Chapter 7

A Comparative Analysis
of NIRF Performance
Scores Among the Oldest
Five IIMs in India
Neeraj Sharma
https://​orcid​.org/​0000​-​​0002​-​​1370​-​​4870
Graphic Era University, Dehradun, India

Rupesh Kumar
https://​orcid​.org/​0000​-​​0002​-​​6590​-​​4313
Jindal Global Business School, O.P Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India.

Anurag Singh
BITS Pilani Dubai Campus, UAE

ABSTRACT
In this study, we conducted a comparative analysis of the NIRF performance scores
of the five oldest Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) in India. The five IIMs were
selected and data was collected over the past five years (2017-​2021). The results
show that all five IIMs have consistently performed well in the NIRF rankings, with
IIM Ahmedabad consistently topping the rankings in the management category. The
study also highlights the strong correlation between various NIRF parameters and
their impact on overall NIRF performance scores. In conclusion, valuable insights
into the performance of the five oldest IIMs in India, as assessed by the NIRF. Our
findings demonstrate that these institutions continue to maintain high standards of

DOI: 10.4018/979-8-3373-0801-2.ch007

Copyright © 2026, IGI Global Scientific Publishing. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global Scientific Publishing is prohibited.

177
quality in terms of teaching, research, and industry engagement. The results can be
useful for institutions and stakeholders in higher education to better understand the
NIRF ranking methodology and to develop strategies for improvement.

1. INTRODUCTION

Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) lead the way in India's management

education, best known for their academically demanding culture and alumni suc-
cess. With a renewed focus on quality and accountability, the National Institutional
Ranking Framework (NIRF), established by the Ministry of Education in 2015, has
become an indispensable measure in the evaluation of higher education institutions.
This chapter undertakes a targeted comparative examination of the five oldest
IIMs—Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Calcutta, Lucknow, and Indore—based on major
NIRF parameters over five years. The examination is drawn from increasing national
and global interest in rankings and how they relate to drivers like digital innovation,
inclusivity, and the SDGs, particularly SDG 4 relating to quality education. Through
analysis of unique parameter scores and their meaning, this research aims to make
a contribution to Indian management education policy and policy debate ongoing.

1.1 IIM Ahmedabad

It was established in 1961 and is one of the oldest and most reputed business
schools in the country. It is one of the first two institutes to be established as part of
the Indian government's vision to promote the development of management education
in the country. It is widely regarded as one of the most prestigious business schools
in India, offering world-​class management programs and research initiatives. It is
the first institute in India to offer a two-​year post-​graduate diploma in management
(PGDM). It is one of the few schools to have been accredited by both the Association
of MBAs (AMBA) and Equis. It offers a wide range of courses in finance, econom-
ics, accounting, marketing, operations, and general management. IIM Ahmedabad
is one of India's premier business schools and has been consistently ranked as one
of the top institutions in the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF). Its
NIRF ranking reflects its commitment to excellence and its commitment to help-
ing its students and alumni unleash their potential. The institute's NIRF rank has
consistently been among the top three since its first ranking in 2016. In 2022, IIM
Ahmedabad achieved the highest overall score among all the business management
institutions including IIMs, with a score of 83.35. The institute also achieved a rank
of 1 in the Management, University, and Overall categories. IIM Ahmedabad has

178
consistently been at the top of the rankings since 2016, with a rank of 1 in 2022.
This top rank makes it one of the leading business schools in Asia. In addition to the
NIRF rankings, IIM Ahmedabad has also been consistently ranked among the top 40
business schools in the world by the Financial Times Global MBA Rankings. It has
also been ranked number 1 in the country by the Eduniversal Best Masters Rankings.
Overall, IIM Ahmedabad is one of the most prestigious and sought-​after business
schools in India, with an impressive NIRF rank of 1 in 2020. It offers world-​class
management programs and research initiatives and has consistently achieved high
rankings in various global rankings.

1.2 IIM Bangalore

Established in 1973, IIM Bangalore is one of India’s best-​known business

schools. It is the only business school in India to have been accredited by both the
AACSB and EQUIS. It is located in the city of Bangalore and offers a wide range
of post-​graduate and doctoral programs. It has a strong focus on research and of-
fers a range of courses in the fields of finance, marketing, operations, systems, and
general management rankings. Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Bangalore is
one of the top-​ranking business schools in the country, consistently ranking among
the top three B-​schools in the country according to the NIRF Rankings. This pre-
mier institute offers a wide range of courses, from executive programs to doctoral
programs, in the field of management education. IIM Bangalore is renowned for
its stellar faculty comprising some of the most eminent names in the industry and
academia, as well as its cutting-​edge curriculum and ample opportunities for stu-
dents to develop their leadership and business acumen. The institute has consistently
maintained its 3rd rank in the NIRF Rankings since 2016 and has seen a rise of over
20 points in its overall rank from 1995. It has also been awarded an A+ grade by
the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) for its commitment to
quality education. Thus, IIM Bangalore is an ideal choice for students looking for
an enriching and fulfilling experience in the field of management.

1.3 IIM Calcutta

Established in 1961, IIM Calcutta is India’s first business school. It is widely

regarded as one of the best business schools in the country and is accredited by both
the AACSB and EQUIS. It offers a wide range of courses in finance, economics,
accounting, marketing, operations, and general management. IIM Calcutta is a
premier management institute in India, consistently ranked among the best in the
world. According to the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) Rank-
ings 2020, IIM Calcutta is ranked number one in the Management category. This

179
feat has been achieved by the institute for the third consecutive year. IIM Calcutta
has seen a steady improvement in its rankings since 2017, reaching a rank of 6 in
2020 and 3 in 2022. The institute provides a world-​class learning experience to
its students, with its wide range of courses and experienced faculty members. IIM
Calcutta has also made a name for itself in research and consultancy activities. It
has been awarded the highest research grant from the Ministry of Human Resource
Development, and its faculty members have published several influential research
papers in top journals. IIM Calcutta has also established strong links with industry
and international institutions. It has signed MoUs with over 15 international univer-
sities and has built strong relationships with leading employers across the globe. This
has enabled the institute to provide its students with a variety of excellent learning
and job opportunities. Overall, IIM Calcutta is a top-​notch institution that offers
excellent opportunities for students to pursue a successful career in management. Its
commitment to excellence, world-​class faculty, and strong industry and international
ties, make it one of the best management institutes in the world.

1.4 IIM Indore

Established in 1996, IIM Indore is a relatively new business school compared

to the other IIMs. IIM Indore is one of the leading management institutes in India,
consistently ranked among the top 20 business schools in the country. It is the only
institute in the country to be ranked in the top 50 of the National Institutional Rank-
ing Framework (NIRF), making it the highest-​ranked IIM in India. The institute has
achieved impressive academic results over the years with its students consistently
performing well in internships and placements. In addition, the institute has a strong
alumni network with successful alumni from various industries. With a vision to
provide world-​class management education and promote research, the institute is
a leader in fostering innovation and entrepreneurship. Its commitment to academic
excellence makes it a top choice for aspiring managers.

1.5 IIM Lucknow

Indian Institute of Management Lucknow (IIM-​L) is one of the most prestigious

business schools in India. Ranked No.1 in Management education by the National
Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), the institute has continually delivered
excellence in teaching, research, and infrastructure since its inception in 1984. IIM-​L
is spread over a sprawling 200-​acre campus in the heart of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
The institute offers a variety of programs in the field of management. From one-​year
Post Graduate Diploma in Management to five-​year Fellow Programs in Management,
the institute has something for everyone. IIM-​L has consistently been ranked among

180
the top B-​Schools in India and the world. In the NIRF 2020 Rankings, the institute
was ranked 1st in the Management category. Additionally, it has been ranked 17th
in Asia and 127th in the world according to the QS Global MBA Rankings 2020.
IIM-​L has an impeccable track record of placements, with the institute witnessing
a 7.5% increase in the average salary offered to its students in 2020, amounting to
INR 28.5 LPA. The institute is also well-​known for its impressive alumni network,
which has made its mark in various fields of management and business. IIM-​L is
an institute that has created a name for itself in the field of management education.
Its consistent success in the NIRF ranking is a testimony to it. IIM Lucknow has
seen a slight decline in its rankings since 2017, reaching a rank of 15 in 2020 and
then rising to a rank of 6 in 2022.

1.6 Theoretical Foundations

While this study primarily focuses on comparing the NIRF performance scores
of the oldest five IIMs over the years, the below-​listed business management tools/
techniques/theories are also helpful in analyzing their performance:

• SWOT Analysis

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) can be used to

compare the IIMs in terms of their competitive advantages, areas of improvement,
external opportunities, and external threats.

• Porter's Five Forces

This theory can be used to analyze the degree of competition within the indus-
try, the bargaining power of suppliers and buyers, the threat of substitutes and new
entrants to the market, and the overall profitability of the industry.

• Resource-​Based View

This theory can be used to compare the resources and capabilities of the IIMs
in terms of their physical assets, human resources, organizational culture, and other
unique resources.

• Industry Life Cycle

This theory can be used to compare the stages of development of the IIMs in
terms of their growth strategies, competitive advantage, and sources of value creation.

181
• Value Chain Analysis

This theory can be used to compare the IIMs in terms of the activities that add
value to their services and the costs associated with them.
Further, the following management theories could also be used for analysis in
future studies.

• Classical Management Theory

This theory focuses on finding the most efficient way of carrying out tasks and
organizing the workplace. It can be used to compare the IIMs in terms of the effec-
tiveness of their administrative policies, the types of management structures they
employ, and their commitment to finding the most efficient way to carry out tasks.

• Scientific Management Theory

This theory is based on the idea that productivity and efficiency can be improved
through careful study and the use of scientific methods to improve the productivity of
employees. This can be used to compare the IIMs in terms of their use of scientific
methods to improve the performance of their employees.

• Administrative Management Theory

This theory focuses on the management of organizations and their resources. It

can be used to compare the IIMs in terms of their ability to develop and implement
administrative policies and procedures, their use of resources, and their ability to
manage change.

• Bureaucratic Management Theory

This theory emphasizes the importance of formal rules and regulations, hierarchy,
and the need for standardization. It can be used to compare the IIMs in terms of the
extent to which they adhere to formal rules and procedures, how well they maintain
order in the workplace, and their ability to maintain a clear chain of command.

• Human Relations Theory

This theory focuses on understanding and improving the interactions between

people in the workplace. It can be used to compare the IIMs in terms of their com-
mitment to creating a positive environment and fostering

182
• Human Resources Management Theory

This theory focuses on the management of people within organizations. It can be

used to compare the IIMs in terms of the number and quality of staff, recruitment
process, training and development, organizational culture, employee motivation,
and other related aspects.

• Systems Management Theory

This theory focuses on the development and maintenance of systems within

organizations. It can be used to compare the IIMs in terms of the systems and pro-
cesses in place for managing internal operations, responding to external conditions,
meeting customer needs, and other related aspects.

• Contingency Management Theory

This theory focuses on the management of organizations in response to changing

external conditions. It can be used to compare the IIMs in terms of their ability to
adapt to changing external conditions, develop strategies to remain competitive and
manage the organization effectively in response to those conditions.

• Quality Management Theory

This theory focuses on the attainment of superior quality in organizations. It can

be used to compare the IIMs in terms of the quality of their services and products,
the effectiveness of their processes, and the ability to maintain and improve quality
over time.

• Six Sigma Theory

This theory focuses on the use of statistics and data-​driven analysis to improve
processes and decision-​making. It can be used to compare the IIMs in terms of
the use of data-​driven approaches for decision-​making, the ability to identify and
reduce errors and defects, and the effectiveness of their processes and operations.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Recent studies have highlighted important differences between the National

Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) and global university ranking systems,

183
both in the indicators chosen as well as in their broader implications on governance.
Çakır et al. (2015) in a systematic comparison of these different ranking regimes, for
example, show that national rankings typically make use of a broader set of indica-
tors, often with greater attention to educational quality, institutional resources and
inclusivity to reflect local policy concerns and contexts, while the global rankings,
which QS and THE have come to epitomize, tend to focus on a narrower set of
indicators that are centered on research productivity and reputation surveys. This
is not simply a technical distinction. Peters (2017) and Pavel (2015) also show that
these global rankings, through their performative logic of “knowledge capitalism,”
have come to constitute how we think about the university, with an overemphasis
on standardized and easily quantified measures of success. However, while these
rankings may offer simplified metrics that are globally comparable, they are likely
to privilege elite and well-​resourced universities while contributing to a global “rep-
utation race” to the detriment of teaching quality, regional diversity, and a deeper
understanding of their role and missions in society (Peters, 2017; Hazelkorn, 2017).
In this regard, Çakır et al. (2015) show that global rankings scores correlate only
weakly with national rankings, emphasizing the importance of national contexts and
nationally specific indicators. Pavel (2015) also highlights the relative devaluation
of teaching environment and innovative contributions in global systems that are
in sharp contrast to national frameworks like India's NIRF. Taken together, these
studies show the limitations of any single system of scoring and highlight the value
of contextually embedded and multi-​dimensional approaches that take into account
the wider contributions and missions of universities, including teaching innovation,
equity, impacts on local/regional economies, and support for language and digital
education. This perspective is significant and important for emerging frameworks
such as the NIRF, as they aim to create a balance between the international standards
and India’s unique social challenges and objectives of policy.
There exists limited available literature reporting on trends and institutional re-
actions to NIRF rankings but rarely where ranking systems, education innovation,
and SDG 4 outcomes intersect. This research places itself in that unexplored terrain.
University ranking systems have far-​reaching implications for institutional action
agendas and policy, both globally and nationally. Comparative analysis more recently
identifies core differences between global and national rankings. Çakır et al. (2015)
observed that national rankings, e.g., India's NIRF, consider broader education and
context indicators, whereas global rankings (QS, THE) give major weightage to
research and reputation at the expense of other dimensions like teaching quality or
inclusiveness. Peters (2017) and Hazelkorn (2017) warn that performance-​based
indicators, though providing homogenous measurements, can reinforce resource
inequalities, are skewed towards elite institutions, and can trigger a “reputation race.”
Pavel (2015) also expresses the view that international rankings have serious impacts

184
on institutional identity and planning strategy, but disregard education process and
innovation—priorities usually maintained by national systems such as NIRF.
To place this study into perspective, Table 1 critically analyzes recent Indian
literature and shows that the majority of studies concentrate on NIRF's quantitative
metrics or comparisons versus other ranking metrics, reflecting present research
gaps in digital innovation, equity, and longitudinal assessment.

Table 1. Summary of Ranking Parameters and Weightages – NIRF (Management)

Sr. No. Parameters Marks
1. Teaching, Learning, & Resources (TLR) 100
Ranking weight: 0.30
A. Student strength including doctoral students (SS): 20 marks
B. Faculty-​student ratio with emphasis on permanent faculty (FSR): 30 marks
C. combined metric for faculty with PhD (or equivalent) and experience (FQE): 20 marks
D. Financial resources and their utilization (FRU): 30 marks
2. Research and Professional Practice (RP) 100
Ranking weight: 0.30
A. Combined metric for publications (PU): 40 marks
B. Combined metric for quality of publications (QP): 40 marks
C. Footprint of projects, professional practice and executive development programs (FPPP): 20 marks
3. Graduation Outcomes (GO) 100
Ranking weight: 0.20
A. Combined metric for placement and higher studies (GPH): 40 marks
B. Metric for university examinations (GUE): 20 marks
C. Median salary (GMS): 40 marks
4. Outreach and Inclusivity (OI) 100
Ranking weight: 0.10
A. Percentage of students from other states (Region Diversity RD): 30 marks
B. Percentage of women (Women Diversity WD): 30 marks
C. Emotionally and socially challenged students (ECS): 20 marks
D. Facilities for physically challenged students (PCS): 20 marks
5. Perception (PR) 100
Ranking weight: 0.10
A. Peer perception – Employers & Academic Peer (PR): 100 marks

Source: https://​www​.nirfindia​.org/​nirfpdfcdn/​2022/​framework/​Management​.pdf

185
Table 2. Summary of the Methodology used and Major findings of the reviewed studies
S. Publication The methodology used and Major findings of the study:
No.
1 Singh et al. (2022) This study employed a Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) approach along with
National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) data to suggest improvements
for India's education system. By calculating efficiency scores for 61 educational
institutions, the researchers ranked them using a super-​efficiency DEA model. The
study offered recommendations for enhancing inefficient institutions while identifying
a research gap in evaluating the effectiveness of proposed improvement methods.
2 Gnanasekaran and Evaluating research performance in active medical institutions, the researchers
Rajkumar (2022) analyzed Scopus, Pubmed, and ResearchGate data. Utilizing the Compound Annual
Growth Rate (CAGR), they determined growth rates. All India Institute of Medical
Sciences, New Delhi, achieved the highest rankings in both NIRF and ResearchGate
scores, with PubMed exhibiting the highest publication growth rate.
3 Shivaram et al. (2022) This research assessed research performance among top NIRF-​ranked engineering
institutions in Karnataka. They observed increased publication productivity after the
NIRF introduction, with MS Ramaiah Institute of Technology achieving the highest
citations. The study also found that open-​access articles received more citations
compared to non-​OA articles.
4 Yadav et al. (2022) The study analyzed India Rankings data from 2016-​2020, revealing increased
publications, citations, and highly-​cited publications. Research activity and impact
improved over time, leading to a decrease in the number of institutions without
publications.
5 Kumar et al. (2021) This study introduced a ranking framework using fuzzy logic and the Mamdani fuzzy
reasoning approach, and then compared its outcomes with the NIRF rankings.
6 Marisha (2021) Similar to Kumar et al. (2021), this research proposed a ranking framework based on
fuzzy logic and the Mamdani fuzzy reasoning approach and compared its results with
NIRF rankings.
7 Nassa et al. (2021) The study evaluated the influence of the perception parameter on higher education
institutions' overall ranking, scientifically analyzing NIRF's role.
8 Dam et al. (2021) The research tracked the impact of NIRF ranking on research publications in North-​
East Indian Universities using Web of Science data.
9 Singh and Singh (2021) The study analyzed the “perception” influence on NIRF rankings of engineering
institutions using Web of Science data for 10 years.
10 Deka and Sarmah This study aims to examine the Website analysis of the top 15 NIRF-​ranked Indian
(2021) universities, highlighting various metrics' performance.
11 Patel et al. (2021) The analysis focused on NIRF-​ranked IITs, faculty members, publications, and impact,
exploring data from NIRF and Indian Research Information Network System (IRINS).
12 Jeyapragash and This scientometric study analyzes the research productivity of top NIRF-​ranked Indian
Muthuraj (2021) institutes using Web of Science data.
13 Gangopadhyay and The study employed scientometric analysis on top NIRF-​ranked institutes, assessing
Mukherjee (2021) research productivity and subject distribution.
14 Chakraborty et al. This study entails a comparison of open access and commercial publications'
(2021) performance for the top twenty NIRF institutions.
15 Kumar et al. (2021) This entails correlation and regression analysis to determine the relationship between
NIRF Score and management institutes' parameters.
16 Anbalagan and This study does a comparison of rankings using Times Higher Education and NIRF for
Tamizhchelvan(2021) the top 25 Indian institutions.
17 Deka and Sarmah This study involves an investigation of research publication impact on post-​NIRF
(2021) ranking in North-​East Indian Universities.
continued on following page

186
Table 2. Continued
S. Publication The methodology used and Major findings of the study:
No.
18 Dadhe and Dubey This article reports a comparative study of the scientific publications of nationally
(2021) ranked engineering institutions five years before and after the launch of the National
Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) in India. The study delved into analysis of
scientific publications of nationally ranked engineering institutions pre and post-​NIRF
launch.
19 Joorel et. al. (2021) This article focuses on the evolution and challenges of India's Rankings, highlighting
the significance of a composite indicator.
20 Pal (2021) The study assessed the potency of a combined metric for quality assessment of
publications in India's NIRF exercise in 2020.
21 Nassa et. Al. (2021) The evaluation analyzed five years of data from the India Rankings to assess its impact
on the performance parameters of higher education institutions.
22 Singh et al. (2021) This article does a comparison of HEI rankings using different methodologies.
The methodologies used are the NIRF Overall ranking, the NIRF ranking based on
research and professional practices, a new research ranking methodology, and the
IFQ2A index developed by Spanish scientists. The article finds that a strong positive
correlation exists between the ranking of HEIs using the new methodology and the
ranking using the IFQ2A Index.
23 Joorel et al. (2021) The study analyzed patents registered/filed/published/granted by 20 Indian Central
Universities and other countries in the last decade.
24 Kumar et al. (2021) This study examined the impact of library budgets on NIRF rankings for top Indian
Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs).
25 Parameswaran et al. The research analyzed the relationship between Research and Professional Practices
(2020) (RPP) and Perception (PR) in university ranking.
26 Gangopadhyay (2020) The study analyzed changes in the web content of the first 20 NIRF ranking institutes
over the last decade using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine to get the website
updated dates and archived web pages.
27 Kumar et al. (2020) This study explored the connection between NIRF rankings and students' enrolments
using a sample of the top 75 NIRF-​ranked Management Institutions in India.
28 Vasudevan et al. (2020) The paper analyzed key indicators from the NBA, NAAC, and NIRF to design a
common framework.
29 Srimathi and The paper compared the research performance of 25 private universities in India with
Krishnamoorthy (2020) IITs, Central Universities (CUs), and National Institutes of Technology (NITs).
30 Srinivasan et al. (2020) The paper reviewed the impact of NIRF in India, its momentum, and its role in the
Institute of Eminence (IOE) selection.
31 Prathap (2019) In this study, a mathematical model was proposed to rank higher education institutions
(HEIs) in India using NIRF data.
32 Banshal et al. (2019) This study constructs validity maps from NIRF 2019 data for the top 100 colleges
in India. The study uses the NIRF score, perception score, and Xscore to determine
the placement of the top colleges concerning each other. The study also recognizes
possible biases in the peer review perception scores and recommends that the Xscore,
which is based on an input-​output model, may give a better representation of reality.
The study uses Peirce's measure of predictive success to obtain a quantitative estimate.
continued on following page

187
Table 2. Continued
S. Publication The methodology used and Major findings of the study:
No.
33 Balasubramani and This paper presents a comparative account of the research performance of 25 private
Thangavel (2019) universities in India with IITs, Central Universities (CUs), and National Institutes of
Technology (NITs). A set-​based comparison methodology is followed. The results
show that private universities are performing well in research, especially in terms of
output and rate of growth of output. However, on quality and productivity per capita,
private universities still lag behind IITs, CUs, and NITs. The study identifies the need
for private universities to improve the quality of research to reach the level of IITs,
CUs, and NITs.
34 Kumaren and Rajkumar This study examined publications of Universities in NIRF using Web of Science,
(2019) Scopus, Indian Citation Index, patent publications, and citations, to determine the
Citation Rate.
35 Anilkumar and Using content and discourse analysis of NIRFs methodology, this paper engaged in
Nagabhushanam (2018) the systematic analysis of NIRF's methodology, identified gaps, and made policy
recommendations for its development.
36 Chugh et al. (2018) The study identified parameters influencing the exclusion of institutions from the top
100 ranks in the NIRF India Rankings 2018 compared to 2017.
37 Mathew et al. (2018) Collecting data through Web content analysis from the official websites of NIRF,
Times Higher Education World University Rankings, and QS World University
Rankings, this study highlighted differences in assessment criteria of NBA, NAAC,
and NIRF, proposing a common framework.
38 Chugh et al. (2018) This study analyzed individual parameters and overall scores of the top 100
engineering institutions in India as ranked by the NIRF.
39 Mukhopadhyay et al. The authors provided an overview of NIRF 2016 rankings, highlighting challenges and
(2018) opportunities for improvement.
40 Kumar and Tiwari Using bibliometric analysis, this research examined research excellence among the top
(2017) 20 engineering institutions in India from the NIRF list. The major finding is that IITs
at Bombay and Kharagpur stand out in terms of research excellence, with promising
results also shown by the new IITs at Ropar-​Rupnagar and Indore.
41 Prathap (2017) his comparative end-​to-​end research evaluation of leading engineering institutions in
India combined bibliometric and econometric analysis.
42 Prathap (2017) The study critiqued the NIRF exercise as a reduction of higher education into a single
score, using NIRF 2017 bibliometric data for illustration.
43 Prathap (2017) This study analyzed NIRF 2017 bibliometric data to determine Loyola College and
Bishop Heber College as the best research colleges in India.
44 Chugh et al. (2017) The study focused on the self-​assessment of NIRF ranking parameters by academic
institutions in India.
45 Chugh et al. (2017) This study focuses on the self-​assessment of the NIRF ranking parameters by
academic institutions in India. The authors observe that there is no single technique
available to carry out the self-​assessment and have developed a methodology for
self-​assessment. The methodology can predict the likely chance of an institution's
inclusion in the top 100 rankings and provides insight into evaluating the strengths and
weaknesses of each of the five parameters. The major finding is that the authors have
developed a methodology for self-​assessment of the NIRF ranking parameters.

188
2.1 Critical Synthesis of Table 2 Studies: Methodological
Approaches and Research Gaps in the NIRF Literature

2.1.1. Quantitative Efficiency and Ranking Models

Certain studies (Singh et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2021; Marisha, 2021; Prathap,
2019) employ advanced quantitative methods—like Data Envelopment Analysis
(DEA), fuzzy logic, and custom mathematical models—to measure NIRF rankings'
effectiveness and fairness.
Key Findings: The research depicts the application of alternative and potentially
better evaluative models than NIRF, such as super-​efficiency DEA and fuzzy logic
rank-​based (Kumar et al., 2021; Marisha, 2021). They highlight inefficiencies that
exist in some institutions but are masked by the limited parameter set of NIRF and
recommend systemic reforms.
Research Gaps: While these models offer additional analytical perspectives, most
of such research stops at the technical demonstration level and does not evaluate
their practical application or impacts. Also, they allow little space for qualitative
and subjective aspects, such as learning experience, social purpose, or digital
innovation—areas that have gained prominence after the NEP 2020.

2.1.2. Scientometrics and Bibliometrics analyses

One of the well-​known trends in the literature (e.g., Gnanasekaran & Rajkumar,
2022; Shivaram et al., 2022; Jeyapragash & Muthuraj, 2021; Chakraborty et al.,
2021; Patel et al., 2021; Gangopadhyay & Mukherjee, 2021; Dam et al., 2021) is the
use of bibliometric and scientometric methods, often using databases like Scopus,
Web of Science, or ResearchGate.
Major Findings: These studies affirm that NIRF implementation has been as-
sociated with increasing research productivity and quality of output, particularly
in high-​performing institutions (Shivaram et al., 2022; Yadav et al., 2022). Open
access publications have higher citation impact. Research output and research per-
formance are now playing a significant role in NIRF position, reflecting a policy
push towards research excellence.
Research Gaps: The focus remains mainly on quantitative results, with little
attention paid to variables like teaching quality, equity, technology adoption, or
student performance. Regional, gender, and discipline biases are not adequately
explored, nor are the long-​term implications of actions based on such rankings.

189
2.1.3. Perception, Reputation, and Stakeholder Contributions

Research by Nassa et al. (2021), Singh and Singh (2021), and Banshal et al.
(2019) emphasizes the power and possible bias associated with the “perception”
(PR) parameter in the NIRF framework.
Key Findings: Reputation and perception scores are established as key drivers
of overall rankings, sometimes even surpassing objective measures of performance.
Certain research identifies the inherent subjectivity and potential biases in peer
or recruiter judgments and advocates greater openness and empirically supported
standards.
Research Gaps: Validity and fairness of perception-​based measures are unknown.
Very little cross-​validation with external reputation measures (i.e., world rankings) is
done, and qualitative stakeholder opinions (students, employers, alumni) are hardly
ever included systematically.

2.1.4. Comparative and Integrative Evaluations

A few studies (Anbalagan & Tamizhchelvan, 2021; Mathew et al., 2018; Va-
sudevan et al., 2020) contrast NIRF with global ranking systems (THE, QS) or peer
national systems (NBA, NAAC).
Key Findings: The above differences indicate the specific emphases of both
systems—e.g., NIRF's pedagogy and research focus, whereas THE focuses on global
outreach and diversity. The focus on faculty-​to-​student ratio, research outreach, and
international collaborative practices are the key differences. There are constant calls
for a holistic, context-​sensitive model.
Research Gaps: Little is researched in terms of how technology-​related factors
(ICT adoption, pedagogy, language policy) are balanced across frameworks. Fur-
thermore, research is rarely interested in investigating alignment (or non-​alignment)
with UN SDG 4 objectives.

2.1.5. Equity, Inclusiveness, and Diversity in Institutions

Few reports (e.g., Dadhe & Dubey, 2021; Parameswaran
et al., 2020; Balasubramani & Thangavel, 2019)
analyze dimensions like outreach, inclusiveness, and
private-​public or regional category differences.

Major Findings: Research output growth is uneven with high growth in pro-
duction in private universities but low per-​capita productivity. There is perceptible

190
improvement in indicators related to inclusivity in NIRF after its launch, but the
depth and comprehensiveness of such improvement are questionable.
Gaps in the Literature: Inclusivity and equity are all too often relegated to superfi-
cial accounts of quantities; there is a clear lack of in-​depth studies of intersectionality
(e.g., social, gender, linguistic, regional variations). These studies do not critically
assess the effectiveness of NIRF's “Outreach & Inclusivity” criterion, and neither
do they investigate its connection to the provision of online and digital education.

2.1.6. NIRF's Methodology and Impact Evaluations Criticisms

A number of studies question the NIRF methodology (Anilkumar & Nagabhu-

shanam, 2018; Chugh et al., 2018, 2017; Prathap, 2017, 2019), questioning the
reductionist nature of single-​score assessment, the challenges of self-​assessment,
and the lack of institutional-​level assessment.
Key Findings: Issues regarding the restrictiveness of NIRF's composite index,
omission of some qualitative/digital parameters, and strategic “score engineering”
on the part of institutions to maximize under the system.
Research Gaps: There is little longitudinal research on the effect of NIRF
rankings on institutional policy, student performance, or alignment with national
development objectives (SDG 4, NEP 2020). The evaluations are typically policy
recommendation-​oriented, but empirical work on the proposed reforms is minimal.

2.1.7. Further Methodological and Thematic Insights

Several individual studies cover new subjects such as:

• Institutional websites and library resources (Kumar et al., 2021; Deka P. &
Sarmah M.)
• Patent production (Joorel et al., 2021)
• The combined assessment measurement quality (Pal, 2021)

They point to increasing emphasis on multifactor, multidimension quality indica-

tors but imply the disjointedness of the studies with little integrative activity. Over-​
reliance on research outcomes and quantitative measures, without going deep into
teaching quality, technology innovation, language instruction, student experience,
and social contribution is a major gap. Also there is no stakeholder feedback (stu-
dents, teachers, employers) and qualitative/subjective assessments. Depth is lacking
in equity and inclusivity analysis—especially in gender, language, digital divides,
and regional aspects. Global benchmarking and integration (how NIRF aligns or
diverges from global best practices, and where it is placed in the era of digitalization)

191
require more probing. Assessment of NIRF's response to milestone policy changes
(e.g., NEP 2020) and SDG 4 goals is next to nothing. Multi-​methodological, holistic
approaches are needed, for instance, combining digital, linguistic, and pedagogical
innovation indicators in Indian ranking frameworks.

3. METHODS

Despite significant influence of NIRF, the desired attention with respect to its
efficacy from the perspective of SDG 4, digitalization, and language inclusivity has
been largely missing. This chapter addresses that gap by providing both a critical
policy perspective as well as performance analysis.
The rationale behind choosing 2018–2022 period is that it covers re-​pandemic,
pandemic, and immediate post-​pandemic years which is a critical period during
which the management education witnessed significant digital transformation. A
consistent and regular data availability after the launch of NIRF in the year 2015 is
also ensured during the period.

a) Sample and Scope: The five most elderly IIMs—Ahmedabad (IIMA), Bangalore
(IIMB), Calcutta (IIMC), Lucknow (IIML), and Indore (IIMI)—were chosen
based on their age, availability of longitudinal data, and policy significance are
studied in this research.
b) Data Collection:

Quantitative Data: Official NIRF performance outcomes (2017–2022), on all

five NIRF parameters—Teaching, Learning & Resources (TLR); Research & Pro-
fessional Practice (RP); Graduation Outcomes (GO); Outreach & Inclusivity (OI);
and Peer Perception (PR).
Qualitative Supplement: Vignettes, faculty/student opinions and literature-​driven
observations on ICT adoption and e-​programs in IIMs (referencing Pathak & Pal,
2024; Dar et al., 2017; Patel et al., 2004).

c) Instruments and Analytical Methods:

Quantitative Analysis: Data were arranged in MS Excel and made use of summary
statistics (mean, variance) and one-​way/two-​way ANOVA in SPSS to determine
differences between-​institute and parameters.
Qualitative Analysis: Thematic analysis of literature case vignettes for ICT
adoption, digital library utilization, and inclusivity programs.

192
3.1 Qualitative Supplement: Vignettes and User
Perspectives on ICT Adoption at IIMs

This chapter supplements the NIRF indicators' quantitative analysis with qual-
itative revelations that spotlight the across-​the-​board metamorphosis of ICT usage
in Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs). The vignettes and narrative, drawn from
recent literature and survey research, tell us something about the nature and extent
of digital integration in IIMs. They give us a glimpse, the way the image projecting
tool of the NIRF would if it were inverted, into the real-​time experiences of IIMs
with digital academic and administrative integration.

3.1.1 Case 1: Institutional Transformation and Digital Administration

The last ten years have observed IIMs, alongside other leading institutions, inten-
sifying their efforts to embed ICT in both educational administration and classroom
delivery (Mukhopadhyay & Parhar, 2014). Government policy initiatives (such as
RUSA and the recommendations of the National Knowledge Commission) have
emphasized that integrating ICT is key to not only expanding access and ensuring
equity but also upgrading the quality of our institutions.
As an example, IIMs have gone digital in their management of core admission,
student record, and faculty performance tracking systems—as have many premier
institutions. This use of information and communication technology (ICT) in the
management and administration of higher education has, in Mukhopadhyay and Par-
har's (2014) words, “taken deeper penetration in private universities and institutions.”
And although these authors seem to assign most of the credit to the push from the
institutions themselves, using ICT in educational administration and managing the
teaching/learning process seems also a direct result of several government-​backed
programs (e.g., RUSA and the NKC recommendations).

3.1.2 Case 2: ICT-​Enabled Libraries—Faculty and Student Voices

Current research (Dar et al., 2017; Pathak & Pal, 2024) provide detailed insights
into how the revolution in information and communication technologies (ICT) have
affected IIM libraries and profoundly impacted the areas of research, teaching, and
student learning. Pathak & Pal (2024) conducted an extensive survey of faculty
and students at first-​, second-​, and third-​generation IIMs and found the following:
“Almost all users interact with e-​resources on a daily basis, with the engaging
of e-​journals and online databases being much preferred. There is a very high
level of awareness regarding the E-​ShodhSindhu Consortium, and the IIM library
websites are considered very reliable by the users for searching e-​resources.”

193
 A faculty member from one of the IIMs made the following comment:
“The easy, remote access I have to the databases of case studies and business
journals has been crucial to my teaching and research. These resources are
entirely digital and have worked very well for me and my students, especially
during the pandemic.”
A student at one of the IIMs made the following observation:
“The e-​resource portals that IIM libraries provide are the first and best places
I go to when I have to do an assignment or conduct some research. However, I
sometimes find the user interface to be a little outdated and clumsy, which has
the potential to slow me down. I've also been in a situation where the number
of users that can be logged into a specific e-​resource at the same time has run
out. That wasn't a very fun experience.”

3.1.3 Case 3: Digital Pedagogy and Societal Impact

Information and communication technology (ICT) has evolved at Indian Institutes

of Management (IIMs) not just in terms of resources and administration but also in
terms of mission and inclusivity. Patel et al. (2004), in reflecting on IIMs' broader
role, have noted that their governance system—“participative, decentralized, and
transparent”—makes IIMs a role model for other institutions that seek excellence. A
vision of this participatory governance is being realized increasingly through digital
platforms such as Learning Management Systems (LMS), virtual classrooms, and
collaborative online projects. These platforms offer democratic access to students
and allow engagement with them and among them. The online platforms symbolize
a step toward academic equity.

3.2 Research Questions

In line with the identified research gaps, the following three research questions
have been articulated:

• Does a significant disparity exist in NIRF Scores among the 5 NIRF

Parameters?
• Is there a notable variation in NIRF Scores among the oldest 5 IIMs?
• Does a significant difference in NIRF Scores occur between the various com-
binations of NIRF Parameter and IIM?

194
3.3 Objectives of the Research

The above-​listed research questions serve as the basis for framing the research
objectives. Research questions help to define the problem or gap in knowledge
that the research aims to address, while the research objectives provide a clear and
concise statement of what the researcher intends to achieve or demonstrate through
the study. Consequently, the following three objectives were established:

• To investigate if there exists a meaningful distinction in NIRF Scores across

the five NIRF Parameters.
• To examine if there is a notable difference in NIRF Scores between the pre-
mier five IIMs.
• To determine if there is a substantial difference in NIRF Scores between var-
ious combinations of NIRF Parameter and IIM.

This research study will be focused on the oldest five Indian Institutes of Man-
agement (IIM C, IIM A, IIM B, IIM L, IIM I) from the first generation, taking into
consideration the Indian NIRF Framework from 2018 to 2022. These five IIMs
were specifically selected as they have consistently been ranked among the top
10 management institutions in NIRF over the years and have established a solid
foundation of resources and performances compared to their newer counterparts.

3.4 Hypotheses

To answer the stipulated research questions toward framed objectives, the three
Hypotheses were formulated:

• The hypothesis concerning factor A (Oldest 5 IIMs):

Null Hypothesis, H0:

IIM C = IIM A = IIM B = IIM L = IIM I
Alternate Hypothesis, H1:
Treatment means are not equal for at least one pair of the treatment means of
factor A(Oldest 5 IIMs; IIM C ≠ IIM A≠ IIM B ≠ IIM L ≠ IIM I)

• The hypothesis concerning factor B (5 NIRF Parameters):

Null Hypothesis, H0:

TLR= RP= GO= OI = PR
Alternate Hypothesis, H1:

195
 Treatment means are not equal for at least one pair of the treatment means of
factor B (NIRF Parameters; TLR≠ RP ≠ GO ≠ OI ≠ PR)

• The hypothesis concerning the interaction component, AB (Oldest 5 IIMs

and 5 NIRF Parameters):

Null Hypothesis, H0:

IIM C TLR= IIM C RP= IIM C GO= IIM C OI = IIM C PR =… IIM A OI =
IIM A PR =…
Alternate Hypothesis, H1: Interaction means are not equal for at least one pair
of interaction means (IIMs & NIRF Parameters; IIM C TLR ≠ IIM C RP ≠ IIM C
GO ≠ IIM C OI ≠ IIM C PR ≠… IIM A OI ≠ IIM A PR ≠…)

3.5 Research Design

The methodology employed in this study is a conclusive research design with a

quantitative approach. The sample for this study was selected through a process of
judgment sampling, a non-​probability method, which involves selecting 5 of the oldest
Indian Institutes of Management (IIM C, IIM A, IIM B, IIM L, and IIM I) from the
top 100 management education institutions in India as per NIRF Rankings 2022.
A factorial design was utilized, with the NIRF Score as the dependent variable
and two factors, the NIRF Parameters (5 levels or treatments -​TLR, RP, GO, OI,
PR) and the Indian Higher Education Institutions in Management [IHEI-​IM (5 lev-
els -​IIM C, IIM A, IIM B, IIM L, IIM I)]. Each level of the factor IHEI-​IIM was
replicated 5 times to ensure the reliability and validity of the results.
The use of a factorial design enables the examination of the combined and
individual effects of both factors on the NIRF Score, providing a comprehensive
understanding of the relationship between the variables. The chosen sample size
of 5 replications under each level of factor IHEI-​IIM is deemed adequate for a
conclusive study of this nature.
For ready reference, the adopted Research Design is summarized in Figure 6
and Table 3.

196
Table 3. Experimental Combinations of Factorial Design
IIM
PARAMETERS Year IIM C IIM A IIM B IIM L IIM I
Teaching, Learning & Resources (TLR) 2018 90.68 90.82 84.71 83.98 68.97
2019 90.14 90.74 92.85 85.37 83.11
2020 90.68 92.87 91.46 86.93 83.18
2021 87.33 91.41 91.53 84.54 81.54
2022 86.01 92.76 91.69 86.53 83.17
Research and Professional Practice (RP) 2018 53.26 53.89 51.19 39.15 33.51
2019 54.16 57.76 55.03 34.53 37.44
2020 56.79 63.06 57.43 48.58 43.42
2021 58.14 65.09 63.43 41.12 50.74
2022 54.88 63.22 60.89 46.89 47.99
Graduation Outcomes (GO) 2018 96.41 97.25 97.95 94.76 93.61
2019 96.07 98.10 98.35 93.01 93.21
2020 97.18 98.46 98.48 93.71 93.74
2021 98.10 99.43 98.99 94.84 93.98
2022 98.51 99.39 98.53 96.27 93.92
Outreach and Inclusivity (OI) 2018 66.63 63.26 69.65 60.51 59.30
2019 71.52 68.12 73.09 57.55 70.21
2020 71.85 66.78 69.45 71.35 67.49
2021 72.90 70.01 71.88 68.06 66.29
2022 72.08 68.13 71.34 74.03 68.36
Peer Perception (PR) 2018 79.46 99.87 100.00 67.01 48.94
2019 94.02 96.32 100.00 69.57 51.93
2020 95.26 95.99 100.00 73.17 55.67
2021 94.87 98.53 100.00 75.51 59.91
2022 94.74 98.62 100.00 78.67 56.88
Overall 2018 77.08 79.18 77.33 68.63 60.28
2019 79.05 80.61 81.34 67.29 67.01
2020 80.39 82.75 81.32 73.85 69.04
2021 80.04 83.69 83.48 71.02 71.10
2022 78.64 83.35 82.62 74.55 70.66

197
4. RESULTS

Five-​year NIRF scores analysis indicates that all IIMs are stable high perform-
ers across TLR and GO parameters while showing variation in RP, OI, and PR
scores. The phenomenon is particularly significant in the case of IIM Ahmedabad
and Bangalore, which consistently top all the parameters; however, IIM Indore
and Lucknow reflect relative poor performance in Research/Professional Practice
and Peer Perception. ANOVA results validate statistically significant variations
between institutions and also parameters—a result that suggests varying strengths
and weaknesses of the legacy IIMs.

4.1 Result of ANOVA: Two-​Factor with Replication

The result is summarised in Table 4. As can be seen from Table 3, the calculated
F values are much higher than the F Critical values and the P-​values are very low
(< 0.05). This implies that all three Null-​Hypotheses are rejected. Hence, there is
a significant difference in terms of NIRF Scores between different IIMs and also
between different NIRF Parameters. Further, there is a significant difference in
NIRF Scores because of the interaction between the factor ‘IIMs’ and ‘NIRF Pa-
rameters’ i.e. the interaction between IIM and the NIRF Parameter has a significant
effect on NIRF Scores. Thus, there are significant differences in the performance
scores of the oldest 5 IIMs across the 5 parameters of TLR, RP, GO, OI, and PR.
It appears different IIMs have evolved different strength areas (reflected through
NIRF Parameters) and have an improvement scope for a balanced approach across
all 5 parameter areas.

Table 4. ANOVA: Two-​Factor with Replication Result

SUMMARY IIM C IIM A IIM B IIM L IIM I Total
TLR
Count 5 5 5 5 5 25
Sum 444.84 458.60 452.24 427.35 399.97 2183.00
Average 88.97 91.72 90.45 85.47 79.99 87.32
Variance 4.67 1.07 10.61 1.59 38.47 27.93
RP
Count 5 5 5 5 5 25
Sum 277.23 303.02 287.97 210.27 213.10 1291.59
Average 55.45 60.60 57.59 42.05 42.62 51.66
continued on following page

198
Table 4. Continued
SUMMARY IIM C IIM A IIM B IIM L IIM I Total
Variance 3.95 21.54 23.13 32.97 51.31 85.39
GO
Count 5 5 5 5 5 25
Sum 486.27 492.63 492.30 472.59 468.46 2412.25
Average 97.25 98.53 98.46 94.52 93.69 96.49
Variance 1.10 0.84 0.14 1.54 0.09 4.86
OI
Count 5 5 5 5 5 25
Sum 354.98 336.30 355.41 331.50 331.65 1709.84
Average 71.00 67.26 71.08 66.30 66.33 68.39
Variance 6.22 6.32 2.36 49.61 17.49 18.65
PR
Count 5 5 5 5 5 25
Sum 458.35 489.33 500.00 363.93 273.33 2084.94
Average 91.67 97.87 100.00 72.79 54.67 83.40
Variance 46.79 2.73 0.00 21.47 18.42 325.64
Total
Count 25 25 25 25 25
Sum 2021.67 2079.88 2087.92 1805.64 1686.51
Average 80.87 83.20 83.52 72.23 67.46
Variance 259.32 273.59 291.38 354.97 359.96
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-​value F crit
Sample 31056.73 4 7764.18 532.61 1.86E-​66 2.46
Columns 5214.36 4 1303.59 89.42 3.75E-​32 2.46
Interaction 4426.96 16 276.68 18.98 1.88E-​23 1.75
Within 1457.77 100 14.58

Total 42155.82 124

As can be seen from Figure 7, while all the 5 IIMs appear to do comparatively
well in the Graduate Outcome and Teaching, Learning, and Resources front, areas
such as Research and Professional Practice and Outreach and Inclusivity leave much
room for improvement and extend an opportunity to firm up these areas towards
improvement. IIM I and IIM L seem to be lagging on the Peer Perception front

199
compared to the other three IIMs (IIM B, IIM A, and IIM C which have scored
well on the PR front).

4.2 Equity & Bias in NIRF Metrics

While the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) was designed to

bring clarity and responsibility to the ranking of Indian higher education institu-
tions, it now seems that the very qualities it was meant to embody—clarity and
responsibility—are in short supply in the NIRF's methodology. Instead of being a
straightforward means to deliver a message about which institutions are performing
well in what areas, the NIRF is now seen by many as a not-​very-​accountable means
of delivering a not-​very-​clear message.

4.2.1 Urban, Regional, and Legacy Bias

Multiple analyses (like Prathap, 2019) have shown that a very small number of
institutions concentrated in just a few geographies receive the best NIRF ranks. The
maps accompanying such analyses make it pretty clear: there are just a handful of
HEIs that get the NIRF's top marks, and almost all of them are in a select few states
and cities. For example, in Prathap’s analysis of the NIRF 2019, Tamil Nadu, Delhi,
and Kerala alone accounted for over 80% of the top institutions ranked by the NIRF.
Not even a full quarter of India's 28 states made it to this list.

4.2.2 Perception and Subjectivity

Including the “Perception” score, which is based on peer review, brings in a huge
amount of subjectivity. What we find emerging from both Prathap (2019) and Singh
& Rao (2024) is that perception scores tend to favor universities with the oldest
brands. These institutions have enjoyed decades during which their reputations as
academic leaders were built. The bulk of the evidence shows that such universities are
nothing special today; certainly, their perceived prestige has not translated into any
definite, measurable criteria of academic quality or enlightened practices in higher
education. But look at the hierarchies these perception-​driven rankings produce.

4.2.3 Research Metrics and Institutional Scale

Quantitative NIRF indicators, such as total research output, are usually not nor-
malized for size or staff. Aggregate metrics advantage large, well-​funded universities
with greater faculty numbers. In contrast, smaller, emerging institutions—many of
which serve semi-​urban or rural populations—are structurally disadvantaged. Using

200
“total publications” instead of “publications per faculty” does not control for scale
in research output and therefore compromises fairness. This also fails to recognize
a rising research culture at smaller or newer institutions.

4.2.4 Gender, Social, and Digital Inclusivity

Even with an “Outreach and Inclusivity” (OI) parameter, the current NIRF
framework measures the diversity and inclusion of institutions very poorly. It is not
just that the scoring is often based on very poor information (for instance, crude
headcounts). It is also that the framework does not instruct institutions to measure or
even think about the many dimensions of diversity that today's colleges and univer-
sities are supposed to care about. In fact, the framework ignores subtler, qualitative
aspects of campus climate that it would be good for the equity initiatives supposed
to exist in the institutions to have.
Kumar & Tiwari (2022) conducted recent research that found even the top 15
universities ranked by the NIRF are missing what should be fundamental accessibil-
ity features for persons with disabilities (e.g., access for screen readers, adjustable
fonts, and “accessibility statements”). Alarmingly, the NIRF's own website doesn't
even meet these criteria. And this is in the context of mandates like the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act (2016) and policy shifts under the NEP 2020 that are
supposed to increase equity for people with disabilities. This situation sends a signal
that the NIRF has some serious work to do in terms of not just digital accessibility
but also in rethinking what equity is for all the universities it ranks.

4.2.5 Transparency, Data Integrity, and Methodological Gaps

Singh and Rao (2024) highlight other issues of concern: unexplained and frequent
fluctuations in ranks, opacity in weighting and data validation, and the absence of
teaching quality or pedagogical innovation from the core metrics. These factors
illumine the possibility of gaming by institutions with resources or on-​the-​ground
strategies that make them appear smarter than institutions that are just trying to do
what institutions are supposed to do. They also shine a light on the potential for
discontent among smaller, less visible HEIs and their stakeholders.

4.2.6 Toward an Evolved, Inclusive NIRF

These findings collectively highlight the necessity for NIRF to:

a. Standardize numerical measurements to account for differences in scale and

geography.

201
b. Transition from a perception score that is based on a few subjective, legacy-​
driven sources to one that aggregates the perspectives of many stakeholders
(students, employers, community partners) with a vested interest in our work.
c. Advance beyond outreach with appearance as if this were a real thing, and
populate hoped-​for recruitment demographics, toward intelligent sufficiency
ensuring real inclusion of all kinds of diversities—diversities of gender, of
caste, of physical and mental disability, of economic background, and of digital
accessibility.
d. Under Indian law, these are rights that must be considered when evaluating the
accessibility of a digital service:
i. Digital Accessibility: This is mostly covered under the Information
Technology Act (IT Act), 2000. It is critical to ensure that the 'web contents'
available through Indian domains (i.e., all websites in .in and .भारत domains,
as well as any other domains technically hosted in India) are accessible to
persons with disabilities (PwD).
ii. Linguistic Accessibility: India is a multilingual country. The Constitution
of India recognizes 22 languages under the Eighth Schedule. Nevertheless,
English and Hindi are the most commonly understood languages. Hence,
all public/institutional digital content that is made available in any one of
the five South Indian languages (Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, and
Urdu) must be also made accessible in English and/or Hindi.
iii. Physical Accessibility: The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD
Act), 2016, requires not just access to digital content but also access to all
buildings and public places (including those on digital platforms).

Raise the transparency of the method by which the NIRF reaches its conclusions.
Integrate some appropriate international benchmarks into the process. Publish regular
equity audits of the NIRF process itself to make the whole thing more transparent.
Without that reform, the NIRF is at risk of preserving and magnifying ancient
unfairnesses while obscuring the accomplishments and requirements of the changed
institutions—the rural, new, diverse, and differently abled—that are essential to make
it possible for India to reach the national educational and societal goals.

5. DISCUSSION

This study aimed to analyze the performance scores for the National Institutional
Ranking Framework (NIRF) of the five oldest Indian Institutes of Management
(IIMs)—IIM Ahmedabad, IIM Bangalore, IIM Calcutta, IIM Lucknow, and IIM
Indore—across five NIRF parameters from 2018 to 2022. It was found that there were

202
statistically significant differences not only across the institutions but also across the
parameters themselves, which shows that each IIM seems to have developed some
distinct “strengths” and “gaps”.
IIM Ahmedabad and IIM Bangalore perpetually rank highest in Teaching, Learning
& Resources (TLR), Graduation Outcomes (GO), as well as Peer Perception (PR).
However, when it comes to measuring Research and Professional Practice (RP)
along with Outreach and Inclusivity (OI), critical discrepancies emerge, especially
for IIM Indore and IIM Lucknow. These imbalances point to the necessity for an
evaluation framework that not only drives performance but also ensures a more
balanced, inclusive, and innovative approach.
The results reveal the historical endowments of resources and heritage reputations
(PR scores) to continue driving NIRF rankings. However, the trends in OI score
growth do imply incremental development in outreach and inclusion, like national
policy agendas. Qualitative supplements such as evidence of advanced ICT adoption
within library and pedagogy reveal the insight that digital innovation is increasingly
at the heart of competitiveness for institutions, even though continuities in digital
inequity to underrepresented groups remain as described by Kumar & Tiwari, 2022.

5.1 Relevance to SDG 4 and the Digital Innovation Agenda

India's commitment to Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) — “ensure

inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities
for all” — is not yet fully visible in the NIRF's methodology. This analysis points
out a significant disconnect between the ranking parameters of the NIRF and the
sub-​goals of SDG 4, which include:

a. Accessible and affordable, high-​quality education after the secondary level,

including technical, vocational, and higher education.
b. Construct and improve educational facilities that are responsive to the needs of
children of all genders and abilities, and that provide safe, secure, and effective
spaces for learning.
c. Significantly augment the number of competent teachers available to serve in
classrooms through the use of educational technology.

Some of these concerns are nominally captured through the parameter called
“Outreach and Inclusivity” (OI). However, the scoring system used to measure OI
is not very effective. Even if you think that the scoring system could improve and
should improve, it is hard to make a case for it when digital accessibility and inclu-
sive technology are not even scored at this level of the framework.

203
5.2 Measuring Language Education and Digital Pedagogy
in NIRF: Current Limitations and Recommendations

A glaring limitation of the current NIRF framework is its lack of direct indi-
cators for vital domains like language education. This is especially important for
a multilingual country like India. And digital pedagogy, which is now central to
educational performance, is completely ignored.
Language education—covering both regional language inclusion and support
for English as a second language—has equity, employability, and accessibility as
its central planks. Yet NIRF almost completely ignores it in its metrics.
Digital pedagogy, indirectly addressed in the Standards, is largely folded into
the components of “Teaching, Learning & Resources,” without separate indicators,
or even benchmarks, to assess how well (or if) educators are using these emerging
methods. Certainly its use is not shown to have any direct impact on the overall
quality of the Standards components.

5.3 SWOT Analysis

SWOT analysis is a technique used to analyze the strengths, weaknesses, op-

portunities, and threats of a company or organization. The same technique can be
applied to the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) to compare their relative
strengths and weaknesses. The figure gives a comparison of IIM Ahmedabad, IIM
Bangalore, IIM Calcutta, IIM Indore, and IIM Lucknow through SWOT analysis.
Figures 8, 9, 10,11, and 12 exhibit the SWOT Analysis for the five IIMs consid-
ered in the study – IIM C, A, B, L, and I respectively.
In conclusion, all five IIMs are considered to be among the best business schools
in India, with their unique strengths and weaknesses.

5.3.1 Porters Five Forces Model Analysis

Figure 13 shows Porter’s five forces model. It is observed that the while the
Threat of New Market Entrants, Bargaining Power of Suppliers, and Bargaining
Power of Buyers is low for all the five IIMs considered in the study, the Threat of
Substitutes is found to be medium and the Competitive Rivalry high.

5.3.2 Resource-​Based View

The Resource-​Based View (RBV) of the five Indian Institutes of Management

(IIMs) can be compared in terms of the resources available to them. IIM Ahmed-
abad is known for its large alumni network and extensive research and publications,

204
while IIM Bangalore has a strong reputation for its faculty and research activities.
IIM Calcutta is renowned for its world-​class facilities and its focus on international
students. IIM Indore has a strong focus on research and innovation, and a strong
student culture. Finally, IIM Lucknow offers a wide range of courses and is well-​
known for its industry-​academia collaborations. All five IIMs are well-​regarded in
terms of the resources they bring to the table, and as such they can be compared in
terms of the RBV.

5.3.3 Industry Life Cycle

IIM Ahmedabad has a strong focus on research and analytics, allowing students to
build strong industry relationships with both domestic and international businesses.
It has an established alumni network in the industry, giving students access to an
extensive knowledge base and contacts.
IIM Bangalore has a robust placement program and a strong alumni network
that provides excellent support for students in their career progression. It has a wide
range of programs to suit different industry needs and offers students the opportunity
to explore various industries.
IIM Calcutta is highly respected in the industry and is known for its rigorous
curriculum and research-​oriented approach. It is one of the oldest IIMs, and its
alumni are well-​placed in different industries.
IIM Indore is one of the premier IIMs and has a strong focus on industry-​tailored
courses. It boasts a strong alumni network and its students have gone on to become
successful professionals in the industry.
IIM Lucknow is one of the newest IIMs and has the advantage of being able to
provide students with a more contemporary approach to industry learning. It has
some of the best faculty and resources, and its graduates have been well-​placed in
different sectors.

5.3.4 Value Chain Analysis

Value chain analysis is a technique used to analyze the various activities that a
company performs to create and deliver value to its customers. The same technique
can be applied to business schools, such as the Indian Institutes of Management
(IIMs), to compare their relative strengths and weaknesses. Listed below is a com-
parison of IIM Ahmedabad, IIM Bangalore, IIM Calcutta, IIM Indore, and IIM
Lucknow through value chain analysis:
Primary Activities:

205
 Inbound Logistics: All five IIMs have strong inbound logistics in terms of
providing high-​quality infrastructure and facilities for students, including li-
braries, computer labs, and hostels. However, IIM Ahmedabad is considered
to have a slight edge in terms of the quality of its infrastructure and facilities.
Operations: In terms of operations, all five IIMs have strong faculties with a
mix of experienced academic and industry professionals. However, IIM Ahmed-
abad is considered to have a more rigorous academic curriculum, while IIM
Bangalore is known for its emphasis on practical, industry-​oriented education.
Outbound Logistics: All five IIMs have strong networks with top companies,
which helps them place their students in well-​paying jobs after graduation.
However, IIM Ahmedabad and IIM Calcutta are considered to have the stron-
gest alumni networks, which can provide valuable career opportunities and
support to their students.

Support Activities:

Procurement: All five IIMs have strong relationships with leading companies
and organizations, which allows them to procure high-​quality resources and
facilities for their students.
Technology Development: All five IIMs invest heavily in technology to
enhance the learning experience for their students. IIM Bangalore is consid-
ered to have a slight edge in this area, with a strong emphasis on cutting-​edge
technology and innovation.
Marketing and Sales: All five IIMs have strong brand recognition and rep-
utation, which helps them attract top students from around the country. IIM
Ahmedabad is considered to have the strongest brand, while IIM Lucknow is
known for its strong outreach to students from non-​metro cities.
Human Resource Management: All five IIMs have strong human resource
management practices, with a focus on attracting, retaining, and developing
top talent.

IIM Bangalore also has a strong emphasis on value chain analysis, with its
flagship course, the Post Graduate Program in Management (MBA). It also has
specialized courses in value chain analysis such as the Value Chain and Business
Model Design course, and the Advanced Business Analytics course. The institute
also has a dedicated Value Chain Research Centre that promotes research and de-
velopment in the field.
IIM Calcutta offers a two-​year Post Graduate Program in Management (MBA)
with a strong focus on value chain analysis. The institute also offers courses in supply

206
chain management and operations management. It also has a dedicated Value Chain
Management Club that promotes research and development in the field.
IIM Indore offers several specialized courses in value chain analysis such as
the Value Chain and Business Model Design course, and the Advanced Business
Analytics course. It also has a dedicated Value Chain Centre that promotes research
and development in the field.
Overall, each of the IIMs performs differently in terms of value chain analysis.
Each of the IIMs also has its unique specialization. Generally speaking, IIM Ahmed-
abad is considered to be the best in the field, followed closely by IIM Bangalore and
IIM Calcutta. IIM Indore and IIM Lucknow are also highly rated but may not offer
the same level of expertise in value chain analysis as the top three.
In conclusion, all five IIMs are considered to be among the best business schools
in India, with their unique strengths and characteristics. IIM Ahmedabad is considered
to be one of the top business schools in India and abroad. It has a strong emphasis on
value chain analysis, including its flagship course, the PGP in Management (MBA).
The institute offers specialized courses in value chain analysis such as the Value
Chain and Business Model Design course. It also has strong research programs in
areas such as supply chain management, pricing, competitive strategy, and business
process re-​engineering.

5.4 IIM-​Specific Recommendations

From the performance trends and qualitative insights gained, we propose the
following institution-​specific recommendations:

a. IIM Ahmedabad: Use its stellar performance and research backbone to record
and write up best practices in digital pedagogy and multilingual education, and
serve as a model for other institutions to follow.
b. IIM Bangalore: Broaden its ICT skills and capacities and set up a waist-​high
center for digital equity and inclusive education. This is going to be similar
to—actually, it's going to grow out of—a service we're already providing called
Pedagogy for the Digital Age. And the focus of this center, which we're in the
process of setting up right now, will be on serving three populations that are
underrepresented not only in higher education but also in the workforce: women,
people with disabilities, and people who have linguistic challenges.
c. IIM Calcutta: Establish reporting systems for inclusive educational practices
and accessibility assessments, with a special focus on digital platforms and
resources. Prioritize investments in ICT infrastructure to develop and maintain
remote learning and language support tools for underrepresented regions.

207
d. Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow: Develop and put into action mul-
tilingual, ICT-​based community engagement programs to increase regional
inclusion and digital readiness of students from diverse backgrounds.

5.5 Recommendations for Policymakers and NIRF Authorities

We suggest the following reforms to make NIRF more closely aligned with
India's NEP 2020 and SDG 4:.

a. In future versions of the NIRF framework, clearly state that they are incorpo-
rating digital education, digital access, and language education.
b. Create sub-​parameters for “Teaching, Learning, and Resources” that are spe-
cific to the online/blended course delivery context. These should reflect, at a
minimum, the following elements:
i.) LMS Usage
ii.) Faculty Digital Readiness
iii.) Student Access to Devices/Internet

Data on the inclusivity of digital infrastructure is critical. This means not just
constructing the digital world but also ensuring that it is useful to everyone. For
instance, screen readers have to read in a certain way for the user to understand as
fully as one with perfect vision would. This means that some accessibility ratings
are better than others because they are more attuned to the way humans cognate.
Multilingual support is another way of including people in the digital space. If your
language is not among the handful that most tech companies use, you are, to all
intents and purposes, left out of the conversation.
Motivate organizations to perform digital and language accessibility assessments,
and include the outcomes in their yearly NIRF filings.
Publish equity dashboards linked to NIRF, with disaggregated data on gender,
caste, disability, and use of language in pedagogy and research.
At least one NIRF parameter must directly align with the SDG 4 indicators that
are proposed under India's Voluntary National Review framework.

5.6 Implications for Management Education

This research offers a timely and relevant critique of how national rankings
influence what institutions do. The current NIRF framework, while useful, needs
significant and serious methodological improvement to tap into the sorts of intangible,
equity-​oriented, and ICT-​advantaged dimensions needed to assess institutions—and
particularly the quality of their educational offerings—today. If this is not done, then

208
it is certainly possible that the NIRF will reinforce old advantages while failing to
recognize innovative institutions that are emerging and that are increasingly using
digital technologies in all sorts of interesting and powerful ways.
As leading public institutions, the IIMs can take the helm and steer ICT-​based
and linguistically inclusive pedagogy toward the open sea of mainstream education.
They can document their efforts in this regard with the kind of transparency that
breeds trust and informs both national and global rankings.

6. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The major limitations of the study are listed below:

• The study was limited to the oldest 5 Indian Institutes of Management and
NIRF framework during the period 2018-​2022.
• The study relied on the NIRF rankings data, which may have some biases and
limitations in the methodology.
• The study was based on quantitative research, which may not capture the full
picture and nuances of the subject.
• The sample size was small and may not be representative of the entire
population.

7. FUTURE SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The future scope of the study is listed below:

• The study could be expanded to include more institutions and a larger sample
size to increase the representativeness of the results.
• The study could be replicated using different ranking systems and methodol-
ogies to validate the results.
• The study could be extended to include qualitative research methods to com-
plement the quantitative results and provide a more in-​depth understanding
of the subject.
• The study could also explore other factors that may impact the NIRF scores,
such as governance, funding, and academic quality.
• Further research could also be conducted to compare the results of this study
with similar studies conducted in other countries.

209
 Only the five main parameters of Teaching, Learning, and Resources (TLR),
Research and Professional Practices (RP), Graduation Outcomes (GO), Outreach
and Inclusivity (OI), and Perception (PR) have been considered in the current study.
The sub-​parameters under each of the 5 main parameters as outlined in Table 1 may
be considered in future studies.
Five years (2018-​2022) of data have been considered in the current study. Fu-
ture studies may expand the time scope beyond 5 years as more NIRF scores get
released over the years.
Further, correlation among different parameters and factor analysis may be
considered in future studies.
Comparing and contrasting NIRF performance, coupled with striking a balance
among the parameters /indicators considered in other globally recognized rankings
such as the Times Higher Education (THE) and Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) is
another area of research. It shall also be interesting from a research perspective to
assess whether the desired outcome is being correctly measured using a correct
valid reliable Scale and by correct engagement to measure performance: various
stakeholders' perceptions, attitudes, and behavior may be studied in the future.
The impact of online teaching that gained much prominence during the Covid
Corona-​19 period, MOOCs, quality and access in terms of the digital divide, invi-
tation to foreign universities, and autonomy of teachers amidst the new National
Education Policy (NEP-​2020) are some of the areas that need further studies.
In NIRF, the weight and sum method is used to calculate the total scores of indica-
tors in the NIRF scores, which are then rated by the institutes. This method assumes
that each indicator contributes independently to the NIRF score in the prescribed
proportions, however, this assumption is dubious because most indicators have a
strong tendency to correlate with one another (Yadav et al., 2022). This points to
a multi-​collinearity issue that renders some indicators redundant and renders other
indications non-​contributing because they have a very small impact on the NIRF
score. Further, few studies have presented fuzzy rule-​based inference systems to
establish the precise value of the criteria perception since it is a qualitative criterion
and cannot be modeled by classical mathematics (Srinivasan et al., 2020).
To summarize, the present study aimed to investigate the significant difference in
NIRF scores of 5 NIRF parameters and the 5 oldest Indian Institutes of Management
(IIMs) based on NIRF Rankings 2022. The study utilized a quantitative approach
and factorial design with a judgment sample of 5 oldest IIMs (IIM C, IIM A, IIM
B, IIM L, and IIM I) from the top 100 Management Education Institutions of India.
The results showed that there was a significant difference in NIRF scores between
the 5 NIRF parameters and the 5 oldest IIMs, with the TLR parameter having the
highest average NIRF score and the GO parameter having the lowest. Among the 5
oldest IIMs, IIM Bangalore had the highest average NIRF score while IIM Lucknow

210
had the lowest. The results can be used to improve the quality of teaching, learning,
and resources and optimize resource utilization in terms of NIRF parameters and IIMs.
In terms of SWOT analysis, all five IIMs have their unique strengths and weak-
nesses. IIM Ahmedabad has a large alumni network and extensive research and
publications, IIM Bangalore has a strong reputation for its faculty and research
activities, IIM Calcutta is renowned for its world-​class facilities and focus on inter-
national students, IIM Indore has a strong focus on research and innovation, and IIM
Lucknow offers a well-​rounded education experience. The Resource-​Based View
(RBV) comparison of the five IIMs showed differences in their available resources.
In conclusion, the results of the study provide valuable insights into the NIRF
scores and strengths and weaknesses of the 5 oldest IIMs in India and can be used
to improve the quality of management education in India.
Based on the above discussion, the potential areas of improvement and rec-
ommendations are such: As more data over the next years becomes available,
the study could consider more recent NIRF Rankings (beyond 2022) to provide a
more updated picture of the NIRF scores of the IIMs. The sample size of 5 IIMs
could be expanded to include more IIMs and further other management education
institutions to provide a more comprehensive analysis. Future studies could have
considered other factors affecting NIRF scores, such as funding, infrastructure, and
student demographics, to provide a more in-​depth analysis. Future studies could
also include more subjective data, such as student and faculty surveys, to provide a
more well-​rounded analysis. Further, future studies could include a comparison of
the IIMs with other management education institutions in India and internationally,
to provide a more comprehensive analysis of their competitive position.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of the study, the following are some areas of improvement
that can be suggested for each of the five Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs):
IIM A: Though IIM A had consistent performance in terms of NIRF scores across
all parameters, it can still focus on improving its scores in Outreach and Inclusivity
(OI). It can work on enhancing its outreach efforts and promoting inclusivity in its
programs and culture.
IIM B: IIM B performed consistently well in NIRF scores across all parameters,
but it can still focus on improving its scores in Outreach and Inclusivity (OI). It can
strive to increase diversity in its student population and promote equal opportunities
for all.
IIM C: Though IIM C had fluctuations in its NIRF scores over the years, it per-
formed well in Teaching, Learning, and Resources (TLR) and Graduation Outcomes

211
(GO). It can focus on improving its scores in Research and Professional Practice (RP)
and Outreach and Inclusivity (OI) by enhancing its research efforts and promoting
diversity and inclusivity in its programs and culture.
IIM L: IIM L had lower scores in all parameters compared to the other IIMs
but showed improvement in RP and GO over the years. It can continue to work on
improving its scores in TLR, OI, and PR by enhancing its teaching and learning
resources, promoting diversity and inclusivity, and increasing its visibility and
reputation among peers.
IIM I: IIM I had relatively lower scores in all parameters but showed improve-
ment in TLR, RP, and GO over the years. It can focus on improving its scores in
OI and PR by promoting diversity and inclusivity in its programs and culture and
increasing its visibility and reputation among peers.
Additionally, all five IIMs can focus on improving their infrastructure and fa-
cilities to provide better learning experiences for students and work on increasing
their collaborations with industry and other institutions to enhance the practical
relevance of their programs.

9. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the study of the five Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) re-
veals a rich and diverse landscape of management education in India. Each of the
five IIMs has made a significant contribution to the field of management education
and has left an indelible mark in the history of management education in India. The
Indian higher education system has been impacted by colonial practices and has
resulted in being isolated in the global higher education ranking system. Despite the
introduction of the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) in response
to the issue of policy neglect, only the top 100 universities are permitted to enter
the Indian market according to the National Education Policy 2020. The 5 oldest
Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) have performed well in certain aspects but
have room for improvement in areas like research, professional practice, outreach,
and inclusivity. Furthermore, the ranking and accreditation systems are heavily
influenced by public opinion, with private universities performing well in research
but still having a long way to go to match the performance levels of established
nationally-​funded institutions. The ongoing emphasis on rankings and accreditations
may impact institutions' and teachers' autonomy and the ongoing involvement in
elaborate documentation may take priority over teaching. The lack of social diver-
sity in the faculty body of IIMs is also a major concern that needs to be addressed.
The study found that each of the five IIMs has a unique set of strengths, weaknesses,
and challenges. For instance, IIM Ahmedabad is known for its rigorous academic

212
curriculum, while IIM Bangalore is recognized for its cutting-​edge research and
innovation. Similarly, IIM Calcutta is renowned for its strong tradition of academ-
ic excellence, while IIM Lucknow is praised for its strong industry connections.
Finally, IIM Indore is known for its innovative pedagogy and its focus on building
the leadership capabilities of its students.
Despite these unique strengths, there are certain areas that each of the five IIMs
can improve upon. For instance, while each of the five IIMs is a leader in its own
right, there is room for improvement when it comes to creating a more inclusive and
diverse learning environment. This includes making the institutes more accessible
to a wider range of students and taking steps to ensure that all students, regardless
of their backgrounds, feel valued and supported.
Moreover, there is also a need for the five IIMs to continue to evolve and adapt
to the changing needs of the business world. This includes incorporating new tech-
nologies, methodologies, and best practices into the curriculum, and ensuring that
students are equipped with the skills and knowledge needed to thrive in an ever-​
changing global economy.
The study has some limitations, including the small sample size and the limited
scope of the NIRF framework. Despite these limitations, the study provides valuable
insights and contributes to the understanding of the NIRF Scores and their impact
on management education in India. Further research can expand on these findings,
including increasing the sample size, exploring the role of other factors affecting
NIRF Scores, and examining the effects of NIRF Scores on other outcomes, such
as student satisfaction and employability.
In conclusion, the five IIMs in India have a rich and storied history and have
made a significant impact on the field of management education. They are leaders
in their own right and continue to set the standard for management education in
India. However, there is always room for improvement, and the five IIMs should
continue to strive towards excellence and evolve and adapt to the changing needs
of the business world. Further, the study aimed to evaluate the difference in NIRF
Scores between 5 NIRF Parameters, between the oldest 5 IIMs, and between differ-
ent combinations of NIRF Parameters and IIM. The results of the study can inform
stakeholders in higher education, such as policymakers, administrators, and faculty,
on the strengths and weaknesses of different aspects of management education in
India. By highlighting these differences, the study provides important insights for
improving management education and contributing to the development of the higher
education sector in India.

213
REFERENCES

Altbach, P. G. (2014). India’s higher education challenges. Asia Pacific Education

Review, 15(4), 503–510. DOI: 10.1007/s12564-​014-​9335-​8
Anbalagan, M., & Balasubramani, J. (2021). An analysis of NIRF ranked Indian
Institute of Technology (IITs) profiles: With special reference to Indian Research
Information Network System (IRINS). Library Philosophy and Practice, Article 6042.
Anbalagan, M., & Tamizhchelvan, M. T. (2021). Ranking of Indian institutions in
global and Indian ranking system: A comparative study. Library Philosophy and
Practice, Article 5069.
Banshal, S. K., Singh, V. K., & Mayr, P. (2019). Comparing research performance
of private universities in India with IITs, central universities, and NITs. Current
Science, 116(8), 1308–1314. DOI: 10.18520/cs/v116/i8/1304-​1313
Çakır, M. P., Acartürk, C., Alaşehir, O., & Alkan, O. (2015). A comparative analysis
of global and national university ranking systems. Scientometrics, 103(3), 813–848.
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-​015-​1586-​6
Chakraborty, K., Upadhyay, N., & Upadhyay, S. R. (2021). Explored publication
pattern of the top twenty NIRF-​2020 ranked Indian institutions: An evaluative study.
Library Philosophy and Practice, Article 5230.
Chattopadhyay, S. (2020). National Education Policy, 2020. Economic and Political
Weekly, 55(46), 23–25.
Chugh, K. L., Alekhya, N., & Prabhu Kishore, N. (2017). Quality research pub-
lications – A key differentiator in India rankings 2017. International Journal of
Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 8(6), 117–124.
Chugh, K. L., Alekhya, N., Prabhu Kishore, N., & Shekar, K. (2018). Analysis of
national institutional ranking framework: Journey so far. In Proceedings of the 6th
IEEE International Conference on MOOCs, Innovation and Technology in Education
(MITE 2018) (pp. 115–119). IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/MITE.2018.8747105
Dadhe, P. P., & Dubey, M. N. (2021). Ranking and research trend: A comparative
study of research output of top ten NIRF ranked engineering institutions of India
based on scientometric indicators. Library Philosophy and Practice, Article 5314.

214
Dam, M., Majumder, D., Bhattacharjee, R., & Santra, S. S. (2021). Performance
measurement model for ranking of educational institutes: A fuzzy reasoning approach.
Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1797(1), 012012. DOI: 10.1088/1742-​
6596/1797/1/012012
Dar, T. H., Jeelani, S. G. M., Mir, H. A., & Ganaie, S. A. (2017). Use of ICT in
IIT and IIM libraries of India. International Journal of Library and Information
Science, 6(1), 1–18. https://w
​ ww.​ iaeme.​ com/​IJLIS/​issues​.asp​?JType​=I​ JLIS​&V
​ Type​
=​6​&​IType​=​1
Deka, P., & Sarmah, M. (2021). Impact of NIRF ranking on research publications:
A study with special reference to North-​East Indian universities. Library Philosophy
and Practice, Article 5233.
Gangopadhyay, S. (2020). Changes in web content in first 20 NIRF ranking insti-
tutes during 2010–19: An analysis. Library Philosophy and Practice, Article 4414.
Gangopadhyay, S., & Mukherjee, B. (2021). Research productivity of first ten NIRF
ranking academic institutes in India during 2015–19: A scientometric analysis.
Library Philosophy and Practice, Article 5261.
Gnanasekaran, D., & Rajkumar, T. (2022). Research productivity and altmetrics of
NIRF top ranked medical institutions. Annals of Library and Information Studies,
69(2), 120–128.
Joshi, S., & Malgan, D. (2017). Missing scholars: Social exclusion at the Indian
Institutes of Management. IIM Bangalore Research Paper, (554).
Kumar, A., & Tiwari, P. K. (2022). Digital accessibility for persons with disabilities:
A mixed method study of websites of 15-​top ranked universities of India. Academia:
Social Sciences, 29, 68–82.
Malish, C. M. (2020). Measuring access to higher education. Economic and Political
Weekly, 55(40), 55–61.
Marisha. (2021). Analysing the stability of India rankings. Current Science, 120(7),
1144–1151.
Mukhopadhyay, M., & Parhar, M. (2014). ICT in Indian higher education adminis-
tration and management. In R. Huang, Kinshuk, & J. Price (Eds.), ICT in education
in global context (pp. 191–208). Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-​3-​662-​43927-​2_15
Mukhopadhyay, P., Tapaswi, M. P., Sudarsan, P. K., & Sudarsan, K. (2018). Assess-
ing the quality of higher education institutions in India. Current Science, 114(6),
1167–1173. DOI: 10.18520/cs/v114/i06/1167-​1173

215
Nassa, A. K., Arora, J., Singh, P., Joorel, J. P., Solanki, H., Kumar, A., & Trivedi,
K. (2021). Five years of India rankings and its impact on performance parameters of
engineering educational institutions in India. Pt. 1: Teaching, learning and resources,
graduate outcome, outreach and inclusivity and perception. DESIDOC Journal of
Library and Information Technology, 41(1), 17–26. DOI: 10.14429/djlit.41.1.16675
Parameswaran, A. N., Hebbale, A. M., Vidya, S. M., & Pakkala, T. P. M. (2020).
Impact of research performance and perception on ranking of universities: A study
based on NIRF 2019. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 34(1),
85–92. DOI: 10.16920/jeet/2020/v34i1/150463
Patel, I. G., Paul, S., Khandwalla, P. N., Bose, A., Murthy, K. R. S., Vittal, N.,
Krishnan, R. T., Jain, A. K., & Gupta, A. K. (2004). Social context of management
education: Institution building experiences at IIMs. Vikalpa, 29(2), 85–110. DOI:
10.1177/0256090920040208
Pathak, P., & Pal, D. A. E-​resource utilization in IIMs libraries: Insights from fac-
ulties and students’ surveys.
Pavel, A. P. (2015). Global university rankings: A comparative analysis. Procedia
Economics and Finance, 26, 54–63. DOI: 10.1016/S2212-​5671(15)00838-​2
Peters, M. A. (2017). Global university rankings: Metrics, performance,
governance. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(1), 5–13. DOI:
10.1080/00131857.2017.1381472
Pradhan, P., Trivedi, K., & Singh, P. (2021). Five years of India rankings (2016–2020):
An evolutionary study. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology,
41(1), 42–48. DOI: 10.14429/djlit.41.1.16671
Prathap, G. (2019). Construct validity maps and the NIRF 2019 ranking of colleges.
Current Science, 117(6), 1079–1083. DOI: 10.18520/cs/v117/i6/1079-​1083
Sheeja, N. K., Mathew, S., & Cherukodan, S. (2018). Impact of scholarly output
on university ranking. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 67(8/9),
595–611.
Shivaram, B. S., Uma, M., & Sahu, S. R. (2022). A study of research publications
of top NIRF ranked engineering institutions in Karnataka. Annals of Library and
Information Studies, 69(1), 44–50.
Singh, A., & Rao, V. R. (2024). Unpacking inconsistencies in the NIRF rankings.
Current Science, 126(11), 1473–1479. DOI: 10.18520/cs/v126/i11/1321-​1324

216
Singh, S., & Singh, A. (2021). Importance of perception as a parameter in univer-
sity rankings: A critical evaluation. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management,
14(11), 25–40. DOI: 10.17010/pijom/2021/v14i11/166979
Srimathi, H., & Krishnamoorthy, A. (2020). Review on NIRF. Journal of Critical
Reviews, 7(4), 259–262.
Srinivasan, R., Jain, V., & Dharmaraja, S. (2020). Perception based performance
analysis of higher education institutions: A soft computing approach. Soft Comput-
ing, 24(1), 513–521. DOI: 10.1007/s00500-​019-​03931-​6
Vasudevan, N. (2020). Development of a common framework for outcome-​based
accreditation and rankings. Procedia Computer Science, 172, 270–276. DOI:
10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.043

217
APPENDIX

Figure 1. Literature review process

Figure 2. Year-​wise number of documents published during 2017-​05 August 2022

218
Figure 3. Country-​wise number of documents published during 2017-​05 August 2022

Figure 4. Document type-​wise number of documents published during 2017-​05

August 2022

219
Figure 5. Subject area-​wise number of documents published during 2017-​05 August
2022

Figure 6. Research Design

220
Figure 7. IIM, C, A, B, L, I, NIRF Scores 2028-​22

Figure 8. SWOT Analysis of IIM C

221
Figure 9. SWOT Analysis of IIM A

Figure 10. SWOT Analysis of IIM B

222
Figure 11. SWOT Analysis of IIM L

Figure 12. SWOT Analysis of IIM I

223
Figure 13. Porter’s Five Forces of Competitive Position

224