Statement — A committee has criticized the institute for failing to implement many regular programs despite higher staff strength and for not drawing up a firm action plan for studies and research.\n\nCourses of Action —\nI. Redefine the institute’s broad objectives to implement a practical action plan.\nII. The institute should report the reasons for not having implemented the planned programs.

Introduction / Context:
The criticism points to two gaps: lack of execution despite resources, and absence of a concrete plan. Suitable actions must address strategic clarity and accountability/diagnosis.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Symptom: programs unimplemented despite staff increase.
• Cause hints: unclear objectives; missing firm action plan.
• COA I: redefine objectives and craft a practical action plan.
• COA II: require a reasons report for non-implementation.

Concept / Approach:
COA I realigns mission → strategy → execution, producing clear priorities, timelines, budgets, and owners. COA II creates transparency, surfaces bottlenecks (procurement, approvals, skills), and enables corrective actions. Both are necessary and complementary—diagnosis feeds redesign, and redesigned plans guide future execution.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Either action alone is weaker: planning without diagnosis repeats errors; diagnosis without plan leaves inertia intact.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing staff count with capacity; execution requires clarity and governance loops.

Final Answer:
Both I and II follow.