Achieving AACSB

1

• Achieving AACSB
• Accreditation at The
• University of Surrey
• Professor Bob OKeefe
• Head of School

2
Agenda

• Some history and background
• Why AACSB
• AACSB vs. EQUIS
• The journey
• The standards
• Continuous improvement
• If I knew what I know now

3
Summer 2002

• Three separate business management silos
• Post-graduate Business School (SeMS)
• MBA and specialised MScs
• Very market led
• Mixed reputation
• Hospitality Tourism School
• Strong in UG programmes and certain research
• Very (too?) focused
• School of Education Studies
• Strong in management development

4
Accreditation 2002

• SeMS had failed AMBA
• Strong accreditation in Hospitality Tourism
• TedQual
• Some professional accreditation
• CIPD, CIM

5
The Goal

• Single coherent Business School
• An equal for Surreys 5 Schools
• Integrated in the broader community
• Financially robust
• Accredited
• International recognition beyond Hospitality
  Tourism

6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
The Intellectual Strategy

• Unequivocally the
• best in Europe
• Hospitality
• Tourism
• Retail

• As good as anyone
• else in the UK
• Information Management
• Human Resource Management
• Enterprise
• Management Development

• Capable
• Marketing
• Finance
• Strategy

10
AACSB Good and Bad

• Good
• Well defined criteria-based process
• Relatively transparent
• Global
• Mission driven
• Developmental and cumulative
• Not so good
• Not selective enough?
• 500 accredited Schools
• Visibility in European market?

11
EQUIS Good and Bad

• Good
• Elitist
• Visibility in Europe
• Broad
• Not so Good
• Norm based what are the norms?
• Conformist
• Evaluative and terminal

12
The AACSB Journey
Time 3 years
People Mentor Review Team
Documents Application Accreditation Plan
Self Evaluation Report
Processes Membership Pre-accreditation Initial
Accreditation Initial Accreditation
13
The 21 AACSB Standards

• Three broad areas
• 1 to 5 Mission, vision, finances, governance
• 6 to 13 Student admissions and retention,
  faculty sufficiency, faculty responsibility
• 13 to 21 Management of curricula, learning goals
• Within the UK environment
• 1 to 5 may not be explicit
• 6 to 13 can be tough
• 13 to 21 should be relatively easy (QAA stuff)

14
Standard 10 Faculty Qualifications

• At least 90 of Faculty are either academically
  or professionally qualified
• Academic PhD and/or demonstration of scholarship
• Professional legal, accounting, etc.
• Certainly NOT MBA
• We persuaded our panel that FIPD and FCHIMA are
  professional qualifications
• Easiest way to meet standard hire only PhDs and
  keep them researching

15
Standard 9 Faculty Sufficiency

• Faculty are participating (teach, admin,
  research, manage) or supportive (part-time, etc.)
• Participating faculty must deliver
• 75 of all teaching
• 60 of teaching by discipline and by programme
• This occupied us

16
Continuous Improvement Objectives

• Accreditation plans identify continuous
  improvement objectives that are worked on prior
  to a review team visit
• Ours revolved around
• Redesign of MBA
• Implementation of a new module evaluation scheme
• AACSB knowledge areas, especially how ethics is
  dealt with
• Measurement of programme goals

17
If I knew what I know now

• What we did well (or lucked out on)
• Excellent mentor
• Worked towards AACSB committee deadlines
  (typically June and December)
• Developed a real and useful mission
• Adapted and explained existing quality documents
• Managed the review panel
• Briefed V-C and Deputy V-C
• We used the process to drive change within the
  School

18
If I knew what I know now

• What we did not so did well (or what surprised
  us) ...
• Initially we thought a senior administrator could
  write the documents
• Existing data was often flaky and contradictory
• Time commitment by senior staff (Head, Deputy
  Heads, etc.) far more then expected
• Faculty sufficiency pushed up some surprises
• Did not think through how to use accreditation in
  marketing, recruitment, etc.