260 likes | 337 Views
ABS ER Group Meeting 2012. Educational Partnerships & the Case of Central & Eastern Europe. Simon Mercado, Associate Dean, Nottingham Business School With acknowledgement to: John Leopold (NUBS), Emil Helienek (NBS). Partnering in Management Education. Partnering in management education.
E N D
ABS ER Group Meeting 2012. Educational Partnerships & the Case of Central & Eastern Europe Simon Mercado, Associate Dean, Nottingham Business School With acknowledgement to: John Leopold (NUBS), Emil Helienek (NBS).
Partnering in management education • FACTS: • 1. Most institutions regard international collaboration with fellow HEIs as a key tool for globalisation or internationalisation. • 2. International agencies, research councils, and accreditation bodies actively promote, fund or sponsor international partnering. • 3. Effective cross-border partnerships benefit the sector, its institutions and stakeholders. • 4. The quality, character and value of our international ties are integral to our institutional experiences and identities. • 5. Partnership agreements are fundamental to commercial activity and to international trade in higher education services (next slide)
Main Categories of International Trade in Higher Education (GATS) • Cross Border Supply Includes any type of course provided cross border through distance education or online. • distance education • e-learning • virtual universities • Commercial presence Foreign universities, institutions or investors establish direct or indirect presence in another country for purpose of supply of service • branch or satellite campuses • franchising arrangements • Consumption Abroad Supply of educational service to individuals who become ‘mobile’ before consumption of service abroad • Study abroad • Presence of natural persons People to move between countries to provide educational services on an essentially temporary basis • Flying faculty arrangements • professors, teachers, researchers working abroad
Joining Forces: the HE sector • Perceived benefits include: • knowledge gains and transfers • benchmarking opportunities • access to partner resources and skills • operational and experiential benefits (for staff & students) • enhanced capability/marketability (for graduates) • market extension/reach • increased revenues • access to funding • economies of scale/cost sharing • brand enhancement/joint branding opportunities • (local) market intelligence
Partnership concentrations - a tentative typology TNE CURRICULA/MOBILITY RESEARCH FACULTY
Partnering in management education In practice the HE scene presents a mix of partnership examples: ‘strategic’ partnerships/collaborations (which exist in service of specific institutional goals, strategic aims or interest). By extension, strategic partnerships may be: ‘Nodal’ (Stand-alone) ‘Bi-Nodal’ ‘Multi-Nodal’ (Comprehensive) Naturally, certain partnerships may be deemed to be core or priority, very often those multi-nodal links that serve a more developed internationalisation agenda. Greater strategic value is likely to apply where objectives focus simultaneously or comprehensively on a spread of institutional, research, mobility, and curricula based interests (Hudzik, 2010)
and the rest… • Of course, for many of us at least, there may be a range of partnerships within our portfolio that might not be of strategic value or purpose and which may in fact be damaging to brand or strategy.These may include: • Skeletons • Paper Aeroplanes • Mules • Skunks & • Lettuces • These may be legacy arrangements, a product of displaced or outmoded strategies, or simply the product of uncoordinated/ad hoc internationalisation processes.
Your Existing Partnerships • Know what you have and why you have it. • Measure and profile the benefits tied to your partnerships • Think in terms of a partnerships portfolio. • Define major platforms for partnership and potential linkages. • Establish hierarchies or networks as appropriate. • Define evaluation criteria for each major category. • Focus on strategic partnering and on building strategically aligned partnerships that: ‘have a purpose, value and fit with the mission, vision and strategy of your institution and ‘offer you assets and opportunities available only through engagement’
Comprehensive Multi Platform Cross Platform (Multi-Focus) Validation Curriculum Exchange/Mobility Recruitment/ Access Research EDP Twin Platform (Twin Focus) STA ART ERAS EXC RPA RDA OS JD DD Franchise Joint Degree Double Degree Erasmus/LLP Int. Exchange Study Abroad Articulation Research Project Research Degree Single Platform (Single Focus) Exemplars Educational partnerships across four key platforms…
Focus & Priorities • Delegated provision • Franchises • Low-level of academic control • Reputational risk • Partner controlled recruitment • Poor financial return @ 10-30% of UKRP (FRA) 01-10% of UKRP (DEL) • Joint Research • Exchange/Mobility Links • Joint/Double Degrees • Direct Delivery (off-shore) • Articulation • High-level of academic control coupled with brand benefits • Partnership model recruitment • Good financial return @ 25-50% UKRP (JD/DD) 75-100% UKRP (Direct)
Partnership Evaluation/Benefits – The 6Rs • Systematic Examination of prospective partnerships in relation to the 6Rs: • Reputation(R1)- encouraging measurement of association benefits linked to partner institution’s positioning, portfolio, status and ranking. • Revenue (R2)– encouraging measurement of fiscal or monetary benefits, both direct and indirect. • Risk(R3)– the extent to which a partnership exposes the institution tosome combination of political, security, financial and legal risk. • Reach(R4)– the extent to which a partnership either reinforces market presence or takes the institution into (new) target markets or territory. • Resource(R5) – encouraging measurement of resource demands and/or the extent to which the partnership provides access to complementary resources. • Research(R6)– the extent to which a partnership delivers research benefits or provides a platform for research links and knowledge exchange.
Portfolio Evaluation by R1/R4 Assessment Low-priority market Mid-priority market High priority market High REPUTATIONAL BENEFITS Partnership Category: Exchange (mobility) 5* 4* 3* 2* 1* 0* Links under review Terminated links Low High REACH BENEFITS
R6 Visualisation Tool reputation revenue risk (avoidance) 0 = low/negative 5 = high/positive research reach Small double degree project with high-standing institutional partner in mature, low-risk market with high QA. Faculty developing joint teaching and research. De minimus indicators resource
R6 Visualisation Tool reputation revenue risk (avoidance) 0 = low/negative 5 = high/positive relevance reach Profitable franchise with emerging private university in ‘new’ (low/mid risk) market for parent university. De minimus indicators resource
Management Education & HE - CEE • Last twenty years characterised by: • rapid liberalisation and development of sector • the influence of Bologna and growth in international cooperation • restructuring of academic systems (market & EHEA adjustments) • progressive recognition of foreign degrees • slow emergence of private sector • increasing number of incoming international students • rise of regional co-operation (CEEMAN) & regional accreditation • emergence of local world class providers • IEDC (Slovenia); Kozminski (Poland); CEU BS (Budapest) + • 2 EQUIS/ 12 EPAS Management Schools within region • QS Europe Top 50 list 2012 (MBA Rankings) 3 CEE Schools – CEU, Corvinus, Warsaw
The co-operation cycle • Arguably three key periods in terms of relations with foreign HEIs: • Post-reform period based on knowledge transfer (PHARE/TACIS +) • Post-Bologna period (Internationalisation push combined with major structural reforms) • Post-accession period (Characterised by new BoP, accreditations and rankings gains)
Working with CEE partners- some complicating variables and tendencies • PD often based on heritage * • PD often ad hoc * • Pattern of copying programs from more experienced Western counterparts * • Institutional goal often to satisfy professors * • Same teaching methods across the board * • Difficult and bureaucratic approval processes • Hierarchical decision-making processes • Need for top-level engagements • Internal University politics presents risk • Relatively new and variable QA systems • Subsidised fee structures (public sector) * Virginijus Kundrotas President of BMDA – Baltic Management Development Association / CEEMAN Vice President
Working with CEE partners- some enabling factors • Strong partnership orientation • Relatively low psychic distance • Academic discipline and quality (in stronger institutions) • Student quality • Faculty quality and proactivity • Expertise in accessing/securing funding • Booming private sector • Willingness to adopt UK QA practices • Scope and appetite for depth in partnerships • Lack of recognition of some degrees (MBA/Top-Ups) = opportunity • Strong business community and burgeoning market for MD