In the recently announced national budget, the government has prioritized the revival of closed industries. Discussions have once again started around industries such as Gorakhkali Rubber Industry, Hetauda Textile Industry and Udayapur Cement Industry. Much of the conversation focuses on investment, ownership, management and policy reforms. These are important issues. Yet an equally urgent question receives less attention: Who will operate, maintain and improve these industries in the years ahead?
Many fresh engineering graduates experience what could be called a ‘Blank Paper Syndrome’. Much like a writer staring at an empty page despite knowing the language, graduates often hesitate when confronted with the realities of industrial practice. They carry strong theoretical foundations, yet face uncertainty about how to troubleshoot, or how to adapt under operational constraints. Every year, thousands of engineers from various disciplines graduate, yet many encounter similar challenges. This hesitation is not a lack of talent, rather it is the absence of structured exposure to industrial environments.
Nepali universities are home to highly qualified professors with advanced degrees and strong academic expertise. Yet, present engineering education in Nepal is still dominated by classroom-based structure focused on predefined curricula. As a result, students often become experienced in engineering theories and principles but have limited exposure to the day-to-day realities of industrial operations. A mechanical engineer may graduate with a sound understanding of machine design but little experience handling breakdowns on the factory floor. Likewise, an electrical engineer may understand systems but lack exposure to workplace safety practices and operational procedures.
These are not minor issues. Mistakes in a university examination may cost marks, but on an industry floor they can delay production, damage equipment, or even cost lives. Existing internship programs provide valuable exposure, but they are often short and observational. Few students might learn to keep a system running, troubleshoot machine breakdowns, meet production targets, and solve problems under operational constraints.
A major hurdle is that universities and industries often operate in separate silos with limited interaction and collaboration. As a result, students have fewer opportunities to engage with industrial practice, while academic activities risk becoming disconnected from the rapidly changing workplace realities.
Medical education offers an instructive comparison. Medical students do not learn solely through lectures and textbooks. They spend years in hospitals, meeting patients, dealing with uncertainties. That hand-on experience gradually builds the confidence and practical judgement required for professional practice. Can we imagine a doctor entering surgery without any meaningful clinical experience? A similar philosophy could be applied to engineering education.
Similar to the Teaching Hospitals, Nepal could introduce a “Teaching Factory” model to help bridge the gap between engineering education and industrial practice. Under such a model, engineering students and faculty members could spend an extended period, perhaps a semester or more, within industries, manufacturing facilities, and project sites.
Unlike conventional internships, participants would contribute to day-to-day activities, maintenance tasks, production monitoring, troubleshooting, and problem-solving under the guidance of professional supervision. Imagine a professor returning to the classroom after spending a year within the industry, equipped with firsthand knowledge of current industrial practices. Likewise, students working as trainees shift in charge, maintenance engineers, or R&D engineers, gaining responsibility and practical experience before graduation, an Industrial Residency Model.
The idea of introducing industrial practices or residency in academic learning is not new. Several universities around the world have adopted residency models. One notable example is the “Practice School” program at BITS Pilani in India, where students work on live industries with real industrial assignments and are evaluated based on their practical performance. Similarly, Germany’s “Dual training system” also integrates classroom learning with structured industrial practice, producing graduates who are workforce-ready.
Nepal could also follow a similar path, customizing the model according to local resources and priorities. The timing is particularly appropriate. As the government commits to reviving struggling industries, technical and operational challenges demand attention. This is where engineering colleges and universities could make meaningful contributions.
A Teaching Factory model could foster collaborations between universities and industries. Students and faculty members could contribute to identifying bottlenecks, improve maintenance practices, analyze operational efficiency, and support innovation. Over time, these collaborations could evolve into a mutually beneficial relationship, where industries gain technical expertise while universities gain practical insights for teaching and research.
It could begin with a pilot program involving one university and one industry. Lessons from the pilot could follow gradual expansion. A Teaching Factory model is not the solution to every challenge associated with universities and industries. However, it would significantly narrow the gaps between academic learning and industrial practices resulting in helping produce graduates who are not only well-versed in engineering principles and theory but are also capable of working effectively in the professional environment.
The recent establishment of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation creates an opportunity to rethink how Nepal connects education, industry and innovation. As the country plans to revive industries, mechanisms that bring students, faculty and industries closer together will be essential. A Teaching Factory could be one such mechanism. By institutionalizing industrial residency with engineering education, Nepal could take a meaningful step toward producing engineers who are better prepared for professional practice and national development.
Nepal does not lack engineering talent. Every year, universities produce capable graduates with strong technical foundations and enormous potential. What we lack is the bridge between theory and practice. Building that bridge must become a national priority, for improving education, strengthening industries, and developing the skilled workforce Nepal needs for the future.
The author is an Assistant Professor at Department of Mechanical Engineering and Principal Investigator cum Lead of Design Lab, Kathmandu University (KU)
