Selection

Assessment
/ Student Centre and
Admission Development
Centre
Process

Alumni
Round Table
Conference Insights
session

Retail
Club Foundation
program
sessions

Global Citizen Placement

Leader program Counselling

Fig 1.3.a: Dissemination channels for program mission, vision and objectives

Faculty & Support

Staff - Induction
Program and
Regular Meetings

Students - Display Boards &

Foundation Printed posters in
Program & workstations and
Subject Sessions meeting rooms
Ways to
Disseminate
Program
Mission,
Vision and
Objectives
Presentations in Included in key
Program Advisory communication
and Academic brief to industry
Board Meetings and alumni

Program Website

1
 Figure 1.4.a: Formulation process of the Program Vision and Mission

Details of the same are given below:

Strengths:
1. Pioneer in Retail Education
2. Strong advisory & academic boards
3. Experienced core faculties
4. Contemporary Syllabus
5. Industry interface
6. Experiential Learning
7. Customized assessment & mentoring for students
8. Alumni network
Weaknesses:
1. Triggering & retaining interest of students in retail
2. Statuary norms to be followed
3. Global exposure
Opportunities:

2
1. Short-term courses
2. Technology driven learning
3. Entry of global retailers – tie-ups & placements
Threats:
1. Dynamic nature of industry
2. Limited career opportunities in retail

Figure 1.4.c: Process Flow for defining PEO’s

Internal meeting of faculty to discuss program PEO of the program

Analyze placement data and job descriptions of past 3 years and

identify sector and roles with skills and attributes

Changes are proposed to the PEO's based on the data and inputs
given by students, alumni, corporate

Approval by Dean – Academics and Group Director, with changes, if

any

Final approval by Advisory and Academic board members, with

changes, if any

3
 End trimesterTerm
Exam-60%
(Quantifiable)
Direct (Assurance of
Learning)
Continuous
assessment during
PO/PSO trimester-40%
Assessment (Quantifiable)
Measures
Perceived student
learning (Survey
Indirect
Based (Non-
Quantifiable)

Table 3: Overview of Assessment tools

Program Outcome

PO1: PO4:
Leadership Communication
Program Specific Outcome
PO2:
PO5: Global
Innovation
perspective
PSO1: Business PSO3:
knowledge Analytical skills
PO3: PO6: Role of
Critical individuals in
analytical organization
PSO2: PSO4: Global
thinking- and society
Communication perspective

4
Figure 3.1 Flow Chart of the framework: (from PGDM)

Institute Level

Vision/Mission

Improvement
Program Level Program Improvement

Vision, Program Mission,

Program Educational
Feedback
Objectives (PEOs), Program
Outcomes (PO’s)
Attainment
Feedback
Assessment and Evaluation

(Program Outcome & Course

Course Level
Outcome)
Course Objectives & Outcomes
(COs)

Feedback-Stakeholders (Students, Corporates,

Parents, Regulators, Recruiters, etc)

5
Direct Assessment tools (page no.17)

Direct Assessment Tools

Surprise Mid Term Project Role Case End Term

Assignments Viva voce
Tests Tests presentations plays studies evaluation

6
 PROGRAM LEVEL
REVIEW

Design the Courses

Set Direct Measures Set Indirect Measures

Define Performance Write Feedback

Questions for Each
Courses and other indirect
Select the Instrument measures

Implement Content Delivery Generate Student

Feedback for Course

Collect data from each

instrument (specific exam
result, project performance)

Analyze Data

Performance

Outcome

7
8
9
Figure 4.1.3.1: The key components of the PGDM RM curriculum.

Core
Courses

Value
Retail
Added
Courses
Course

PGDM
RM
Elective
Immersions
Courses

Summer
Internship+
End Term
Project

10
 Lecture

P e d a g o g ic a l T o o ls
Case Study

Immersions / Study
Tour

Industry live Projects

Subject related projects

/ Assignments

Flipped Classroom

Industry - Guest
Sessions

Alumni Speak

Workshops

Mockshop

11
 Sourcing of projects by the faculty team, CMC,
Step 1

Sharing the collated list of projects with the GCL core

Step 2 team for approval

Post appoval by the core team - allocation of the projects

Step 3 to student teams and assigning faculty mentors

Planned weekly interventions and mentoring . Faculty evaluate the

Step 4 team and individual student performance

Final evaluation
Step 5

12