I. The ABEST21 Comprehensive Review
1. ABEST21 Accreditation Result
“ABEST21 (THE ALLIANCE ON BUSINESS EDUCATION AND SCHOLARSHIP FOR TOMORROW, a 21st century organization) hereby certifies that MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM of the GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA, MALAYSIA has met all or most ABEST21 Management Accreditation Standards and the quality maintenance and improvement of education and research in the aforementioned program are promising and excellent. Accreditation commences April 1, 2019 for a five-year period.”
2. Comprehensive Review
Missions are considered adequate. Based on the mission and curriculum policy, both MBA courses / online MBA courses are generally adequately and systematically managed. The issues need to be defined to steadily implement the Kaizen plan.
Overall, the School has proper guiding principles that can drive the institution towards achieving its goals. However, certain areas, especially the execution and monitoring system, have to be further developed with better guidelines and contingency plans. There are several inconsistencies in the report which doesn’t really reflect the strategies and current practices. The School has to revisit its strengths and weaknesses in order to come up with a much proper action plan.
The School has satisfactorily met most of the Standards and Criteria. The above comments are highlighted to assist the School in further improving its management education.
3. Good Practice in Management Education
1) Title of Good Practice in Management Education
Humanizing the Educational Program for business sustainability through CSR projects
2) Reason for selecting the title stated above
The mission is “to nurture business leaders that will be able to promote the synergy between long-term business growth and socio-environmental well-being.” Today’s managers need ethics. CSR Blood donation program (Annex 1-3) fosters the students’ humanity and responsibility.
The School’s mission statement is well aligned with the university’s mission, and the School’s curriculum reflects the mission of the School. The key uniqueness of the School’s program is the commitment which is shown by the School and its faculty members, the students and the administrative staff towards initiating and engaging with society through various CSR projects.
4. Matter to be noted
- The grading criteria seem to be lower than the normal standard benchmarking with grade B given for marks ranging from 58 to 63. The passing grade of C+ is also lower than the normal standard with minimum marks of 46.
- There is no clear evidence reported in terms of improvement that has taken place over the past few years based on the issues and challenges faced.
- Support systems (e.g. international students’ welfare, students’ and lecturers’ exchange programs) have to be improved through better coordination with the University’s central division.
- Limited number of senior professors covering various fields in business and management.
- The need to consider marketing and promotion by dedicated marketing team.
- Through the interview session with the students, we noted that the students expect the School to offer relevant courses such as psychology. The inter-faculties collaboration is seen as important to create this study path.
5. The Peer Review Team
|Leader||Dr. Siti Zaleha Sahak
Arshad Ayub Graduate Business School, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia
|Member||Prof. Dr. Yasunaga Wakabayashi
Graduate School of Management, Kyoto University, Japan
|Member||Dr. Noorihsan Mohamad
Graduate School of management, International Islamic University Malaysia, Malaysia
6. The Peer Review Schedule
|Ratification of the ABEST21 Accreditation||Board of Trustees||Mar. 7, 2019|
|Recommendation of the ABEST21 Accreditation||Accreditation Committee||Mar. 7, 2019|
|Ratification of the PRT Review Report||Peer Review Committee||Mar. 6, 2019|
|Ratification of the Self-Evaluation Report||Peer Review Committee||Nov. 1, 2018|
|Implementation of the Peer Review Visit||Peer Review Team||Sep. 24-25, 2018|
|Submission of the Self-Evaluation Report||–||Jun. 30, 2018|
|Ratification of the Quality Improvement Plan||Peer Review Committee||Nov. 9-10, 2017|
|Submission of the Quality Improvement Plan||–||Jun. 30, 2017|
II. PRT Comments on the Self-Check/Self-Evaluation Analysis
1. The School’s Mission Statement and Strategies
1) The School’s Mission Statement
The mission is “to nurture business leaders that will be able to promote the synergy between long-term business growth and socio-environmental well-being” is very much in line with contemporary times.
The role of the university and the mission of the School are consistent according to the letter of a University’s Vice Chancellor.
The School’s mission statement is clear and precisely defined representing the goals and expectations of the School.
2) The School’s Strategies for Quality Improvement
Establishing the 5 Years’ Strategic Management Canvas can be highly appreciated.
The School has the strategies outlined under the 5 years’ strategic plan management canvas in Annex I-2-A. There are four strategic goals, namely sustainable business school, ranking and recognition, green practices and infrastructure.
There are 3 teams (i.e. academic team, research team and income generation team) entrusted with the responsibility to embrace the initiatives and strategies to achieve the 4 key strategic goals. The Annex I-2-A presents the details and key initiatives under each team.
However, the Annex indicates that none of the teams stress and emphasize the details and initiatives of the other two strategic goals – SG3: Green practices and SG4: Infrastructure.
The School has set a clear direction for quality improvement. The long-term strategies to achieve the established goal have been highlighted in Annex 1-2-A (five years’ Strategic Plan). However, further elaboration is needed for SG3 (Green practices) and SG4 (Infrastructure) plan.
3) Humanizing the School’s Management Education
Diversity, the historical and cultural characteristics of Penang contribute to the School’s humanization. It can be highly appreciated that the measures for that purpose are substantial.
The School has successfully conducted various CSR programs which are partly embedded in the program curriculum. The involvement of the students and alumni in these CSR projects and School activities is highly commendable. These efforts are consistent with the strategies to continuously humanize the School’s educational programs.
The strategies and CSR activities carried out indicate the School’s commitment and effort in humanizing its management education.
4) Collaborating with Industries in Management Education
Industry-academic collaboration is decisive for business schools. Various efforts can be confirmed. Further efforts are required.
The School has a very strong and high proportion of experienced working adults joining the program from various industries. Almost three quarters of the lecturers teaching the program were initially attached to various industries and functions spanning from banking, quality assurance and company auditing. This combination of theoretical and practical experience among participants and instructors provides a good value-added learning experience to both students and teachers.
The School perhaps can better identify the roles and leverage on the appointed industrial advisor and honorary professors to further enhance the collaborative work with the industries. More hands-on approach may be necessary including study visits and practitioner/industry expert sharing sessions.
Further collaboration with industries is important to further support the School in realizing its mission.
5) Globalizing the School’s Management Education
The double degree program and the dual degree programs can be highly appreciated. The fact that there are few international students is an issue.
The School is managing and incorporating the ‘global’ elements in its programs in a good way. This can be seen from the curriculum/content coverage as well as the research undertaken by faculty members. The ‘global’ element is also being manifested through the double/dual degree and exchange programs.
More coordination however is needed for managing international student’s immersion program to ensure their smooth adaptation to the new environment. The School also needs to reactivate the inactive MoAs to further promote the global networking and image branding.
Many initiatives have been taken by the School in globalizing its management education. As being the one and only APEX university in Malaysia, the School may further utilize the government support in globalizing its management education.
2. The School’s Educational and Research Activities
Chapter 1 Internal Quality Assurance
Standard 1: Administration and Governance
The School has clear governance structure to ensure effective operations of its academic programs and activities. Each program offered is headed by a qualified faculty member and assisted by supportive/administrative staff. Teamwork among members is highly manifested through staff bonding. The policies and expectations are communicated effectively through various meetings and committees to warrant smooth performance of overall tasks.
Inter-coordination especially with other University’s units and divisions could be improved further to better serve the welfare of the students. The School also has to look at the workload of various supporting staff members to guarantee optimal quality.
The School has provided the list of trainings attended by its administrative staff. A proper and continuous plan on staff development is vital.
Standard 2: Self-Check/Self-Evaluation
Disclosure creates opportunities to receive opinions from stakeholders. The School must have the opportunity to disclose and listen to the feedback from the wide audience.
The self-evaluation process has to take into account various stakeholders’ feedback and includes active participation of various parties rather than by the accreditation committee per se. The School has to properly document the quality improvement initiatives that have been undertaken over various self-evaluation cycles.
The School mentions its plans to communicate the summary of the self-evaluation analysis to other stakeholders e.g. through the School’
Standard 3: Improvement of Education and Research Environment
In ABEST21 accreditation, the Kaizen process is important. The School is not satisfied just by planning and needs to make definite improvements.
There is no clear evidence on the tracking system to monitor the progress of the School’s action plan that is mentioned in the report. The action plans developed under the strategic plan management canvas are more general in nature and involve only specific issues that are highly relevant to curriculum, research and revenue generation. None of the action plans address the issue of student welfare and School’s facilities.
A clear explanation about the tracking system which has been developed to check on the progress of the action plan in solving any arising issues is required. According to the School, it revisits the Strategic Plan periodically, realigns and improves the planned activities to ensure that the School is on the right path in achieving its mission.
Chapter 2 Mission Statement
Standard 4: Mission Statement
The School mission statements are clear and have been communicated well to all stakeholders through various channels. However, the mission statements are concentrated only on limited areas: learning, teaching and research. Perhaps the School should revisit the mission statements and reconsider the inclusion of quality service provision for clients and stakeholders.
As stated in the School’s mission, “Our research will be impactful and will contribute towards the theory and knowledge of business sustainability and industry relevance” (p. 12). How is this component measured?
Standard 5: Mission Imperatives
The University is supportive of the mission of the School according to the letter of a University’s vice-chancellor.
The mission statements address the important needs of each standard and criterion. The School may want to look into the client services aspect as a part of the mission imperatives.
The standard is met. The School’s mission statement supports the mission of the university well.
Standard 6: Financial Strategies
There is a slight inconsistency in terms of reporting, especially on the categories of expenditures (criterion 6-1) and Annex 6-3 (expenses on accreditation). Given the need for better facilities to provide better learning experience for students, the School may need to reconsider the priorities in their financial strategies.
The School has demonstrated and listed their financial basis and developed financial strategies for securing the funds.
Chapter 3 Educational Programs
Standard 7: Learning Goals
The setting of Learning Goals can be evaluated as being clear. But it seems that the measurement and evaluation of LG is unclear.
The School develops and monitors the learning goals in a structured manner through proper workflow and process that involves various stakeholders. All the learning goals are presented and communicated to students through the course/module outlines.
Nevertheless, the School may further improve and develop better mechanisms to ensure continuous attainment of learning goals, particularly in the following areas:
- The mechanism on lecturers’ feedback has to be made transparent and available to every lecturer for continuous appraisal to improve teaching quality.
- Follow-up mechanism to assess the quality of graduates by the employers is needed.
- Optimal class size and state-of-the-art facilities are needed.
Based on the interview sessions with the alumni, the students and the faculty members, it can be said that there is a good relationship between students and lecturers in the School’s context.
Standard 8: Curriculum Policy
MM UNSRI has a good curriculum policy. The report clearly explains the policy set by the University in the development of the curriculum.
Standard 9: Management of Curriculum
It seems to be unclear how practical education is included in the curriculum.
The School is in the process to offer new courses such as data analytics and e-commerce. Various relevant stakeholders have been approached and consulted to get their views and feedback on these matters.
The School has to ensure clear differentiation of the educational methods and assessment procedures between the conventional MBA and the online MBA. More explanation has to be provided in relation to improvement strategies for both programs.
The student feedback survey conducted at the end of the semester has to be standardized and streamlined. Consequently, the outcome of the survey has to be effectively communicated to every lecturer. There have been some inconsistencies reported based on the interview sessions held during the PRT visit, whether the survey is being done online or paper-based. There is also no clear evidence that the lecturers receive the feedback on a timely basis.
It is noted that the regular MBA and online MBA programs aim to achieve the same learning outcome. Given the nature of the online MBA program, which is carried out virtually, the School should clearly highlight how the students’ learning outcome for this program mode is measured.
It seems like the credit transfer system is only applicable for the international students’ exchange program. The School has yet to develop credit transfer system between faculties. This is seen as important to facilitate the School in allowing their students to take relevant course(s) offered by other faculties within the university.
A student survey is carried out at the end of the semester. Nonetheless, we found some inconsistencies in the report and during the interviews with the faculty members and the students on how the survey’s feedback and suggestions are communicated to the faculty members (9-10). A clear communication system is needed to channel the survey’s feedback to the faculty members to help them further improve their teaching techniques and skills.
The School utilizes various teaching methods which include simulation. Through the interview session with the current students and alumni, we found out that the students appreciate the different teaching techniques used. The students also expect more courses will implement ‘company visit’ as one of the teaching methods.
Standard 10: Improvement of Educational Quality
Improvement of online MBA program can be highly appreciated.
The course files are kept on record on semester basis. However, there is no evidence that the course guides are available on CD. One possible reason is due to the increasing usage and accessibility through the Learning Management System platform.
The class size for an MBA program has to be conducive to learning and not exceed 25 to 30 students for each course. The School has to ensure that the class size can ensure better quality of learning experience. Nevertheless, this has not been the practice at the School lately. Feedback from the interview sessions with the students reveals that in certain core courses, the number of students could reach up to 60 to 65 in one session.
The School has to ensure continuous participation and active engagement of students, especially for the online MBA. Monitoring policy on active participation of students for the online MBA mode has to be clearly documented and recorded to ensure the achievement of the targeted learning goals.
The grading criteria seem to be lower than the normal standard benchmarking with grade B given for marks ranging from 58 to 63. The passing grade of C+ is also lower than the normal standard with minimum marks of 46.
The number of the students per class varies between core and elective courses. However, it is noted that the total number of students for core courses is too big (50-60 students/class). Although, this is not an issue for the faculty members involved, some students expressed their unhappiness about the number of students per class. Based on the School’s feedback, the School is planning to implement the ‘split-class’ practice in the classes that will be taken by the first-year, first-semester students in the coming semester.
Standard 11: Diploma Policy
The School has clear diploma policy and consistently ensures that the students are well informed on the graduation requirements. However, diploma policy must refer to achieving the Learning Outcomes. The School should clarify the measurement scale and standards of the LOs, and test students’ performance.
The following written statements (11-2) on the required minimum grade and CGPA are a bit confusing:
“…Obtain a minimum grade C+ for each registered course Complete all core courses and four electives (i.e. 48 units) with a minimum Grad B or CGPA of 3.0.”
If the students received grade C+ for any registered course, should they re-take the course to obtain a minimum of grade B in order to graduate?
Based on the School’s feedback, the students do not have to retake the subject, unless the overall CGPA is less than 3.0 at the end of their program.
Standard 12: Learning Outcomes’ Review
Although the process of grade evaluation of each course is described, it is not necessarily a test of LO. It is required to show framework, criteria, procedure, actual data on examining LO.
It would be better if the School could engage with the direct employer or job supervisor to get the feedback on the quality of the graduates from time to time.
The learning outcomes (refer to expertise and skills) should correspond to the society’s expectations. A strong collaboration with industries and society may help the School in identifying the gaps between the social expectations of the learning outcomes and the actual outcomes.
Based on the feedback received, the School is planning to have a one-day student showcase event. This is to provide an opportunity to students to present their projects to industry stakeholders. Feedback and evaluation from industry stakeholders are believed to be beneficial to the student learning experience. It is good if the School can incorporate this plan as part of action plans under academic or research areas.
Standard 13: Globalization of Educational Programs
The university provides support for international students. According to the interview with international students, strengthening of support by the School is required.
The ‘global’ perspectives are being incorporated in the syllabus through various topics under each course. The School also conducted research sharing sessions with various international research visitors as part of their research development initiatives. The online MBA mode provides a greater reach to the global audience. Better coordination between units and divisions is needed to further promote and support the internationalization process.
The School’s support for international students should be strengthened. For the career development support, it is noted that, since most students are working, they show little need for career advice support.
Chapter 4 Students
Standard 14: Student Profile
The profile of target students and the desired students’ image are not necessarily clear, and focuses just on the work experience and educational background. There is a need to clarify what kind of target students is required.
The student’s composition reflects good mixture of experienced working adults that will benefit the entire ecosystem of the programs. Students also vary in terms of their educational backgrounds and fields.
In sum, it is unclear who the School’s target students are, and how does the School match its students’ profile with its mission statement.
Based on the School’s feedback, the School student target profile is:
- working adult
- young executive position.
Standard 15: Admission Policy
The School has established a clear admission policy. The admission policy provides clear guidelines on the qualifications and expectations from the candidates. The admission process is adequate.
Standard 16: Student Selection
In order to increase the number of students, it is necessary to consider whether it is suitable for MBA education to shorten the required working experience period or not to request working experience.
The School has well-balanced students’ profile in terms of gender, age, work experience and academic background. More promotion is needed to attract more foreign students to join the programs.
It is noted that the interview is carried out only for candidates who do not meet the minimum requirement. It is advisable for the School to clearly highlight such requirement in the program brochure and on the School’s website.
Standard 17: Student Support
The University provides support for international students. According to the interview with international students, strengthening of support by the School is required.
Better coordination needed to better leverage on the expertise and work scope of other units/divisions in the University to offer customized support for students, especially the international and part-timers.
Centralized facilities with all the support under one roof would be the way forward for the School to materialize its vision and mission.
Overall, the School provides appropriate support for students, but there is a need to enhance support for the international students. This includes to facilitating the communication process between the students and the university.
Based on the School’s feedback, the School is working closely with the top management of the University to secure funding for a new faculty building that will accommodate all services under one roof. A timeline for this plan is given, but it is quite general, i.e. year 2019.
Standard 18: Student Incentive
It is recognized that the system that rewards excellent students is adequate.
The School supports and provides good platform for the students to engage with the community. The School may want to consider tutorial peer support system to assist students academically.
The establishment of a system that rewards excellent students indicates the School’s commitment in motivating the students to perform better. The School also strongly encourages their students to initiate and to be involved in various CSR programs.
Standard 19: Student Diversity
It is recognized that inbound students based on MOU come from various countries.
The School continuously encourages student exchange through various partnerships and collaborations. The School may realign its strategies to penetrate regional ASEAN partners to expand outbound exchange program and to reactivate the signed MOUs.
Based on the data in Annex 19-2-1, it is noted that in September 2018 – February 2019, the School has received students from various countries and regions, including Germany, Maghreb, Pakistan, Italy and France. The School is suggested to indicate the name of the universities involved in the exchange program in the list. Based on the School’s feedback, there were 3 outbound students:
- Ding Teck Wei – Japan Kansai Gaidai University, Japan (International Marketing), September 2018
- Goh Simin – Hochschule Konstanz University, Germany (International Marketing), September 2018
- Amir Bahador – Sultan Qaboos University (International Marketing), February 2018.
Chapter 5 Faculty
Standard 20: Faculty Structure
In SCR, the list of practically qualified faculty members has been improved. Practically qualified faculty members are not sufficient as long as they have little working experience. Originally, they are required to have more than 10 years of working experience in responsible positions and special expertise.
The School has sufficient number of total academic staff to offer the educational programs. Nevertheless, some coordination is needed to ensure that sufficient teaching loads are being assigned to each lecturer especially to cater to large classes. Rather than one single lecturer to teach a course with 50 to 60 students, perhaps the course could be split into 2 separate sections for optimal teaching and learning experience.
Given the nature of business school that offers postgraduate programs and quality research, it is expected that the School has greater proportion of senior professors relative to the junior faculty members.
The School has provided a list of practically qualified faculty members (24 or 80% of the total number of faculty members). 70% of them have working experience with industries ranging from 1 to 10 years. The remaining 30% have more than 10 years of working experience with various industries. Diversity of the faculty members is good. This is in term of age, gender, working experience and ethnic background. There are two foreign participating faculty members and the School has acknowledged its need to increase the number of foreign lecturers. The number of professors is considered small – only 10% (3) of the total number of faculty members.
Standard 21: Faculty Qualifications
It is highly appreciated that many of the faculty members have acquired Ph.D.
The School has a clear appraisal and promotion policy for the faculty members. Majority of the faculty members have several years of practical experience in the industry prior to joining the academia which is a good balance for the educational process in terms of practical and theoretical knowledge. All the records on teaching and research are formally kept and registered in the database system for easy access for promotional purposes.
The SCR and Annex 21-4-1 indicate that the School’s faculty members are actively involved in research and publication activities. It is acknowledged that the university (USM) is one of Research Universities in Malaysia. Further involvement of the faculty members in business consultancy may provide more inputs and contribute more value to the program.
Standard 22: Maintenance of Education and Research Environment
It is highly appreciated that performance of each faculty member is evaluated based on the School’s KPI achieved.
Research has always been a priority especially since USM has been awarded research university status. Various grants are made available to nurture the research culture among faculty members. In addition, throughout the year various supports, including training, seminars, appointment of research assistants, and etc., are available to ensure the quality of research. Incentives and rewards are in place for recognized best performers in teaching and research.
It can be said that the School provides a good support system to the faculty members in creating and maintaining education and research environment. The faculty members also shared with us that they use their research findings as part of the teaching materials. It is one way to integrate research with teaching and learning purposes.
Standard 23: Responsibilities of Faculty Members
In general, faculty members are very motivated and highly responsive to student’s needs. Lecturers and students communicate widely through the usage of web platform such as forum in the Learning Management System, WhatsApp and email. Staff development courses are being held regularly either by the School or by the Training Division of the university to ensure continuous skills and knowledge development.
One important issue that requires urgent attention is the need to bring lecturers, students and administrative staff together at one designated space or building. With the proposed new building that will be ready soon, it is hoped that the School will further synergize the interaction between all relevant parties.
Based on the feedback from the students, they face no problems in communicating with their lecturers. For the online MBA program, during the PRT visit, we got a chance to see how Webex works as a platform for teaching and learning.
Standard 24: Faculty Diversity
It is highly appreciated that there are many female faculty members. The fact that there are few foreign faculty members is an issue.
The School has good combination of expertise, including marketing, accounting and finance. Most of the faculty members worked in various industries (banking, manufacturing, tourism and etc.) prior to joining the School as academics. To increase the number of international faculty members, perhaps the School could look into exchange teaching program and visiting lectureship in the future.
The School may introduce an international mobility program to initiate and facilitate international teaching exchange initiative.
Chapter 6 Educational Infrastructure
Standard 25: Educational Infrastructure
We admit that facilities for educational programs are adequate. However, the classrooms are not for the School not always of high quality. According to an interview with students and staff, improvement of the facility infrastructure is what they demand the most. According to the Vice Chancellor, there is a plan to build a new building. This construction plan should be included in the School’s improvement plan.
The existing facilities are not well equipped and maintained. Logistically, all the facilities are scattered throughout the campus which may make it difficult to synergize the operational aspects of a business school. The School has to acquire dedicated classrooms and student lounges/spaces to cater to premium students who are practically working adults. Lecturers’ offices should also be within reach, and easily accessible under one roof together with the administrative offices.
The physical infrastructure represents one of the key areas which need improvement. This issue was raised in the feedback we got from the faculty members, administrative staff and the students. It is noted that, based on the Vice Chancellor’s letter, the University is concerned about this issue and is working towards solving the issue. In the revised SCR, the School has addressed these infrastructure and facility issues. A proper plan to solve this issue needs to be clearly highlighted in the School’s improvement plan.
Standard 26: Globalization of Educational Infrastructure
The infrastructure at the University level caters well to the needs of diverse groups of students based on religious as well as cultural differences. From time to time, the School or/and the University has to maintain and/or improve the existing premises in order to offer better services to the students and clients.
The support for international students requires further improvement. The School may work further with the University in welcoming the international students so as to create a positive experience for them.
III. “The School’s Quality Improvement Plan” Review
1. The School’s Quality Improvement System
The School has to prepare clear contingency plans for addressing the challenges in managing and executing the quality improvement system.
Certain areas require further deliberations on the strategies to ensure continuous improvement of quality. For example, what are the measures in place for those lecturers who do not manage to achieve student evaluation score of 85% and above? Why do the faculty members need to be classified into four categories? For what purpose and reason? What were the issues faced that led to this proposal?
Overall, the School has a clear quality improvement system. The areas for improvement are as addressed above.
2. The School’s Improvement Issues
PRT recommends that international student support and educational facilities are added to the improvement issues. Also, the report does not clearly state the challenges faced in addressing the issues.
The School has basically addressed its improvement issues, but kindly consider our above comments for improvement.
3. The School’s Improvement Initiatives
PRT recommends that international student support and educational facilities are added to the improvement initiatives.
The initiatives highlighted in the report are general operational procedures and standards that are part of common strategies and activities executed by other business schools. Perhaps, the School could highlight more specific measures to address the pressing issues that they are facing.
In terms of the School’s Alumni Club, more information about the roles of the club is needed. How can the Alumni Club further assist the School in improving its education quality?
4. The School’s Action Plans for three years
For the action plans, we recommend the School to have a three-year plan for each issue.
The action plans highlighted are not in sequence of priorities and proper timeline. All the issues presented are mostly general standard practices that are embedded in the operational guidelines for any business school. The School has to revisit its strengths and weaknesses in order to come up with a proper and clear action plan.
PRT acknowledges that there is an improvement in the structure of the School’s three-year plan as reported in the revised SCR. However, for further improvement, the above comments also need to be addressed.
Based on the revised action plan, the School has presented the plan in the sequence of priorities by year, and its timeline.