IN-HOUSE TRAINING SCHOOLS

Infosys Infosys Leadership Institute SBI State Bank Staff College Tata Group Tata Management Training Centre Reliance Relnis Academy (in collaboration with the National Institute of Sales) UTI UTI Institute of Capital Markets Wipro Wipro Academy of Software Excellence

Ashok Leyland has just signed an agreement with the Shailesh J. Mehta School of Management, a part of the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, for a customised management course for its engineers. This is not a one-week jamboree that normally passes off as an executive development programme. It is a 15-month course with a custom-designed curriculum.

Wipro has flagged off an employee skills upgradation programme that leads to an MS Micro Electronics degree from BITS, Pilani. This is a three-semester course. Incidentally, Wipro also facilitates employees to enrol for a degree from the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago.

Wipro is, in a way, straddling both worlds. Other companies are looking increasingly in-house to service their training needs. The Tatas have had the Tata Management Training Centre in Pune for a very long time. It serves external clients too; at one time then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi led some of his top cabinet colleagues there for a crash course in management.

Other companies that have set up their own institutes include Infosys and Reliance, which is setting up the Relnis Academy (in collaboration with the National Institute of Sales). Reliance also has non-dedicated institutions such as the Mudra Institute of Communications and the Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information & Communication Technology.

Even as everyone agrees that training is vital, a debate is developing on two fronts. First, how long should the courses be? Second, is it better to handle things in-house or avail of the services of an outside agency?

The Indian Institutes of Management, particularly IIM Calcutta, have been offering long duration executive courses for some time now. According to IIMC: ?In the mid-1990s, IIMC realised it had to develop programmes of longer duration.? And these had to be designed in such a way that the executives need not quit their jobs. The result is several tailormade six months to one-year courses.

When such courses are designed specifically for the company, they often fulfil their purpose. But, according to HR experts, a catch all course doesn?t necessarily pay dividends. For example, the come-one-come-all course at ABC Institute of Management is ?essentially a way for the institute to make money?, says the HR expert.

That?s all very fine when it is over the weekend or, at most, a few days. It is just a chance to step out of the grind and relax. But when such a course is over an extended period, it ends up as a waste of executive time.

Short-duration courses at places like Harvard have a different function. As they are very expensive, only scions of business houses and top executives in the bigger companies can afford them. It is not a learning arena; it is a place to network. Some agree that it is not too productive.

The criticism of in-house training centres is that they tend to become too parochial. Infosys, however, explains that they use a lot of external inputs. For instance, Bill Gates was invited to deliver a talk in the Institute?s distinguished speaker series.

Which way are we going? According to CFO Asia, an American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) survey shows that Asian companies already spend 3.8 per cent of the payroll on training ? the highest in the world. The amount spent on in-house training is high. Concludes CFO Asia: ?Asian companies find that the best classrooms for managers are in their own premises.? The Americans discovered it a long time ago.

That?s why you have McDonald?s Hamburger University and the Coca-ColaCentre for Marketing Studies.