In the United States, faculty achievement is generally measured in terms of Research, Teaching and Service. This is how tenure is determined at most universities. It is supposed to be a balance between all three. Unfortunately the maxim of "Publish or Parish" is very true in the United States. When a university becomes solely focused on grants and production of academic work product as measured in patents, books, articles and presentations, then something has to give. The quality of the teaching might decline. In addition, when the administration is preoccupied by the numbers of production the quality of the work product could easily decline as well. The basic question revolves around what are we really here to do? Are we here to create and spread knowledge or are we here to be intellectual factory workers and produce revenue?

Mr. Paudel,

The academic achievements represent intellectual ownership. As far as there is a lack of quantitative models expressing the 'talant' of the academics, there is unable to perform the correlation between academic performances of the individuals and the Higher Educational Management. You can not use even IQs because of the IQ reflects other type skills. The talant, because of the science is creation does not represent skill.

Simply speaking the great discoveries in the science have been achieved during that time when it had not disciplines 'Economy' and 'Management of Higher Edication'. Now, when such as disciplines are available in the educational curriculum, the number of discoveries is reduced dramatically. So, this is the so-called 'Higher Educational Management'.

Or may be they correlate reciprocally and exponentially: with increasing in the Higher Educational Management there is dramatic decreasing in the academic performances.

Knowledge management (KM) has not been investigated well in Higher Education Institutions although proper KM can enrich the educational system while an actual retreat in academic performance is expected upon ignoring the value of KM.

Knowledge "whether tacit or explicit" is the most important capital for all organized work in all periods of time. This know-how capability has to be transferred in a systematic mechanism from person(s) to person(s) at first hand practice (a more lively exchange than through books). KM has to ensure the smooth transition of this ability.

In industrial plants, the end results of KM are more obvious than in academic institutions. KM practices (namely knowledge generation, knowledge codification, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization) have to be done to ensure continued success.

In academic circles, the map contains what I call "isolated islands" with the flow of information being done according to individual efforts & not by deliberately organized KM effort. One may argue that lectures & laboratory sessions display KM at its peak of practice but this view is short-sighted since these activities are pre-determined or pre-specified and the concerned scholars have to stick to the rules of the game. The envisaged KM practice goes beyond that & involves incessant run of information & skills from senior scholars to junior scholars as was done in the past in the old traditional universities.

Mr. Matar,

There is the following: Good teaching is when the student lear new insights into the science. New insights into the science means new discoveries....

For example,

Let us describe a research project with 4 participants. The grant for research is obtained (eventually) within the framework of the following examining Institutions:

1. Council of managers at the Faculty.

2. Council of managers at the University

3. Council of managers at the Funding institution

(4. Council of managers at the Ministerium of the Higher Education).

At each of these stages (1-3/4) there are within 3-5 managers. Or any project consisting of 4 researchers is evaluated by 12-20 managers.

The generation of new knowldere is carried out by the 4th researchers, not by the 20 managers.

I agree with Bojidarka B. Ivanova since she presented an organized mechanism by which KM is moved from start to finish. Knowledge cannot be generated by managers but by those who discover novel ideas or insights or even products. With so many claimed successes, a country will do better if there are relevant councils that follow up what is going on in order to sum up what is actually realized "real achievements" & what further work is needed to be done.

In the United States, faculty achievement is generally measured in terms of Research, Teaching and Service. This is how tenure is determined at most universities. It is supposed to be a balance between all three. Unfortunately the maxim of "Publish or Parish" is very true in the United States. When a university becomes solely focused on grants and production of academic work product as measured in patents, books, articles and presentations, then something has to give. The quality of the teaching might decline. In addition, when the administration is preoccupied by the numbers of production the quality of the work product could easily decline as well. The basic question revolves around what are we really here to do? Are we here to create and spread knowledge or are we here to be intellectual factory workers and produce revenue?