles of responsible management education Awareness of social issues, sustainability and affirmative actions Incorporate societal and global citizenship perspectives into the curriculum Supplementary: People (e.g., community workers, government and grassroots organizations) Funding towards scholarships Donations to underprivileged populations and social causes	Ability to: Inculcate responsible citizenship behaviours/practices Develop solutions to societal issues Nurture social impact focussed start-ups Contribute towards creating an inclusive society

Source: Authors’ creation.

Across the nine value categories, the study proposes that management institutes can engage with stakeholders (e.g., management/leadership, faculty, industry, alumni, students, and traditional and non-traditional partners) through focused engagements (e.g., periodic interactions, board meetings, conferences and seminars) to create value. Further, the value outcomes (e.g., obtaining curricular inputs from industry, designing an industry-aligned programme, solving real-world problems and technology-enabled learning) of the targeted engagements with the relevant stakeholders can be realized. This, in turn, leads to potential value creation for the stakeholders and, subsequently, to the management institute that could be termed as contiguous value and future value.

The contiguous value measure refers to the value created by the management institute during the programme duration. Here, the programme duration refers to the period of study (e.g., a two-year full-time programme) and the value realization occurs during this period. The future value measure refers to the value created by the management institute that accrues over time (i.e., beyond three years after the programme completion). Considering that accrediting agencies such as the NBA in India contend that graduate outcomes are achieved during the first few years after graduation (Pradhan, 2021), we consider the future value measure for the institute to accrue beyond three years of completion of the study. For this study, we consider only full-time programmes for the identification of the value categories and subsequent value measures.

As mentioned earlier, we also identify the resources and capabilities required by the management institute to unlock value under each of the nine value categories. Accordingly, we classify the required resources as knowledge-related resources (i.e., any resource related to knowledge, know-how, skills and awareness) and supplementary resources (i.e., any resource that extends beyond knowledge-related such as people needs, financial needs, infrastructure needs and so on). To utilize such resources, we also identify the capabilities required by the management institute that can unlock value in each of the value categories.

In addition to the identified resources and capabilities, we assume that the management institute has an alignment of three critical dimensions—the concentration of talent, abundant funding and favourable governance—as identified in the creation of world-class educational institutions (Salmi, 2009). While these three are critical, the absence of any one of the three dimensions will hinder or minimize or even destroy value creation. In other words, for this study, we assume that all the three critical dimensions are present, and they work alongside a value-aligned strategy. Moreover, the management institute has a student-centred approach to supporting value creation.

The remainder of this section elaborates on each of the nine value categories.

Teaching and learning: The teaching and learning component represents an integral part of a management institute. Here, the aim is to nurture students’ knowledge, skills and competencies. When the management institute focuses on teaching and learning (including curriculum and student assessments), the value may be realized contiguously or in the future. For instance, the contiguous value measures include the percentage increase in student grades, attainment and engagement levels, and the percentage increase in faculty ratings, among others. Similarly, the future value measures include designing and delivering contemporary and futuristic offerings, and creating an immersive student experience (e.g., by offering students greater flexibility, choice, self-paced modules, continuous assessment, and feedback and support).

For the management institute to unlock the value in this category, it would require knowledge-related resources such as having a contemporary and future-looking curriculum, and knowledge about student performance. The supplementary resources include the talent pool (faculty, industry professionals, academic partners and alumni), physical infrastructure (classrooms, labs, library, etc.) and technical know-how in incorporating technology in the content and delivery, among others. Using the aforementioned resources, we identify the specific capabilities required by the management institute to include the ability to do the following: design and deliver innovative courses; adopt learner-centric pedagogies; provide education that encompasses multiple formats (offline, online, blended, hybrid, etc.); offer experiential education (that includes technology); continuously improve using stakeholder inputs and feedback; and conduct student assessments.

Research and innovation: This value category involves the creation and dissemination of innovative ideas, new knowledge and potential solutions. Research has also identified the critical role of academic research in developing knowledge and innovation at national, regional and international levels (Kearney, 2009). Therefore, by focusing on research and innovation initiatives, the contiguous value measures can include an increase in the number of academic publications, and an increase in the number of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) developed, among others. And the future value measure can include contributing to the body of knowledge to the discipline, field and society (e.g., developing new research-based knowledge creation, crafting solutions to issues/problems faced by stakeholders, and the ability to attract more grants and funding for future research, among others).

For the management institute to unlock the value in this category, the knowledge-related resources required are possessing thought-leadership and the potential to develop innovative ideas. Similarly, the supplementary resources required include access to the following: (a) the talent pool, (b) professional networks, (c) library resources and (d) funding opportunities, among others. For using these resources, the specific capabilities required by the management institute include the ability to spot and promptly respond to research and innovation opportunities, identify latent needs of the market, continuously update research skillsets, and establish networks with the researcher and innovator community.

Consultancy and training: This value category involves sharing knowledge and expertise for talent development and solving real-world problems. This involves undertaking consultancy and training assignments with industry, academia, professional organizations and the government. By focusing on such engagements, the contiguous value measure is an increase in the income from consultancy and training assignments. Further, the future value measures can include the opportunities that emerge out of such assignments, and the prospects to build networks with members of industry and society.

Here, the specific capabilities required for using these resources include the ability to customize solutions, design training programmes to cater to industry needs and use technology tools and platforms, among others. To derive value from this value category, the knowledge-related resources include the awareness of industry needs and trends, expertise in multiple domains, problem-solving skills, and access to learning and training resources, to name a few. In addition, the supplementary resources required include establishing industry and stakeholder connections, investments in knowledge resources and upskilling programmes, and so on.

Placement and entrepreneurship: This value category signifies the culmination of students gaining knowledge and developing their skills and competencies, which leads to their career advancement (i.e., student placements or students pursuing entrepreneurial opportunities). By focusing on career advancement efforts, the contiguous value measures include an increase in (a) placement packages (e.g., median value), (b) the number of new recruiters, (c) the number of pre-placements offers and overall offers, and (d) the number of student entrepreneurial ventures, among others. And the specific future value measures include enhanced graduate outcomes (i.e., the knowledge, behaviours and competencies developed), alumni performance and the ability to attract prospective students.

For these value measures, the knowledge–related resources required by the management institute relate to the awareness of market needs and industry trends. In addition, the supplementary resources required include access to recruiters (including alumni), a robust career placement cell, access to the start-up ecosystem, the presence of incubation centres and design labs and funds for promoting entrepreneurial initiatives, among others. The specific capabilities required for utilizing these resources include the ability to (a) identify and cater to evolving job roles, (b) expand the recruiter base and (c) identify and encourage promising ideas that can evolve into successful entrepreneurial ventures, among others.

Technology initiatives: Recognizing the importance of technology in the overall design, delivery and administration of management institutions, we propose that focused technology initiatives by a management institute can lead to value creation. This value category involves technology integration into the overall management institute’s offerings, processes and systems (i.e., in curriculum, delivery, formats, and overall institute’s governance and administration). By focussing on this value category, the contiguous value measures include an increase in (a) the number of technology-related topics introduced in courses, programmes and initiatives; (b) the number of online programmes and enrolments; (c) the number of tech-related profiles and placements; (d) revenue generation potential; and (e) efficiency technology-enabled processes. The future value measures include (a) enhancements in the quality and outcomes of the institute’s programmes and initiatives that support the digital transformation strategy; (b) nurturing the digital skills and mindset of students and faculty; (c) providing education that is more accessible, affordable and flexible to students; (d) offerings that are updated and futuristic; (e) enhanced employability and better placements; (f) enhanced revenue generation capacity; and (g) improved brand image, among others.

For this value category, the knowledge-related resources required by the management institute include the awareness of technological advancements, the know-how to adopt cutting-edge technology tools and platforms, and so on. The supplementary resources required include having smart classrooms, technology vendors/partners, technology investments and technology-related grants, among others. The specific capabilities required to utilize these resources include the ability (a) to match technological advancements with the institute’s needs and its offerings, and (b) to design and implement technology initiatives.

Quality and performance assessment (beyond statutory compliance): This value category involves targeted initiatives to enhance the overall quality and performance of the management institute, which goes beyond meeting the statutory approvals and compliances. Going beyond statutory compliance can involve self-initiated reviews and inspections (risk, quality assurance and financial), and voluntary participation in the ranking and ratings of external agencies (e.g., domestic and international bodies). Pursuing such initiatives establishes the prominence of the management institute and its offerings in the market. By focusing on such quality and performance assessment, the contiguous value measures can reflect in (a) securing higher scores and longer tenure for accreditation, (b) increase in ranking and (c) increase in the number of awards and recognition. The future value can reflect in (a) enhanced overall institute performance; (b) stronger brand equity; (c) the ability to attract faculty, students, partners and recruiters; (d) greater access to funding and networks; (e) greater autonomy and allied benefits from regulators; and (f) mentorship to other institutions, among others.

For the management institute to unlock the value in this category, the required knowledge-related resources relate to an overall awareness of standards about quality standards and metrics for institute performance. In addition, the supplementary resources required relate to access to quality, ranking, rating and performance-assessing agencies. For utilizing these resources, the specific capabilities required by the management institute include the ability to (a) maintain overall quality standards in its programmes, offerings and initiatives; (b) continuously improve the offerings based on stakeholder feedback; (c) align offerings to meet the market needs and stakeholder needs; and (d) develop and implement systems and processes.

Domestic and international relationships: This value category involves leveraging relationships (domestic and international) for knowledge creation and dissemination activities. By focussing on domestic and international relationships, the contiguous value measures relate to (a) an increase in the number of alliances, partnerships and joint initiatives for knowledge creation/dissemination activities; and (b) the number of international faculty and international students engaged. The future value measures include (a) nurturing a multifaceted mindset; (b) instilling cultural sensitivity; (c) access to international faculty, students and companies; and (d) the continued engagements leading to future opportunities (e.g., joint research, joint funding grants, etc.), among others.

For the management institute to unlock the value in this category, the knowledge-related resources required include awareness of competitive trends and requirements and having the necessary core competence to spot the trends and establish necessary relationships. The supplementary resources required include (a) access to networks involving academia, industry and professional trade associations; and (b) investments towards learning resources and networking events. For utilizing these resources, the specific capabilities required include the ability to (a) network and identify opportunities, (b) identify potential partners, (c) recognize areas of mutual interests and establish connections, and (d) constantly update the institute’s core competence, among others.

Brand development: This value category involves focussing on promotion and brand development initiatives undertaken by the management institute. By focusing on brand development initiatives, the contiguous value measure realized reflects in the stakeholder satisfaction index (i.e., the satisfaction levels of students, faculty, staff, recruiters, alumni, parents, partners, etc). The future value measure reflects in the institute’s brand equity, which results in the increased (a) ability to attract talent (students, faculty, recruiters, partners, etc), (b) access to funding and networks, (c) mentoring opportunities and (d) recognition to the institute.

For the management institute to unlock the value in this category, the knowledge-related resources include awareness of its unique programme offerings and market intelligence. The supplementary resources required include people resources (e.g., marketing and media professionals, recruiters and alumni) and marketing and media budgets, among others. For using these resources, the specific capabilities required include the ability to launch initiatives to targeted audiences, command a premium for its programmes and offerings, attract high-quality talent, and leverage opportunities for growth and expansion.

Societal contribution: This value category focuses on creating social impact by undertaking society-linked initiatives that help in nurturing students as responsible global citizens. By focusing on this value category, the contiguous value measures realized include (a) an increase in the number of society-linked initiatives, (b) instilling citizenship and values, and (c) an increase in the number of courses/topics incorporating environmental, values and social goals, etc. And the future value measure includes the continued stakeholder (a) engagements that lead to further opportunities, (b) advancing management education, and (c) playing an advocacy role for social causes.

For the management institute to unlock the value in this category, the knowledge-related resources include (a) awareness and integration of the principles of responsible management education; (b) awareness of social issues, sustainability and affirmative actions; and (c) the inclusion of societal and global citizenship perspectives into the curriculum. And the supplementary resources required include (a) access to community workers, government and grassroots organizations; (b) investments in terms of time and efforts of stakeholders; and (c) funding for scholarships and donations to underprivileged populations and social causes. For using these resources, the specific capabilities include the ability to (a) inculcate responsible citizenship behaviours/practices, (b) develop solutions to societal issues, (c) nurture social impact-focused start-ups and (d) contribute toward creating an inclusive society among others.

Until now, we discussed the proposed nine value categories under which a management institute can create value. However, to realize value under each of these value categories, the management institute must possess the requisite financial resources (e.g., tuition fees, consulting revenue, commercialization of IPRs, grants and endowments received, etc.) and non-financial resources (e.g., active alumni base, vibrant industry connection, positive brand image, access to the talent pool, access to professional networks, etc). By using the financial and non-financial resources, the management institute can expand its basket of offerings (new programmes, courses, verticals and training programmes) and initiatives (industry-sponsored chairs, additional campus, new formats and new models) that can result in value-creation and in generating additional resources to support future needs. Such actions are in addition to the conventional approaches to value-creation typically adopted by the Indian management institute (e.g., cost reduction measures aimed to promote efficiency, re-evaluating unsustainable courses and offerings to drive value, etc.).

Therefore, while we recommend that a management institute focuses on all the nine value categories to allocate the resources (financial and non-financial), the final resource allocation schema would be a function of a management institute’s organizational vision and priorities, the market that they serve, and its existing capabilities and education policies, among others. In other words, the ultimate resource allocation plan would be management institute-specific and contingent upon the respective management institute’s current and future journey.

Discussion

Using three key streams of literature—value, SE, and resources and capabilities—this study defines value in Indian management education and identifies nine value categories that can drive value creation for a management institute. Specifically, this study (a) identifies the specific stakeholders and their engagements in each of the value categories, (b) delineates the resultant value outcomes and measures (categorized as contiguous and future) and (c) recognizes the specific resources and capabilities required by the management institute for creating value under each of the value categories.

Through this study, we make the following contributions to theory and practice. First, to our knowledge, this is the first study to define value in the context of an Indian management institute. This contribution assumes significance when viewed alongside the lack of consensus on the definition of value in extant literature. By defining value for the Indian management institute context, this study presents opportunities for the Indian management institutes to better understand the value creation process. We consider this a novel contribution to the literature on value and management education. Second, the identification of nine value categories that rests on the SE perspective through which an institution can create and manage value represents an important contribution. Moreover, the development of value measures (contiguous and future) is expected to help management institutes engage with their stakeholders in a manner that would enhance overall value. Finally, we close the research gap by introducing a value categorization specifically for Indian management education. While we consider this to be the initial efforts in this area, we hope this opens new avenues of research in value creation and management for Indian management education.

While the value and SE approach was anchored on identifying the value categories, converting the specific SE opportunities into value also requires the management institute to adopt a forward-looking perspective. We propose that the value categories presented here can be used on an ongoing basis to contribute towards immediate and long-term strategy formulation. A perspective anchored on value and SEs would allow the institute board and the leadership to incorporate the potential value-creating opportunities in overall strategy formulation and implementation. This can be achieved through a focus on imparting high-quality management education. In this regard, we discuss the future strategy implication on two lines of thought: (a) How can value be maximized for the management institution? (b) What are the resource requirements for maximizing value creation for the management institution?

How Can Value Be Maximized for the Management Institution?

We propose that the management institution would have to identify which of the specific potential value-creating opportunities in each of the value categories they wish to pursue based on their needs, priorities and specific contexts. This would also include evaluating the value-creating opportunities in terms of payoffs and tradeoffs regarding strategic considerations such as ethical, social and environmental, along with economic requirements. Further, as mentioned earlier, the management institutes can realize value during the course duration (contiguous value) and also accrue over time (future value). This requires attention to the following aspects:

Stakeholder engagement. For each of the nine value categories, the management institution will have to identify the possible SEs and which stakeholders are required for creating value. As the next steps, depending upon the existing resources and capabilities required, the management can then decide how and when such engagements are to be pursued. For instance, under the technology initiatives value category, consider the launch of a new course on new-age technologies based on a specific industry request. The board/leadership will need to identify the specific stakeholders that are crucial for the implementation of the new course. To begin with, the identified stakeholders for this course may include the requesting company/industry individual, the necessary faculty and administrative team, and the IT team. This corresponds to the identification of specific stakeholders, and the relevant SEs (e.g., interactions between requesting company and faculty members to understand the technology requirements, meetings involving the IT team to formulate a plan for management approval, etc.). For this, the necessary resources and capabilities that are required will have to be identified (e.g., smart classrooms, technology tools, software, qualified instructors, instructional materials, etc.). Additionally, the management/leadership will need to recognize the importance of focusing on technology initiatives and being mindful of the institute’s existing resources and capabilities to design and launch the course. Therefore, from a value-maximization standpoint, management institutions must identify in each of the value categories the specific stakeholders and their engagements on an ongoing basis.

Breadth and depth of value creation: The identified value categories and the related SEs present several opportunities for the management institute to create value. While it is expected that management institutes will be looking to create value across all the nine categories (i.e., the breadth of value creation), the level of focus within each value category (i.e., the depth of value creation within each value category) must be ascertained by the leadership.

We contend that the identification of the breadth and the depth of value creation would be influenced by organizational factors such as competitive landscape, evolving regulatory policies, balancing short-term and long-term priorities, identifying organizational trade-offs, assessing existing resources and capabilities, and the unique context in the management school operates, among others. Further, we present that with continuous, timely and targeted SE efforts that are backed by the management, value creation occurs, and compounds over time. Conversely, sporadic or lack of efforts towards value creation through SE could diminish/destroy value.

Once the decision on the breadth and depth of value creation is made, the subsequent decisions for the leadership would involve (a) which of the value categories to prioritize and to what extent, and (b) identifying the right time to implement the value creation strategy and how to do so. That is, for each of the value categories, identifying the combination of specific stakeholders and their engagements (i.e., what, when and how) in achieving the breadth and depth of value creation must be considered by the leadership of the management institute.

Promoting engagement across stakeholder groups for exploring new opportunities. The board/leadership of management institutions has an important role in promoting SEs for exploring new opportunities. This calls for a proactive approach to seeking and engaging participants to be involved in the value-creating opportunity. For instance, consider instances such as an existing technology service provider proposing a new-age technology for a smart classroom to the management institution; or the faculty requesting for a smart classroom to the management institution. In such cases, the management/leadership should have organizational processes to encourage and evaluate such opportunities. Going forward, the value creation in Indian management education must be viewed from a NEP standpoint. So, management institutions must engage in multistakeholder dialogs for policy advocacy for implementing the NEP specifically from a management education perspective.

What Are the Conditions for Maximizing Value Creation in Management Education?

For the earlier two value-maximizing aspects to be effective, we propose that the following conditions should be satisfied.

Management agility and adaptability: In addressing the value-creating opportunities, the management/leadership must be quick to respond (i.e., agile) and should be responsive to changes (i.e., adaptive). Additionally, the management should nurture the institute regarding its preparedness to handle disruptions and capitalize on opportunities. For example, the management institutions are being disrupted by recent developments such as the pandemic and technological advancements. Here, those management institutes that had invested in technology and implemented a digital strategy could immediately transition from offline to online and subsequently to blended/hybrid formats. Therefore, their ability to handle the disruptions better was due to the management’s role in preparing their respective institutions to be agile and adaptive.

Integration of technology in the functioning of the management institute: The value architecture proposed in this study considers technology as a foundation upon which the value exchange occurs. Considering this, management institutions should leverage the technology in its functioning and offerings to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of operations. Further, technology plays a vital role in providing modular, flexible and personalized offerings for the learner. For instance, using technology, it is possible to adapt the design and delivery of education based on the learner’s needs and performance through self-paced courses/preparatory courses. Moreover, technology allows for innovative offerings such as ‘anytime-anywhere’ programmes (e.g., massive open online courses [MOOCs]), modular formats and an omnichannel model of instruction (i.e., across multiple devices and platforms) to promote student learning and engagement.

Management education as a means of nation-building: The purpose of management education must be viewed by management institutes as the pathway of nurturing talent for the betterment of industry and society. Such an outlook must be embedded in the overall vision, mission and execution strategy of the management institutes. Accordingly, the management institutes can demonstrate this outlook through their various social and educational initiatives (e.g., movements such as Make-in-India and Start-Up India; integrating environmental, ethical and social issues in the curriculum; and nurturing talent as responsible citizen-leaders).

Conclusion and Future Research

This study has identified value categories for value creation in Indian management education through SEs. While this categorization represents an early attempt to investigate value creation in Indian management education from a stakeholder perspective, the following future research avenues to this approach exist.

First, based on the proposed value categories, future research can focus on refining the contributions of this study. While this study has taken the first step in identifying the contiguous value and future value in each of the value categories, additional work in this area is possible. For instance, while academic grades and starting job offer packages may reflect the attainment levels for the programme, the knowledge, skills and competencies developed during the programme will likely accrue over time. Therefore, the following questions emerge:

RQ1: Can, and how, a ‘composite’ value (a blend of contiguous and future value) of management education be determined?

RQ2: What are the types of SEs that lead to the creation of contiguous value, and future value? Are such SEs mutually exclusive vis-à-vis the two types of value measures?

Second, in times of crisis (e.g., pandemic and economic recession), the response of management institutes regarding stakeholders is crucial so that the learning process continues. During such times, the existing stakeholder relationships (developed over time) can be a source of vital support for the continued existence of the management institute. So, investing in stakeholder relationships during non-crises times becomes critical from a crisis preparedness standpoint. Therefore, management institutes should seek to maintain smooth and cordial relationships of stakeholders’ needs, while meeting their strategic vision and operational needs. Here, it is important to recognize that the continued operations may be hampered by the non-engagement of certain stakeholder groups. Therefore, the following research questions emerge:

RQ3: How can management institutes identify those value-creating engagements that are essential for sustained knowledge creation and dissemination process, especially in times of crisis?

RQ4: What strategies and tactics can management institutions develop when stakeholder support is difficult to obtain due to a crisis?

Finally, prior research in higher education literature has linked value creation to competitive advantage (e.g., De Haan, 2015; Finch et al., 2016). Considering the market-facing factors such as the high number of management institutions (domestic and globally); the changes in the policy reforms (e.g., NEP); the evolving needs of the learner, the industry and the society; the increasing internationalization efforts; and the entry of non-traditional educational players (e.g., EdTech companies), we believe that Indian management institutes must focus on quickly adapting themselves to address such challenges and utilize the opportunities. Engaging with stakeholders is necessary not only to address the emerging challenges but also to create value. Further, this will likely result in creating a competitive advantage for the management institute and the overall management education in India. As a result, the value categories proposed here that use a stakeholder perspective may be used to link value creation to competitive advantage for the management institute. Therefore, the following question emerges:

RQ5: What role(s) do SEs serve in creating a competitive advantage for management institutions?

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank the guest editors for their valuable feedback in the revision process. All authors contributed equally to the preparation of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article:

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

ORCID iD

Bharath Rajan

References

AACSB International. (2021, July 1). AACSB business accreditation standards . https://www.aacsb.edu/-/media/documents/accreditation/2020-aacsb-business-accreditation-standards-july-2021.pdf?rev=7f4c2893dc1e47eb91c472d9fc59b238&hash=833E7A4A1E094BADDACDAAB60CF2CD69

All India Council for Technical Education. (2022). AICTE approved institutes for the academic year: 2021–2022—‘Management’ . https://facilities.aicte-india.org/dashboard/pages/dashboardaicte.php

Amit

, & Schoemaker

P. J.

(1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal , 14(1), 33–46.

Baier

(1966). What is value? An analysis of the concept. In Baier

& Rescher

(Eds), Values and the future: The impact of technological change on American values (pp. 33–67). The Free Press.

Barney

(1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management , 17(1), 99–120.

Bendell

B. L.

, & Huvaj

M. N.

(2020). Does stakeholder engagement through corporate social and environmental behaviors affect innovation? Journal of Business Research , 119, 685–696.

Bhattacharya

, & Bhattacharya

(2014). Indian renaissance in the twenty-first century: Management education, thoughts and practices for the betterment of business, nation and society. Journal of Human Values , 20(1), 45–58.

Boaventura

J. M.

G., Bosse

D. A.

, de Mascena

K. M. C.

, & Sarturi

(2020). Value distribution to stakeholders: The influence of stakeholder power and strategic importance in public firms. Long Range Planning , 53(2).

Bolton

, & Nie

R. U. I.

(2010). Creating value in transnational higher education: The role of stakeholder management. Academy of Management Learning & Education , 9(4), 701–714.

10.

Bosse

D. A.

, & Coughlan

(2016). Stakeholder relationship bonds. Journal of Management Studies , 53(7), 1197–1222.

11.

Bowman

, & Ambrosini

(2000). Value creation versus value capture: Towards a coherent definition of value in strategy. British Journal of Management , 11(1), 1–15.

12.

Brytting

, & Trollestad

(2000). Managerial thinking on value-based management. International Journal of Value-Based Management , 13(1), 55–77.

13.

Clarkson

M. E.

(1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review , 20(1), 92–117.

14.

Cobb

J. B.

(2007). Person-in-community: Whiteheadian insights into community and institution. Organization Studies , 28(4), 567–588.

15.

Cornell

, & Shapiro

A. C.

(1987). Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management , 16(1), 5–14.

16.

de Freitas Langrafe

, Barakat

S. R.

, Stocker

, & Boaventura

J. M. G.

(2020). A stakeholder theory approach to creating value in higher education institutions. The Bottom Line , 33(4), 297–313.

17.

De Haan

H. H.

(2015). Competitive advantage, what does it really mean in the context of public higher education institutions? International Journal of Educational Management , 29(1), 44–61.

18.

Delgado-Ceballos

, Aragón-Correa

J. A.

, Ortiz-de-Mandojana

, & Rueda-Manzanares

(2012). The effect of internal barriers on the connection between stakeholder integration and proactive environmental strategies. Journal of Business Ethics , 107(3), 281–293.

19.

Di Benedetto

C. A.

, Lindgreen

, Storgaard

, & Clarke

A. H.

(2019). How to collaborate really well with practitioners. Industrial Marketing Management , 82, 1–8.

20.

Finch

D. J.

, Peacock

, Levallet

, & Foster

(2016). A dynamic capabilities view of employability: Exploring the drivers of competitive advantage for university graduates. Education + Training , 58(1), 61–81.

21.

Freeman

(1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective . Prentice-Hall.

22.

Freeman

R. E.

, Harrison

J. S.

, Wicks

A. C.

, Parmar

B. L.

, & De Colle

(2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art . Cambridge University Press.

23.

Freeman

R. E.

, Kujala

, & Sachs

(Eds). (2017). Stakeholder engagement: Clinical research cases . Springer.

24.

Freudenreich

, Lüdeke-Freund

, & Schaltegger

(2020). A stakeholder theory perspective on business models: Value creation for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics , 166(1), 3–18.

25.

Gholap

, & Kushare

(2019). A Comparative study of accreditation grades of NAAC vis-a-vis NBA for quality improvement of higher education in India. International Journal of 360 Management Review , 7(2), 72–84.

26.

Goodman

M. S.

, & Sanders Thompson

V. L.

(2017). The science of stakeholder engagement in research: classification, implementation, and evaluation. Translational Behavioral Medicine , 7(3), 486–491.

27.

Graduate Management Admission Council. (2021, October). The global diversity of talent—Attainment and representation . Graduate Management Admission Council. https://www.gmac.com/market-intelligence-and-research/research-library/diversity-enrollment/2021-gmac-diversity-report

28.

Grant

R. M.

(1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal , 17(S2), 109–122.

29.

Gummesson

(1994). Making relationship marketing operational. International Journal of Service Industry Management , 5(5), 5–20.

30.

Haksever

, Chaganti

, & Cook

R. G.

(2004). A model of value creation: Strategic view. Journal of Business Ethics , 49(3), 295–307.

31.

Hollebeek

L. D.

, Kumar

, & Srivastava

R. K.

(2020). From customer-, to actor-, to stakeholder engagement: Taking stock, conceptualization, and future directions. Journal of Service Research , 25(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520977680

32.

Hult

G. T. M.

, Mena

J. A.

, Ferrell

O. C.

, & Ferrell

(2011). Stakeholder marketing: A definition and conceptual framework. AMS Review , 1(1), 44–65.

33.

Jack

(2022, February 13). FT Global MBA Ranking 2022: US business schools dominate. Financial Times . https://www.ft.com/content/0380d44e-98c0-49c6-b62d-776866ab7c2b

34.

Kearney

M. L.

(2009). Higher education, research and innovation: Charting the course of the changing dynamics of the knowledge society. In Meek

V. L.

, Teichler

& Kearney

M. L.

(Eds), Higher education, research and innovation: Changing dynamics . University of Kassel.

35.

Kettunen

(2015). Stakeholder relationships in higher education. Tertiary Education and Management , 21(1), 56–65.

36.

Khatun

, & Dar

S. N.

(2019). Management education in India: The challenges of changing scenario. Entrepreneurship Education , 2(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41959-019-00010-7

37.

Kujala

, & Korhonen

(2017). Value-creating stakeholder relationships in the context of CSR. In Stakeholder engagement: Clinical research cases (pp. 63–85). Springer.

38.

Kujala

, Sachs

, Leinonen

, Heikkinen

, & Laude

(2022). Stakeholder engagement: Past, present, and future. Business & Society . https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211066595

39.

Kumar

(2018). A theory of customer valuation: Concepts, metrics, strategy, and implementation. Journal of Marketing , 82(1), 1–19.

40.

Kumar

, & Rajan

(2017). What’s in it for me? The creation and destruction of value for firms from stakeholders. Journal of Creating Value , 3(2), 142–156.

41.

Leonidou

, Christofi

, Vrontis

, & Thrassou

(2020). An integrative framework of stakeholder engagement for innovation management and entrepreneurship development. Journal of Business Research , 119, 245–258.

42.

Lepak

D. P.

, Smith

K. G.

, & Taylor

M. S.

(2007). Value creation and value capture: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review , 32(1), 180–194.

43.

Letaifa

S. B.

, Edvardsson

, & Tronvoll

(2016). The role of social platforms in transforming service ecosystems. Journal of Business Research , 69(5), 1933–1938.

44.

Lindgreen

, & Swaen

(2010). Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews , 12(1), 1–7.

45.

Lindgreen

, Di Benedetto

C. A.

, Clarke

A. H.

, Evald

M. R.

, Bjørn-Andersen

, & Lambert

D. M.

(2021). How to define, identify, and measure societal value. Industrial Marketing Man-agement , 97, A1–A13.

46.

Mahajan

(2012). Management education landscape in India: Issues, challenges and strategies. AIMA Journal of Management & Research , 6(4), 12.

47.

Majumdar

, & Jain

(2021). Guidelines on internationalization of higher education: Globalisation of education becomes a reality. National Law Review , XI(240).https://www.natlawreview.com/article/guidelines-internationalization-higher-education-globalisation-education-becomes

48.

Mitchell

R. K.

, Agle

B. R.

, & Wood

D. J.

(1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review , 22(4), 853–886.

49.

National Institute Ranking Framework. (2022). India rankings 2021: Management . https://www.nirfindia.org/2021/ManagementRanking.html

50.

Noland

, & Phillips

(2010). Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics and strategic management. International Journal of Management Reviews , 12(1), 39–49.

51.

Pansari

, & Kumar

(2017). Customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 45(3), 294–311.

52.

Patzer

, Voegtlin

, & Scherer

A. G.

(2018). The normative justification of integrative stakeholder engagement: A Habermasian view on responsible leadership. Business Ethics Quarterly , 28(3), 325–354.

53.

Porter

M. E.

(1985). Technology and competitive advantage. Journal of Business Strategy , 5(3), 60–78.

54.

Pradhan

(2021). Effectiveness of outcome based education (OBE) toward empowering the students performance in an engineering course. Journal of Advances in Education and Philosophy , 5(2), 58–65.

55.

Salmi

(2009). The challenge of establishing world-class universities . World Bank.

56.

Salmi

, & Liu

N. C.

(2011). Paths to a world-class university. In Liu

N. C.

, Wang

& Cheng

(Eds), Paths to a world-class university: Lessons from practices and experiences (pp. ix–xviii). Sense Publishers.

57.

Stadtelmann

, Woratschek

, & Diederich

(2019). Actor engagement in online health communities: A netnographic analysis of engagement practices and roles. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing , 13(4), 500–515.

58.

Stankevičienė

, & Vaiciukevičiūtė

(2016). Value creation for stakeholders in higher education management. Economics and Management , 19(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2016-1-002

59.

Stocker

, de Arruda

M. P.

, de Mascena

K. M.

, & Boaventura

J. M.

(2020). Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: A classification model. Corporate Social Responsibility and En-vironmental Management , 27(5), 2071–2080.

60.

Tantalo

, & Priem

R. L.

(2016). Value creation through stakeholder synergy. Strategic Management Journal , 37(2), 314–329.

61.

Teng

B. S.

, & Cummings

J. L.

(2002). Trade-offs in managing resources and capabilities. Academy of Management Perspectives , 16(2), 81–91.

62.

Umarji

(2022. February 14). Indian B-schools fall in FT Global MBA Rankings 2022, IIM-A sheds 14 spots. Business Standard India . https://www.business-standard.com/article/management/indian-b-schools-fall-in-ft-global-mba-rankings-2022-iim-a-sheds-14-spots-122021401164_1.html

63.

Viglia

, Pera

, & Bigné

(2018). The determinants of stakeholder engagement in digital platforms. Journal of Business Research , 89, 404–410.

64.

Wheebox. (2022). India skills report . https://wheebox.com/india-skills-report.htm

65.

Williams

S. D.

(2014). A strategic resource-based view of higher education institutions’ resources. International Journal of Business and Social Science , 5(12), 8–23.