Remarks to AMERICAN ACCOUNTING ASSOCIATION August 12, 2000 Philadelphia, PA

2. Remarks to AMERICAN ACCOUNTING ASSOCIATION August 12, 2000 Philadelphia, PA

3. WHY ONLINE LEARNING MATTERS IN MANAGEMENT EDUCATION • In U.S. alone, employers spend $65b on education/training • Worldwide, demand for management education is growing. Thirty-seven million managers have access to Internet and speak English. Little local infrastructure to serve those needs. • In U.S. more students over 35 are enrolled in colleges than 19 and under.

4. WHY ONLINE LEARNING MATTERS IN MANAGEMENT EDUCATION • Faculty shortage in the U.S. b-school market in the 80s is coming back. - 5.2% in 1996, now up to 6.7%. - 14% in MIS - 7.8% in accounting • B-schools must find new/creative ways to leverage their intellectual capital.

5. BRANDING MATTERS! • Magazine rankings • Branding=building a distinctive, sustainable, hard to replicate identity • For now, b-schools hold the brand. • For b-schools without a built-in brand or the resources to build one: alliance strategy

6. COMPETITION • 1. MBA’s Online • Indiana, Duke, UNC, Baltimore, UMSL, Whitewater, Syracuse, Auburn, Ohio U., Dominguez Hills • For-profits: Phoenix, Kaplan, Cardean • Open Univ., NTU

7. COMPETITION • 2. Executive education • Duke for-profit to deliver custom executive ed, and to repackage for use by general workforce. • Wharton/IBM alliance • FTK purchase of Forum Group • Unext, Quisic, etc.

8. COMPETITION • 3. Portals (just enough, just in time “granules”) • Fathom—Columbia, LSE, British Library, NY Public Library, Smithsonian, Cambridge U. Press, U. Chicago, American Film Institute, RAND • Working Knowledge, nowledge@Wharton. “Brand builder”: the next generation of rankings?

9. QUALITY Some definitions: • Platform support • Student feedback • 8. Faculty training and development • 9. Student retention 1. Interactivity 2. Customization 3. Content 4. Course design 5. Production values

10. QUALITY AACSB—at program level: 1. clear educational objectives 2. link to institutional mission 3. show differences in offerings from other providers 4. benchmarking efforts 5. systematic input from stakeholders 6. clear performance expectations for students 7. appropriate interaction

11. QUALITY 8. complete and accurate promotional materials systematic training, development, evaluation and reward for faculty 10. involvement of learning design experts 11. congruent with learning styles/needs of students being served 12. use learning assessment tools 13. IP policies 14. appropriate student support services

12. E-LEARNING FIRMS 1. Extractor models 2. Quisic—partner model • The idea: combine world-class content with best production values. Downstream distribution through other university-based b-schools and corporate education/training units.

13. 4 years ago: undergrad and teleweb—13 courses now exist • Content from individual faculty members • Not just text: streaming video of gurus, executives,entrepreneurs, etc. • Discussion boards, electronic chat rooms, -computer adaptive tests, cases • Supplemental textbooks and course manuals • Industry awards • Now: graduate and corporate focus, web only (evolution of Broadband) • Portal

14. 3. Value Added to B-Schools by Quisic • Not a threat to existing institutions. • Gives all b-schools an opportunity to offer world- class content across the business curriculum. • Allows niche schools to affiliate with a brand • Frees up classroom time to focus on applications instead of content knowledge • Frees up faculty time to serve as an information source, provide student feedback and counseling, outreach, scholarship, institutional governance

15. QUISIC LEARNING EXPERIENCE Courses developed by team of producers, instructional designers, Writers, researchers, graphic artists in cooperation with SME • Faculty give feedback on course structure, use of cases and interactive exercises, etc. • Clear course goals, lesson outlines, and expected learning outcomes. • Success depends on performance of faculty facilitator!