Training Workshop for Programme evaluators of NBEAC

1. Training Workshop for Programme evaluators of NBEAC Islamabad, Pakistan October 10-12, 2011

2.  QUALITY RELATED ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION  Dr. Christophe Terrasse EFMD

3. Session agenda and outcomes About EFMD Accreditation, certification and ranking� Main organization and main international labels EFMD quality insurance tools and accreditation EQUIS brief description: management and procedures

4. What is EFMD? An international, not-for-profit, institutional membership organization of business schools, corporations, executive development centres, and consultancies based in Brussels, Belgium Currently with 752 institutional members in 81 countries MISSION: EFMD acts as a catalyst to promote and enhance excellence in management development in Europe and worldwide.

5. HOW WE WORK

6. EFMD Membership

8. Accreditations Overview EPAS 43 from 34 schoolsEPAS 43 from 34 schools

9. EQUIS: getting global

10. History, framework and procedures

11. Why accreditation? European Union 27 member States �500 million inhabitants 40+ different languages Among which, 23 official languages The most widely spoken mother tongue in the EU is German But more than 50% understand English 2030 business schools�

12. Why accreditation? Bologna Declaration in 1999 the adoption of a common framework of readable and comparable degrees; the introduction of undergraduate and postgraduate levels in all countries; ECTS -compatible credit systems; a European dimension in quality assurance; the elimination of remaining obstacles to the free mobility of students and teachers

13. Visa and certifications National certifications and government visas Limited scope to one individual country Provide minimal requirements Often administrative compliance Not really linked to the market expectations Lack of reactivity But Compulsory Same for every institution Essential to provide minimal quality standards

14. Rankings Provides a synthetic view Can be easily manipulated Lack of transparency May be misleading or misinterpreted Reliability of the rankings may vary Essentially quantitative in form: easy to jail break! But Highly visible Immediate and powerful effects Often misunderstood by the audiences And�impossible to avoid

15. Accreditation May be national, regional or international Generally conferred by peers Focus may vary General accreditation Specialised accreditations (entrepreneurship programmes accreditation, AACSB accounting accreditation;..) Scope may vary Institutional accreditation Programme accreditation A mix of both� Specific accreditation, such as e-learning accreditations

16. Role of accreditation Providing market transparency and clarification Offering a signal to the markets to recognize quality institutions Allow comparisons Allowing the students to make choice Helping the companies to hire graduates Helping the schools to develop international networks But more importantly, provides a quality improvement tool Allowing institutions to evaluate their quality level Allowing them to compare to competitors Allowing them to determine progress plans

17. Role of accreditation Accreditations can be regional or international Accreditations are voluntary Accreditations are not mutually exclusive Triple crown institutions (AACSB, EQUIS and AMBA) Enhance visibility in different world region Used as competitive advantage Different rules and focus, meaning that all bring different advantages Natural path from national certification, national accreditation to regional and international

18. Main international players in accreditation AACSB: Created 1916 Based in the US International development rather recent Programme and institution accreditation EFMD Created 1971 Based in Brussels, Europe Programme accreditations (EPAS from 2005) Institutional accreditation (EQUIS, from 1999) Specialised accreditations (CEL, CLIP AMBA UK based Well implanted in Europe and Latin America 186 accredited programmes

19. Certification, rankings and accreditations

20. EFMD AND ITS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT SYSTEMS EQUIS, EPAS�

21. Accreditation What is �accreditation�? How is accreditation carried out? What is the value of accreditation? How were the EQUIS criteria developed? EQUIS criteria 6. Testimonials and Conclusions

22. What is �accreditation�? ��a formal recognition of competence.� ��a status granted to an education institution or program that has been found to meet or exceed stated criteria of educational criteria�. ��a way to identify quality and performance��

23. What is �accreditation�? ��certifies that the school has met the established standards of the accrediting agency.� ��the primary means [to] assure and improve quality.�

24. What is �accreditation�? ��to measure school programs against mutually held standards of excellence.� ��a recognition of excellence.�

25. How is accreditation carried out? Eligibility criteria Self-assessment of the institution or program based on criteria On-site visit by an evaluation team Decision by an awarding body

26. What is the value of international accreditation? Assures the market (students and industry) that quality criteria have been met, Establishes continuous quality improvement, Voluntary participation shows a dedication to self-evaluation and self-improvement, Recognition by peers of excellence,

27. What is the value of international accreditation? Provides a solid network of similar institutions for networking, alliances, and degree recognition, Information for recruiters, Professional pride for professors and administration to work in an accredited institution, Serves as a guide to students and families,

28. What is the value of international accreditation? Internal mechanism for change and improvement, Reinforces institutional autonomy of business school, Provides a firm foundation for the value of the degree and non-degree programs, Strengthens the management team vis-�-vis the Board and government agencies.

29. What is the value of international accreditation? Study by Dr. Peter Lindstrom : International benchmarking: 97% Improve competitive position: 89% Improve quality assurance processes: 77% Support for institutional development: 75% Motivate faculty and staff to improve: 72% External review and/or consulting: 65%

30. What is the cost of accreditation? Accreditation has a cost! Accreditation agency fees (38,675 � for 5 year EQUIS) Other costs (such as the logistic of the reviews) Cost of the preparation of the accreditation process Investments needed to bring the institution to the necessary standards

31. Differences between accreditations? EFMD currently runs two systems for Business Schools EQUIS for the institutions EPAS for the programmes Different approach Different methodology Different targets No hierarchy between the accreditations

32. One accreditation� or many? Some institutions will apply for more than one accreditation Triple crown accreditation (50 institutions in 2011) Natural move towards quality Enhanced visibility and international recognition Prestige and recognition (top tier) Impact on rankings Each accreditation allows a quality improvement But� No equivalence between the systems No mutual recognition or fast tracks.

33. Accreditation and reaccreditation Accreditation granted for a limited period of time 3 or 5 years Accreditation may be granted at different levels Full accreditation Conditional accreditation Conditions may change Internal or external conditions may evolve Quality may deteriorate Standards may evolve Necessity to reaccreditate�

34. Question raised by the reaccreditation How to motivate institutions? Added value of the re-accreditation How to communicate the concept of continuous improvement? Format of the reaccreditation? Same process all over again or different? Do we need to recheck everything? How to take into account the conclusions of the previous review? Time lag between the accreditation and reaccreditation? 5 years or 3 years? And what happens if an institution fails the reaccreditation?

35. European Quality Improvement SystemEQUIS

36. EFMD Accreditation Challenge: A quality improvement system that respects a vast diversity Institutional Diversity Organisation of Higher Education Institutions Private vs Public Programme Diversity First degree, Postgraduate, Executive Education Diverse programme formats Single, dual, multiple, joint degrees Geographical and Cultural Diversity Different values and expectations Leadership styles Professorial roles

37. The EFMD Response Promotion of diversity Source of Innovation and Creativity: a richer world There is no single model European origin: diversity is the rule Not based on any national or historical background Some things are better for certain purposes: no best way First learn... Understand the local context Understand vision and strategy (Programme objectives) Bring an international perspective Be open to persuasive evidence ...only then, assess.

38. What is EQUIS? Launched in 1997 to satisfy the demand for an international accreditation scheme for business schools Higher education institutions Degree granting Management and business administration Contemplate diversity effectively while not compromising expected level of quality Designed to evaluate and accredit high quality international business schools Perspective beyond that of national accreditation agencies To provide Firstly, continuous quality improvement Secondarily, international recognition and effectiveness

39. EQUIS in the World 128 Accredited schools (in 36 different countries) 50 outside Europe (in 19 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, India, Mexico, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, USA, Venezuela) 70 accredited for 3 years 43 peer reviews scheduled in 2011 11 initial reviews 32 re-accreditation reviews 4 Schools formally in the pipeline of which 2 from outside Europe Stable inflow of 10-15 new applications per year

40. EQUIS Framework

41. Management of EQUIS

42. Accreditation Outcomes

43. The EQUIS Approach Respect for Diversity Diversity of national educational systems Diversity of programme formats Diversity of expectations and values Start with an understanding of the local context Not a one model approach A trans-national approach

44. Key Characteristics of EQUIS 1- Institutional Assessment 2- Driven by the Management Development Profession 3- Involves both Academic and Corporate Stakeholders 4- Respect for Diversity 5- Managed by a Multicultural Group 6- Three Dimensions: - General Quality - Internationalisation - Interface with the Professional World  7- Balance between Academic and Professional Dimensions

45. How were the EQUIS criteria developed? Extensive review in 1996 of the criteria used by national accrediting associations with EQUAL EQUAL serves as the �think tank� for the EFMD Quality Services Current EQUAL members from UK, Spain, Italy, France, Denmark, CEEMAN, Czech Rep., Germany, Poland, Norway, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Holland, AACSB, CFBSD, CLADEA

46. Concerns of Business Schools Recognition on a global scale Internationalization of business education Management education curriculum Corporate social responsibility and leadership Learning partnerships Corporate universities Bologna Agreement

47. Benefits of EFMD Quality Initiatives Providing information for market transparency International recognition of excellence Mechanism for international benchmarking Acceleration of quality improvement in international management education Sharing of good practice and mutual learning Recommendations for quality improvement and future development of the organisation

48. Institutional Assessment Whole School Assessment: all programmes, research and other activities Degree or non-degree programmes, including executive education Linked to both academic and corporate needs Involves both academic and corporate stakeholders at all levels Balance between academic and professional skills Emphasis on personal development Corporate links: key criterion Importance of strategy and governance Participation of experienced Deans in Peer Review Teams EQUIS Differentiating Factors

49. Internationalisation as a key criterion Of quality standards Of reputation Of the school culture EQUIS managed by international team Focus on diversity Less normative in general but especially on Curriculum structure and content Faculty composition and deployment Random audit vs. exhaustive audit Consultants rather than auditors Quality criteria in 10 areas EQUIS Differentiating Factors

50. EQUIS FRAMEWORK

51. The EQUIS Accreditation Process

52. The EQUIS Timing

53.  QUALITY RELATED ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION  Dr. Christophe Terrasse EFMD

54. Session agenda and outcomes EQUIS process and timing Eligibility Self-Assessment Peer Review Q&A

55. EQUIS FRAMEWORK

56. EQUIS Organisation

57. The EQUIS Accreditation Process

58. The EQUIS Timing

60. Eligibility Criteria Three conditions for eligibility: The institution is within the institutional scope of the EQUIS process The institution is recognized as a institution of good standing in home market The institution has a reasonable prospect of getting EQUIS

61. Institutional Scope A degree awarding institution Has a mission in higher education Primary focus is management Has autonomy in design and running programmes Has clear boundaries Has a core faculty dedicated to research, teaching, and consulting Has graduated at least 3 classes in its main degree programme

62. National Standing Is accredited or recommended by a national body, or Is recommended by EQUAL, or Can establish that it is a quality school within its own national market

63. Likelihood of Accreditation A strong international orientation Very close links with the corporate world High standards of general quality

64. Self-Assessment Report Purpose of Self-Assessment: Provide an opportunity for the School to stop and look at its present situation Carry out a comprehensive strategic review An unbiased and critical self-examination

65. Self-Assessment Report Purpose of Self-Assessment: Provide a basis for the Peer review Contribute to a better understanding of the nature of quality in management education

66. Self-Assessment Report Recommended actions: Appoint a Project Leader and a Accreditation Committee Give the Project Leader the resources needed Accreditation Committee should represent all the stakeholders Communicate with all stakeholders

67. Self-Assessment Report Recommended actions: A detailed plan for conducting the self-assessment within one month Self-Assessment carried out within 6 to 12 months Liaise with EQUIS during the Self-Assessment Ensure the national environment is fully explained

68. Self-Assessment Report Format of the report: 100 � 150 pages plus supporting documents The EQUIS Quality Dimensions (11) should be covered in 11 chapters Facts (supported) rather than opinions

69. Training Workshop for Programme evaluators of NBEAC Islamabad, Pakistan October 10-12, 2011

70.  QUALITY RELATED ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION  Dr. Christophe Terrasse EFMD

71. EQUIS FRAMEWORK

72. Context and Strategy The environment in which the school operates History of the school National market and competition Constraints of national environment Legal status and school�s recognition Organizational structure

73. Context and Strategy School�s decision making process How is internal decision making reviewed Mission Vision for the future Core values Strategic positioning and planning

74. Programmes Strategy and policy regarding teaching and learning Portfolio of the programmes Strengths and weaknesses of portfolio How changed over past five year. How are programmes managed Process for programme design Programme content and ILOs

75. Programmes Skills acquired Managerial skills acquired Teaching methods used: diversity Pedagogical innovation Student assessment Programme evaluation Internationalisation Corporate relevance

76. Students Target market and profiles for in-coming students Target profile for graduating students Results of selection processes for each programme Profile of current student population Process to prepare students for study Policy on credit transfer and exemptions

77. Students Summary of progression, completion, failure and drop-out rates Learning support for students Personal skills acquired Business ethics and corporate social responsibility Career placement Alumni Internationalization and Corporate links

78. Faculty Opportunities for sabbaticals Opportunities to be visiting professors Academic and professional organizations Aware of latest developments in their field and in management International and linked to corporate world

79. Faculty Size, qualification and composition Business experience Adequate coverage for programmes Non-core teaching resources Faculty management Management of workloads Recruitment and induction of faculty Policy on faculty development

80. Research & Development Research strategy and policy How organized in school How is research integrated into the Faculty workload How is research funded Process to monitor and evaluate research Summary of last 5 years

81. Research & Development How research contributes to quality of learning and programme innovation Policy for promoting innovation How research contributes to international dimension of school How relevant to Corporate World

82. Internationalization Strategy for internationalization How managed Where positioned in international market How reflected in student body and faculty Schools activities outside its home country: student/faculty abroad

83. Internationalization Links to international corporate world Key relationships with international organizations Key changes in last 5 years in internationalization International dimension of research

84. Corporate Connections Strategy regarding relationships with corporate world How managed Describe key relationships with corporate partners Keys changes in last 5 years

85. Executive Education How Ex Ed fits into overall school policy Positioning of Ex Ed in organization chart: department? Centre? Portfolio of Programmes National and international market Main competitors Customer base

86. Executive Education Describe customer relationship management Describe marketing and sales policy How are participants selected Describe design process for open and customized Faculty resources available for Ex Ed Quality management system

87. Contribution to the Community How does school manage community relations Schools overall contribution to community Policy toward staff/faculty involvement in community Engagement of students in non-profit or humanitarian activities

88. Contribution to the Community Describe the policy towards faculty participation in academic and professional organizations Does the school have a code of ethics or an Ethics committee? How does school show concern for environment and disadvantaged communities

89. Resources and Administration Summary of the premises and those shared with host Describe the educational facilities: auditoriums, classrooms, breakout rooms, social areas What degree on financial autonomy does the school enjoy? What are the regulations and constraints that limit this authority?

90. Resources and Administration Explain the budget for the current year Summarize the financial performance over the past 5 years Describe the projected financial needs and the plans to meet these targets Describe the school�s internal financial control and reporting systems Describe library, databases, doc. center

91. Resources and Administration Describe the computing facilities available Describe the organization for the marketing and promotion of the school�s activities Describe the Marketing and PR strategy Describe the organization of the supoort services

92. Self-Assessment Report Facts presented in a persuasive manner Conclusion should make a case for accreditation

93. Composition of Peer Review Committee Four-member team: 3 are members holding (or held) senior positions in the world of management education One of the above will have experience in the country being visited The fourth member will be from the corporate world

94. Objectives of the Peer Review To assess the quality of the school�s activities against the EQUIS criteria and to make a recommendation to the EQUIS Awarding Body concerning accreditation To fulfil a consultancy role leading to suggestions for quality improvement and to offer the school the benefits of a strategic audit

95. Peer Review Schedule Visit will last 2.5 days Visit will begin at 09:00 on the first day and end no later than 14:00 on the third day Visit will start and finish with a meeting with the Senior Management team The schedule can be amended as needed by the Peer Review Committee

96. Oral Debriefing Report Given by the Peer Review Committee Chairman Allows for more informal feedback and more critical feedback The Senior Management team is expected to listen and take notes---not to intervene No recommendation is made

97. Peer Review Report The Chairman collates and consolidates comments from the Committee A draft report is written and sent to the Committee for comments and changes The edited report is sent to the school by EQUIS for factual corrections

98. Peer Review Report The Final Report is written up and includes: - EQUIS binding recommendations - EQUIS non-binding recommendations - May indicate accreditation immediately: School can apply to the EQUIS Awarding Body for accreditation - If no indication is given, school can wait to apply and act on the recommendations.

99. EQUIS Awarding Body The EQUIS Director presents the Peer Review Committee report and recommendation to the EQUIS Awarding Body. Outcomes: - Accreditation: given for 5 years with a necessary Progress Report after 30 months

100. EQUIS Awarding Body Outcomes: - Accreditation: given for 3 years; a progress report required annually with conditions given - Rejection: must wait at least two years to reapply

101. RECENT CHANGES IN EQUIS EQUIS Process Manual regroups all EQUIS procedures and processes into one document EQUIS Standards & Criteria in one comprehensive manual Two programmes assessed more in depth in Self-Assessment Report Organisation of separate EQUIS accreditation seminars: Practical Application of 10 EQUIS Standards and Criteria Understanding the Key Stages of the EQUIS Accreditation Process Making the Most of the Self-Assessment Report and Preparing an Effective Self-Assessment Report Deciding Whether You Are Ready for EQUIS Accreditation: Gap Analysis Quality Assurance Manual includes control and evaluation tools for the services and information provided by the Quality Services Department

102. NBEAC and EQUIS An established accreditation An institutional accreditation An international tool A stronger emphasis on internationalisation A �newer� initiative A programme / institutional accreditation A national tool

103. NBEAC & EQUIS Same philosophy Both systems are quality improvement tools focusing on excellence Similar structure and organisation Eligibility SAR Peer review Awarding body decision Comparable list of chapters and criteria to be checked Some procedural differences (such as the PRT composition, the assessment scales)

104.  NBEAC accreditation procedures Dr. Christophe Terrasse EFMD

105. Outline NBEAC Accreditation procedures General presentation of the NBEAC process Comparison with the EQUIS & AACSB procedures Complaint and Appeal procedures Conflict of interest & Confidentiality agreements

106. NBEAC Accreditation Framework Stages

107. The EQUIS Accreditation Process

108. Conflicts of interest Conflict of interest with an auditor Conflict of interest may be in favour or against the audited institution Need for clear and transparent policies

109. Sources of conflict of interest Relationships with the audited school, such as Closest competitors or collaborators: Graduate Employee Member of the part-time or visiting faculty Consultant, advisor or member of an Advisory Board A current or past personal conflict with the School or any of its current or recent leaders. Reciprocity: one of the members of the School to be reviewed has in the recent past assessed the reviewer�s own home institution either in an EFMD review or in some other capacity. Hidden agendas: having been approached by the School to encourage him or her to volunteer to be a peer reviewer of the School. Any other reason that could be perceived by others to bias the judgment

110. EFMD policy vis-�-vis conflicts of interest a) When the Peer Reviewer declares a conflict of interest that may be perceived as a potential source of bias against the School, the Quality Services Department will ask the School to be assessed for approval, as is done for the local Peer Reviewer. b) When the Peer Reviewer declares a conflict of interest that may be perceived as a potential source of bias in favour of the School, the Quality Services Department will determine whether the Peer Reviewer should be excluded from the specific team.

111. Commitment by experts Obligation for the experts to sign a written document I hereby agree to respect the confidentiality of all information provided to me in the context of my role as a Peer Reviewer and/or as a member of the EQUIS Awarding Body / EQUIS Committee / EPAS Accreditation Board / EPAS Committee / QS Quality Assurance Committee / CLIP Quality Assurance Committee / CLIP Steering Committee (delete as appropriate). I also agree to declare any potential conflicts of interest in accordance with the Policy on Potential Conflicts of Interest for EFMD Peer Reviewers

112. Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement: The Evaluators should comply with NBEAC's procedures on Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality as stated below and shall not take on those assignments prohibited by this policy:

113. Conflict Of Interest: Since its inception, NBEAC has a policy that actual or apparent conflict of interests must be avoided. "Conflict of interest" means a condition or circumstance where a person is unable or is potentially unable to render impartial services, assistance, advice, assessment, evaluation or decision for NBEAC because of other activities such as: � employed or provided consultancy before the evaluation - or influencing relationships with other persons of the institution, -or wherein a person has or may be able to obtain an unfair competitive advantage. The evaluator shall avoid giving any consultancy to institution that he/she evaluated as part of the NBEAC team, when the evaluation is over. There can be a possibility of conflict of Interest between team members. In such cases, the final decisive authority will rest on the Chairman. The members of AIC/PRP can also announce any conflict of interests with the institution before taking part in Peer Review Process.

114. The Chairman of NBEAC, will determine if a conflict of interest exists when a volunteer in one of the roles described above requests a determination. In cases where a participant voluntarily identifies an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest and absents him or herself from the deliberations and actions, these events will be recorded in writing as part of the meeting record and a copy filed with the Secretariat. If a request for a determination of an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest is made to the Chairman, such requests must be made in writing, and the determination by the Chairman is to be in writing, and both are to be filed with the Secretariat.

115. Appeal Procedures Organisation and procedures

116. Management of EQUIS

117. EFMD Board Approves EQUIS policy, standards and procedures based on the proposals submitted by the Quality Service Department after consultation with the EQUIS Committee. Appoints the members of the Awarding Body and the Committee. Is also responsible for handling appeals through an established Appeals Procedure

118. EQUIS Committee The EQUIS Committee, composed of academic and corporate representatives, advises the EQUIS Director on the strategic development of EQUIS. All major decisions concerning policy, standards and procedures are submitted to the EQUIS Committee for consultation. The EQUIS Committee approves the eligibility of Schools that are applying for EQUIS accreditation.

119. EQUIS Awarding Body The EQUIS Awarding Body is composed of representatives of high profile organizations that are stakeholders in the quality improvement of management education. It evaluates the Peer Review Reports on schools that are applying for EQUIS accreditation and, based on their recommendations, makes the final decision to confer EQUIS accreditation upon those management education institutions that have demonstrated excellence at an international level. The Awarding Body meets at least three times a year at the request of the EQUIS Director.

120. Peer review team Each Peer Review Team is composed of four members with experience in the organization and delivery of business and management programs. They normally come from 4 different countries. Each team includes: The Chair of the Peer Review Team: normally an academic (Dean or equivalent) from a different country from the School being assessed. An academic representative (Dean or equivalent) familiar with the local educational environment, whose role is to explain the contextual background of the School for the benefit of the Peer Review Team. Normally he or she should speak the language of the country. Another academic representative (Dean or equivalent) A corporate representative or member of a professional association

121. Role and responsibilities For a school to be confered the accreditation, it is necessary that: The EQUIS committee approves the eligibility of the school; based on the datasheet The school submits a SAR and organise the review in conjunction of the EQUIS Management Team A peer review composed of 4 auditors visits the school and submits a report to the EQUIS Awarding body as well as some recommendations The EQUIS awarding makes the final decision based on the report and the recommendations The decision can be apealed in front of the EFMD Board;

122. Procedures Any School can present an appeal against decisions on eligibility and accreditation. The President of EFMD then appoints three members of the EFMD Board, one of whom will be the Chair, to serve as a special Appeals Committee mandated to examine the appeal. The Institution making an appeal must substantiate its claim that there are grounds for review & should submit a detailed statement of its reasons for believing that the decision should be reversed. The Appeals Committee will study the arguments and the supporting material provided by the institution and consult as appropriate orally or in writing.

123. Appeal Procedures The Appeals Committee will first of all seek to establish whether there are substantive grounds for reviewing the decision being appealed. Substantive grounds for review of a decision may be of two kinds: a) matters of procedure where it can be demonstrated that the documented process may not have been respected. b) substantiated evidence that the decision was unjustified in the light of the information made available at the time of the assessment.

124. Outcomes of the Appeal procedure The Appeals Committee does not take a position on the appropriateness of the decision. It may conclude that There are grounds for review, in which case it requests that the decision-making body re-examines the case during its next meeting, That there were failures in the process and that the process should be repeated from the stage where the failure occurred. That the appeal should be rejected.

125. NBEAC Complaint & Appeal Procedures The procedures for an appeal of accreditation rejection are: An institution's appeal must be submitted to the NBEAC within 04 weeks from the date of the accreditation decision. The grounds for an appeal are limited to the following: The rejection will be arbitrary, capricious or otherwise in disregard of NBEAC accreditation standards;

126. A Business School may appeal against the following decisions: Rejection of Accreditation as a result of a decision by the NBEAC Council Members. Renewal of accredited status after 03 years as a result of a decision by the Council Members.

127. The rejection decision will be based against the NBEAC procedures; The decision will not be supported by facts in the record The School should provide NBEAC with the documentation and information upon which it intends to rely in support of its Appeal. Within 04 weeks of receipt of the School�s Appeal along with documentation, the Secretariat will provide the School with a list of five members who are willing and qualified to serve on an Appeal Panel.

128. Within 01 week of receipt of those names, the institution will remove two names from the list and notify the Secretariat of its decision. The Appeal Panel shall not include any members of the AIC, or Council Members who participated in the process leading to the rejection decision under appeal. The Appeal Panel shall select one of its members to serve as Chair.

129. The Chair of the Appeal Panel shall determine the date of the hearing and shall notify all parties at least 02-weeks in advance of the hearing. The hearing shall be an open proceeding unless the Business School requests in writing that it be closed, which request must be made within 01-week of notice of the hearing date. The hearing shall occur within three (3) months of the rejection decision and be held at location as NBEAC and the Business School may agree.

130. All costs and expenses incurred by NBEAC in providing for the appeal, the hearing, expenses of the Appeal Panel, and all other expenses (exclusive of Appeal Panel fees, if any) in connection with the appeal shall be abide by the Business School, except where the Appeal Panel finds that the rejection decision was based on Section 1-a.If so, then NBEAC shall bear fifty percent of all costs and expenses for the appeal.

131. The final costs associated with the appeal shall be deducted from the estimated deposit(s), and the balance will either be billed or refunded to the institution. The hearing, which usually will not take more than two (2) hours to complete, The Appeal Panel does not have the authority to grant accreditation or renew an institution�s accreditation.

132. The Appeal Panel must either maintain or challenge the rejection decision. The Appeal Panel shall act by majority confirmatory vote; a challenge shall only be approved if at least two members of the Appeals Panel vote to challenge. The committee shall take such action as it shall deem appropriate, consistent with NBEAC rules and procedures, and shall refer such action to the NBEAC Council Members, whose decision shall be final and not subject to further appeal.

133. The decision of the Appeal Panel shall be in writing and shall include a statement of the arguments for the decision. The written decision shall be submitted to the Business School and NBEAC within 02-weeks of the hearing. The decision of the Appeal Panel shall be final. No requests for reconsideration by the Appeal Panel are permitted or shall be considered.

134. An institution that appeals a negative decision and that negative decision is upheld by the Appeal Panel may not re-enter the NBEAC accreditation process for a minimum of three years following the decision of the Appeal Panel, as applicable. Should the institution withdraw from or abandon the appeal process after the filing of Grounds for Appeal at any time, the initial action shall stand and the three year exclusion period shall apply from the date of withdrawal or the decision of the Appeal Panel determining that the institution has abandoned its appeal.

135. How to fill the datasheet

136. Role of the datasheet The Datasheet is a short questionnaire that sets out basic factual information about the School and that allows a preliminary assessment of the quality of the School The Datasheet should be completed in a clear and concise manner and should not exceed 15 pages in length. The document serves as a basis for the briefing visit and the eligibility decision

137. Content of the data sheet Short, Factual, descriptive information Content described in Annex II, Booklet 1 (Accreditation procedures) Mirrors the quality criteria Strategic management standards Students quality Faculty quality (FT & PT) Stability information Course load Resources International and corporate linkages

138. Differences between the datasheet and the Self Assessment Report Datasheet provides short & descriptive information SAR provide in-depth analytical information, as well as benchmark Datasheet is essentially quantitative SAR is both quantitative and qualitative Datasheet compiled by the School Administration SAR provides insight from all the school�s stakeholders

139. Datasheet provides standardized and comparable information SAR provides unique insights of the institution Datasheet will be screened to check: If the school fulfills the formal conditions to be accredited If major issues make the accreditation likely in the near future If some quality issues can be identified at this stage SAR Used for the school as a way to reflect in quality Is a quality improvement tool Serves as a basis for the PRT Differences between the datasheet and the Self Assessment Report

140. Mentoring and Self-Assessment Process and content Session 5: Recommendations from international accreditations systems Application of NBEAC Model

141. Session Agenda and Outcomes Role of the Self Assessment in the Quality Improvement Process Team in charge of the self assessment report Structure of the NBEAC self assessment report Which kind of information is requested? Special points under consideration: how to deal with the students contribution to the report? Q&A

142. Role of the S.A.R Essential part of the quality improvement process Allows the institution to evaluate itself Allows to benchmark against its competitors Allows to share the need for quality improvement among its stakeholders (internal and external) Allows the collection and analysis of information and the review of the existing procedures Allows the institution to clarify and formalize its strategy

143. What is a S.A.R The SAR should give a faithful view of the institution�s situation Strategy and goals to achieve in the coming years Priorities and plans for development Achievements Shortcomings and remedies Milestones The SAR should give a comprehensive view of the institution All components needs to be described and assessed All chapters need to be covered

144. Role of the S.A.R. Essential part of the assessment process Provides information to the peer review team on a compulsory format Information provided is both quantitative and qualitative The information comes from all stakeholders in the school, and not only from the Top Management S.A.R should be written by the institution, according to the guidelines provided in:

145. What is NOT a self assessment report An incomplete report, ignoring some of the sections A marketing and promotional tools An exercise in self-deprecation A pretext to impose already decided changes The voice of the top-management

146. Provide an opportunity for the entire institution to take stock of its situation It should be owned by the whole organization It should: � involve as many people as possible and certainly all the major actors � provide added value to the School through the processes used � present a historical perspective, i.e. how the School has developed and how it sees its future � be a learning process for the School and provide a chance for everyone to gain an overall view of its situation

147. Carry out a comprehensive strategic review The S.A.R provides a review of the strategy process within the School. It should: � evaluate the overall clarity of the strategic objectives � lead to a better understanding of the market � help the School achieve a balance between ambition and realism � lead to development of a strategic plan which will enable achievement of the strategic objectives within the envelope of currently available and of potential future resources

148. An unbiased and critical self-examination The key objective is to evaluate the School�s effectiveness in attaining its strategic objectives and in striving towards continuous improvement The Self-Assessment process should identify its current position against the criteria and establish the basis for future action. � ask searching questions � measure its activities against external norms � identify key strengths and weaknesses � evaluate the adequacy of resources and identify key limitations � arrive at a clear understanding of the efforts to be deployed in order to achieve its strategic objectives

149. Provide a basis for the Peer Review The presented information will: � establish a starting point and a balanced evaluation to be tested by the reviewers � provide key data and supporting documentation to aid understanding and to substantiate claims made in the report

150. Differences between the Datasheet and the SAR Datasheet Provides short, descriptive information about the institution Is compiled by the management Used for the eligibility check and a basic evaluation of the school potential to reach the accreditation May flash issues to be resolved before engaging in the accreditation process Is the official start of the procedure Self Assessment Report Provides detailed, analytic description of the institution Provides both quantitative and qualitative information Has both a historical perspective and a description of the future strategy and its implementation Is the result of a long process involving all the institution stakeholders

151. Methodology of the S.A.R. The institution should appoint or form: The accreditation project manager Should be qualified Should have the support of the institutions Should be able to request the contribution of the various stakeholders Should not be seen as the Management spy The accreditation committee Composed of representatives from key stakeholder groups, including external stakeholders and students

152. Communication Provide full and open explanation of: Why is the school is seeking the accreditation? What the process will bring to the school? The organization and the aims of the accreditation process and in particular, of the Self-Assessment exercise? The quality criteria against which the institution will be benchmarked The requested contribution of the various stakeholders What is the information to be provided? Under which form? Main deadlines?

153. Communication Communication of the process should be continuous during all the process Initiation request Eligibility Briefing visit, if advisable SAR process Peer review and debriefing Communication should also allow to reinforce the stakeholders motivation and commitment

154. Which kind of information should be provided? Information is both qualitative Allow the understanding the situation and its evolution beyondthe mere quantitative description � and quantitative Should also allow the assessment of the quantitative positioning of the School in relation to each criterion The general structure and order should be followed whenever possible Allows comparisons and benchmarks for the NBEAC team Facilitates the work of the reviewers

155. Which kind of information should be provided? All chapters (when relevant) should be covered Some questions may be left blank But the report should give a faithful and comprehensive view of the situation Expected length of the SAR (indicative) 100-150 page, excluding the annexes & supporting documents Annexes and supporting document should clearly be separated Some of the supporting documents will be made available during the review Average duration of the process: Between 6 months and 1 year Report should be sent 6 weeks before the Peer Review

156. Key features of the Self Assessment � Systematic process the Self-Assessment should be well-planned, thorough and comprehensive. Methodology should answer key questions, rather than simple application of a tick-box approach. � Objectivity and balance Provide a balanced statement of current strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) Determine the action needed to address these issues. The review team should use as many sources of information as possible.

157. Key features of the Self Assessment � Participation; in collecting data and evaluating the results of the review, the School should involve a variety of groups to agree key conclusions and recommendations: Improves the objectivity, Improves the communication and commitment to the findings.

158. Content of the Self ASSESSMENT report NBEAC requirements and comparison with the EQUIS system

159. GUIDANCE TO SELF ASSESSMENT REPORT Mission and Background The Environment Law and Governance Vision and mission Strategic positioning and objectives

160. EQUIS corresponding chapter for reference Chapter 1: Context, Governance and Strategy � History of the School (1-page summary table) � Organization Chart showing reporting lines � Chart showing the Committee structure � List of members in the School�s Governing Body and/or Advisory Board (indicating name, position, organization, nationality, year of appointment)

161. GUIDANCE TO SELF ASSESSMENT REPORT Curriculum Quality Program design Program Content Program Delivery Student assessment and program evaluation

162. Chapter 2: Programmes � A list of international academic partners with an indication of the type of cooperation (joint degree, student exchange, research collaboration, faculty exchange) � A table indicating international student enrolment in the School�s various programmes over the past three years (if appropriate, cross-reference to Chapter �Students�) � A table indicating student exchange flows in the School�s various programmes (if appropriate, cross-reference to Chapter �Students�) EQUIS corresponding chapter for reference

163. GUIDANCE TO SELF ASSESSMENT REPORT Students Target Profiles Selection Career placement

164. Chapter 3: Students � A Table providing for each programme the statistical information about the selection and admissions process (applications, offers, acceptances, enrolment, full-time equivalent in the case of part-time students). � A list of major employers over the past 5 years � A Table describing the outward and inward flows of international exchange students, with a breakdown by programme, by country of destination or by country of origin, by partner School, by length of stay. EQUIS corresponding chapter for reference

165. GUIDANCE TO SELF ASSESSMENT REPORT Faculty Faculty size and composition Faculty strategy and management Faculty Development

166. Chapter 4: Faculty � A summary list of the core faculty indicating: name, academic rank, highest degree, where degree obtained, nationality, subject area, date of appointment, percentage of full time engagement in the case of contracts that are less than full time(i.e. 75%, 50%, etc) � A table showing faculty staffing levels over the past five years, including the number of new appointments and the number of departures for each year, with a breakdown by category or rank. � Distribution of the core faculty by academic department when appropriate. � A table setting out for the current year the key statistics for the faculty (gender distribution, age distribution, nationality mix, number of Ph.Ds, etc.). EQUIS corresponding chapter for reference

167. GUIDANCE TO SELF ASSESSMENT REPORT Research And Development Research activities Development activities

168. Chapter 5: Research and Development Provide pertinent numeric data on output Explain on the basis of what criteria research production numbers are placed into a particular category. For instance, how are �internationally refereed journals� defined by the School? A table listing funds received from research grants, commissioned research or company sponsorship over the past five years Membership of the Research Committee EQUIS corresponding chapter for reference

169. GUIDANCE TO SELF ASSESSMENT REPORT Social Role and Responsibility Resources Financial Management Equipment and premises Library and research services New technology communication

170. Chapter 7: Contribution to the Community Examples of community outreach activities Chapter 8: Resources and Administration Marketing strategy/plan The budget for the current year and forecast budgets for coming years where available The School�s financial accounts for the last 5 years broken down by main activity area (income statements and balance sheets) EQUIS corresponding chapter for reference

171. GUIDANCE TO SELF ASSESSMENT REPORT Relations with business world Procedures to manage the relationships Review of modifications Provision of current statement of international policy Description of procedures to manage the international school policy and relationships

172. Chapter 10: Corporate Connections � List of the School�s principal corporate partners indicating the nature of their relationships � Provide details of corporate funding when applicable

173. GUIDANCE TO SELF ASSESSMENT REPORT Personal Development Development procedures Individual Development Support Development of practical skills

174. GUIDANCE TO SELF ASSESSMENT REPORT Executive Education Executive education within school Manufactured portfolio Advertising Program Standards Faculty and recourses

175. Chapter 6: Executive Education � Budgetary information with the breakdown of revenues by open and customized programmes � Statistical data concerning the number and type of programmes offered, the number of participants, the number of training days, etc. This information is intended to facilitate the Peer Review team�s understanding of the nature and scope of the executive education provision. This information should be presented in the form of a table. � A list of the School�s key clients in the field of executive education in the past three years

176. Specific case of the student feedback and contribution to The SAR Issues and challenges Specific questions

177. Specific case of the students participation in the S.A.R Very important source of feedback and evaluation Students may be the most versatile source The students group should be sufficiently large and representative Group of students rather than by a group of student representatives Ideally coming from a selection of the School�s main programmes and, if possible, including some exchange students. Necessity to assess the information given Quality Reliability Realistic

178. Mission and Background & Curriculum Quality Mission & Background How is the School perceived by prospective and current students? What formal and informal mechanisms exist for students to participate in the governance of the School and the quality assurance of its activities? Curriculum Quality What opportunities exist for students to evaluate the programmes (rather than the subjects) they are taking and to provide constructive input into programme design or programme updating? How can you signal repetitions in content in different subjects? poor sequencing of subjects? disproportion in relative length of subjects? inadequate prerequisites for specific subjects?

179. Students How well are students supported throughout their studies? Access to operational information: schedule, syllabus, pedagogic materials, last minute changes, etc. Counseling services Individual learning support (tutorials, coaching) Personal development Careers advice Number of students in classroom Accessibility of professors

180. Faculty and teaching staff What is the student perception of the quality of the School�s teaching staff (strengths and weaknesses). Are they well prepared for class? Are they motivated? Do they show actual concern for your learning? Does their research or consulting have any impact on your learning? Do they convey support or disdain for the School and its activities in the classroom? Process and impact of student assessment of the quality of the faculty: What teaching evaluations take place, are they well designed and what impact do they have? How and how well are complaints dealt with? What is the quality of the feedback that students receive from their assessments?

181. Social Role and Responsibility Social Role and Responsibility Opportunities that exist for students to participate in extra curricular activities and community outreach programmes? What is the consequent uptake of these activities by students? To what extent does the School communicate the value of ethical or socially responsible behavior in the management profession? Does the School show practical concern for this behavior on the part of both students and staff while they are at the School?

182. Resources How well do the School�s facilities support the student throughout his/her studies? Campus layout, accessibility in the city, parking, public transportation Cafeteria/restaurant, common rooms Auditoriums, class rooms, breakout rooms Residential facilities functionality and appearance Information and documentation facilities, e.g. libraries, databases, etc. Computer facilities and support Administrative staff

183. Relations with business world How well connected is the School to the corporate world? How is this brought into the learning experience for students?

184. Thank You !!