Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025 (Higher...

Malaysia Education

Blueprint 2015-2025

(Higher Education)

Presented by:

MOHD SALEH JAAFAR

Consultant & Special Advisor to MEB (HE)

Director, University Transformation Program

Ministry of Higher Education

Dato’ Prof. Dr. Asma Ismail

Director General of Malaysia Higher Education

Good Governance International Conference 2015

Radisson Blu Hotel, Istanbul Turkey

10-12 September 2015

Good Governance & Transformation

1

Content

Higher Education

Blueprint: Development

as Aspirations

University

Transformation

Program: Key Initiative

Enhancing University

Governance

Some Way Forward:

Productivity

2

3

4

1

2

Accelerating PACE of

CHANGE due to DIGITAL age

GLOBAL Competition due to

GLOBALIZATION

GLOBAL

Economic crisis

Addressing current and future Challenges:

Graduates for economic

vs society needs

Challenges facing

higher education

Equitable Access

industry-academia

collaboration

financial sustainability

return on investment

Institutional Autonomy vs

Accountability

R&D input vs outputs

Responsible citizen viz

Global citizen

Graduates 21st Century

Skills

Information overloads

Institutional Reputation

3

Challenges in Transformation for HE

Mediating

competing

goals

Diverse

purposes of

HE

Social and

political value

Adequacy of

state funding

Intellectual

spaces

NEW

academia

Access: Social

equity vs Quality

Incorporation of

wider social

purpose : economic

and well being

democratic

citizenship and

cultivation of

humanity

new generation

of academics”

commitment “to

the spirit of truth”

Institutional

Autonomy and

Accountability

4

ONE of MANY reasons for Transformation

4

NOT to be published without permission of MoE

SCREENSHOT

5

University Transformation is a critical initiative of MEB(HE)

Ministry

1

Public universities

20

Academic staff 31k

Students

500k

The ministry leverages UniTP as the conduit to drive transformation through public

universities to implement all dimensions of MEB (HE) to impact 500K students

6

The MEB (HE) sets out clear System and Student Aspirations

System aspirations

Student aspirations

Access Quality Equity Unity Efficiency

SCREENSHOT

7

Why it matters

Where we are

Objectives

Principles

Strategies and initiatives

Initiatives implementation roadmap

10 Shifts to support the attainment of System

and Student Aspiration

KEMENTERIAN

PENDIDIKAN

TINGGI

SCREENSHOT

8

Higher education transformation Journey CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Review of PSPTN

Conceptual-isation

of 10 Shifts

Finalisation of the

Blueprint

Consultation on

University

Transformation

Blueprint Launch April 2015

PSPTN Review

Team with Experts

and Senior Advisors

Consultation with

LPU members,

Chairmen, VCs and

university leaders

Input on ongoing

implementation

PHASE 1 PHASE 3 PHASE 2 ONGOING

Feb 2013 to Feb 2014 Mar 2014 to Sep 2014 Oct 2014 to Mar 2015 TODAY

8

9

10 SHIFTS

Financial

Sustainability

Income Contingent Loan from PTPTN

1

Endowment and Waqf funds with matching grants

2

New Funding Formulae based on performance

3

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10

90%

Government

support OE in

public HLIs

Increased student

enrolment

Increase cost in

Higher Education

6% Per year

7% Per year

5

9

10

Increased Autonomy and Accountability based on state of readiness

5

University Board Members wider representations

Women

International Experts

Regulator and Policy-Maker

Performance Contract 5 years (3+2)

Based on skill-sets

10 SHIFTS

Empowered

Governance

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10

6

Tight Controller

1 3

2

11

The approach to developing the playbooks and university

transformation plans will be implemented across three stages

CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Five

Transformation

Playbooks on

critical topics

University

Transformation

Plans by each

public university

C

Pilot Universities to

“lead the way” on

play-book

implementation

▪ Input of senior advisor

team

▪ Three official rounds of

detailed data

verification between

universities and PMO

to ensure data

accuracy

▪ Formal syndication

with key stakeholders

including VCs, DVCs,

Chairmen, Registrars,

PUUs and Bursars

▪ Each public university

will be required to draft

an end-to-end

transformation plan

across all dimensions

of the UniTP and

submit to the Ministry

by Dec 2016

▪ Select HLIs will serve

as test-beds for

implementation

▪ Thereafter, pilot HLIs

will chair “initiative

circles” or “support

groups” to transfer

knowledge to other

HLIs

B A

11

12

SCREENSHOT

13

Board composition reflects gaps in diversity of experiences,

gender and international representation

Source: Board composition of Malaysia’s 20 public universities – membership rosters provided via MOHE governance unit

Boards with >50%

Directors from the

public sector

International non-

Malaysian Board

Directors

Industry or private

sector Board Directors

Total Board

Directors from the

public sector

Women Board

Directors

Women Board

Chairpersons

85% 65% 0%

13% 13% 0%


14

Gaps in skills and expectations

Source: Survey conducted by MOHE in June 2015 of all 20 LPUs, and 20 VCs of Malaysian public universities, Respondents N=40

“Current board composition

is not optimal”

“Absenteeism is a

significant problem”

Strategy expertise

“Not all board members

are clear on roles”

Fundraising expertise Connections to

industry

76% 46% 18%

70% 76% 52%

Percentage of respondents agreeing with statement

Current gaps in knowledge and skills of University Boards


15

Administration

and

governance

Governance Transformation: Transfer of Decision Rights

Ministry

University leadership

College/department

Evaluate performance of leaders (e.g., VC)

Change organisation (e.g., establish, merge depts)

Approve university constitutions, statutes, and rules

Set tuition fees

Set student admissions criteria

Approve university strategy (vision, mission, focus)

Monitoring of university quality and reports

Decide allocation of funds and research grants

Management of allocated grants

Set pay schemes (salary designation)

Appoint leaders and set terms of office (VC, DVC)

Manage endowment and income-generating assets

Make admission decision

Approve academic programme and curriculum

Approve university budget

Approve procurement decisions (facilities, services)

Infrastructure development and management

Evaluation/promotion of staff; set pay scales/incentive

Appointment and dismissal of staff

Design staff development policies/programmes

Determine number and profile of students

Student discipline and suspension

Key decisions at Malaysian public universities Today End state

Funding and

financial

management

Admission,

intake plans,

curriculum

Human

Resource

management

15

16

Table of Contents

01 02 03 04 Setting Guidelines for University Boards

Raising University Board Effectiveness

Assessing University Boards

Introduction Appendices

Page 12-20 Page 22-46 Page 48-76 Page 78-86 Page 88-127

▪ Conducting the

Board

Effectiveness

Assessment

▪ The four steps

of raising Board

effectiveness

▪ How should the

Board define its

role?

▪ How should the

Board set its

structure?

▪ How should the

Board ensure

effective

operations and

interactions?

▪ Fulfilling

fundamental

Board roles and

responsibilities

▪ Structuring a

high-performing

Board

▪ Ensuring

effective Board

operations and

interactions

▪ Executive

Summary

▪ Introduction to

the University

Transformation

Programme

▪ Approach to

developing the

Green Book

17

Impact of High Performing Boards

Represent

university’s overall

interests

Comprehensive

external view

Strong fundraising

network

Greater

accountability

▪ All stakeholders represented

▪ Board decisions favour the

interests of the collective whole

▪ Board provides strategic view from

outside the university

▪ Academic and non-academic views

are balanced

▪ Major policies, initiatives and

programs justified to the Board

▪ University management directly

accountable to the Board

▪ Board members connect donors

to university

▪ Board members may donate

themselves

18

Fulfilling fundamental Board fiduciary roles and responsibilities

It is the duty of university Boards to act as a mechanism for change, quality

assurance, efficiency, and effectiveness at their universities

From

Role

1

Role

2

To

Safeguard the university’s mission

Steer and approve strategy, approve Senate decisions with financial or talent development impact, set operational policies, communicate with university stakeholders, oversee talent development, and ensure a culture of performance management

Nominate, oversee, and support the Vice-Chancellor

Review the Vice-Chancellor’s performance, support their work towards institutional goals, and make recommendations to the Ministry regarding extensions or terminations of their tenure

Support the Vice-Chancellor

Support their work towards institutional goals

Oversee university finances, including income generation

Define limits of authority, oversee properties and investment decisions, oversee the endowment and its spending, drive fundraising, and set salaries

Approve university spending

Sign-off on annual financial reports of university

Ensure compliance with Ministry requirements

Ensure university is aligned with circulars and directives

Role

3

19

Role

Ensuring effective board operations & Interactions

Relationship to Board ▪ Prepares and executes the

university strategy

▪ Balances and prioritises input

from both faculty and the Board

▪ Directly accountable to Board for

the implementation of strategy

▪ Works with Board to develop

strategy and budget

Vice-

Chancellor

▪ Oversees the day-to-day

operations, such as student

affairs, libraries, IT, admissions,

and back-office functions

▪ Academic and admin roles may

be combined under VC or split

between VC and a President

▪ Provides key materials to Board,

such as proposed budget

allocations or legal impact analyses

▪ Translates Board strategic

guidance into action

Senior

Management

Team

▪ Provides an on-the-ground and

academic perspective

▪ Advises the Board on teaching,

scholarship and research, while the

Board evaluates the financial, HR,

and risk implications of the

Senate’s decisions.

▪ Responsible for academic

decisions and resolving faculty-

related matters University

Senate

1

3

2

20

Small Boards (~11

members) will

better enable

Boards to fulfil their

fiduciary duties

Boards should allow

for renewable terms

so that effective

members may

continue to

contribute

Board member

nominees will

undergo a rigorous

selection process to

ensure their fit and

potential to add

value

A diverse mixture of

Board members,

including several

external

representatives, is

best suited to serve

the interests of the

university as a

whole

The majority of the

Board’s work

should be

conducted through

formal committees

with clearly defined

relationships to the

Board

STRUCTURING a high-performing Board With the right skills, representation, and configuration, Boards will cultivate

the conditions for success

Diverse

composition

Rigorous

selection

Term

limits

Formal

committees

Appropriate

size

21

Ensuring effective Board operations and interactions

Effective and efficient operations allow the Board to focus on issues that matter

most for the university

Enforced structures will

enable Boards to be

efficient during their

limited meetings.

Meetings should be held,

at minimum, four times

per year

Ensuring Board members

receive quality content

with sufficient time for

prior review will increase

meeting productivity

While structure and

composition are critical,

effective Boards must

also have trust between

Board members, the

Vice-Chancellor, and the

university management

committee

Make every Board

meeting productive

Optimise quality and

timing of Board content

Build trust between

management and

the Board

22

Raising university Board effectiveness CHAPTER TWO

Chapter Two addresses issues and challenges common to many university Boards.

It is structured as a series of questions to provide guidance in implementing best practices:

What is the university

management committee’s

relationship to the Board?

What is the Senate’s relationship

to the Board?

How can the Board define its

mandate and boundaries with the

university management

committee?

How can the Board separate and

balance the roles of the

Chairperson and the Vice-

Chancellor?

How should the governance of the

university investment funds be

structured?

What should be the governance

structure and accountability of the

university holding company?

Fulfilling fundamental

Board fiduciary roles and

responsibilities

Structuring a high-

performing university Board

Ensuring effective Board

operations and interactions

What is the Vice-Chancellor’s

relationship to the Board?

How can the Board nominate

Board members who have the

right skills and experience?

How can the Board ensure that it

focuses on strategic matters?

How can the Board ensure that

Board papers are consistently of

high quality?

How can the Board work more

effectively with management in

setting strategy?

How can the Board help foster a

strong culture focused on

performance management?

How can the Board best oversee

the development of talent and

future leaders of the university?

How should complaints be

handled by the Board?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

23

The BEA evaluates the three main components of an effective Board:

Conducting a Board Effectiveness Assessment Improving Board effectiveness begins with a Board Effectiveness Assessment (BEA),

which measures the health and performance of the Board. Understanding its strengths and

weaknesses will empower the Board with the clarity required to know what gaps need closing

and where to build on existing strengths.

Structuring a high-performing

Board

Ensuring effective Board

operations and interactions

Fulfilling fundamental Board

roles and responsibilities

▪ Does the Board contribute to the

development of the university’s

strategy?

▪ Do Board members uphold a

strong performance

management culture?

▪ Does the Board adhere to the

principles of risk management

and financial discipline?

▪ Are Board members actively

focused on talent development

for future university leaders?

▪ Does the Board oversee

succession planning and

development of the university’s

leaders?

▪ Is the composition of the Board

aligned to the unique needs of

the university?

▪ Are committees structured to

meet the needs of the Board and

university?

▪ Are Board members nominated

and appointed using a

disciplined, transparent process?

▪ Is the Board evaluated as a

whole and as individuals on a

regular basis?

▪ Are Board meetings conducted in

a productive manner?

▪ Are all Board materials timely

and of high quality?

▪ Is the Board trust-building in the

interactions and communications

within itself, and with

management?

24

Board Evaluation Criteria

Board roles and responsibilities 5 4 3 2 1 Comments

1. University strategy

1a. Does the Board guide the university’s strategic direction?

1b. Does the Board ‘co-own’ the strategy with the university management committee?

1c. Does the Board balance stakeholder interests?

2. Performance management

2a. Does the Board set targets for the university management committee?

2b. Do KPIs and KIPs reflect strategy and are linked to performance contracts?

2c. Does the Board review progress against KPIs/KIPs and follow up as necessary?

3. Risk management and financial discipline

3a. Does the Board practice risk management and request risk analyses when appropriate?

3b. Does the Board adhere to a culture of financial discipline?

4. Talent development

4a. Does the Board nominate the VC and proactively plan VC succession?

4b. Does the Board review the performance management philosophy?

4c. Does the Board evaluate VC performance?

4d. Does the Board endorse development plans of those in pivotal positions?

4e. Does the Board understand the pool of future leaders?

5 = Best practice 4 = Above requirements but not best practice 3 = Meets requirements 2 = Below requirements but has no significant gaps 1 =

Significant gaps

Board evaluation form: example template Boards will use these questions to gauge their performance against BEA criteria

25 SOURCE: Source

Text

ENHANCING

SCREENSHOT

26

Universities are facing a unique challenge to deliver

more with the same resources, in a growing

economy with rising costs

Current situation in Malaysia

has been positive …

… however, challenges are

emerging


Source: Malaysia Education Blueprint (Higher Education), 11th Malaysia Plan

▪ Malaysia’s higher education (HE) system is

soaring upwards –e.g.,

– Currently 27th out of 50, up from 28th in

2014, overall in the Universitas21 2015

rankings

– 6th out of 50, up from 12th in 2014, for

knowledge transfer with business in the

same U21 rankings

▪ This growth has been enabled by strong

financial support from the government

▪ Within Malaysia, some of the private

universities have set themselves high

efficiency standards and are innovating on

ideas to improve academic productivity*

▪ Existing productivity levels signal room for

improvement:

– Malaysia ranks 12th out 50 in terms of

resources invested

– However, Malaysia also ranks 44th out of 50

in terms of outputs in U21 rankings

▪ Expansion of access: Universities need to meet

increasing demand – target 3.3m new jobs by

2020

▪ Rising costs per student: Increase in

government funding by 7% per annum from 2004

to 2013

▪ Universities expected to be more pro-active:

Universities expected to take more active income

generation role as they move towards autonomy

and accountability

27

Malaysia is one of the highest spenders on Higher

Education, in terms of percentage of annual

national budget …

Source: UNESCO

1 Peers based on the following categorization: Developed Asian economics (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Japan), SEA neighbors (Indonesia,

Thailand, Singapore) and comparable GDP per capita (Chile, Mexico)

2 Latest data available: Singapore (2013), Chile, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Thailand (2012), Malaysia, Mexico, Korea (2011)

7.7

1.9

3.03.13.6

3.94.1

6.06.4

5.5

Japan Thailand Indonesia Mexico Korea Chile Hong Kong Malaysia Singapore

Higher education expenditure as a percentage annual

national budget1

7.7% of Malaysia's annual budget is

spent on higher education, the highest

among peers (UNESCO

benchmarking)

All government spending on higher

education and training

Higher education spending by Ministry of

Education

Extracted from Exhibit 5-2 of the Malaysia Education Blueprint (Higher Education)


Percent2

28

Malaysia needs to lift output and maximise return on

investment as the nation continues its

development trajectory

SOURCE: Universitas 21 Report

U21 REPORT

1 Output rating according to Universitas 21 report methodology; Weighted average of university ranking measures, article publication measures, research

excellence measures, enrollments as a % of eligible population, unemployment rates for tertiary qualified graduates

2 Resources is a weighted average of five measures: Government spend on tertiary education as a % of GDP, total spend on tertiary education as a % of

GDP, annual expenditure per student by tertiary institutions, expenditure by tertiary institutions on R&D as a % of GDP, expenditure by tertiary

institutions on R&D per head of population

▪ U21 report ranks

Malaysia 12th out of 50

for resources

committed to Higher

Education, and 1st when

adjusted for economic

development

▪ However, Malaysia

ranked 44th out of 50 for

outputs of Higher

Education 10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Saudi Arabia

USA

Indonesia

Australia

Malaysia

Singapore

Japan

UK

Hong Kong

Korea

Mexico

Higher Education resources2 Index to 100 for highest nation

Thailand China

Higher Education outputs1 Index to 100 for highest nation


28

29

The Productivity Playbook has been prioritised to

help support universities in enhancing their

academic productivity to address these challenges

Improving productivity is critical to continued success for

our public universities


Improving productivity will help universities redirect

inefficient resources to improving student and

institutional outcomes

The path to producing more with the same is by

increasing productivity, without reducing quality

It is critical for universities to focus on improving their

academic productivity, as performance against this

key metric will be critical to determining funding in

the future world of performance-based contracts

29

30

Our playbook addresses several of these productivity metrics,

but we start with a focus on improving

“Cost per graduate”

The playbook covers a diagnostic of several productivity metrics, but dives deep on Cost

per graduate because it:


Example metrics addressed in playbook

Allows for a targeted focus on initiatives in the 1st wave of productivity optimization

Is internationally recognized

Is common across MRU/MTUN/TLUs

1

3

2

SCREENSHOT

31

The median cost/degree awarded across all 20 public

universities is RM 107,508, with % Relative Standard Deviation1

of 48%

70 68 62

55

202

164

149 143

126 124 117 113

102 99 89

82 76

265

+211

108

55

207

Cost/degree awarded2 by individual public universities3 RM ‘000

Malaysian Technical

Universities Network

(MTUNs)

Malaysian Research

Universities (MRUs)

Teaching and Learning

Universities (TLUs)

32

Instructional costs make up a larger proportion of costs in MRUs

as compared to the two other peer groups

Instructional1 vs non-instructional costs2 by peer group

77 73

53 47

23 27

47 53

68 64 6355 55 53 51 50 48 47 46

32 36 3745 45 47 49 50 52 53 54

7158

45 40 37

4255 60 63

29

No

n-in

str

uctio

nal In

str

uctio

na

l

UN

I

20

MRUs MTUNs Others Median

instruc-

tional % 55% 37% 47%

Median

non-

instruc-

tional %

45% 63% 53%

33

3

3

1

1

-1

-3

-3

-6

-7

Arts and Humanities

Medical, Dentistry, Vet

Engineering Manufacturing Construction

Engineering, manufacturing

and construction

Education

Science, Math, Computing

Health Sciences 10

Hospitality

Architecture

Agriculture Sciences

0

8

5

-1

0

-18

-13

-23

25

22

-1

6

-4

1

-6

4

-4

4

-2

10

Graduation rate by degree type and course

Bachelors Masters PHD

Median: 72% Median: 34% Median: 19%

Percent (%)

GOT is very low, and

Variance between course GoT rates is high SAMPLE DATA

34

MRUs,

‘000

TLUs, ‘000

MTUNs,

‘000

Pushing universities operating below median

productivity levels to the median givesRM 775

million in savings annually

Source: Analysis from data collected and verified by universities

143

U2

202

U5

149

U1

143

U4

117

U3

102

76 125

U7

164

U6

126

U8

124

U9

U14 U19

84

265

207

62

U11

55

U18

55

U17

113

U12

99

U10

89

U15

82

U20

70

U16

68

U13

Cost per graduate

Universities operating at

productivity levels below

peer group medians

350

75

350

775

Cost savings/

annum, mil


Cost savings can

be used towards

improving

outcomes like

access (producing

more graduates,

research

outcomes

(repurposing as

research grants)

etc.

We can achieve an additional ~750 mn if unis at or above median productivity

improve

Cost/Graduate by 10% each

35

Barrier

Our experience tells us that 70% of transformations

across sectors fail due to six key internal

delivery challenges


Lack of

Conviction 1

Silos between

divisions 2

Internal

resistance/inertia 3

Lack of data 4

Lack of

capabilities 5

Funding

constraints

Description

▪ Leaders without bold aspirations and/or willingness to engage in fast

decision-making and real time following-through on delivery

▪ Lack of clarity around split of responsibilities across divisions in the

Ministry and/or overlapping responsibilities hinders execution of priorities that

are cross-divisional or cross-Ministry

▪ Civil service lacks delivery skills and methodologies (vs. policy making) and

motivation (vs. inertia) to deliver big results fast

▪ Lack of baseline data and transparency and/or major data quality issues with

data that hinder proper monitoring

▪ Limited knowledge, managerial skills and/or soft skills that enable staff to

understand root causes, unlock challenges and follow through with delivery

▪ Lack of funding for highest priorities, especially in environments of growing

fiscal constraints, due to inability to cut established spending programs 6

36

Barrier Solution

Poor Leadership Performance

pressure

Silos between

agencies

Governance

taskforce

Internal

resistance/

inertia

Challenge civil

service

Lack of data

Standardize and

find short term

solutions

Lack of

capabilities

Invest in the right

talent

Funding

constraints

Link plans and

budgets

We propose a range of systemic interventions to address

these challenges CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Potential intervention ▪ Public commitments to establish accountability

▪ Reports on progress against Ministerial KPIs

▪ Minister to spend ~2 every month to give directional steer as needed

▪ MEB(HE) steerco to resolve inter-division issues in MOHE

▪ HETF to resolve cross-Ministry issues

▪ Initiatives like Funding Formula to have cross-Ministry

(MOHE/MOF/EPU) working team

▪ KPIs and performance management for civil service

▪ Change management / comms

▪ Create STO-HE (Strategic Transformation Office) with dedicated staff

▪ Standardize data collection and reporting across universities

▪ Assign a dedicated CIO to this effort

▪ Use multiple sources to verify

▪ Invest in staffing STO-HE with the relevant experience and capabilities

(incl. private sector talent where needed)

▪ Leverage industry leaders in HETF for best practice learnings

▪ Establish link between spending program and achievement of planned

outcome KPIs

▪ Use savings from one program to fund another

1

2

3

4

5

6

37

Top Barriers to change for Universities

In addition, we must help universities

overcome the classic change barriers CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

▪ Why should I change?

▪ What’s in it for me?

▪ Is the Ministry really going to put

their money where their mouth is?

▪ Is there any upside to embrace this?

(or downside to not)

1 “Lack of

leadership

commitment”

2

“No case for

change” 3

“Skills gap” 4

“Resistance/

Inertia”

▪ I want to do this but I am not sure on

what exactly to do or how to do it

▪ Do other universities face similar

issues? How do they handle them?

▪ Is the Ministry really committed to this

transformation?

▪ Is this really “new” and “different”? Or is

it a minor tweak?

38

We recommend a holistic and proactive approach

to influence universities to embrace change CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

▪ Pro-active communications

– Internal – e.g., Minister-led change story

roadshows with university leaders, staff,

students

– External – e.g., Quarterly launch events,

social media strategy

▪ Rigorous University transformation plan

for all universities

▪ Headline KPIs to be announced

and performance against these

made public

▪ Government funding linked to

performance contracts

▪ Annual performance

dialogues between

VC/Chairman of every university

and Ministry

“A compelling story” – Tell them “Role-modeling” – Show them

“Skill-building” – Teach them “Reinforcements” – Reward them

▪ Symbolic actions/quick-wins to signal

commitment – e.g., Injection of “WOW”

factor leaders as VCs/Chairmen

▪ Quick execution on big policy

changes – e.g.,

– DVC nomination by board, not Minister

– Boards to complete annual self-

assessment and report results to

Ministry

▪ Playbooks on 5 critical topics

▪ Peer learning circles for key change

leaders – e.g., VCs, Chairmen, Bursars,

Lecturers by uni type

▪ Training for iPMOs

39

Concluding Remark: Good governance & transformation

Worldwide diffusion of codes of good

governance

Best practice’ recommendations

To compensate for deficiencies regarding

the protection of shareholders’ rights

Increase legitimacy

Enhance the efficiency

40

Mohd Saleh Jaafar

[email protected]

http://hes.moe.gov.my/event/

For FULL version of the Blueprint:

Thank you

40

Alternative

option for

ending

Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025 (Higher...

Documents

Transcript of Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025 (Higher...