Document Actions
Views of national bodies concerned with QME
During August and September 05 a set of eight questions about quality management in business education were put to senior officers of a representative sample of UK national bodies concerned with the quality of teaching and learning in business education. Although there is qualified agreement that increased attention to QME has improved management education, the consensus is that the improvement in QME observed since the QAA criticism in 2000/2001 has been driven less by compliance than by competitive forces.
Introduction
As part of its contribution to the QuBE consortium’s research effort, Cass Business School is collaborating with national bodies in response to a scathing criticism by QAA in 2000/01 that (in terms) ‘business schools teach quality management but they do not eat their own cooking’. The expected deliverables include ascertaining and disseminating good practice in this context.
In pursuit of these goals, soundings were taken among teaching and learning experts at Cass – including the Deputy Dean, the Director of Quality and the Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning. This led to formulation of a set of eight questions which were posted in the development area of the project website for partner review.
During August and September 05 these questions were put to senior officers of a representative sample of UK national bodies concerned with the quality of teaching and learning in business education.
These face-to-face interviews ran to a total of about ten hours. Notes approved by the subjects were posted on the website for partner information and review. These amount to some 20 A4 pages. The attached table offers a distillation of the salient points made by each interviewee. The following synthesis is offered for ease of reference.
Synthesis
The consensus is that the improvement in QME in management education observed since the QAA criticism has been driven less by compliance than by competitive forces. Given the lack of metrics, indirect evidence is cited for this view. For examples: Schools are re-assessing their relationships with the business community and have invariably made a senior officer responsible for quality; staff at all levels are receiving more training; accreditation bodies have raised the required standards.
Enthusiasm for ‘student-centred engagement’ has not noticeably improved academic standards except where it has exposed less committed tutors and when it is linked to project work of relevance to business and employers. However, the better schools are supplementing ‘tick-box’ compliance and embracing the pursuit of excellence in teaching and learning.
There is qualified agreement that increased attention to QME has improved management education – particularly in post-1992 universities. This is more so when QME has been adopted whole-heartedly and where outcomes are measured. Two chief ways forward are commended. Schools should hire professional administrators and engage teachers with experience of running businesses. They should also differentiate; options include sacrificing a ‘full service’ bundle of offerings in favour of a niche, local, regional, national or international strategic marketing approach.
The Bologna Accord is widely expected to lead to commoditisation management education by setting transferable, minimum standards. The 40 nations that have agreed to implement the Accord by 2008 will end 5-year courses and adopt the UK system of Batchelor degrees followed – straight away or later – by one or two-year Masters-level programmes. It is forecast that participating nations will launch some 12,000 new management courses at Masters-level. The principal beneficiaries will be citizens of emerging European economies.
In the light of these predictions of greatly increased competition the apparent complacency of UK business schools is a cause for concern. UK national bodies support the call for a major conference in London to provoke attention to the threats. Proposed remedies include strategic re-positioning (as referred to above) and a greater focus on doing research that is relevant to employers and to business.
The interviewees variously offered information assets for dissemination by the QuBE project. The three accreditation bodies within our sample – namely, AMBA, CIPD and CMI – have noted that examples of good practice in QME are embedded in their inspectors’ reports. Subject to the feasibility of extraction, each has kindly offered to supply such examples.
See table for ‘Distillation of 5 interviews with leaders of UK national bodies concerned with quality management enhancement’.
Distillation of 5 interviews with leaders of UK national bodies concerned with quality management enhancement
| Questions |
ABS Jonathan Slack, CEO |
AMBA Jeanette Purcell, CEO |
BQF Jan Szymankiewicz,, Dir. of Member Services |
CIPD Paul Browning, Mgr; Education Quality Management |
CMI Mary Chapman, CEO |
|
Q1a Has QME improved since the critical QAA review in 2002? |
There has been a voluntary movement towards developmental improvement |
Yes, driven by increased competition |
No direct evidence |
Yes, the situation is better |
Yes, but not far enough |
|
Q1b What evidence to you have for your view? |
More training being given by business schools to both teachers and administrators |
AMBA has been able to raise accreditation standards |
The complaints voiced by CBI members |
Business schools all now have a ‘director of quality’ (or similar) |
Schools are re-examining their role vis-a-vis the business community |
|
Q2a Has student-centred engagement improved academic results? |
No discernible improvement |
No noticeable change |
Has not improved standards of academic work |
Yes, when it exposes the less committed and engaged tutors |
Yes, if linked to project work and real-time learning |
|
Q2b Is there a shift towards teaching & learning excellence? |
Yes |
Yes, but only in the best schools |
Don’t really know |
Excellence should be an extension of QME |
The basic strategy of schools must characterise the pursuit of excellence |
|
Q3a Has Quality Management improved management education? |
Yes, in the post-1992 universities |
Yes, where it promotes innovation |
Yes, when outcomes are measured – and not merely compliance |
Focusing on quality has led to improvements |
There is still a great divide between benchmark standards and occupational stds |
|
Q3b What should business schools do to raise quality standards? |
Hire professional administrators |
Differentiate. Target national regional or niche markets |
Set the right targets. Hire teachers experienced in running business |
Develop good tutors who can teach competencies |
Schools must shape their strategy in terms of quality |
|
Q4a Will the Bologna Accord commoditise management education? |
Absolutely |
It will lead to a big increase in Masters degrees in Europe |
Yes, it will lead to agreed minimum standards across Europe |
Yes, it will catalyse a crowded market |
It will standardise. Differentiation may come from quality of delivery more than programme content. |
|
Q4b Should UK schools be more proactive re the Bologna Accord? |
Definitely |
Yes. An international conference in London would focus attention |
Complacency will leave UK schools very vulnerable to competition from Eastern Europe |
A conference in London could stop the complacency of UK schools |
Business schools should focus on doing research of practical relevance |
|
Institutional collaboration offered by the interviewee |
– |
Access to AMBA records of good practice in QME |
Leicester University report on correlation between better performance and use of the EFMD’s BEM |
Access to CIPD records of good practice in QME |
Access to CMI records of good practice in QME |