Synopsis:
AIT used to be the MIT of Asia, but it has lost its competitive edge due to its inability to adjust itself with the demands of the new world. AIT’s poor status has been incessantly blamed on bad governance, but all the evidences suggest otherwise. The true solution to AIT’s crisis is radical systemic change.
Brief history:
Shortly after Asian Crisis in 1997 plunged in financial crisis, AIT was forced to restructure itself to meet the demands of the new world. AIT could no longer remain a donor-built and donor- run institute. Professor Downer suggested that the world has changed. The easy money era is gone forever. AIT should re-adjust itself according to the demands of the new world in order to survive. Here is what he said in his interview with journalist Scott Murray:
“As noted, AIT survived for the first three decades on the generosity of foreign governments. But the world is changing. "AIT has to undergo the classic paradigm shift," Downer says, "We have to change from being a recipient of other people's generosity to being a very active partner and generator of income. (http://www.scottmurray.com/ArRogerDownerAIT.htm)”
President Downer did not succeed in bringing a‘paradigm shift’ to AIT. AIT was too conservative to submit itself to the ‘paradigm shift’ suggested by Professor Downer. Professor Downer, champion fundraiser of a prestigious Canadian university ( University of Waterloo ) was left with no option other than resigning. Unable to save AIT from the financial crisis, he resigned on May 15, 1998. President of the Board of trustees at the time, late M. L. Birabhongse Kasemsri, addressed the AIT community with the following statement:
“During his tenure as President of AIT, Prof. Downer has led the Institute through a substantial restructuring process and has ensured that AIT will emerge from the present economic crisis in a strong and viable position. I am sure that everyone joins me in wishing Prof. Downer good health, success and happiness in his new position as President of the University of Limerick . (http://www.misu.ait.ac.th/NewsAndEvents/ReviewArticle.cfm?ReviewCode=199802&ArticleNo=2)”
Shortly after Professor Downer’s resignation, Professor Jean-Louis Armand was appointed as president of AIT. Several independent surveys conducted on the matter of lifting AIT out of financial crisis all suggested ‘A drastic structural changes in AIT’ in order to meet the requirements of the new world. You may find copy of these reports in AIT archives.
Professor Armand started his assignment working on ‘restructuring of AIT’ as continuity of his predecessor’s work and implementing the findings of the independent studies. Professor Armand did not resign due to the high level of pressure, but he was hospitalized two times under these pressures. The pressures were coming from variety of sources, including unknown sources under strange names, with cruel language unsuitable to an academic environment.
His re-structuring efforts did not bring any substantive change in the structure of AIT. The stubborn nature of AIT ensured the restructuring plans were concentrated on marginal issues, meaning the final outcome was a few changes in names. No change was made at the core of the problem. The form of AIT’s governing body and its academic infrastructure remained unchanged. AIT remained stubborn and did allow Professor Armand’s perseverance affect them. AIT came out of Professor Armand’s restructuring scheme completely intact. Although AIT may have occasionally changed the color of its clothes, it continued to suffer and bleed financially.
Present situation:
Professor Irandoust superseded Professor Armand and started tackling AIT’s financial crisis with the impression that everything is due to the mismanagement of his predecessor. He quickly and abruptly terminated the contracts of some of AIT’s respectable employees based on advice he was receiving from his management team at the time. However, he soon discovered that the existing crisis has nothing to do with his predecessor’s mismanagement. He learned it is deeply rooted in AIT’s incompetent organizational structure. It was easy to see that the donor’s era is gone for good. The days where the Higher Education Council of Pakistan (HEC) offered 500 postgraduate scholarships are over. Today, they offer a mere 15 a year.
He noticed that AIT should compete for profit with its new and emerging competitors. He suggested that AIT faculties bring money into AIT through actively seeking and convincing public and private sectors to provide research projects. The question was how and on what basis AIT faculty could succeed in doing so. He in the process noticed that with the current condition of AIT, this approach alone cannot solve AIT’s long-standing financial problem.
AIT’s current condition compared to 15 years back:
AIT’s faculty student ratio in professor Downers days was 1/9, yet today it is 1/20. The buildings are falling apart. Most of AIT research facilities were bought earlier than 1997. The number of graduate-level AIT competitors in the region is exceeding one hundred in numbers. These competitors possess well-equipped lab facilities, beautiful educational environments, and qualified scholars. European and North American Universities are expanding their campuses one after another in the region. In this condition, AIT cannot compete for a substantive share in the research and education market. This means AIT must find different and innovative remedies for its financial crisis.
Professor Irandoust’s re-structuring plan:
Based on findings of earlier independent studies and his own earlier experiences, he started with plans to turn around AIT, namely converting AIT to a robust institute standing on its own feet. After all, he was successful in doing so in Buras University (his hometown University ), why not in AIT?
His first move was establishing an AIT undergraduate program. The program is now flourishing according to an undergraduate director report to AS. This program was started from scratch, and created by some hard-working AIT faculty members, who sacrificed a lot of time and effort.
His second move was development of a public private partnership (PPP). The target was to bring AIT out from isolation; connect it to a global network of education and generate funds for its rejuvenation. This was presumably a win-win model. This move was also generate AIT satellite campuses all over Asia . This is the normal practices of many of European and North American Universities these days in order to overcome their financial problems.
His third move was defining AIT’s international charter. This move has aimed to bring more commitment from its donor countries, and demand active involvement from its partners on the quality of AIT’s education and research programs. This has tremendous value in the long-term. Whoever studies at AIT will feel more connected and involved with the university by having his/her own representative on the board.
His fourth move was the establishment of different Centers in AIT (AIT consulting and AIT Yunus Center ). AIT consulting is aiming to market AIT achievements in science and technology, and it is very successful in doing so. Microeconomics is a genius step in tackling human poverty, especially the poverty of less economically developed countries.
As soon his structural changes have surfaced, the stubborn and suffocating nature of AIT took notice and started to create barriers. An atmosphere has been created, similar to the suffocating and polluted atmosphere created to bring down Professor Downer and Professor Armand. This includes the public and private invasion of the life of Professor Irandoust.
During the flood disaster, these anonymous sources increased their attacks on Professor Irandoust, using the same language that has been used in the case of his predecessors. At the beginning, the criticism was regarding flood mismanagement, but very soon it turned out that the so-called mismanagement of the flood was a tool used to devalue Professor Irandoust. This shaming of Professor Irandoust would consequently devalue his restructuring plan.
Public private partnership plan (PPP) was killed, before it could even start. Undergraduate program was left unsupported and condemned. The international charter of AIT is under tremendous attack.
To sum it up, recent history of AIT is full of disrespect, corruption, and dishonesty. The reality of AIT’s problems are veiled and blamed on the administration level. These accusations are coming mainly from unidentified forces external to AIT. Whoever attempts to touch AIT’s structure will be insulted and publically defamed.
What are the options of AIT:
Option one: Dismantle the structural plan of professor Irandoust and continue with old structure of AIT.
Advantages: Royal Thai government will release all the funds committed to AIT. AIT will quickly come out of this disabling financial condition.
Disadvantages: AIT will lose its international title. AIT Council members, which are all well-read, politically-aware high diplomats, will report to their home countries that AIT is not as international as it has been previously thought. They will then look for a substitute. It is worth mentioning that 70 percent of AIT’s present population has nationalities other than Thai. Also, this does not provide protection against AIT having the same problem in the future.
Net outcome: AIT will continue nominally as an international graduate institute, but will continue as a national university with a suffering economy. In the process, to resolve the contradiction between its outer shape and inner content, it will have no option other than to be converted to a national university. It is yet to be seen if Thailand needs another national university.
Option two: AIT will work towards its new structure, and continue to implement structural plans set forward by professor Irandoust.
Disadvantages: AIT will struggle for its day to day survival for a few years. Of course, for a few years (until the re-structuring matures) the Royal Thai government’s role in smoothing the transition stage will have tremendous value.
Advantages: With its public private partnership plan, AIT will be connected to the international university network, and will be funded due to its brand name. The undergraduate program will be converted to a money-making unit rather than a money-spending unit in a few years (the starting years will require some financial investment). AIT’s satellite campuses will bring money to AIT. Each center will contribute to AIT’s prosperity. In a five years from now, AIT will be converted into an international university which stands on its own feet. It will flourish in the region and be a source of pride and accomplishment for Thailand . Although this solution is not as quick and easy, the benefits and security will be long-lasting.
Net outcome: Financially robust, and academically competitive AIT would be the outcome of this option.
What is in prospect?
AIT is not a political party with members committed to long or short term plans of their own party. It is an educational institute with employees struggling to reach their own goals at both private and public levels. Therefore, the long-term survival or direction the institute takes in the process is not their main concern. Their main concern is who pays their salary of today and tomorrow. So, AIT will certainly go with the first option. As long as management is concerned, the issue will differ.
In western management system, turning around of a money losing organization to a money making organization is a major achievement. So, it is not strange if we see that all these three presidents have tried to tackle the financial crisis of AIT. The next president of AIT will be a native, with better understanding of the forces involved and with the knowledge that the re- structuring practices as such is not part of their responsibility.
About the author:
Author is a Canadian-Iranian (born in Iran and studied and lived in Canada ). He got his PhD and his Pos-doctorate from the University of British Columbia , one of the top Universities in North America . He was two times winner of Great Award of British Columbia, for his PhD work, winner of Industrial Post-doctorate of Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada and winner of NSERC to conduct research in Europe . He is the author of over 100 publications and owner of a good number of patents. He has been serving AIT since
1999 at Associate Professor rank and could be contacted anytime during AIT working hours at
662 524 6687.
Disclaimer:
This report is not a criticism of AIT alumni association (AITAA). I have done it earlier under the title of ‘defining the boundaries’ criticizing AITAA’s interference in AIT management beyond the international norms. This report is also not an approval of the overall management practices of Professor Irandoust or Professor Armand. I have criticized their management system frequently during their presidency period. I have all the emails saved in hard copy and they may be provided upon request.
