Comparison Groups for Accreditation Maintenance

1. Comparison Groups for Accreditation Maintenance Dan LeClair, director of knowledge services dan@aacsb.edu

2. Outline • Overview of Knowledge Services • Accreditation Support Overview • Accreditation Statistical Reports (data) • Comparison groups • Discussion

3. End Statement AACSB International will provide high quality data and information about the characteristics and practices of business schools and their industry to support accreditation, promote institutional improvement, enrich member services, enhance public understanding, and facilitate informed decisions.

4. Knowledge Services Model Data CollectionB-School Questionnaire- Key Data & Accred DataSalary SurveyStakeholder Surveys (EBI)Ad hoc SurveysOther organizations- e.g., DOE Reports and Services Statistical Reports Custom Reports Support for Accreditation Stakeholder Studies (EBI) Special Research AACSB leadership Public Information Member Business Schools DATABASE

5. Accreditation Support - Overview • All schools provide an annual data report (BSQ) • Host schools select comparison groups during the application year (by October 1 of year prior to visit year) • Host schools and teams receive Accreditation Statistical Reports during the visit year • note: schools also may access reports in other years • Host schools and teams use reports to provide a context during the peer review process

6. Accreditation Statistical Reports • Overview • Includes characteristics and basic information • Accreditation status, Carnegie classification (US), public/private, calendar system (US), country, state, operating budget, endowment, FT faculty (eventually “participating and supporting”), percent with doctoral degrees, degrees conferred, enrollment by program level, mission statement • Attributable to specific schools (table format)

7. Accreditation Statistical Reports • Comparative Analysis • Includes host school data • Financial information (sources of funds and uses of funds by category) • Participants (student admissions, post-graduate employment, faculty qualifications, and faculty contributions) • Includes key ratios (e.g., degrees to faculty, degrees to staff) • Data not attributable to a specific school • Aggregate (number reporting, max, median, min) • Anonymous

8. Accreditation Statistical Reports • Degree Programs • Lists the degree programs offered by each school in the comparison group • Includes degree title, primary and sub-emphases, field/discipline category, delivery information (e.g., full-time, part-time, distance, online, off-campus, etc.) and minimum credit hours to graduate (when applicable) • Data are attributable to a specific school

9. What criteria were used to select data for inclusion in Accreditation Statistical Reports? • Provides context • Linked to standards • Value in comparison • Globally applicable • “Collectable” Feedback from peer-review teams and host schools will be used to continuously improve the Accreditation Statistical Reports.

10. Data Collection Process • Business School Questionnaire (two parts) • Key Data (All AACSB members) • Accreditation Data (All accredited members) • Collection period extends from October through March each year • Submit data at secure website www.aacsb.edu/knowledgeservices • Data scrubbing from March through July WHY?

11. Challenges to Data Providers • Programming of internal data systems • Cooperation of institutional offices • Resources to gather and submit data • Timing of data collection • Applying data definitions to specific circumstances • Other challenges?

12. Accreditation Comparison Groups • Comparable Peers • Considered similar in mission and assumed appropriate for comparison • Aspirant • Provides a development goal • Has programs or features applicant hopes to emulate • Places the vision and strategy in context • Competitive Comparable Group • Conflicts of interest exclude personnel from review

13. Accreditation Comparison Groups • Comparable Peers • Reports show host school relative to comparison group • Host data included in calculations • Minimum of six schools • Aspirant • Reports show host school relative to aspirant group • Host data not included in calculations • Any number of schools may be included • Competitive Comparable Group • Reports are not produced (for team selection only) • Any number of schools may be included

14. Additional Notes • Peer review team members selected from comparable and aspirant groups when possible • Scheduling challenges • Corporate involvement • AACSB won’t publish or make available comparison group selections beyond the accreditation process • Idiosyncratic features may make some data non-comparable

15. Outline a process for selecting comparable (peer) comparison groups for accreditation maintenance. Group Exercise

16. Roles for AACSB • Assist to select initial listswww.aacsb.edu/knowledgeservices • Facilitate networking to refine lists • Build database to support process • Provide facility to manage comparison groups

17. Challenges and Questions • Benchmarking for innovation • Role of comparison groups for initial accreditation • Mission and strategy data to support selection • Timing of official selection • Continuous maintenance of comparison groups • Multiple units at institution • International comparisons

18. Programs offered (64.2%) Number of students (62.7%) Public/Private (59.7%) Number of faculty (55.2%) Operating Budget (31.3%) Geographic region (26.9%) Student profile (26.9%) Urban/Suburban/Rural (25.4%) Preliminary Research - Criteria From a survey of 67 deans during the 2003 Deans Conference (top eight based percentage of deans that use each criterion)

19. Preliminary Research* • Schools exert little effort to benchmarking • Networking, public information, and buying surveys are most popular methods • 85% compare only other business schools • Reputation, quality of students, program offerings, faculty research most common criteria for aspirant group selection • Most want to improve financial resources, but little benchmarking in the area * Joe Labianca (Emory) and Jim Fairbank (Penn State Erie)

20. Discussion