A score card approach to management education accreditation

M.S.S. El-Namaki
{"title":"A score card approach to management education accreditation","authors":"M.S.S. El-Namaki","doi":"10.19085/JOURNAL.SIJMD021201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Accreditation of business programs and institutions is a powerful industry in the United States and Europe. The industry has massive followers and holds sway over the fate of many an institution. World wide data are not easily accessible but some figures are indicative of the scale and scope of the industry. It is estimated that there are over 4,000 MBA programs in the US, offered by 454 institutions (AACSB, 2014). A multiple of that exists worldwide. Each and every of those institutions needs accreditation or a confirmation of the conformity of the institutional framework, the conversion process and the ultimate outcome with specific standards. The problem, however, is that the standards and those who measure them, have run out of steam, an issue that attracted many including some US politicians(WSJ, July 8, 2015). The following article explores today’s accreditation practice flaws and the potential for a substitute. The article starts with a brief critique of current practice. This is followed by an analysis of the three conceptual foundations of a substitute: systems thinking, metrics and the balanced score card. This alternative blends those conceptual foundations and suggests a novel accreditation instrument: the Program Accreditation Score card or PAS. The article further explores the tenants of this novel instrument and explores its applied dimensions. The article relies on several works on the issue of the accreditation of management education efforts. It refers to existing approaches practiced by key accreditation market leaders and explores some contextual literature. The article could lead to the introduction of a structural change in the conceptual framework and the operational tools of the management education accreditation industry.","PeriodicalId":431805,"journal":{"name":"Scholedge International Journal of Management & Development","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scholedge International Journal of Management & Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19085/JOURNAL.SIJMD021201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accreditation of business programs and institutions is a powerful industry in the United States and Europe. The industry has massive followers and holds sway over the fate of many an institution. World wide data are not easily accessible but some figures are indicative of the scale and scope of the industry. It is estimated that there are over 4,000 MBA programs in the US, offered by 454 institutions (AACSB, 2014). A multiple of that exists worldwide. Each and every of those institutions needs accreditation or a confirmation of the conformity of the institutional framework, the conversion process and the ultimate outcome with specific standards. The problem, however, is that the standards and those who measure them, have run out of steam, an issue that attracted many including some US politicians(WSJ, July 8, 2015). The following article explores today’s accreditation practice flaws and the potential for a substitute. The article starts with a brief critique of current practice. This is followed by an analysis of the three conceptual foundations of a substitute: systems thinking, metrics and the balanced score card. This alternative blends those conceptual foundations and suggests a novel accreditation instrument: the Program Accreditation Score card or PAS. The article further explores the tenants of this novel instrument and explores its applied dimensions. The article relies on several works on the issue of the accreditation of management education efforts. It refers to existing approaches practiced by key accreditation market leaders and explores some contextual literature. The article could lead to the introduction of a structural change in the conceptual framework and the operational tools of the management education accreditation industry.
管理教育认证的计分卡方法
商业项目和机构的认证在美国和欧洲是一个强大的行业。这个行业有大量的追随者,并左右着许多机构的命运。世界范围的数据不容易获得,但一些数字表明了该行业的规模和范围。据估计,美国有超过4000个MBA项目,由454个机构提供(AACSB, 2014)。这个数字的倍数在世界范围内都存在。这些机构中的每一个都需要认证或确认其体制框架、转换过程和最终结果是否符合具体标准。然而,问题在于,这些标准和衡量这些标准的人已经失去了动力,这一问题吸引了包括一些美国政客在内的许多人。(注82)下面的文章探讨了当今认证实践的缺陷和替代品的潜力。这篇文章首先对当前的做法作了简要的批判。接下来是对替代方案的三个概念基础的分析:系统思维、指标和平衡计分卡。这种替代方案混合了这些概念基础,并提出了一种新的认证工具:项目认证记分卡或PAS。本文进一步探讨了这种新工具的租户,并探讨了其应用维度。本文依托几部著作对管理教育认证问题进行了探讨。它指的是主要认证市场领导者所采用的现有方法,并探讨了一些背景文献。这篇文章可能会导致在管理教育认证行业的概念框架和操作工具中引入结构性变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信