BENCHMARKING

ANALYSIS
ASSIGNMENT. 1

INITIATOR FIRM

TARGET FIRMS

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

BENCHMARKING USING OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

MODEL

COMPILERS
ALI RAZA SALEEM

2013041

NOOR UL HAQ

2013450

ZAEEM UL HASSAN

2013434

GAZALI LIAKAT ALI

2013097

GHULAM MUSTAFA

2013098

SUBMITTED TO:
DR. NOOR MUHAMMAD
HUMANITIES AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCES DEPARTMENT,
GIK INSTITUTE, TOPI.

Page | 1

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................3
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................4
2. OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT ......................................................................4
2.1

THE EXISTING MODEL ................................................................................................................... 5

2.2

PROCESS BENCHMARKING............................................................................................................ 7

2.2.1 ROBERT CAMPS BUSINESS PROCESS BENCHMARKING PROCESS ................................................ 7

2.3

MEHODOLOGY OF KAIST ............................................................................................................... 9

2.4

STRATEGIC BENCHMARKING TARGETING KAIST ......................................................................... 10

2.4.1 TARGET UNIVERSITY .................................................................................................................... 10

2.4.2 MEDICAL FACILITIES .................................................................................................................... 10
2.4.3 INDUSTRY-UNIVERSITY COLLABORATIONS ................................................................................. 11
2.4.4 GAP GIK INSTITUTE AND KAIST................................................................................................. 14
2.5

OHIO UNIVERSITY AND GIK INSTITUTE - COMPARISON ............................................................. 15

2.5.1 ADMISSIONS, SCHOLARSHIPS, COURSE EVALUATIONS .............................................................. 15

2.5.2 PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING ADMISSIONS ....................................................................... 16
2.5.3 PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING SCHOLARSHIPS ................................................................... 17
2.5.4 STRATEGIC BENCHMARKING COURSE POLICY, CONTENT &

EVALUATIONS ................. 17

3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ..................................................................17

ISHIKAWA FISH BONE DIAGRAM .............................................................................................. 19

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................20
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................20

Page | 2

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
For almost every project, essential requirement is able guidance and references without which
the project is incomplete. We are very much thankful to Dr. Noor Muhammad who has provided
us an opportunity and motivation to gain knowledge through this type of assignment.
We are very appreciative to Mr. Khayyam Zubair (BS Student senior year) from Ohio Wesleyan
University for providing us the institutes information such as Academic Calendar, Examination
Calendar, Procurement Process, Hostel Facilities and other operational processes conceded out in
his university which helped us throughout the benchmarking process for setting Ohio Wesleyan
University as the Target firm Being conceded out in his university.
We are also obliged by our respondents Gazali Liakat Ali, Zaeem-ul-Hassan Khhatri, Ghulam
Mustafa Narejo, Ali Raza Saleem and Noor ul Haq. All of the members equally contributed in
sharing ideas and efficiently performed whose co-operation has contributed major part in our
project. And last but not the least, we are thankful to all our friends who directly and indirectly
helped us in preparing our report.

Page | 3

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

1. INTRODUCTION
In order to gain practical knowledge in the field of Total Quality Management, we are required
to make a report on Benchmarking Taking GIK Institute as Initiator firm and
International Institutes as Target firm. Benchmarking is a process for improving
performance of an organization by continuously identifying, understanding & adopting
outstanding practices and processes inside or outside the organization. Initiator firm is such a
firm which undergoes the process of benchmarking. This benchmarking is required in order to
achieve satisfactory level of quality in terms of products and services. Target firm is the one
which is considered as the role model for the initiator firm. Here, with the help of several
observations and analytical approach of critical evaluations, we will try to achieve the
Benchmarking by applying different management models. Also we will try to find the lead time
required for the implementation of the benchmarking process. This gives us motivation to study
the prevailing culture, strategies, policies and management system in Ohio Wesleyan University
and Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST). Through this assignment
we come to know about importance of team work and satisfied one of our program learning
outcome i.e. investigation.

2. OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
OM stresses on improving the product and process design. It utilizes the system view which
defines product quality as a function of various variables including management, planning,
procedures, labors and machines. OM focuses on continuous improvement of core processes. It
also helps in identifying the root of quality problems. The major focus is shifting to customer
needs.

Page | 4

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

2.1

THE EXISTING MODEL

Operations in GIKI are majorly being carried out manually and in obsolete way. Administration
block majorly deals with several issues related to finance or academics. Some technological
changes has been brought to upgrade the academic processes like online attendance and
establishment of Quality enhancement cell, the administration block still lacks standard quality
practices. In order to demonstrate the processes performance in GIKI we can take example of
Procurement and Purchase of Material from outside.

Start
Meeting of all Faculty members
and discussion about the
significance of Material
Yes
No
Dean
approves or
not?

Receive invoice from suppliers

Faculty places order and

deals with finance

Budget
allocated from
the
Administration

End

Fig.1: Process Map for Procurement of Materials in Ohio University

Page | 5

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

Start

Obtain and fill indent

form from faculty/online
No

Yes

Advisor or
Professor
reviews?

No

Yes

Dean
reviews?

Send to
administration block

Attach quotation
with indent form

Procurement section

Placement of order

Obtain quotation
from suppliers

Finance department

Purchase of Items
End
Fig.2: Process map for Procurement of Materials in GIKI
Page | 6

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

As it is evident from the above process flow charts that procurement, essentially, takes less time
in Ohio University as compared to GIKI. The main difference lies in number of steps taken to
accomplish same goal. Basically, few steps, like Meeting of faculty members and budget
allocation from Administration, in the flow chart of Ohio University add value to the overall
process by decreasing the hazard of taking repetitive steps of revision of indent forms. Further
problems are discussed in the later section of Process benchmarking.

2.2

PROCESS BENCHMARKING

It is carried out to observe and investigate the business processes. The process maps, operating
systems and process technologies of initiator firm are studied and compared to bring
technological changes within the core processes.

2.2.1 ROBERT CAMPS BUSINESS PROCESS BENCHMARKING PROCESS

This approach includes a formal 10-step process to benchmarking
Step 1: Decide what to benchmark. In order to compare we have selected few processes in the
departments of administration, academics and industrial linkage. These processes have been
described previously. GIKI severely lacks in the management as all the decision making
processes falls in the hand of Administration block where in order to accomplish a simple task
various interactions are needed to be made.
Step 2: Identify whom to benchmark. Our targeted institute, over here, is Ohio University
which ranks 88 in World QS ranking, for year 2016. Some departments like communication are
ranked in 151-200 range. Ohio University is a public research university in Athens, Ohio, United
States. It is one of America's oldest universities.
Step 3: Plan and conduct the investigation. The major form of data collection was to interview
a student currently enrolled student of Ohio University. This was carried out on Facebook.
Another form of primary data collection was to obtain information which is available on the
website of targeted university. Process maps and fish bone diagram based on the collected data
were designed to identify gaps between GIKI and Ohio University.
Step 4: Determine the current performance gap. As the previous processes map suggest the
value added steps in the processes of Ohio University are greater. There is generally less number
of interactions involved to increase the efficiency and reduce the time involved. More
importantly, the budget allocated or the power to purchase items falls in the hands of
Administration. Consequently, they dont realize the significance if that item to faculty. The
paper work being carried out in the administration department worsens the matters. A summary
of all problems are presented in the Fish bone diagram at the end of this report.
Page | 7

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

Step 5: Project future performance levels. According to the current position of GIKI the
performance gap in the management is likely to widen. This is because the yearly intake and
enrollment of students has considerably increased in last two years which means more
managerial work and the current system of GIKI administration will be unable to cope up with
this increase.
Step 6: Communicate benchmarking findings and gain acceptance. The above findings will
be documented in this report. These findings may be communicated to the top management of
GIKI by our supervisor or other readers. But, as this is benchmarking activity is being carried out
solely for academic purpose, the results are not 100% accurate.
Step 7: Revise performance goals. Here the operational goals were administration, academics
and industrial linkage and the gaps were identified. For future the other operations such as
allocation of budget to faculties or communication between faculties and top management could
be analyzed and benchmarked in the same way.
Step 8: Develop action plans. Projects are designed on the basic of the results or gap identified
after benchmarking process. For example a project to improve the manual work in the
administration block could be designed.
Step 9: Implement specific actions and monitor progress. As the implementation of above
mentioned projects take place, a proper monitoring of the progress due to technological changes
is necessary. This will tell us how fruitful the activity of process benchmarking was.
Step 10: Recalibrate the benchmarks. As quality management is a process of continuous
improvement further benchmarking could be carried out with more successful targeted institution
like MIT to raise the performance bar.

Page | 8

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

2.3

MEHODOLOGY OF KAIST
Start

Selection of target university (KAIST)

Benchmarking

Benchmarking

UNIVERSITYINDUSTRY
COLLABORATION

MEDICAL
FACILITY

DATA ANALYZE/INFORMATION SOURCE

INFORMATION
CONFIRM

DATA
DACUMENTED
AND PATERNRD

Fig. 3: Flowchart for Benchmarking of KAIST

Page | 9

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

KIAST was benchmarked for its best medical and specially university-industry collaboration.
Collaboration between university and industry is one of the critical component of efficient and
fast way of national innovation systems. It is helpful in order to analyze the experience and
technology of developed countries, to understand and learn different university industry
collaboration. Through this process we can motivate to form agreements and barrier to support
and cooperate. In Pakistan and GIK institute we lack this relation and collaboration between
industry-university. In our case we obtain and access to data related medical & industryuniversity collaboration through internet and student, while contact them. Flow chart show very
basic step of showing methodology and approach.

2.4

STRATEGIC BENCHMARKING TARGETING KAIST

2.4.1 TARGET UNIVERSITY

Our target university is KAIST (formerly the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and
Technology) is a research institution .It was developed by the South Korean government. It has
almost 10,200 students and 1,140 faculty. It is rank 3 in Asia. Here in this report some of aspect
KAIST are benchmark and thoroughly explain and then comparative analyses with GIK institute
respective facility.
KAIST is chosen as Target University because of its facilities for better to follow and then
implement in GIK institute. Here some of Facility to be benchmark in order to implement

2.4.2 MEDICAL FACILITIES

This facility benchmarking is categories in different parts:
1) Goal of KAIST Medical Facilities
KAIST clinical facility available for students, faculty member, employees working in
university, and dependents related to KAIST employee. Policy is of KAIST based on
medical law. When families of any employee first visit the KAIST facility, they should
bring registration cards and prove of family relation.
2) Services
Primary and first aid care.
Health-checkup based on age and purpose.
Vaccination and other emergency services.
Mental health as well counseling of patient. medical diagnosis with precision and
treatment with state-of-the-art equipment

Page | 10

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

3) Facility Departments
Dentistry, Dermatology, Family Medicine, Gastroenterology, Internal Medicine,
Lifelong Healthcare Clinic, Neurology, Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology,
Radiology, Stress Clinic, Ultrasonography Clinic
Bone Densitometry/Mammography, Diagnostic Laboratory, Endoscopy, Health
Counseling, Injection, Radiography, Physical Therapy, Ultrasonography.
4) Test

Diagnostic
Lab:
Complete blood test and chemistry, immunologic, endocrinology,
electrocardiography, urine, tissue pathology, sporological examination and
pulmonary function test
Radiology
tests:
X-ray test, bone densitometry, mammography, ultrasonography and other tests.
Gastroenterology:
Gastroscopy, colonoscopy

2.4.3 INDUSTRY-UNIVERSITY COLLABORATIONS

Industry-university collaboration strengthen the research and competitiveness of university. It
help to improve quality performance and existing technology. KAIST is among the best research
institute and best known for industry collaboration. Such initiative become a vital step for those
companies who want to start new technology start-ups. It help in Technology guidance and
technology support for new and existing industry. By careful examination we can divide this
feature of KAIST into sub stages.
KAIST start their role by following few important stages:
1. Constructing a Venture Ecosystem
From mid 1980s KAIST started running a foundation for new emerging and
new comer companies with its alumni .In 1994 ,KAIST become notion first
university to establish TIC(technology innovation center) .from onward this
KAIST is playing a leading role helping venture companies ,while play role
like start-up program and systematic support.
In 2002 TCA (technology Competitiveness assessment) and TTEC
(technology transfer exchange center) was created .Such center further help in
commercialization within Deadlock Annapolis.
The TSSC (technology start-up support center) was established in 2006for
better university-industry collaboration and technology hospital solve difficult
technology and other collaboration projects with industry.
Page | 11

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

For its best venture ecosystem KAIST selected as best start-up incubation
center by association of Asia business incubation in 2007, and an excellent
institution by small and medium business administration of Korea in 2012.

2. Status of Technology transfer

Below graph shows income from income from technology transfer. The graph here
signifies the increases in income with the passage of time.

INCOME INCREASE WITH TIME

2013
16%
2003

20032004
2% 2% 2005
4% 2006
5%

2004

2007
8%

2005
2006
2007
2008

2012
17%

2008
6%

2009

2009
6%

2010
2011
2012
2013

2011
22%

2010
12%

Figure 4: Increase in income with time

Page | 12

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

NUMBER OF CONTRACTS
60
48

46

40

39
40

34
30

30
22
20

15
10

10
0
2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

YEARS

Figure 5: Number of Contracts shown with respect of years

3. Fostering cutting edge Venture Companies

KAIST support the infant stages of the technology start-up by establishing a
completely new ecosystem for the company and present numerous incubation
services, which can help them to develop into global champion.

incubation
151

160

NUMBER OF INCUBATIONS

NUMBER OF CASES

47

46

50

140

118

120

111
97

98

96

86

100

89 89

80
60
40

20

20
0
1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

YEARS

Figure 6: Incubation by KAIST shown with respect to time

Page | 13

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

incubation closer & servival per%

263

268

Figure 7: Red = 263 (Survival); Blue = 268 (Closer)

2.4.4 GAP GIK INSTITUTE AND KAIST

Although GIK institute is one of Pakistan top ranking university but it is way behind from
KAIST in term university-industry collaboration. This collaboration which is one of the essential
part of nation progress and increasing employment, is lacking here. KAIST is best role model
and Target University for GIKI as KAIST is world leading research institution very much close
to industry. This gap between GIKI and KAIST in THE following places:

Lack of communication between GIKI and industry

Lack of innovative research
No support from government
Absence venture ecosystem
There is a mismatch between the research orientations of industry
universities

and

Page | 14

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

2.5

OHIO UNIVERSITY AND GIK INSTITUTE - COMPARISON

2.5.1 ADMISSIONS, SCHOLARSHIPS, COURSE EVALUATIONS

GIK INSTITUTE

OHIO WESELYAN UNIVERSITY

ADMISSIONS
In GIKI admission process is just started by Ohio Wesleyan University has set up 8
announcing the commencement date online
counselling zones in university in which,
and via newspaper.
each has responsibility to counsel respective
countries which fall in it.
Candidates sign up, fill the application and Candidates will communicate about their
appear in the admission test on given date.
admission affairs with their respective zone
Selection is totally based on merit,
counselor, who will provide guidance and
acceptances and waitlist is sent to
information of OWU. After that candidates
candidates.
can visit and stay one day at the campus
with current students after clearing
admission test, so to satisfy themselves if
their choice is worth some.
Up to 550 students enrolled each year.
Students are supposed to attend orientation, University has the quota up to 2000 students
which it has to recruit, so it will send
visit faculties and other premises inside
acceptances or waitlist to candidates.
institute. Students are readily allocated joint
rooms, where they can swap their room with After committing to OWU, they become
enrolled student and then they undergo
mutual consent with other students.
orientation, and decide on classes and room
selection.
SKILL BASED SCHOLARSHIPS
Institute provides full program scholarship This university also offers multiple
to top 3 position holders of admission test.
scholarships based on talent, skills and
Other scholarships are based on regional,
expertise which the candidate possess.
Need and loan basis provided by province,
Among their policies of skill based
collaborating industries
and
alumni
scholarships, university itself reaches
respectively.
different colleges and hunt for potential
talent in distinct areas such as arts, sports, or
any technical area.
After hunting potential talent, they propose
offer to these people and when they accept
the proposal they become admitted
student. Procedure is then followed as of
regular candidate. These scholarship
requires student to maintain their skills for
the continual of their financial aid. Students
Page | 15

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

are kept up to date regarding their status.
University has big database tracking the
record of each student and all of this process
is automated.
See appendix number 1 for need based as See appendix number 2 for merit based
well as merit based scholarships.
scholarships.

COURSE CONTENT AND EVALUATION

Policies are defined administratively, This institution has landed full autonomy to
whereas courses for certain program are
instructor for designing course content and
designed semester vise by respective faculty
its policies. Instructor can set up class timing
members and the course content is designed
up to 50 to 100 minutes, they can just
by course instructor.
evaluate only on the basis of class
performance, quiz, and project, the choice of
exam is merely on instructors wish.
Attendance up to 80% is mandatory in every Attendance can be made mandatory up to
course, which is also the requirement of
certain ratio of the total number of classes,
PEC.
or this policy can be completely waived.
Quizzes, assignments, projects, mid-term Students are supposed to take credit hours
and final-term have certain weightages for
other than their own technical credit hours, 3
the evaluation of that particular course,
CH from sciences, 3 of humanities, 3 of
which is more or less same for every other
social sciences, 2 of arts, 3 of writing
subject too.
courses in whole graduation program.
In every semester certain number of credit
Students are highly encouraged to select
hours must be registered by the student.
skill based non-technical electives on
Whereas in later semesters non-technical
mandatory basis. University offers some of
electives are also offered.
non-technical skill based electives such as
singing and performance, arts and drawing,
athletics and sports etc.

2.5.2 PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING ADMISSIONS

Targeted institute has quite much efficient ways of responding to the applications and their
queries on a satisfactory level, where candidates feel utmost comfort and no hesitation in asking
for help, even they can experience the quality of environment provided by institution in real
time. The factor which is playing vital role for this institute to entertain candidates in efficient
manner is Division or Zone System, even though this institution gets application all over the
world, whereas GIKI has relatively less number of applicants.
The efficiency of GIKI in entertaining candidates is not up to that standard as of Ohio Wesleyan
University. GIKI can even introduce zone system based on provinces or rural/urban areas. At the
time of enrollment students have to purge all of due at once without prior knowledge of the
Page | 16

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

premises and facilities. In order to comfort and satisfy utmost, GIKI would need to review its
admission policies. According to the OWU it requires GIKI to arrange visiting program for
candidates or any equivalent package for candidate satisfaction.

2.5.3 PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING SCHOLARSHIPS

Scholarships based on skills, talent, and expertise would be the one way of introducing academic
diversity and the way to life changing and career opportunities. GIKI should generate more funds
through incubation center to facilitate students with their financial issues. Providing scholarships
based on technical skills, sports performance, academic records etc. can truly motivate students
to thrive for quality output. Comparing with OWU the number of scholarships provided by
institute and other collaborating bodies is much less, furthermore, there isnt single scholarship
based on performance or talent.

2.5.4 STRATEGIC BENCHMARKING COURSE POLICY, CONTENT &

EVALUATIONS
GIKI as initiator firm should optimize its strategy in accordance to OWU as discussed in section
2.5.1. Instructor should be given an autonomy in designing course policy and its content and then
evaluate accordingly. GIKI has policy of 80% attendance necessary for appearing in exam of
particular course, which necessarily doesnt yield any productive outcome. New strategy should
be adopted to introduce diversity in education programs as OWU has in its curriculum. Which
will improve and widen the scope of students and simultaneously it will bring establishing good
name in among its competitors.

3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In this report we analyzed and studied the methodologies, practices, policies and administration
systems prevailing in KAIST and Ohio Wesleyan University with respect to different
management models i.e. operation managements, strategic management etc. where after
intensive studies We gathered data in its raw form from target institutions (Ohio Wesleyan
University and KAIST), which was transformed into empirical form. Data was then manipulated
in the form of comparison and gaps were tried to be minimized by Benchmarking. First the
existing model of GIK Institute was analyzed and we made ourselves convenient enough to
believe that GIKIs Operational management model was the one which needed to be
Benchmarked. Using Robert Camps way of Process Benchmarking through 10 steps the process
used for the procurement of Materials for Final Year Projects was Benchmarked with Ohio
Wesleyan University. Then Medical Facilities, University-Industry Collaboration and Incubator
existing at GIK Institute were Strategically Benchmarked with KAIST (Korea Advanced
Institute of Science and Technology). In order to draw conclusions from our discussions a
tabular form of comparison on the basis of Admissions, Scholarships, course contents, and way
of evaluation between GIK and Ohio University was done. Admissions and Scholarships (merit
based, as well as need based) were Performance Benchmarked. Whereas Course contents and
Page | 17

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

Evaluation procedure were strategically benchmarked. At the end an Estimated Effort Chart with
respect to time starting from creation of team (deciding members of group) till the compilation of
results was furbished as shown in the following figure.

Effort Estimate Chart

Compiling The Results
Communicate Finidngs
Collect Data
Data Collection Method
Identify Organisation(s)
Identify Process
Create Team
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Time Effort

Figure 7: Estimated time spent, starting from creating Team till compilation of Results

Page | 18

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

The following Ishikawa diagram (Fish Bone Diagram) can also summarize the problems and
sub-problems in the Initiator Firm which were benchmarked in methodology part of the project
with 2 target firms, i.e. Ohio Wesleyan University and KAIST.

ISHIKAWA FISH BONE DIAGRAM

ACADEMICS

INDUSTRIAL LINKAGES AND FACILITIES

Single criteria for admissions

Mismatch between
industry & Academia

Lack of skill based scholarship

Generalized course content & evaluation

Amateur ORIC &

Incubator
Medical facilities

Obsolete & Manual system

IMPROVED
OPERATIONAL
MANAGEMENT
LEVEL OF GIK
INSTITUTE

Excessive Bureaucracy
Centralized working environment

ADMINISTRATIONS

Page | 19

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

REFERENCES
1. KAIST (no date) Student organizations > student clubs and activities > life on campus >
KAIST.
Available at: http://www.kaist.edu/html/en/campus/campus_050401.html (Accessed: 19
October 2016)
2. Yuseong-gu, D. and Daejeon (no date) Research > competitive edge > about KAIST >
KAIST > KAIST ENGLISH MOBILE.
Available at: http://www.kaist.edu/mobile/en/prog.html?menu_dvs_cd=01020602 (Accessed:
19 October 2016).
3. Introduction of OUIC > organization (no date)
Available at: http://ouic.kaist.ac.kr/en/esub04_01 (Accessed: 19 October 2016)
4. Schedules (no date) Available at: https://www.owu.edu/academics/office-of-theregistrar/schedules/ (Accessed: 19 October 2016)

APPENDIX
1. Following is the table showing scholarships income from different agencies for the
freshmen at the time of admissions at GIK Institute. Some others are also granted during
further years of studies, i.e. sophomore, junior year and senior year.

Scholarships

Qualification/Conditions/Criteria

No. of
Scholarships

Atlas-GIK Scholarship

Merit Basis

01

Ayub Memorial Scholarship

Kurram Agency domiciled

01

Prof. Mian Zaheen uddin

Scholarship

Need-Cum-Merit Basis

01

Chief Minister Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa

KP domiciled with annual family income

less than Rs. 300,000.

20

Dr. H.M.Yusaf Scholarship

Financially most needy student.

01

Dr. Razia Raouf Scholarship

Female student top of the merit list

01

FATA Scholarship

FATA Domiciled with annual family

gross income less than 600,000.

10

Frontier Education Foundation

KP Domiciled

03

Page | 20

[BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS] MS-494

GIK Alumni Association

Needy GIK students

30

Govt. of Baluchistan

Baluchistan Domiciled

02

Ihsan Trust Qarze Hasna

Need Basis

20

Lucky Cement Pvt.Ltd

Pakistani National with preference to KP

domiciled on need-cum-merit basis.

01

Mobilink Scholarship

Merit basis

01

Prime Minister's National ICT

Program

Belonging to rural areas of Pakistan.

10

Punjab Educational Endowment

Fund

Punjab domiciled with annual family

gross income less than 360,000.

27

Sindh Endowment Fund

Scholarship

Sindh domiciled

02

Financial Assistance(Interest
Free Loan) by GIK Institute

Need-Cum-Merit Basis

35

2. The following system shows merit based scholarships existing at the Ohio Wesleyan
University.

Page | 21