From Scale To Global Quality: Transforming Indian Management Education For The AI Era - Prof. T. G. Sitharam

Indian management education has evolved from an elite and relatively small system centred on a limited number of institutions into a large and diverse ecosystem comprising IIMs, university departments, autonomous PGDM institutions, private universities, affiliated colleges and technology-orientated institutions. As the system enters its next phase, the central challenge is no longer expansion alone but the pursuit of quality, innovation, employability and global competitiveness. The coming decade therefore requires a stronger emphasis on outcome-based, industry-relevant and future-ready education, supported by research, experiential learning and the ability to manage organisations in an AI-enabled economy. Undergraduate management education, executive programmes and doctoral education must together form the three essential pillars of India’s management education architecture for the AI era.

The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Approval Process Handbook 2024–27 brought undergraduate management programmes such as BBA/BMS and undergraduate computer-application programmes such as BCA within its approval framework alongside MBA, PGDM and MCA. AICTE has also supported model curricula that emphasise stakeholder consultation, learning outcomes, experiential learning, flexibility, Indian business contexts and emerging areas such as artificial intelligence, analytics, digital transformation and sustainability. The MBA/PGDM in Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Venture Development (IEV) represents another significant development by linking classroom learning with pre-incubation, incubation, funding and venture creation.

This paper examines the evolution, current landscape and future direction of Indian management education; analyses the role of AICTE; considers curricular and pedagogical transformation; examines changing demand for management professionals; and evaluates the implications of artificial intelligence for management education. It proposes a three-layer architecture comprising strong foundational education at the BBA/BMS level, differentiated professional and research-orientated education at the MBA/PGDM and PhD levels, and lifelong executive learning connected with industry. BCA and MCA numbers have been given only for comparison. At the undergraduate level, BBA/BMS programmes should provide a broad foundation in management, economics, accounting, quantitative reasoning, communication, technology, AI and entrepreneurship, while emphasising experiential learning, internships, live projects and multidisciplinary problem solving. Executive education, in parallel, must become a major instrument of lifelong learning, enabling working professionals, managers, entrepreneurs and public-sector leaders to continuously reskill in areas such as generative AI, data-driven decision-making, digital transformation, AI governance, cybersecurity, sustainability, innovation and strategic leadership. Executive programmes should be modular, flexible, industry-linked and increasingly delivered through blended and work-integrated formats, with learning tied to real organisational challenges. At the doctoral level, the emphasis must shift decisively towards research, knowledge creation and solving India-specific management problems. Ph.D. programmes should move beyond conventional academic research to interdisciplinary, industry-connected and mission-orientated research in areas such as AI and the future of work, Indian MSMEs, family businesses, manufacturing productivity, digital public infrastructure, entrepreneurship, healthcare, climate transition, rural and social enterprises, technology management and public policy.

The paper recommends an outcomes-based national reference framework, common quality indicators, stronger faculty development, AI and data fluency across programmes, venture-building opportunities linked to incubators and mentors, high-quality internships and live projects, research–industry collaboration, transparent graduate outcomes, and sustained dialogue among AICTE, UGC, IIMs, PGDM institutions, universities, employers and students. The objective should not be uniformity but assured quality combined with institutional autonomy, enabling India to develop globally competent managers, entrepreneurs, technology leaders and responsible professionals capable of contributing meaningfully to Viksit Bharat 2047.

Introduction

Management education is one of the principal institutional mechanisms through which an economy converts knowledge, technology and capital into organised action. In India, its role has expanded considerably—from preparing a relatively small pool of corporate managers to developing talent for manufacturing, services, digital platforms, start-ups, government, social enterprises, family businesses, global capability centres and the public sector. Undergraduate management education, executive programmes and doctoral education must together form the three essential pillars of India’s management education architecture for the AI era.

The scale of higher education has also changed significantly. AISHE 2023–24 estimates total higher-education enrolment at about 4.50 crore, with 46,468 responding colleges and 15,221 registered stand-alone institutions. PGDM institutions constitute one of the identified categories of stand-alone institutions. The same survey reports 7.86 lakh students in BBA and 8.65 lakh in BCA in its five-year time series, while 9.62 lakh are enrolled in MBA and 2.50 lakh in MCA across all modes in the programme-wise tables. These figures illustrate that management and management-related education have moved well beyond their earlier niche status and have become an important component of India's human-capital infrastructure.

Scale, however, does not automatically translate into quality. Employers increasingly seek analytical thinking, strategic problem-solving, technology literacy, AI capability, leadership, adaptability and the ability to work across disciplines. The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 estimates that 39% of existing skill sets may be transformed or become outdated by 2030 and identifies AI and big data, networks and cybersecurity, technological literacy, creative thinking, resilience and leadership among the rapidly rising capabilities. GMAC’s 2025 Corporate Recruiters Survey similarly indicates the continuing importance of problem-solving and strategic thinking, alongside growing employer expectations regarding the use of AI tools.

Management education therefore needs to move beyond the transmission of disciplinary content towards the development of capabilities.

The central policy question is consequently not simply how many more management programmes India should create, but what capabilities future managers will require. This calls for a continuum comprising broad-based business literacy at the undergraduate level; rigorous managerial, analytical and sectoral competence at the postgraduate level; research capacity for knowledge creation; entrepreneurial capacity for venture building; and lifelong learning for professionals whose roles are likely to evolve repeatedly throughout their careers.

AICTE’s recent reforms provide an important platform for this transition by connecting regulatory oversight, model curricula, faculty development, innovation, internships, student support and employability infrastructure. Three layers—foundation at the undergraduate level, continuous capability renewal through executive education, and knowledge creation through Ph.D. research—can create a dynamic management education ecosystem aligned with India’s aspiration for a knowledge-driven and Viksit Bharat 2047.

Historical Evolution of Indian Management Education

The earliest roots of management education in India can be traced to 1886, when the Commercial School of Pachaiyappa Charities was established in Madras (now Chennai) to provide education in commercial and business practices. However, this was essentially commerce education rather than modern management education. The first college-level institution for business education was Sydenham College of Commerce and Economics, Bombay (now Mumbai), established in 1913. Modern, formal management education emerged later with the establishment of the Indian Institute of Social Welfare and Business Management (IISWBM), Kolkata, in 1953, which describes itself as India’s first management institute and introduced a formal management programme. Thus, 1886 marks the beginning of business/commerce education, 1913 the beginning of college-level business education, and 1953 the beginning of formal institutional management education in India. XLRI (Xavier Labour Relations Institute), Jamshedpur, was established in 1949 by Fr Quinn Enright, S.J., making it one of the earliest—and according to XLRI, the oldest—management schools in India.

The roots of management education at IISc date to 1947, when the Section of Economic and Social Sciences was established; it subsequently evolved into the present Department of Management Studies. Its early focus was distinctly industrial and technology-orientated—developing managerial capabilities for India’s emerging public-sector and industrial enterprises, with emphasis on industrial management, industrial engineering, economics and administration. In 1954–55, IISc introduced a management diploma specifically for public-sector executives, making it an important early experiment in executive management education in India. Over time, the focus evolved toward technology management, business analytics, operations, finance, innovation, public policy and interdisciplinary management research. The Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) began in 1961, with the establishment of the first two IIMs—IIM Calcutta and IIM Ahmedabad. IIM Bangalore followed in 1973, becoming the third IIM and the first in South India. As of 2026, India has 21 Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs). The latest addition was IIM Mumbai, which became an IIM on 16 August 2023 through the IIM (Amendment) Act, 2023, following the conversion of NITIE Mumbai.

Indian management education has evolved through three broad phases.

The first was institution-led and selective, shaped by the IIMs, university management departments and leading autonomous schools. The second phase witnessed rapid expansion through university-affiliated MBA programmes, standalone PGDM institutions and private universities. This expansion widened access to management education but also produced significant variation in institutional quality and outcomes.

The third phase is now emerging. It is characterised by interdisciplinary, technology-enabled and innovation-oriented education in which management increasingly intersects with computing, engineering, design, public policy, healthcare, agriculture and entrepreneurship.

The implication is that the next phase of management education need not be another cycle of expansion. Instead, the emphasis can shift towards competency, experience, innovation, employability and lifelong learning. The value of a management qualification will increasingly depend on what graduates can understand, create and accomplish rather than on the degree title alone.

Present Status: Scale, Diversity and Quality

India’s management education ecosystem is highly diverse. It includes 21 IIMs and other nationally recognised institutions, autonomous PGDM schools, university business schools, private and deemed universities, affiliated colleges and specialised institutions. Thus, the progression of IIM’s in India is: 2 IIMs in 1961 → 6 by 1997 → 13 by 2014 → 20 by 2023 → 21 today. The 2025 NIRF Management ranking places IIM Ahmedabad, IIM Bangalore and IIM Kozhikode among the top three positions, illustrating the continuing prominence of the IIM system within Indian management education.

International rankings have also placed several Indian schools among globally recognised management institutions. At the same time, participation in national ranking and quality-assurance processes demonstrates the breadth of the ecosystem, extending from leading IIMs to universities and specialised private institutions.

The numerical picture is equally significant. AISHE 2023–24 reports approximately 8.81 lakh students in the BBA programme on an all-modes, actual-response basis and 7.86 lakh in regular-mode BBA in the relevant tables. BCA has a similarly substantial base, with approximately 8.65 lakh students in the five-year time series and around 1.51 lakh in regular-mode BCA in the cited programme tables. MBA enrolment is approximately 9.62 lakh on the all-modes programme table, while MCA enrolment is approximately 2.50 lakh.

These figures should, however, be interpreted carefully. AISHE tables use different bases, including estimated enrolment, actual responses, regular mode and all modes. They should therefore not be mechanically added. Even with this qualification, the data demonstrate the considerable scale of management and computer-application education in India.

Quality must consequently be assessed through a broader set of indicators than examination results and placement packages. A contemporary management institution should demonstrate qualified and continuously developed faculty, meaningful research and intellectual contribution, industry and public-sector engagement, internships and live projects, outcome-based assessment, entrepreneurship and incubation, international exposure, responsible management, digital and AI capability, student diversity, alumni contribution and transparent graduate outcomes.

Accreditation and rankings can provide useful signals, but institutions should also publish information on learning outcomes, student progression, placement quality, entrepreneurial outcomes, research impact and employer feedback. Greater transparency in these areas would help students, employers and policymakers assess institutional performance more meaningfully.

Role of AICTE in the Transformation

AICTE’s role in the transformation of management education can be viewed across five broad areas: assurance of minimum academic and infrastructure standards; development of model curricula and outcome frameworks; faculty development and re-skilling; student access to internships, placement and innovation ecosystems; and data-driven quality monitoring. AICTE strengthened the Three layers—foundation at undergraduate level, emphasis on continuous capability renewal through executive education and standalone PGDM institutions, and knowledge creation through Ph.D. research—which has created a dynamic management education ecosystem aligned with India’s aspiration for a knowledge-driven and Viksit Bharat 2047.

The AICTE Internship Portal, ATAL Academy, the Innovation Cell/IIC ecosystem, NEAT and related initiatives can increasingly function as interconnected components of management education rather than as isolated schemes. Their greater integration can support a learning environment in which students gain exposure to industry, technology, innovation and applied problem-solving alongside formal classroom instruction.

This approach would also allow institutions to retain academic autonomy while aligning programmes with broader national expectations concerning quality, employability and emerging skills.

Curriculum Development: From Subjects to Capabilities

One of the most important transformations required in management education is curricular.

Traditional MBA programmes were organised largely around functional areas such as finance, marketing, human resources, operations, economics, accounting and strategy. These foundations remain essential. However, contemporary managerial challenges increasingly cut across disciplinary boundaries.

A product manager, for example, must understand technology, customer behaviour, finance, regulation and data. A supply-chain leader must engage with AI, sustainability, risk and geopolitics. A start-up founder must integrate product development, finance, talent, marketing, law and venture funding.

Curricula should therefore retain strong disciplinary foundations while creating opportunities for integrative problem-solving.

The AICTE BBA model curriculum reflects this direction. Early semesters combine management principles, accounting, statistics and logic, communication, Indian Knowledge Systems, sustainability and emerging technologies. Later learning can incorporate entrepreneurship and start-up ecosystems, analytics, digital marketing, supply chain, strategy and discipline-specific electives. Internships, capstone projects and research pathways are particularly important because employability depends not only on knowledge acquisition but also on the ability to apply that knowledge in real situations.

At the MBA/PGDM level, curricula can be organised around a set of enduring capabilities: analytical and quantitative reasoning; strategic thinking; financial literacy; market and customer understanding; people and organisational leadership; operations and systems thinking; digital and AI fluency; innovation; entrepreneurship; sustainability; communication and negotiation; ethics; and continuous learning.

A national reference framework could define these capabilities and indicative performance levels while allowing institutions to determine how they are integrated into their programmes.

MCA programmes can also benefit from closer integration with management education. Modern digital organisations require professionals who understand both technology and business. AI product management, enterprise architecture, data governance, cybersecurity management, digital transformation, technology finance and responsible AI provide natural areas of convergence between MCA and MBA education. Joint courses and dual pathways between management and computer applications could therefore become important features of future campuses.

Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Venture Development

The next stage of management education should consider entrepreneurship not merely as an elective subject but as an institutional capability.

AICTE’s Approval Process Handbook 2024–27 provides for an MBA/PGDM in Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Venture Development (IEV). The programme is action-oriented and outcome-based, with requirements relating to incubation and pre-incubation facilities, innovation labs or co-working spaces, competent mentors, funding schemes and institutional capacity to support student innovators from idea generation through venture development.

This approach connects management education with the broader innovation pipeline.

Management schools can build on this principle by developing venture-studio models in which students identify problems, validate customer needs, develop prototypes, test business models, understand intellectual property, prepare investor materials, explore pre-seed capital and assess traction. Academic credit should be linked to evidence of learning rather than solely to the commercial success or failure of a venture. Where experimentation is rigorous and ethical, failure can itself provide an important learning experience.

Venture-finance education can also be strengthened. Students should develop an understanding of bootstrapping, grants, angel investment, venture capital, debt, revenue-based finance, corporate venture capital, family offices, public schemes and blended finance. Curriculum content can include cap tables, valuation, term sheets, dilution, governance, financial controls and responsible fundraising.

Incubators can further strengthen their networks of mentors, investors, alumni founders and industry partners. Such ecosystems can help campuses move from teaching entrepreneurship as a subject towards developing entrepreneurial capability.

The innovation agenda should extend beyond commercial start-ups to include social innovation, rural entrepreneurship, climate entrepreneurship, deep technology, healthcare, agritech, manufacturing and public-service innovation. Management schools can serve as important intermediaries between engineering and science institutions and the market.

The objective should not be to turn every student into a founder. Rather, every graduate should understand how innovation is generated, evaluated, financed, scaled and governed.

The Institution’s Innovation Council (IIC) ecosystem and initiatives such as the Smart India Hackathon (SIH) have already contributed to a shift within AICTE institutions from classroom-based theory towards problem-solving, innovation, entrepreneurship and experiential learning. SIH 2024 drew more than 86,000 teams at the institute level, of which around 49,000 were recommended for the national round; internal hackathons increased by 150%, from over 900 in 2023 to about 2,247 in 2024, and more than 1,300 teams reached the national finale across 51 nodal centres. Since its launch in 2017, SIH has engaged more than 13.91 lakh students.

For MBA and PGDM students, such initiatives illustrate the value of learning by doing: working in multidisciplinary teams, understanding customer and societal problems, developing business models, pitching solutions, engaging with technology and translating ideas into potential ventures. This approach can make management education more relevant to an economy increasingly shaped by AI, innovation and entrepreneurship.

IIMs, PGDM Institutions and Other Management Schools

India now has a large and diverse network of management institutions, including IIMs, AICTE-approved PGDM and MBA institutions, university departments, private universities and autonomous business schools. AISHE’s institution directory lists roughly 350 standalone PGDM institutes nationally, underlining the scale of professional management education outside the university system.

This diversity provides a broad talent base, but it also makes quality, employability, curriculum innovation, industry linkage and AI readiness important priorities for the coming decade.

The IIM system provides an important reference point for differentiated management education. IIM Ahmedabad offers its two-year MBA along with specialised, executive, blended and analytics-oriented programmes, while IIM Bangalore offers pathways including the PGP/MBA, Business Analytics, Executive PGP, Enterprise Management and Public Policy. Across the IIM system, the CAT 2025 information bulletin reflects a range of programme areas including analytics, HRM, healthcare, finance, sustainability, operations and supply chain, digital business and public policy.

This diversification illustrates the movement from a single, standardised MBA pathway towards multiple professional and specialised forms of management education.

PGDM institutions have a complementary role. Their curricular flexibility can allow them to respond relatively quickly to employer needs and emerging sectors. The AICTE framework provides institutional autonomy while maintaining alignment with national standards. PGDM institutions can therefore serve as laboratories for pedagogic innovation, executive education, industry research and global collaboration.

Emerging institutions can, in turn, focus on regional economic strengths, local industry needs and employability rather than attempting to replicate the positioning of established institutions.

University management departments and private universities also have an important role because they provide scale, geographical reach and opportunities for interdisciplinary learning. Their ability to combine management with engineering, computing, design, law, medicine, agriculture and social sciences can support new areas such as technology management, healthcare management, agribusiness, climate finance, public policy, sports management, creative industries and digital entrepreneurship.

The policy implication is that India need not pursue a single model of management education. Instead, it can build a quality-assured ecosystem with differentiated missions, including research-intensive schools, professional MBA institutions, entrepreneurship-focused schools, sectoral institutions, undergraduate business schools and lifelong-learning platforms.

Present and Future Demand for Management Professionals

Demand for management professionals is changing rather than simply increasing.

Traditional functions such as sales, finance, HR, operations and consulting will continue to be important, but the nature of these roles is being reshaped by data and AI. Employers increasingly require managers who can work effectively with technology teams, interpret data, manage digital products, govern AI adoption, lead organisational transformation and translate technology into business value.

Global capability centres, digital enterprises, manufacturing modernisation, fintech, healthcare, logistics, climate transition and public-sector transformation are among the areas likely to require professionals who combine managerial and technological capabilities.

The diversity of India's institutional ecosystem can support this transition. IIMs offer specialised and executive pathways; PGDM institutions provide curricular agility; and university business schools and private universities provide scale and interdisciplinary breadth. These distinct missions can contribute to meeting changing workforce requirements when supported by a common commitment to quality and measurable outcomes.

Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Management Education

Artificial intelligence is changing both what management students need to learn and how they may learn it.

Generative AI can support case analysis, research, simulations, business-plan development and personalised tutoring. At the same time, it makes conventional take-home assignments less reliable as standalone measures of student learning.

Management schools should therefore reconsider assessment practices and place greater emphasis on judgement, application and evidence. Students can be required to disclose their use of AI, verify outputs, identify hallucinations and biases, compare AI-generated recommendations with independent analysis and defend their decisions orally.

Case examinations can become more open-ended and data-rich. Live projects, simulations, field research, board-style presentations and reflective portfolios can carry greater weight. AI should be positioned as a co-pilot rather than an unquestioned authority.

AI literacy should become a foundational component of management education. Core learning can include generative AI, machine-learning concepts for managers, data governance, privacy, cybersecurity, algorithmic bias, responsible AI, AI economics, automation and workforce redesign.

Specialisations can then build deeper capabilities in areas such as AI marketing, AI finance, people analytics, operations intelligence, product management and AI strategy.

Faculty development is equally important. Faculty members need not only familiarity with AI tools but also the ability to redesign learning outcomes, pedagogy and assessment in response to them.

The deeper implication is that management education must strengthen the capabilities that remain fundamentally human. Leadership, ethical judgement, empathy, negotiation, creativity, accountability, systems thinking and decision-making under uncertainty are likely to remain central to effective management.

AI can generate options and assist analysis; managers remain responsible for evaluating those options, making decisions and governing their implementation.

Toward Transparent, Evidence-Based Quality Assurance

Changing workforce requirements make it necessary for quality-assurance mechanisms to evolve alongside management education.

The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 projects 170 million new roles and 92 million displaced roles globally by 2030, while identifying AI and big data, technological literacy, creative thinking, resilience, leadership and talent management among rising capabilities. GMAC’s 2025 recruiter survey likewise indicates continued demand for problem-solving and strategic thinking alongside growing value attached to AI-tool knowledge.

For India, this reinforces the importance of developing hybrid professionals: BBA graduates with business and digital fluency; MBA/PGDM graduates with strategic and AI-enabled decision-making capabilities; and MCA graduates who understand enterprise value, product management and organisational context.

Quality assurance should become increasingly transparent and evidence-based. NIRF and accreditation systems can be complemented by verified graduate outcomes, research quality, international engagement, diversity, sustainability and employer feedback.

Rankings can remain one source of information among several. A national management education dashboard could present programme-level information in a common format, enabling students and other stakeholders to make more informed assessments while encouraging institutions to improve.

A Ten-Year Future Plan: 2026–2036

Recommendations

1. Establish a national Management Education Outcomes Framework covering BBA, MBA, PGDM and PhD, with common graduate capabilities while retaining institutional flexibility in curriculum design. Undergraduate management education, executive programmes and doctoral education must together form the three essential pillars of India’s management education architecture for the AI era.

2. Redesign assessment and pedagogy for the AI era by encouraging disclosure of AI use and verification of outputs, increasing open-ended and judgement-based evaluation, and strengthening AI and data literacy across programmes.

3. Expand the Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Venture Development (IEV) model into a broader venture-studio ecosystem supported by seed funding, mentor networks and pre-incubation infrastructure, building on the momentum of the IIC and Smart India Hackathon ecosystems.

4. Strengthen internships, live projects and employer-designed problem statements as meaningful, credit-bearing components of management programmes rather than optional add-ons.

5. Encourage interdisciplinary pathways connecting management with engineering, computing, health sciences, agriculture and public policy, particularly within comprehensive universities.

6. Strengthen international benchmarking and accreditation transparency, ensuring that rankings function as one source of information among several rather than the sole measure of institutional quality.

7. Promote management–computing convergence through joint BBA/MBA/PhD modules in areas such as product management, digital transformation, AI strategy, cybersecurity management and data-driven decision-making.

8. Develop a national faculty re-skilling programme combining pedagogy, AI tools, research methods, industry immersion and emerging management domains.

9. Strengthen management research around Indian challenges, including MSME growth, family business, manufacturing productivity, public-service delivery and healthcare, while creating mechanisms for collaborative research involving institutions, government and industry.

10. Publish transparent programme-level graduate outcomes, including placement quality, career progression, entrepreneurship, higher studies, diversity and employer feedback.

Conclusion

Indian management education has moved from an era of limited access to one characterised by considerable scale, diversity and institutional reach. The next phase should build on this foundation by placing greater emphasis on quality, learning outcomes, employability, innovation and global relevance. Three layers—foundation at undergraduate level, continuous capability renewal through executive education, and knowledge creation through Ph.D. research—can create a dynamic management education ecosystem aligned with India’s aspiration for a knowledge-driven and Viksit Bharat 2047.

BBA, BMS, MBA, PGDM, and PhD programmes will need to become increasingly outcome-oriented, industry-connected, interdisciplinary and future-ready. AI, analytics, innovation, entrepreneurship and sustainability can no longer remain peripheral themes; they need to be meaningfully integrated into curricula, pedagogy and institutional strategy. At the same time, these developments must be supported by faculty development, research, experiential learning and strong industry–academia partnerships.

AICTE’s evolving regulatory and model-curriculum framework provides an important foundation for this transition while preserving institutional autonomy. Sustained collaboration among AICTE, universities, IIMs, management institutions, industry and professional bodies can help create an ecosystem in which quality is assured without suppressing institutional diversity and innovation.

The AI era also reinforces the importance of human capabilities. Technological competence will need to be complemented by leadership, creativity, ethical judgement, empathy, communication and strategic thinking. Management education must therefore prepare graduates not simply to operate existing systems, but to understand changing environments, solve complex problems and lead responsibly.

The ultimate measure of progress should extend beyond enrolment and placement numbers to include the quality of learning, employability, innovation, entrepreneurship, research impact and societal contribution. A sustained focus on these outcomes can help India strengthen its position in global management education while developing the human capabilities required for Viksit Bharat 2047.

Acknowledgement

The author gratefully acknowledges the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) for its significant contribution to the transformation of management and technical higher education in India through its regulatory framework, Approval Process Handbook, model curricula, and initiatives in innovation, entrepreneurship, internships and faculty development. AICTE’s emphasis on quality, curricular flexibility and industry–academia engagement has provided an important foundation for this paper.

The author also acknowledges the valuable data and insights provided by AISHE, Ministry of Education, Government of India; NIRF; IIM Ahmedabad; IIM Bangalore and the wider IIM system; GMAC; the World Economic Forum (WEF); and the academic literature cited in this paper. These resources have contributed to the evidence base used to examine the transformation of Indian management education from scale towards global quality in the AI era.

References

1. All India Council for Technical Education. (2023). Approval Process Handbook 2024–2027.

2. All India Council for Technical Education. (2024a). Model Curriculum for Undergraduate Degree in Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA/BBA Honours/BBA Honours with Research).

3. All India Council for Technical Education. (2024b). Model Curriculum for Management Programme (MBA & PGDM).

4. Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. R. (2023). Generative AI at work. NBER Working Paper No. 31161. National Bureau of Economic Research.

5. Graduate Management Admission Council. (2025). Corporate Recruiters Survey 2025 Report.

6. Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad. (2026). Academic Programmes: About Programme – MBA.

7. Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. (2026). Admissions 2025/2027 and Degree Programmes.

8. Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2025). India Rankings 2025: Management. National Institutional Ranking Framework.

9. Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2026). All India Survey on Higher Education 2023–24. Department of Higher Education, Statistics Bureau.

10. Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61–78.

11. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.

12. Press Information Bureau, Government of India. (2024). 7th edition of Smart India Hackathon to begin on 11th December 2024. Ministry of Education.

13. World Economic Forum. (2025). The Future of Jobs Report 2025.

Copyright Notice: The author is the sole copyright holder of the submitted work and retains all associated rights. The author grants the journal a non-exclusive licence to publish, distribute, archive and make the work available in print and/or digital formats. Author acknowledges AI tools for doing a detailed literature review.

About the Author: Prof. T. G. Sitharam is the former Chairman of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and former Director of IIT Guwahati. An eminent academician and civil engineering expert, his work focuses on technical education policy, geotechnical engineering, and sustainable infrastructure development.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the publisher. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, the publisher is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information.