Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
How Project Management Tools Aid in Association
to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)
International Maintenance of Accreditation
Cynthia W. Cann & Alan L. Brumagim
To cite this article: Cynthia W. Cann & Alan L. Brumagim (2008) How Project Management Tools Aid in Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International Maintenance of Accreditation, Journal of Education for Business, 84:1, 31-39, DOI: 10.3200/ JOEB.84.1.31-39
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.1.31-39
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 17
September/October2008 31 any business schools are
work-ing toward Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Busi-ness (AACSB) International accredita-tion. Even more schools are or will be workingtowardtheprocessesofmain-tenanceofaccreditation.Thepurposeof thepresentarticleistopresentacasein whichonebusinessschoolusedproject management techniques to help orga-nizeitseffortofworkingthroughthese processes.Thisarticlefocusesprimarily on using project management tools for the process of maintenance of accredi-tation rather than initial accreditation. AACSBInternational EligibilityProce-dures and Accreditation Standards for BusinessAccreditation(2008)Standard 10statesinpart,
Thefaculty,has,andmaintains,intellec-tual qualifications and current expertise to accomplish the mission and to assure thatthisoccurs;theschoolhasaclearly defined process to evaluate individual faculty member’s contributions to the schoolsmission.(p.43)
Thisstatementcontainsseveralimpli-cations for obtaining and maintaining AACSB International accreditation. First,itimpliesthattheschool’smission mustbeclearlyidentified.Eachschool has a unique mission. Therefore, the requirements forAACSB International accreditationdiffertosomedegreefor each business school. Second, Stan-dard 10 indicates that evidence must
be presented of a clearly defined pro-cess that evaluates individual faculty members’contributionstothatmission. The school’s method of deriving spe-cific outcomes at an appropriate level of detail that precisely supports the school’s mission can be difficult to articulate(Martin,2003).Furthermore, definingandmaintaininganevaluation process that supports this linkage can alsobedifficult.
The case that we present here indi-cates that project management tech-niques not only helped the school efficiently complete the work neces-sary for successful maintenance of accreditationbutalso—perhapsthisis just as important—provided a com-municationsframeworkthatsimplified the review process for the accredita-tion team and helped faculty, staff, and administrators to understand and accomplishAACSBInternationalgoals in a way that wasconsistent with the goalsofthebusinessschool.
Beforeelaborating,weshouldoutline afewdefinitions.AACSBInternational Eligibility Procedures and tion Standards for Business Accredita-tion(2008) indicates that “processes playanimportantroleinaccreditation” andimpliesthatprocessesreferto out-comes(p.2).TheProjectManagement Institute (PMI) uses the word deliver-abletomeanthesamethingasoutcome. AccordingtoPMI,adeliverableisany
HowProjectManagementToolsAid
inAssociationtoAdvanceCollegiate
SchoolsofBusiness(AACSB)International
MaintenanceofAccreditation
CYNTHIAW.CANN ALANL.BRUMAGIM
THEUNIVERSITYOFSCRANTON SCRANTON,PENNSYLVANIA
ABSTRACT. Theauthorspresentthe caseofonebusinesscollege’suseofproject managementtechniquesastoolsforaccom-plishingAssociationtoAdvanceCollegiate SchoolsofBusiness(AACSB)International maintenanceofaccreditation.Usingthese techniquesprovidesanefficientandeffec-tivemethodoforganizingmaintenance efforts.Inaddition,usingthesetoolsto prepareformaintenanceofaccreditation providesacommunicationsframeworkthat simplifiesthereviewprocessforaccredi-tationteamsandhelpsfaculty,staff,and administratorstounderstandandaccom-plishAACSBInternationalgoals.Thecase canserveasausefulmodelforaccredita-tionandmaintenanceofaccreditation efforts.
Keywords:accreditation,communication framework,maintenanceofaccreditation, projectmanagement,workbreakdown structure
Copyright©2008HeldrefPublications
M
unique and verifiable product, result, or capability to perform a service that mustbeproducedtocompleteaprocess, phase,orproject(2004).BothAACSB InternationalandPMIusetheterm pro-cesstoidentifyspecificandpreferably documented work streams necessary to achieve outcomes or deliverables. A common difficulty in efficiently and effectivelycompletingprojects,includ-ingAACSB International accreditation efforts,istheconfusingandcomingling of processes and outcomes or deliver-ables during the detailed work efforts. This is particularly problematic for AACSB International maintenance of accreditation efforts that a school may makebutappliestocomplexprojectsin general.TheAACSBInternationalstan-dards are general to accommodate the uniquemissionofavarietyofbusiness schools. This generality can make the identificationofspecificoutcomesmore difficult.Wesuggestthatusingdeliver-ables and specific project management techniques can in some circumstances increasetheefficiencyandeffectiveness ofthemaintenanceprocess.
Standards from AACSB Interna-tional include general requirements that would be similar to what project managers call astatement of work. According to PMI (2004), a state-ment of work is a narrative descrip-tion of products, services, or results to be supplied. In general, statements of work are nonspecific and come from a more strategic level. A work breakdown structure (WBS) takes the statementofworktoamoredetailed, operationallevel.Laterinthepresent article,wediscussanddemonstratethe WBS.TheWBS isdefinedasadeliv- erableorientedhierarchicaldecompo-sitionoftheworkthattheprojectteam shouldexecutetoaccomplishtheproj-ect objectives and create the required deliverables. According to PMI, the WBS organizes and defines the total scopeofaproject.
Inthecasewepresentinthisarticle, thecreationofaprojectWBS(seeFig-ure 1) helped the accreditation effort substantially and was a useful model for working through the maintenance ofaccreditationeffort.Withtheunique mission of each business school, the usual and customary method of a
school’s preparing for accreditation is useful as a set of broad guidelines. In thecasethatwepresent,theschool’suse of project management tools enabled theprocesstoproceedmoresmoothly andefficientlywithinthecontextofthe broad guidelines provided byAACSB International.Inaddition,projectman-agement tools enabled more specific and focused communication with the accreditationteam.
RELATINGAACSB
INTERNATIONALSTANDARDSTO PROJECTWBSDELIVERABLES
Table1providesamatrixoftherela-tion between predetermined, top-level deliverables and 19 of the 21AACSB International standards (Eligibility pro-cedures, 2008). Standard 21 relates to business schools with PhD programs, and Standard 19 relates to specialized master-degreeprograms.Ourexample’s schoolofferedneitherkindofprogram.
Theexamplecollegeinthisarticleis afreestandingschoolofbusinessthatis part of a private institution. The busi-ness school includes 36 full-time fac-ultymembers.Thereareapproximately 750undergraduatebusinessmajorsand 115 master of business administration (MBA) students.AACSB International originallyaccreditedtheschoolin1995. Theschoolwasdueformaintenanceof accreditation in the fall of 2005. The AACSB InternationalMaintenance of AccreditationHandbook(2007)states,
The approach emphasizes continu-ous improvement. The process creates an ongoing “maintenance of accredita-tion” signaling that once an institution has achieved accreditation, a process of continuous improvement maintains the accreditation status. Maintenance of accreditation is not a standard-by- standardreview.(p.1)
For initial accreditation, the AACSB International Self Evaluation Report Guidelines(2008)statethat“basedonthe longstandingexperienceoftheAACSB International accreditation process, a well-organized, complete Self Evalua-tion Report that is prepared on a stan-dard-by-standard basis is an important stepinasuccessfulaccreditationeffort” (p. 1). However, certain major deliv-erables need to be addressed. AACSB Internationaloutlinedtheseoutcomesin
the MaintenanceofAccreditationHand-book revision of January 2007. In the presentarticle,wesuggestthattheWBS can serve as a template for any initial or maintenance of accreditation effort andthatschoolscanmodifyitasneces-sary.Forexample,aschoolthatdoesnot have an MBA program would not need the subdeliverable I.13.6 Overview of MBA Courses and a school applying foraccreditationforthefirsttimemight want to make each standard a major deliverable.
In the remainder of this article, we provide and discuss specific examples oftheprojectmanagementtoolsthatwe includedaspartofasuccessfulmainte-nanceofaccreditationeffort.
DeliverableI.1:Mission Statement
For our example business school, Deliverable I.1 is a redesigned mis-sionstatementasStandards1–3require. Developing the new mission statement was a time-consuming process. The dean acceptedthe new mission state- mentinFebruary2004.AlthoughDeliv-erable I.1 does not specifically state thefollowingcircumstance,initsmain-tenance report the example business schoolincludesadescriptionofhowthe mission statement governed decisions made in the school and through what avenues the mission was disseminated andmadepublictoallstakeholders,as Standard1requires.Itiseasytoseethis series of eventsas a process but also identify it as a deliverable by using a WBS, which helps the school to focus theeffort.
DeliverableI.2:Completed StrategicandFinancialPlans
Deliverable I.2 involves a complet-ed Strategic and Financial Plan that is requiredbyStandards4and5(AACSB, Eligibilityprocedures,2008).Thedean was ultimately responsible forwriting theplans.However,hereceivedagreat dealofinputfromavarietyofbusiness school stakeholders, including (a) the chairoftheAACSBInternationalMain-tenance Visitation Team and (b) two AACSB International consultants. The strategic process began with the insti-tution’s strategic plan for 2000–2005.
September/October2008 33 Onceadraftoftherevisedmissionhad
been presented in the fall of 2003, the workondefiningstrategicgoalsbegan. Todesignthestrategicplan,theschool held a series of workshops involving faculty members. There were six fac-ulty workshops and one workshop for staff, emeriti, and adjuncts. Workshop participants discussed and determined everything from a situation analysis of thebusinessschooltostrategicthemes. Astrategicplanningcommitteeandthe
deanguidedtheprocess.Inthesummer of2005, the dean, associate dean, and selectfacultymettorefinethestrategic plan and write the financial plan. In Augustofthatyear,thebusinessschool invited twoAACSB International con-sultantstogothroughamockvisitand maintenancereview.InlateSeptember, thedeanpresentedtherevisedandfinal strategicandfinancialplanstothefac-ultyforreview.Thefacultyendorsedthe plansatthattime.Thelaststepwasto
producealogofallactivitiesinvolvedin thestrategicandfinancialplanning.The logwasusedbyfaculty,administrators, andthevisitationteamtohelpverifythe strategicandfinancialplanningprocess andwasinsertedintotheProcessMan-ualasDeliverable1.10.Inthiscase,the examplebusinessschooldidnotusethe financial strategies table suggested in the Documentation Guidance of Stan-dard5(AACSB,Eligibilityprocedures, 2008). Information was incorporated FIGURE1.WorkbreakdownstructureusedtoachieveAssociationtoAdvanceCollegiateSchoolsofBusinessmain-tenanceofaccreditationforanexampleschoolofbusiness(2005).aMBA=MasterofBusinessAdministration.
Positive AACSB maintenance
report
1.1 Mission statement
1.2 Completed
strategic and financial
plan
1.3 Developed governance
system
1.4 Completed assessment
plan Completed1.12
appendices and supporting
material 1.7 Completed
financial development
plan 1.6 Faculty development
plan 1.5 Integrated,
strategic, financial,
and assessment
plans
1.8 Completed
flexible MBAa program
plan
1.9 Completed summaryof
student information
1.10 Completed
process manual
1.11 Implemented consistencyplan
34
Journal
of
Education
for
Business
TABLE1.DeliverablesasRelatedtoAACSBStandards
Strategic Participant Assuranceoflearning standards1–5 standards6–14 standards15–18,20 Deliverable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 I.1Mission P P P I.2Strategicand
financialplans P P P I.3Governance
system P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
I.4Assessment
plan P P P P P P
I.5Integrated strategic, financial, assessment
plans P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
I.6Faculty
development P P P P P P P I.7Financial
development
plan P P P P I.8Revitalized
MBA P P P P P P P P
I.9Student
information P P P P P P I.10Process
manual P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
I.11Faculty
database P P P P P I.12Completed
appendixes P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Note.AACSBInternational:TheAssociationtoAdvanceCollegiateSchoolsofBusiness(AACSB;2007).InEligibilityproceduresandaccreditationstandardsforbusinessaccreditation.MBA=Masterof BusinessAdministration.
September/October2008 35 directly into the financial plan, and so
it was not mentioned separately in the WBS under Deliverable I.2.This is an example of an effort that transcended AACSB International Standards 4 and 5. As readers can see, this effort was fairly complex, involved several stake-holders,andinvolvedsomerevision.It have a structured and fully functional governancesysteminplacepriortothe developmentoftheWBS.Acomplete, organized governance system was developedduringthesummerof2005. AACSB International (Eligibility pro-cedures,2008)Standard4requiresthe schooltospecify“actionitemsthatrep- resenthighprioritycontinuousimprove-mentefforts”(p.27).Thedevelopment of action items leads to the need for a governance system to monitor and enforceobjectivesandtosetnewobjec-tives as necessary. Toward those ends, the example business school instituted a business advisory board and set up a committee structure. In addition, to provide transparency and to help fac-ulty become involved and knowledge-ableofallthathappensinthebusiness school,anintranetwasdeliveredbythe administration of the business school in the form of an existing, completed communication network. In this case, the WBS, by outlining very specific deliverables, could act as a commu-nication tool to keep all stakeholders aware of the detailed objectives and the relation among the objectives and theprocessinwhichtheobjectivesare involved.
DeliverableI.4:Completed AssessmentPlan
AACSB International Standards 16, 18, 19, and 21 concentrate on the setting and achievement of learning goals (AACSB,Eligibility procedures, 2008, pp. 73–77). The example busi-ness school spent considerable time and effort in preparing an assessment
planthatbeganwithalmostthreequar-ters of the faculty’s attending AACSB International-sponsored seminars on assessment in 2002–2004. The first assessment workshop on campus for faculty took place in September 2003. Five workshops followed and involved continued development of learning goalsfortheundergraduateandgradu-ate programs. In November 2004, an all-dayfacultyworkshop,facilitatedby an external consultant, took place to finalize the learning goals and objec-tives. In February 2005, an assessment committeewasestablishedandcharged with developing and implementing the businessschoolassessmentplan.From that point, the assessment committee became responsible for the following tasks:
1. Relating the learning goals for each program to the school’s mission (Standards16–18,and20).
2.Determiningtheschool’sresponse tostandard15.
3.Managingthecurricula.
4.Providingthefacultywithincen-tives to get involved in designing and evaluating rubrics to satisfy the requirementsspecifiedinStandards16 and18.
5.Schedulingthetrainingoffaculty. 6.Developingtheassessmentplan.
Because the visitation year for our example business school was 2005, AACSB InternationalEligibility Pro-cedures and Accreditation Standards for BusinessAccreditation (2006) only required the school to meet the fol-lowingrequirements:“Anassuranceof learning system will be in place with measuresandrecordkeepingforassess-ingprogrameffectiveness”(p.67).The school was not required to close the assurance-of-learning loop by taking resultsandfunnelingthembackintothe curricula as proof of continuing devel-opment of degree programs. However, theschoolcouldusetheWBStohelpto prepare budgetary requirements speci-fiedbythiseffort.
DeliverableI.5:Integrated Strategic,Financial,and AssessmentPlans
Aswementionedabove,ourexample business school did bring in outside
consultants prior to the AACSB Inter-nationalmaintenanceteamreview.The consultants,aswellastheteamleader, repeated an emphasis of the need for consistency in every activity, plan, and processthattheschoolexhibited.There-fore, the results of reviewing for that uniformitywereestablishedasamajor deliverable. Using theWBS methodol-ogy for this single effort is probably unnecessary,butweincludeitforcon-sistentuse.
DeliverableI.6:Established FacultyDevelopmentPlan
The example school completed Deliverable I.6 mainly in response to AACSB International Standard 2 ( Eli-gibilityprocedures,2008),whichstates that,“Themissionincludestheproduc-tion of intellectual contributions that advancetheknowledgeandpracticeof businessandmanagement”(p.21).The guidance for this standardstates that each business school must have “clear policiesthatstateexpectationstoguide faculty in the successful production of a portfolio of intellectual contributions that are consistent with the school’s mission”(p.24).TheFacultyDevelop-ment Plan delivered by the example business school involved completion of a Statement of Faculty Intellectual Expectations and a Faculty Develop-mentSupportPlan.
Developing a Statement of Faculty IntellectualExpectationswasadifficult, but inclusive process for the example businessschool.Itwasdifficultbecause the business school resides within a faculty-unionized campus (American Association of University Professors) and because there were many diver-gent opinions among the faculty about whatthoseexpectationsshouldbe.The processbeganinFebruary2005witha faculty workshop.Although discussion was hot, those present voted to accept a statement that very clearly defined the number and type of intellectual contributions expected from each full-timefacultymemberonarolling5-year period. From that point, the statement bounced back and forth between the AACSBInternationalsteeringcommit-tee, members of the faculty, and the facultyunionofficersoncampus.Once
the union gave its support to the state-ment, and the faculty had an oppor-tunity for input on the revisions, the AACSBInternationalsteeringcommit-tee recommended the statement to the dean.The dean accepted the statement withaminorrevisioninMay2005.
In addition to the Statement of Fac- ultyIntellectualExpectations,thebusi- nessschoolneededtodefineadevelop-mentplanthatwouldsupportfacultyas indicatedinAACSBInternationalStan-dards 5 and 11 (Eligibility procedures, 2008),butthatneedwasalsoacceptable tothefacultyunionandtheadministra-tion.At the center of the general plan wasaFacultyAdvancementPlan(FAP) that the business school initiated but that the institution’s administration for facultyacrossthecampuslatertookup. The FAP is generated by each faculty memberandreviewedbythedeanwith that individual. The plan outlines how the faculty member proposes to grow professionally during a 3-year period. As an example, an individual may ask forfundingtoattendaspecialmanage-ment-training program offered through Harvard. This process began in 1998. After two iterations, the first cycle of the plan began for the faculty at large, andasecondcycleoftheplanbeganfor thebusinessschoolinOctober2003.In addition, the business school adminis-tration,withinputfromthescholarship/ editorial committee and the university administration, initiated a scholarship rewardsystem,aworkingpaperseries, researchseminars,andteachingawards plus research mentorship/coauthorship toenableandencourageresearchamong thefaculty.
As we look back over Deliverable I.6,itseemstousthatthereshouldhave been another set of items that more extensively satisfied Standards 11 and 12. However, to a great extent these itemsarecoveredinI.10,whichdelivers acompletedprocessmanual.
Aswepreviouslymentioned,AACSB International Standard 2 from the Eli-gibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation (2008) indicates that the school must “display the portfolio of intellectual contributions” (p. 22). As readers can seeintheexampleWBS,ourcasebusi-ness school did not include this
port-folio under Deliverable I.6, Faculty DevelopmentPlan.Theschoolfeltthat the development of a Web-based fac-ultydatabasetohouseallofthefaculty informationwassocriticalthatitshould be a major deliverable. It is indicated on the WBS as I.11. Last, the school assembled a log of activities toward completion of the deliverables. Again, creatingafacultydevelopmentplanisa verycomplicatedprocessthataddresses several AACSB International require-mentsandinvolvesseveraliterationsof work.RevisiontotheWBSdeliverables by using a simple configuration man-agement system would enable (a) the effective communication and (b) effi-cientadjustmenttothevariouschanges requiredbythiseffort.
DeliverableI.7:Completed FinancialDevelopmentPlan
The example school included a deliverable of a Completed Financial DevelopmentPlaninitsWBStosatisfy Standard 5.AACSB International ( Eli-gibility procedures, 2008) requires not onlysometypeoffacultydevelopment plan but also a plan to guarantee that thereissufficientfinancialsupportfrom theinstitutionortheschool“tocontinu-ously enhance the intellectual capital ofthefacultytoensurethatinstruction keepspacewiththesubjectmatter”(p. 28). In this case, the main avenue that the example school pursued to provide financial support to faculty was to get approval from the institution’s admin-istration for the business school dean tosolicitfundsdirectlyfortheexample school.Anexampleoftheutilityofthe WBSwouldbetoseparatethebudget-aryrequirementsunderDeliverable1.4 fromthoseofDeliverable1.7.Although this could be accomplished by stan-dard budgetary means, using theWBS methoddoescommunicatemoreclearly tothefacultyandotherstakeholdersthe specific differences between the two deliverables.
DeliverableI.8:Completed FlexibleMBAProgramPlan
For the example business school, it seemed appropriate for the school to includeinformationabouttherevitaliza-tion of the MBA program in
prepara- tionfortheAACSBInternationalmain-tenance review. The school included that information to provide full disclo-sure about a problem area that it was addressing and to indicate the school’s commitment to continuous improve-ment. In this case, six activities and their related deliverables were speci-fied. They included (a) approving the newMBAprogram,(b)completingpro-posalofthenewMBAprogramsentto FacultySenateCurriculumCommittee, (c) individual faculty member’s giving inputonthenewMBAtotheassociate dean,(d)studyingtheadultMBAmar-ket, (e) faculty’s developing a baseline forthenewMBA,and(f)keepingalog ofactivities.
This experience demonstrates that each of the major deliverables, includ-ing the aforementioned deliverables, comprises subdeliverables. The listing of the various items provides an over-view of what was involved in com-pletingthisdeliverable.Aresponsibility matrix, which we address later in this article, forms a record of what parties areinvolvedinandresponsibleforeach subdeliverable.
DeliverableI.9:Completed SummaryofStudentInformation
The Summary of Student Informa-tion was a direct response toAACSB InternationalStandards3,6–8,and14 (Eligibility procedures, 2008). This deliverable consisted of a thorough report that fulfilled theGuidance for Documentation section under each of the standards mentioned above.As an example, in partial compliance with Standard 8, one section in the report describes the business school’s advis-ing center, the number of advisors, howmanystudentsthecenterseeseach academicyear,howoftenwhichactivi-ties are performed there, and the like. Again, this experience shows a deliv-erable that transcends many AACSB International standards. Streamlining the process of reporting may be pos-sible by using the WBS to guide not only the effort, but also—and perhaps this is more important—to communi-catetorelevantstakeholdersthesystem that emerged to satisfy these various AACSBInternationalstandards.
September/October2008 37 DeliverableI.10:Completed
ProcessManual
Throughoutall21Standards,AACSB International emphasizes the need to define the processes behind the deliv-erables.As an example,AACSB Inter-national (Eligibility procedures, 2008) Standard 11 specifically states, “The school has well documented and com-municatedprocessesinplacetomanage and support faculty members over the progression of their careers consistent withtheschool’smission”(p.14).Stan-dard 15 requires under “Management of Curricula,” that “The school uses well documented, systematic processes todevelop,monitor,evaluate,andrevise the substance and delivery of the cur-riculaofdegreeprogramsandtoassess theimpactofthecurriculaonlearning” (p. 15). Therefore, the example busi-nessschoolmadeavailableamanualof all the processes involved in the gov-ernance and operations of the school. Someoftheprocesseswereattheinsti-tutionlevel,andsomewereatthelevel of the business school. An adaptation oftheWBScouldbeusedasatableof contentstothismanual,toorganizethe various processes that lead to specific deliverables. Each high-level deliver-able in the manual could also iden-tify theAACSB International standard beingsatisfied.
DeliverableI.11:Faculty Database
In accord with Deliverable I.6, the example business school considered development of a Web-based faculty database as a very important deliver-able. The school felt that such a data-base would provide a very efficient and organized venue for the visitation team to access the necessary informa-tion about each faculty member and their intellectual contributions. This schooldevelopedthedatabaseinhouse tomeetitsspecificneeds.Becausethe database is Web based, reviewers can accesstheinformationfromanywhere, therebymakingitefficient.Tohighlight the significance of this database, the schoolsetitupasaseparatehigh-level deliverable.Itwouldalsobeconsistent withthemethodologyforaschooltoset itupasasubsectionofDeliverableI.6.
Either choice would be acceptable in creatingtheWBS.
DeliverableI.12:Completed AppendicesandSupporting Material
The last major deliverable, Deliver- ableI.12,isalistofappendicesofsup-porting material. Deliverable I.12 lists 20 appendices, including Table 1 and Table 2 required by AACSB Interna-tional Standards 9 and 10 (review of faculty participants;Eligibility proce-dures,2008). Many of the items are copies of actual documents that were mentionedasdeliverablesintheWBS, such as the FAP. In addition, Deliver-able I.12 includes some items that the coordinatorsoftheAACSBInternation-almaintenanceeffortfeltwouldprovide abetterunderstandingoftheschooland what it is about, such as overview of undergraduatecurriculum, postgradu-ate activity, and employment profiles. The school could arrange the items in theappendixeitherbyAACSBInterna-tionalstandardorbyWBSdeliverable. Because of the overlap of documents acrossstandards,itmaybemoreeffec-specific school’s accreditation mainte-nance process. Following each subsec-tion,wehaveidentifiedpossiblebenefits ofusingaprojectmanagementapproach and the utility of the WBS tool. Our goal was to summarize several WBS benefits.Althoughsomeeducatorsmay not deem this approach as appropriate or necessary for their schools, we feel thatitisatoolthatisusefulforincreas-ing the effectiveness and efficiency of manybusinessschools’efforts.
ComplexityOfMaintenance-of-AccreditationProcessesandthe ResultingUtilityoftheWBS
AsshowninTable1,AACSBInter-national sorts its standards for busi-nessaccreditationintothreecategories: strategic management standards, par-ticipants standards, and assurance of learning standards. Each category has
a unique basis for judgment and guid-ance for documentation, yet the cat-egory may link or overlap with other standards. This circumstance is where projectmanagementtechniquesbecome so useful. One example of the broad nature of AACSB International ( Eligi-bility procedures, 2008) Standards is foundinstandard16:
Bachelor’s or undergraduate level degree: knowledge and skills. Adapt-ingexpectationstotheschool’smission and cultural circumstances, the school specifies learning goals and demon-strates achievement of learning goals for key general, management-specific, and/or appropriate discipline-specific knowledge and skills that its students achieve in each undergraduate degree program.(p.16)
In addition, some of the standards require documentationof processes and input by stakeholders as part of thebasesofjudgment.Asanexample, under“BasisforJudgment”inAACSB International Eligibility Procedures andAccreditationStandardsforBusi-nessAccreditation(2008),Standard1 states, “The school demonstrates that itsmissionstatementderivesfrompro- cessesthatincludeinputfromitsstake-holders” (p. 20). Makingthe process even more difficult, the accreditation review includes all degree programs in the business school. This means that the school must be prepared to defendeachstandardforeverydegree program that it offers, such as bach-elor of science, MBA, and executive MBA. Last, “Consistent with its mis- sionanditsculturalcontext,theinsti-trators, faculty, and students” (p. 11). Allofthesevariousrequirementscre-ate a complex situation that neces-sitates excellent organization skills, involvement of various stakeholders, andpropersequencingtoleadtosuc-cessful accreditation. Trying to keep track of what has been accomplished and what has not becomes very diffi-cultwithoutsomekindofmechanism
to organize the effort. The use of a toolsuchasaWBScanprovidetoall involved a clear, pictorial overview
of the entire AACSB International accreditationeffort.
It is most important that without someguidanceofthisnature,itiseasy forstakeholders,especiallyfacultyand staff, to distance themselves from the effortbecausetheydonotfeelthatthey know or understand what needs to be producedorwhattheirpartis.Theuse ofWBSprovidesawayfortheschool tobringallstakeholderstogetherinthe effortforaccreditation.
Last, one of the school’skey objec-tives in preparing for maintenance of accreditation should be to make a clear,thorough,andconcisecasetothe accreditation team. The use of a WBS will accomplish that. Once the WBS
hasbeendeveloped,theplancanbefol-Figure 1 shows a WBS at the high-est level only. As a practical matter,
work deliverables shown in Figure 1 aredecomposedintomoredetailedlev-els. The detailed subdeliverables must capture 100% of the deliverable at the higher level.A simple rule for schools whencreatingtheWBSistousenouns insteadofverbs.Manyprojectmanagers areactionorientedandthinkintermsof what needs to be done (verbs), instead ofwhatneedsbeproduced(nouns).This distinctionmightseemtosomemanag-erstobeatrivialpoint,butexperience has shown us that following this rule cansignificantlyimprovethecommuni-cationprocessbothwithintheteamand with key stakeholders (such as review teams). In essence, this method exem-plifieswhatPMImeansbydeliverable -oriented in the definition of theWBS (Haugan,2002). process, a detailed WBS figure would bemuchlargerthanwehaveshown.For example, the detailedWBS deliverable
in Figure 1 actually has four sublevels of deliverables under Deliverable I.12 thatincludeatotalof14subdeliverables atthelowestlevel.
For illustrative purposes, the focus will be on Deliverable I.1, which has onlyonesublevelforfivedeliverables: (a) input received from external stake-holders, (b) mission statement’s align-mentwithuniversitymissionstatement, (c) completed workshops with faculty on development of mission, (d) com- pletedmissionstatement,and(e)com-pleted log of activities that led to the missionstatement.
The next section of this article out-lines and discusses the final tool that schoolsuseforthisreaccredidation,the responsibilitymatrix.
TheResponsibilityAssignment Matrix
Once a school has created and reviewedaWBS,itcancreatearespon-sibilityassignmentmatrixtoalignwith theWBS.Theresponsibilityassignment matrix lists all of the detailed deliver-ables from the WBS on one axis and lists the names of the persons respon-sible for completing the deliverable on theotheraxis.Thisarrangementenables accountability and understanding of whoisresponsibleforeachdeliverable or subdeliverable. This arrangement is particularly useful for understand-ing responsibility for closely related subdeliverables. An example is shown in Table 2. Although the matrix is a relativelysimpletool,itfitsnicelywith the WBS to provide focus and agree-ment during the maintenance or initial AACSBInternationalprocess.
Either a central committee or the individuals identified in the respon-sibility assignment matrix can then create a work process plan for each subdeliverable. As a practical matter, the time involved in creating these documents is not excessive, and they providesubstantialbenefitsformanag-ing the complex process of achievprovidesubstantialbenefitsformanag-ing successfulaccreditation.
Conclusion
Successful maintenance of accredi-tation is about processes and who is TABLE2.ExampleofaResponsibilityAssignmentMatrix
Faculty,staff, External
and stakeholders
Deliverable committees Administrators andgroups
I.1Missionstatement P
I.1.1Inputfromstakeholders P P
I.1.2Missionstatementalignedwith
universitymission P P P
I.1.3Workshopswithfacultyand
staffondevelopmentofmission P I.1.4Preliminarymissionstatement P I.1.5Logofactivitiesthatledto
missionstatement P
I.2Completedstrategicandfinancial
Plan P P
I.2.1Completedplanbasedonreview
bybusinessschoolstakeholders P P
I.2.2Writtenfinancialplanaligned
withstrategicplan P P
I.2.3Finalalignmentwithmiddle
statesstandards P
I.2.4Writtenstrategicplan P
I.2.5Facultyandstaffworkshopson
strategicgoals P
I.2.6Facultyandstaffworkshopson
SWOTanalysis P
I.2.5Logofplanningactivities P
Note.Unnamedexampleschoolofbusiness(2006).SWOT=strengths,weaknesses,opportunities, andthreats.
September/October2008 39 involved in those processes as much
as it is about numbers.Therefore, it is essentialthattheschoolusesanefficient method for defining and documenting those processes, as well as identifying the parties responsible for completing theprocesses.Astheexamplebusiness schoolexperienced,theaforementioned projectmanagementtoolsworkforsuch amethod.
Furthermore, the WBS and respon-sibility matrix provide a summary of information that internal and external stakeholdersfindusefulasanexcellent communications tool for better under-standingofthecomplexprocess.
NOTES
Dr. CynthiaW.Cannis an associate profes-sorintheDepartmentofManagement/Marketing at the Arthur J. Kania School of Management at the University of Scranton, where she
con-ductsresearchinbusinesstobusinessmarketing, sustainable marketing, strategic marketing, and sustainability.
Dr. Alan L.Brumagimis an associate professor in the Department of Management/ Marketing at the Arthur J. Kania School of Management at the University of Scranton, where he conducts research in strategic man-agement,sustainability,managementeducation, andprojectmanagement.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Cynthia W. Cann, UniversityofScranton,ArthurJ.KaniaSchool of Management, Department of Management/ Accounting, 800 Linden Street, Scranton, PA 18510,USA.
E-mail:cannc1@scranton.edu
REFERENCES
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2006). Tampa,FL:Author.Eligibilityproceduresand accreditationstandardsforbusinessaccredita-tion. Retrieved October 15, 2007 from http:// www.AACSB International.edu/accreditation/ process/documents/AACSB International_ STANDARDS_Revised_Jan06.pdf
TheAssociationtoAdvanceCollegiateSchoolsof BusinessInternational(AACSB).(2007).Main-tenanceofaccreditationhandbook.Tampa,FL: Author.RetrievedAugust1,2007,fromhttp:// www.AACSBInternational.edu/accreditation/ process/process-toc.asp
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2008). Tampa,FL:Author.Eligibilityproceduresand accreditationstandardsforbusinessaccredita-tion.RetrievedFebruary,6,2008fromhttp:// www.AACSBInternational.edu/accreditation/ process/documents/AACSBInternational_ STANDARDS_Revised_Jan08.pdf
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (AACSB). (2008). Tampa, FL: Author.Process documents: Self evaluationreportguidelines.RetrievedFebruary 13,2008,fromhttp://www.AACSBInternational. edu/accreditation/process/process-toc.asp Haugan, G. T. (2002).Effective work breakdown
structures.Vienna,VA:ManagementConcepts. Martin, M. G. (2003).Delivering project
excel-lence with the statement of work.Vienna,VA: ManagementConcepts.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2004).A guidetotheprojectmanagementbodyofknowl-edge(3rded.).NewtonSquare,PA:Author.
���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
���������� ������ ����
������� �������� �������
����������������������� ������������������������������� ������������������������������������������
������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������
�����������������
��������������������
������������������������������������������� ������������ � ������
�� ��� ������
����������� �� ���������� �� ��������������� ������������ ������������������������������ ���������������
