The Brenn-White Group, LLC February 2016
Table of Contents... 1 Executive Summary... 2 Objective... 2 Background... 2 Reasons for Accreditation... 2 Challenges... 3 Best Practices... 3 Conclusion... 4 About the Survey... 4 Survey Introduction... 4 Reasons for Accreditation... 7 About the Accreditation Process... 7 Reasons for Multiple Accreditations... 8 Mechanics of Writing and Editing... 9 Preparing Documents for Accreditation... 9 Allocation of Resources... 11 Best Practices...12 Best Practices for the Accreditation Team... 12 Best Practices Mentioned for Writing and Collecting Data... 13 Best Practices Related to Overall Institutional Processes... 14 Conclusion...15 About The Brenn-White Group...16 1
Our goal with this report is to help business schools that have obtained international accreditation (specifically, AACSB, AMBA, EQUIS and/or EPAS) benchmark their own experiences and processes against those of their peers. We'd also like to give schools seeking international accreditation advance insight into the challenges they can expect once they begin the process especially the often underestimated effort required to prepare what can be hundreds of pages of documentation, a particular challenge for institutions located in non- English-speaking countries. Although two accreditations are for entire institutions (AACSB and EQUIS) and two are for individual academic programs (AMBA and EPAS), the process is quite similar, albeit on a different scale. This report is based on both the results of a survey we conducted among representatives from business schools and a series of follow-up interviews. In September 2015, 53 respondents of varying levels of leadership (e.g., deans, presidents, directors, professors, and administrators) at institutions in 30 countries completed an online survey. In December 2015, 6 respondents participated in in-depth follow-up interviews to provide additional information and perspectives. The responding business schools were seeking to maintain or obtain their international accreditations for a variety of purposes. For some, accreditation is pursued to enhance the school s rankings and supports student recruitment. For others, it is an opportunity and welcome external pressure to revisit the school s long-term strategy, develop internal staff, and add structure and standards to programs. Most schools were motivated by a combination of factors. The 3 most common reasons the responding business schools said that they seek international accreditation are: 1. To enhance the quality of education overall 2. To improve institutional rankings 3. To support internationalization 2
Common challenges that business schools face with international accreditation are fulfilling the various documentation requirements and ensuring enough resources are set aside for the process. Specific challenges related to preparing the documentation included determining which department or staff members would write which portions of the document, editing for consistency and quality, and editing out redundancies across chapters of the major reports. Many respondents were from schools located in non-english-speaking countries or had members on the accreditation team who were not native English speakers. As a result, some had to choose whether to write in their native language (to be translated subsequently) or in English, with the possibility of the documents needing extensive editing (either internally or through an external provider). Another challenge that schools faced was the importance of setting aside enough time and resources for the accreditation process. Although the process was not necessarily longer than what respondents had expected, it required consistent effort and dedicated teamwork to complete. The majority of schools that did not employ additional administrative staff dedicated to the accreditation process had to divide the work among existing staff members. Institutions that achieved one or more of the international accreditations tended to share the following characteristics: Common characteristics Organized accreditation teams Allocated time and resources Established writing standards and styles Scheduled regular meetings Description Institutions organized a small team to complete the accreditation documents and process. This setup was far more common and effective than assigning the task to an individual staff member Institutions accounted for travel and expenses for the accreditation team, and committed staff hours for the accreditation process Accreditation team established processes to facilitate the writing process, such as using templates, tracking changes to the documents, editing for continuity, and quality control Accreditation team met regularly, usually monthly About 40% of respondents indicated that training for the authors and/or editors was provided, often by sending staff members to workshops and events hosted by the accrediting bodies themselves. Although training did not significantly impact whether the institution achieved accreditation, institutions that trained their staff were more likely to: Commit staff hours to accreditation (86% vs. 59% that didn t train, p = 0.05) Hire new administrative staff to manage the process (48% vs. 6%, p = 0.01) 3
Create a structured editorial process for preparing documentation (76% vs. 34%, p = 0.01) Use an English style guide to ensure a standard writing style (38% vs. 13%, p = 0.05) Respondents said that one important factor in successfully completing the accreditation process was to ensure that leadership helped all internal staff and stakeholders understand their role and importance in the process. Leadership engagement also supported members of the accreditation teams as they collaborated with school departments or groups to gather data and documentation for the reports. Another best practice that respondents shared was proactively preparing and collecting the data necessary for the reports rather than rushing to fill in data gaps during the writing process. Schools that already had the systematic compilation of data in place for their own quality assurance or planning purposes did not need to spend additional time and resources to gather information solely for the accreditation reports. They also had more experience using this data in the ongoing management of their institutions and saw the benefits of it. Opportunities likely exist for most business schools to facilitate and streamline the international accreditation process. A school not only should have an organized plan for writing documentation and setting aside appropriate resources, but also provide support from leadership, commitment from staff, and a culture of preparedness. Respondents have a clear sense that pursuing accreditation with the primary goal of improving the institution itself leads to the best results, and engagement with the accreditation organizations themselves (e.g., taking part in conferences, serving as peer reviewers, etc.) brings real value to both the accreditation process and to the institution overall. The survey was distributed as widely as possible to institutions that were accredited by one of the three accreditation organizations (AACSB, EFMD, and AMBA) plus not-yet-accredited members of AACSB and EQUIS. Survey sampling was done via basic online research and invitations were sent to deans, program directors (for program accreditation), and anyone with Accreditation or Quality Assurance in their title at institutions where such information was readily available. 4
Survey respondents represented a variety of academic positions from educational institutions around the world. Of the 53 respondents, academic titles and roles included: President, director general, vice president Dean, associate dean, deputy to the dean Program director, director Professor, associate professor, lecturer Accreditation team member Follow-up interviews were conducted with 6 survey participants who shared in more detail the challenges they encountered and the strategies they used to ensure the accreditation process was completed as effectively as possible. The interviewees volunteered in the survey process and represented institutions ranging from those who had been triple accredited for years to those that were just beginning the process. Respondents provided an international perspective and represented more than 30 countries. Survey respondents represented schools located in: Australia Bosnia and Herzegovina Czech Republic Finland France Hong Kong Hungary Indonesia Iceland India Italy Kazakhstan Lebanon Madagascar Malaysia Morocco Netherlands Norway Oman Portugal South Africa Singapore Spain Sweden Switzerland Thailand Tunisia Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom United States Venezuela 5
The surveyed institutions were at various stages of accreditation maturity and experience. The survey questions focused on the EPAS, EQUIS, AACSB, and AMBA accreditations. More than 60% (33 of 53) of the respondents were from institutions with 1 or more of the listed accreditations. The remaining respondents were from institutions eligible for accreditation, in the process of getting accredited, or had applied unsuccessfully and were planning to reapply. 50 40 30 20 10 What is your business school's current status in these international accreditation processes? (n = 48) 0 EPAS EQUIS AACSB AMBA Accredited, no current activity Applying for eligibility Applied unsuccessfully, but planning to re-apply Accredited, applying for reaccreditation Eligibility approved, applying for accreditation Unaccredited, planning to apply Respondents indicated that their institution pursued multiple accreditations for reasons including improving ranking, visibility, and competitiveness with other business schools. They also said multiple accreditations appeal to students from different geographical regions, enhance the quality of education, and support faculty development. All respondents were involved with the accreditation process at their institution and had various levels of responsibility. Roles included: Coordinating entire accreditation process Creating documents and reports for accreditation process Editing, monitoring, and approving documents Serving as a member of the accreditation team Gathering data for accreditation 6
Business schools seek international accreditation for a variety of reasons ranging from external reputation (i.e., rankings and recruitment) to internal development. What were your institution's most important motivations for seeking international accreditation? (n = 50) Enhance the quality of education overall Improve institutional rankings Support internationalization Strengthen student recruitment Help build institutional partnerships Get external motivation to drive internal change Enhance academic program development Support faculty development Enhance new faculty recruitment Improve existing administrative structures 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Overall, 50% of respondents reported that AACSB and EQUIS were the most difficult accreditations to achieve and also took longer than expected. The fact that they are perceived as more difficult is surely due to the fact that they are institutional versus program accreditations and the fact that AMBA and EPAS are program accreditations may have caused expectations of the work involved to be too low. Which accreditation is the most difficult? 1 (Most difficult) 2 3 4 (Least difficult) 40 30 20 10 0 EPAS EQUIS AACSB AMBA Respondents considered AMBA and EPAS accreditations less difficult and took the expected amount of time or shorter to achieve. For institutions seeking multiple accreditations, 84% of 7
respondents noted that having the first accreditation made the next accreditation easier (n = 38). Institutions that already had EQUIS accreditation were more likely to engage external service providers for editing-related services. The following are key differences between institutions with EQUIS or AACSB accreditation versus those without: Found AMBA to be easier to achieve (Have EQUIS/AACSB = 71% vs. Not have = 23%, p = 0.01) Engaged external service provider for editing services (33% vs. 8%, p = 0.05) Allocated resources for travel expenses (93% vs. 67%, p = 0.05) Respondents shared insights into their institution s motivations for achieving multiple accreditations. For example, certain accreditations are associated with different opportunities: Accreditation focus and emphasis: We are planning to apply [for] AACSB primarily in order to enhance quality of education and support faculty development. We are planning to apply [for] AMBA to bring further recognition to our MBA programs with all the accreditations. We engaged into the EPAS accreditation process in order to differentiate the specific program set from the similar programs offered by our competitors. When applying for AACSB accreditation, we aimed to assure better positioning of the entire institution primarily in [the] regional and international context. [The] AACSB accreditation process was driven by our ambitions to improve [the] overall operation of the School, to adopt the most rigorous international standards in delivering higher education in business and management, [and] to recruit more international students. Regional/geographic differences: As we have an international student and alumni body, different accreditations hold different weights depending on the region (e.g., in the US few have heard of EFMD). AACSB focuses more on the United States, while EQUIS focuses more on Europe and other geographical regions. Each international accreditation emphasizes different aspects, although there are some synergies between the three processes that can be capitalized on by the school to obtain the Triple Crown. 8
Respondents indicated that the accreditation teams decided who wrote sections of the accreditation application based on roles, expertise, department, assignment, experience, and competencies. However, one of the challenges that arose was that oftentimes writers and members of the accreditation team were not native English speakers. (And while this section is primarily relevant for institutions in non-english-speaking countries, the very international nature of most business schools means that there will be many non-native speakers in institutions around the world and non-native certainly does not always imply that the individuals are not excellent writers in English.) 100% How many people involved in the documentation process were native English speakers? (n = 41) 80% 60% 40% 20% None A few The majority Everyone 0% Core accreditation document preparation team Authors Some teams in countries where English is not the native language opted to write all or parts of the documents first in their native language and have them translated, while other teams wrote the documents in English, often with the intention of editing extensively. 9
Which language did you use for the first drafts of accreditation documents? (n = 43) Most documents were originally written in English, but required extensive editing. 33% Most documents were originally written in a different language and then translated into English. 14% Most documents were originally written in highquality English. 53% Respondents noted that they followed different English standards based on which accreditation they were completing (i.e., American English for AACSB, British English for EPAS and EQUIS). Documents were edited for consistency and quality in a number of ways, including internally (using the accreditation team or leveraging a staff member with English-language proficiency) and externally (engaging an external service provider). Editing was the most common service that business schools sought external service providers for during the documentation process, followed by translation. None of the respondents used external service providers for writing. Document design Project management Did you use external service providers to help with the preparation of accreditation documents? (n = 19) Writing Strategy Translation Editing 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Institutions were more likely to engage external service providers if: Only a few of the accreditation authors were native English speakers (p = 0.05) 10
No training was provided to authors (p = 0.05). These institutions specifically sought external service providers for strategy-related support. They are located in a non-english-speaking country (p = 0.05). The most common external services sought by these institutions were strategy and translation. They had EQUIS accreditation or were re-accrediting (p = 0.05), which made them 3 times as likely to request editing services than institutions without EQUIS. Many accreditation teams also had to prepare documents that did not previously exist for the institution (49% of respondents). Some of the documents that were created specifically for the accreditation included: Types of documents prepared for the first time: Internationalization strategy, mission, and vision Quality assurance system, quality assessment Corporate relations strategy Organization structure culture Research strategy Faculty management, development, and recruitment Marketing plan Assurance of Learning manual Based on the survey responses, the majority of institutions set aside time and financial resources to support the accreditation process. The primary resources were travel and expenses, followed by staff hours. When starting the accreditation process, did your institution allocate time or financial resources for any of the following? (n = 46) Travel and expenses for accreditation team visit Staff hours committed to accreditation New administrative staff to manage the process External consulting services External document preparation services 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 11
Institutions that provided staff with training were more likely to set aside staff hours and bring on new administrative staff to manage the accreditation process. Survey respondents reiterated the importance of setting aside time and resources to complete the accreditation process. Some suggested making data and documentation requirements best practices so reports can be quickly compiled. Who is/was responsible for coordinating and compiling all the accreditation documents? (n=43) No one 2% One person 14% A small team 84% Don't underestimate the task. Prepare for success by implementing a professional project management approach that is properly resourced. Seek advice on how to do this. Attend all the important conferences. Note: If the Dean does not 100% buy in, don't attempt it. The majority of respondents (84%) reported that a small team was assembled to oversee the creation of the accreditation documents. Other considerations that business schools took into account when determining the accreditation team: Gather team members based on their knowledge and expertise Include both academic and administrative staff Keep the number of writers to a minimum to ensure consistency and coherency Leverage staff s strengths (i.e., professor of English serve as editor) 12
Meet regularly with all stakeholders: dean/leadership, faculty members, and administrative staff (monthly meetings most common 68% of respondents) Establish a coordinator, administrative staff, or project manager to oversee the accreditation process. Set deadlines and milestones for completion of chapters, etc. Have a backup plan should members of the team leave or change roles at the institution Maintain ongoing leadership support and engagement throughout the process The leadership of the institution is the most important factor. The leader must convince all internal and external stakeholders that their sincere contributions to the process of preparing documents for international accreditation is vital to the achievement of the mission and vision of the institution. Tell the honest story of where your institution is and where it wants to be, and peer review teams will be happy to read documents that are shorter than the guideline s maximum length Collect data proactively and embed it into your institution s best practices. Don t wait until the accreditation process begins before you start collecting and compiling data Proofread documents for objectivity and accuracy of data. Examine numbers in detail and ensure they are consistent throughout various sections (e.g., numbers reported are from same year, reports were pulled the same way) Support all claims with quantitative evidence (i.e., facts, data, and numbers) Establish a list of common terms to ensure consistency (especially if there are multiple writers) and ensure accreditation reviewers share the same vocabulary Design a strong editorial process for tracking edits, changes, and versions Divide the writing to ease the load on the accreditation team. Assign writers to particular chapters or sections based on their expertise Edit documents carefully against accrediting agency requirements. Different accrediting agencies have different rules 13
Accreditation team members worked closely with every section team in order to assure maximum alignment with the requirements. For example, if a standard required elaboration on internationalization, that section was written by International Office staff and coordinated by one of the accreditation team members. Organize a systematic approach for the accreditation process, and support the accreditation team with opportunities to attend workshop and seminars Provide training to accreditation team members particularly sending them to workshops and events by the accreditation bodies. Embed the larger data and documentation requirements in regular institutional processes so reports can easily be compiled and the information can be used for ongoing quality assurance and management purposes Collaborate with Student Affairs or other relevant departments to help with data collection and reporting Use the accreditation process as an opportunity to review operations and align goals across the institution Ensure staff and faculty understand the vision and mission of achieving accreditation Promote, share, and, if necessary, explain the benefits of accreditation to all key stakeholder groups Although the process of obtaining the international accreditation is very long, demanding, and oftentimes painstakingly detailed, the sense of institutional achievement, international recognition, and collective pride upon successful realization vastly compensates for all the invested hours, internal conflicts, and problems that the processes inevitably carries within. [The] continuous dedication of all employees, combined with a skilled accreditation team and supportive management, is a guarantee for positive outcome. 14
Business schools pursue international accreditations to enhance the quality of education and support the recruitment of studens and faculty, among other reasons. However, accreditation can be a long process and requires significant resources, time, and commitment. Challenges that many business schools face during the accreditation process can be addressed by the best practices used by many respondents in this survey. For institutions based in non-english-speaking countries or have a large proportion of non-native English speakers, determining who is on the accreditation team and who will be writing the documentation will impact the effort it takes to create required documentation for accreditation Leverage skills internally by making faculty and administration staff part of the accreditation team. Ensure leadership support helps reinforce the importance and value of achieving accreditation Collaborate with departments such as Student Affairs to pull reports and data for the accreditation documentation. Collect data proactively and regularly Establish a clear editorial process that includes the assignment of writers, deadlines, editing, and tracking versions Training helps prepare accreditation teams for the task at hand and sets expectations for the requirements and time it will take to complete the process Set aside resources for the time and travel spent on the accreditation process. Most accreditation teams will have regular responsibilities in addition to accreditation-related meetings. Consider engaging an external service provider to help fill gaps in the accreditation team s skill sets and competencies The accreditation process can be lengthy for some business schools, but survey respondents agreed that the achievement was worth the effort. Respondents said accreditation enhanced their institution s reputation and ranking, and also said the process helped improve standards for programs, develop staff and faculty, and ultimately make their institution a better educational resource to students. 15
The Brenn-White Group is a consulting and marketing services company based in NYC that focuses exclusively on helping higher education institutions achieve their international goals. Working with institutions and higher ed organizations in 20+ countries has allowed us to get a unique view of global trends and best practices in this quickly changing environment. We have worked with many business schools to improve their international marketing and recruitment results, as well as undertaking our strategic editing process on accreditation (and reaccreditation) reports. Our managing director, Megan Brenn-White, would be happy to answer any questions about how we might be able to support your efforts please feel free to write megan@brenn-white.com to schedule a call. http://www.brenn-white.com 16