1 / 17

Achieving AACSB Accreditation at The University of Surrey Professor Bob O Keefe Head of School

. Agenda. Some history and backgroundWhy AACSBAACSB vs. EQUISThe journeyThe standardsContinuous improvementIf I knew what I know now. Summer 2002. Three separate business

chavi
Download Presentation

Achieving AACSB Accreditation at The University of Surrey Professor Bob O Keefe Head of School

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Achieving AACSB Accreditation at The University of Surrey Professor Bob O’Keefe 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 MSc’s 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 Surrey’s 5* Schools Integrated in the broader community Financially robust Accredited International recognition beyond Hospitality & Tourism

    9. The Intellectual Strategy Unequivocally the best in Europe Hospitality Tourism Retail

    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

    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.

More Related