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
Applying for Initial AACSB Accreditation: An
Exploratory Study to Identify Costs
Kirk C. Heriot , Geralyn Franklin & Walt W. Austin
To cite this article: Kirk C. Heriot , Geralyn Franklin & Walt W. Austin (2009) Applying for Initial AACSB Accreditation: An Exploratory Study to Identify Costs, Journal of Education for Business, 84:5, 283-289, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.84.5.283-289
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.5.283-289
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 47
View related articles
rganizations must deal with change as an inevitable reality of the dynamic world in which they operate. The implications of change are particularly true for institutions engagedinbusinesseducation(Kemel-gor, Johnson, & Srinivasan, 2000). Among the important issues that an academicorganizationsshouldconsid-erarethe(a)costsand(b)benefitsof changing their programs. One impor-tant issue confronting many smaller business schools is whether to change from being unaccredited to becoming an Association to Advance Collegiate SchoolsofBusiness(AACSB)Interna-tionalaccreditedschool.
AACSB hastwicemodifieditsorigi-nal 1919 standards, once in 1991 and more recently in 2003 (AACSB Inter-national,2007).Priortotheadoptionof themission-orientedstandardsin1991, AACSB membership consistedmostly of larger research-oriented business schools. The revision of the standards in 1991 provided an opportunity for a school with a teaching emphasis to pursueAACSBaccreditationaslongas teachingwasafundamentalpartofthe school’smission(AACSBInternational, 2007). According to our conversations withAmyRoberts,senioraccreditation associate for AACSB, more business schools are responding to the change in standards by seeking initialAACSB accreditation. There are currently 201
schoolsinthecandidacyprogramseek-ingaccreditation.
Most of the recent research about AACSBaccreditationhasexploredtop-icsaboutthestandardsandtheeffectsof thechangesincluding(a)perceptionsof businessschooldeansabouttherevision ofthestandardsin1991(Mayes,Heide, &Smith,1993);(b)changesinfaculty workloads (Henninger, 1998); (c) the relative emphasis placed on teaching, research, and service (McKenna, Cot-ton, & VanAuken, 1995); and (d) the impact that changes in standards may haveonbusinessfaculty(Miles,Hazel-dine,&Munilla,2004).Thebenefitsof AACSB accreditation were adequately addressedpriortothechangeinthestan-dards in 1991. These benefits include certificationofstandardsofexcellence, signalingqualitytostudents,andhigher facultysalaries(Pastore,1989).
Yet, the benefits of AACSB accreditation are not free. Schools seeking initial accreditation may need tochangeprograms,curricula,staffing, administration, and facilities, any of which may entail significant costs. It comesasasurprisetousthatnostudy has investigated issues related to the costsofAACSBaccreditation.McKee, Mills,andWeatherbee(2005)suggested that some business school deans may seeAACSB accreditation as necessary or inevitable, rather than a strategic alternative that needs to be evaluated
ApplyingforInitialAACSBAccreditation:
AnExploratoryStudytoIdentifyCosts
KIRKC.HERIOT GERALYNFRANKLIN
COLUMBUSSTATEUNIVERSITY UNIVERSITYOFSOUTHFLORIDA
COLUMBUS,GEORGIA ST.PETERSBURG,FLORIDA
WALTW.AUSTIN MERCERUNIVERSITY MACON,GEORGIA
O
ABSTRACT.Theauthorsidentifiedthe typeandmagnitudeofcostscollegesand schoolsincurwhenseekingAssociationto AdvanceCollegiateSchoolsofBusiness (AACSB)Internationalaccreditation.This issueisimportanttothe156schoolsandcol-legescurrentlyseekinginitialaccreditation byAACSBandtothethousandsofschools worldwidethatcouldseekaccreditation. AlthoughthechangesintheAACSBaccredi-tationstandardsopenedthedoortomany smallerteaching-orientedschools,therevised standardsmayinduceschoolswithlimited resourcestoseekaccreditation.Theauthors identifysignificantcostsinbecomingaccred-itedandaconsiderableincreaseinannual operatingcoststomaintainaccreditation.The 10schoolsinthepresentstudyexperienced 1-timeinitialexpendituresandincreased annualexpenses.Businessschooldeansand universityadministratorsneedtobeawareof theinitialcostsofaccreditationalongwith theincreasedannualcosts.
Keywords:accreditation,Associationto AdvanceCollegiateSchoolsofBusiness, businesseducation
Copyright©2009HeldrefPublications
before being pursued. With such a mindset,businessschooldeansmaynot conductacost–benefitanalysis.
Thepurposeofthepresentstudywas to identify the type and magnitude of coststhatcollegesandschoolsincurred when seeking AACSB accreditation. This issue is particularly important to the schools seeking initial accreditation and to AACSB. At present, there are 560 AACSB-accredited schools world-wide;however,therearemorethan2,000 schools or colleges of business in the United States alone, with thousands of more potential member schools world-wide (AACSB International, 2009). Thus,thepotentialnumberofprograms ducting worthwhile business research. Researchabouttherevisiontothestan-dardsin1991andinitialaccreditationis rare, whereas research into the cost of initialaccreditationisnonexistent.
Mayesetal.(1993)conductedasur-vey of business school deans to assess their perceptions of the 1991 AACSB accreditation standards. Their research classified schools as Category I, II, or III.Category I schools are accredited doctoral-degree granting schools with accredited undergraduate and masters’ programs.Category II schools consist of accredited schools without doctoral programs,andCategoryIIIschoolsare nonaccredited schools. These catego-rieswerecreatedonthebasisofPorter and McKibbin’s (1988) classification. Although the categories do not distin-guish between accredited and nonac-credited programs with and without masters’programs,theyarestilluseful as a basis for comparison. Perhaps the most interesting finding of the present study was that deans from nonaccred-ited business schools anticipated that AACSBaccreditationwouldchangethe resourcesallocatedtotheirbusinesspro-grams. Category III deans anticipated
convertingpart-timeintofull-timeposi-tions. They also expected to increase resourcesfordisciplinaryresearch.Itis clearthateachofthesechangeswould increase the costs of operating their businessprograms.
Cotton, McKenna, Van Auken, and Yeider(1995)askeddeansofaccredited andnonaccreditedcollegiateschoolsof business to offer their perspectives on the impact of the change in AACSB accreditation standards on the mix of teaching, research, and service. Cot-ton et al. concluded that accredited schools and schools seeking accredita-tion“sawnomandateforchangeinthe new AACSB accreditation standards” (p. 10).Alternatively, deans from non-accredited schools who did not antici-pate seeking accreditation believed thattheywouldhavetochangeifthey were to meet the new standards. Their responsesweredirectlyrelatedtotheir perceptions of the emphasis that they wouldneedtoplaceonresearch.Ironi-cally,deansfromnonaccreditedschools seekingaccreditationbelievedthatthey could now achieve accreditation with more emphasis on teaching and less emphasisonresearch.
Slone and LaCava (1993) used an in-process observation of the efforts of Boise State University to highlight how its program had responded to the new business school challenges. Slone andLaCavapointedoutthattheircom-prehensive assessment of their under-graduateprogramledtoanewstrategic focus and a process for implementa- tion.Morethansimplyfocusingoncos-metic issues that gave the appearance of improvements, Slone and LaCava’s newdeanledtheschoolonaprocessof changeanddiscoverythatyieldedsev-eralusefulinsights.SloneandLaCava discussedbenefitsofaccreditationand ways to achieve continuous improve-ment;however,theydidnotaddressthe costsofchange.
Roller,Andrews,andBovee(2003),ina studyofthebenefitsofaccreditationcon-ducted among deans atAACSB schools and non-AACSB schools, nominally addressedthecostsofAACSBaccredita-tion. Roller et al.’s study indicated that deansareawarethatadditionalcostsincur when achieving accreditation; however, Rolleretal.didnotprovidedetailsabout thetypeandmagnitudeofthesecosts.
InastudyofCanadiandeansonthe perceived value of accreditation versus the real value of accreditation, McKee etal.(2005)acknowledgedthataccredi-tationmayentailsignificantcosts.They noted that a number of Canadian busi-ness schools were at some stage of AACSB accreditation in 2005, in spite oftheheavycosts(financialandhuman resources)involvedinaccreditationand maintenance. One Canadian business deanestimatedthataccreditationwould costhisschoolasmuchas$100,000.
Thus, although there is ample evi-dence that deans know that achieving accreditationiscostly,thereisnosystem-aticresearchthatidentifiesspecificcosts and their magnitude in achieving initial AACSB accreditation. The purpose of thepresentarticlewastoaddressthecost sideofthecost–benefitparadigm.
METHOD
Yin (2003) identified three designs thatresearcherscommonlyuse:explor-atory,descriptive,andexplanatory.The choiceoftheresearchdesigndependson how much the researcher knows about the issue (Creswell, 2004; Yin). Cre-swell posits that exploratory research is well suited to situations in which the research problem is difficult to delimitandthoseinwhichtheresearch problemisnotwellknown.Theobjec-tive is to collect as much information as possible. Exploratory research is a qualitativetechniquethatelicitsdetailed information in an effort to understand theuniquenessofasituation(Creswell; Yin).Exploratoryresearchrangesfrom informal, using secondary data and informal discussions with participants, to more formal, using in-depth inter-views, focus groups, case studies, or pilot studies. In the present study, we used an exploratory research method because we had limited theoretical knowledge about the costs associated withinitialAACSBaccreditation.
Participants
All participants in the study were deansselectedtoparticipateinthestudy on the basis of two criteria. First, one of the authors is a dean and knew the potential participants well enough to
discuss the study with them and ask themtoparticipate.Werealizedthatthe exploratorynatureofthedesignwould require considerable effort by the par-ticipants to complete our open-ended survey.Therefore,wewantedtobesure that a dean was informed adequately aboutthelevelofcommitmentrequired before committing to participate in the study.Second,allofthedeansarecur-rentlyorpreviouslyweretheindividual responsibleforinitialaccreditationwith AACSBattheirrespectiveinstitutions. Eachofthemwasinapositiontopro-vide details about initial accreditation costs (Creswell, 2004). Demographics of the schools in the present study are presentedinTable1.
Deansfrom10schoolsparticipatedin theexploratorystudy.Atthetimeofthe data collection, five schools had been accredited in the past 18 months. One school was a candidate. Four schools hadcompletedtheirself-evaluationand were awaiting the peer-review visit. There were seven public schools and three private schools. The enrollments inthesecollegesanduniversitiesranged from 2,400 students to almost 7,700 students,withanaverageenrollmentof 3,975 students. The universities were located along the east coast and the southwesternpartoftheUnitedStates. The participating colleges or schools ofbusinesshadbetween220and1,500 students enrolled in their graduate and undergraduate programs, with an aver-age enrollment of 734 students. Two of the schools did not have an MBA programatthetimethattheyappliedfor AACSBaccreditation.
DataCollection
Yin (2003) suggested that interview- ing people in their own environment could improve the quality of their answers. However, conducting inter-views in 10 different, widely dispersed locations across the United States was not feasible. In addition, many of the questions pertaining to monetary amountswerelikelytorequireresearch and thus were unlikely to be answered in interviews. Hence, we developed a surveyinstrument,whichisshowninthe Appendix.The instrument was initially developed by an author of the present
study, the dean at a school of business seekingaccreditation,andamemberof theboardofAACSB;theinstrumentwas reviewedbytheotherauthors.Because there is scant evidence of the types of costsincurredintheinitialaccreditation process, we chose not to use multiple-choice questions that may omit costs thatwerenotincludedonthequestion-naire(Yin).Instead,theinstrumentwas designed to prompt the participants to
identifyallofthecoststhatwereassoci-Tables 2 and 3 list the costs par-ticipating schools reported that they incurredwhenseekingAACSBaccred-itation. These costs may be divided
intotwocategories:(a)thosethatwere primarily one-time expenditures and (b) those that increased annual oper-ating costs. The one-time costs such as upgrading infrastructure are those thatrefertoimprovingtechnologyor costs associated with the accredita-tion process itself. The second type of cost includes the annual increased operating costs, such as additional faculty,professionaldevelopment,on-this cost. Schools in candidacy clearly valuedhavinganexternalreviewerwho was highly knowledgeable ofAACSB
standardstoidentifyareasforimprove-TABLE1.ParticipatingCollegesandUniversities
Business
Student student Yearof Public
College Location enrollment enrollment accreditation orprivate
A Southeast 3,000 380 2005 Public
B Mid-Atlantic 4,300 1,000 2006 Public
C Southwest 3,400 596 2005 Public
D Mid-Atlantic 7,680 1,533 2005 Public
E Southeast 4,500 700 — Public
F Southwest 2,600 780 2005 Public
G Northeast 4,000 1,253 2004 Private
H Northeast 3,870 280 2003 Private
I West 4,000 600 2004 Public
J Northeast 2,400 222 2004 Private
TABLE2.One-TimeCosts(N=10)
Schools Lowest
reporting expenditureof Greatest M Mdn
expenditure schoolswithan expenditure expenditure expenditure
Costelement (%) expenditure($) ($) ($) ($)
Useof
consultants 9 1,000 12,000 5,217 5,000
Mockreview 7 1,250 12,000 7,207 8,000
Peer-review
team 10 3,500 18,000 8,530 7,000
Infrastructure
upgrades 4 5,000 60,000 33,750 35,000
ment. The lowest reported cost was $1,000, whereas the highest reported cost was $12,000 (M = $5,217). The cause of the variation in costs among schools was not discernable from the survey instrument. However, possible causesare(a)differentfeespaidtothe consultants, (b) schools having mul- tiplevisitsbyconsultants,or(c)differ-ences in expenses and travel costs of theconsultants.
MockReview
Inall,7ofthe10schoolsinthestudy reported that they conducted a mock review. The lowest reported cost of a mock review was $1,000, whereas one school reported spending $12,000 (M =$7,207).
PeerReviewTeam
All 10 schools in the study had received a peer-review team visit or had been budgeted for one. The low-est reported cost was $3,500, and the highest reported cost was $18,000 (M =$8,530).
InfrastructureUpgrades
In all, 4 of the 10 schools reported refurbishingorupgradingtheirphysical plant. These expenditures ranged from $5,000to$60,000.
IncreasedAnnualExpenditures Having far greater economic signif-icance than one-time costs were the increased annual expenditures, which aschoolmustanticipateandincludein 8 reported that they had increased the numberoftheirfaculty.Oneschooldid not answer the question, although it reported an annual increase in faculty cost.Last,onlyoneschoolreportednot increasing the size of its faculty. Of theeightschoolsthatprovidednumbers on hiring additional faculty, the num-ber of faculty members ranged from 2 to 10, with an average of 4 faculty members. In all, 9 of the 10 schools reportedthattheyhadincreasedannual
Closely related to the increase in faculty salaries was that of the annual costsofrecruitingnewandreplacement
faculty to meet AACSB faculty suffi-ciencyandqualificationstandards.One school’s faculty was adequate and did notincuranyfacultyrecruitmentcosts. Forschoolsincurringcosts,theyranged from $2,500 to $15,000, with a mean annualcostof$7,056.
AnnualTechnologyImprovementsfor Faculty
Of the 10 schools that participat-ed in the present study, 7 reportparticipat-ed increased expenditures on technology forfacultyandstudents.Theseexpen-dituresrangedfrom$9,000to$45,000 per year, with an average increase of expenditure of $29,167. The school with the greatest increase in annual expenditures reported acquiring data-basesforfacultyresearch.
ProfessionalDevelopment
All 10 schools in the study reported increasedcostsforprofessionaldevelop-ment.Thesecostsrangedfrom$10,000 to$60,000(M=$32,075).
LibraryEnhancementandInformation Access
In all, 5 of the 10 schools reported direct investments in the institution’s library to enhance the business collec-tion or improve access to information. Oftheschoolsmakingexpenditures,the lowestexpenditurewas$4,000andthe highestwas$25,000.Themeanexpen-diture for those schools making them was$12,500.
AnnualAACSBDuesandCostsof AttendingMeetingsandSeminars
In addition to the increased annual costs described previously, being in candidacy and subsequently accredited entailsmembershipfeesand,especially during the candidacy period, increased annual costs to attend accreditation seminars and workshops. In addition, 9 of the 10 schools that participated in the study indicated that between one and six persons attended AACSB meetings and seminars per year, with an average of three persons attending. Onlysevenoftheschoolsprovidedcost dataonduesandattendance.Thecosts reported ranged between $3,000 and TABLE3.IncreasedAnnualExpenditures(N=10)
Schools Lowest
reporting expenditureof Greatest M Mdn
Annualincreased expenditure schoolswithan expenditure expenditure expenditure
costs (%) expenditure($) ($) ($) ($)
Facultysalaries 9 142,250 800,000 319,088 222,500
Recruitment 9 2,500 15,000 7,056 5,500
Technology 6 9,000 45,000 29,167 28,000
Professional
development 10 10,000 60,000 32,075 27,500
Libraryholdings andinformation
access 5 4,000 25,000 12,500 5,000
AACSBInternational duesandconference
participation 7 3,000 40,000 13,857 8,000
Note.AACSB=AssociationtoAdvanceCollegiateSchoolsofBusiness.
$40,000, with an average annual cost major opportunity cost as well. It had reduced programs, which resulted in an annual drop in tuition revenue of $400,000peryear.
EffectivenessofCostPlanning
In preparing to enter candidacy and subsequently maintain accreditation, a realisticknowledgeofthetypesandmag-nitudesofthecostslikelytobeincurred is essential for making an informed decisionaboutseekingAACSBaccred-itation. Deans were asked to identify areas in which costs exceeded or were below estimates. Table 4 reports the cost elements in which the actual cost differedfromthatoftheestimatedcost and shows the number of schools that missedtheirestimates.
Inall,6ofthe10schoolsinthesurvey indicatedthattheyhadnotfullyantici-patedthecostsidentifiedinthesurvey. Failure to correctly forecast costs may leadtoschoolsbeingunabletocontinue andcompletetheaccreditationprocess. Inaddition,2ofthe10schoolsreported that costs became a major obstacle to completing the accreditation process. Oneofthesetwoschoolsreportedthat its president became concerned about
potential revenue loss ($400,000 per year), and the second school reported
thatfindingqualifiedfacultyinbudget-Although the accreditation standards changed, shifting some of the focus away from research, achieving initial accreditation remains a costly endeav-or. Every school in the study experi-enced both one-time expenditures and increasedannualexpenses.Thus,teach-ing institutions that are considerincreasedannualexpenses.Thus,teach-ing AACSB accreditation should be aware that the decision is fraught with eco-nomic consequences not only for the businessschool,butfortheinstitutionas awhole.Universityadministratorsneed to be fully aware of the significant up-front costs of accreditation, along with theincreasedannualexpenditures,while facingapotentialdecreaseintuitionrev-enuefromthebusinessschool.Although some of these costs can be reasonably anticipated, the unexpected size of the anticipatedcostsandthosecoststhatare notanticipatedcreateacriticalfinancial decision for schools seeking accredita-tion.Asteachinginstitutions(publicand private)examinethisissue,itisevident
that AACSB accreditation may have a significant financial impact not only on the business programs, but also on the rest of the college or university. Thus, schools that are considering accredita-tionmustweighthecostsandbenefits.
Thefindingsofthepresentstudymay appear obvious, especially to faculty and administrators atAACSB accred-ited schools. However, the findings maybemuchlessapparenttoschools considering accreditation. The revised AACSBaccreditationstandards,onthe basisofaschool’smission,mayinduce teaching institutions that would never have considered accreditation under thepriorstandardstoattemptthepro-cess.Considerthedifferencesbetween traditional research-oriented schools and teaching-oriented schools. Tradi-tional research-oriented schools typi-callyhavesignificantlygreaterbudgets with funds routinely provided for the itemsnecessarytomaintainaccredita-tion,whereassmallerteaching-oriented schoolsmustbeginfundingitemspre-viouslyunfundedandcontinuefunding them on an annual basis. Thus, the resources to achieve initial accredita-tion and maintain it may prove prob-lematicintheshortandlongterm.
Itisclearthatcollegesandschoolsof business pursue AACSB accreditation for different reasons. Some colleges andschoolsseeaccreditationasinevi-table, whereas others pursue AACSB accreditationforqualitypurposes,asa identification and realistic estimation of increased annual costs have enor-mousimplicationsforaschoolseeking initial accreditation because it means thataccreditationmaybeshort-livedif fundsarenotavailabletomaintainthe high-quality programs demanded by AACSBstandards.
NOTE
KirkC.HeriotistheRayandEvelynCrowley Endowed Chair of Entrepreneurship at Colum-bus State University. He teaches entrepreneur-ship small business management, and strategic management at the undergraduate and graduate levels. His research includes business education, TABLE4.CostsThatDifferedFromExpectations
Numberof Numberof
schools schools
underestimating overestimating
Costelement cost cost
AACSBInternational
duesandconferences 3 0
Mockreview 2 0
Assuranceoflearningprocessa 2 0
Professionaldevelopment 1 0
Technology 1 0
Consultants 1 0
Additionalfaculty 0 2
Note.Respondentsweregiventheopportunitytomakecommentsinadditiontoprovidingaresponse totheinstrument.AACSB=AssociationtoAdvanceCollegiateSchoolsofBusiness.
aIndicatesassuranceoflearningwasnotincludedinthesurvey.
determinantsofnewventurecreation,andentre-preneurshipinchallengingenvironments.
Walt W. Austin is a professor of accounting attheStetsonSchoolofBusinessandEconomics and teaches courses in accounting at the under-graduatelevelandoneofthecoursesintheMBA program.Heregularlyservesasanexpertwitness andlegalconsultantonaccountingmatters.
Geralyn Franklin is the dean of the college ofbusinessattheUniversityofSouthFlorida–St. Petersburg.Shepreviouslyservedasthedeanof theschoolofbusinessattheUniversityofTexas of the Permian Basin. She is a member of the board ofAACSB International and a past presi-dent of the United States Association for Small BusinessandEntrepreneurship.
Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressedtoKirkC.Heriot,TurnerCollegeof Business, Columbus State University, 4225 Uni-versityAvenue,Columbus,GA31907,USA.
E-mail:kirk.heriot@gmail.com
REFERENCES
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International. (2007). Eli-gibility procedures and standards for business accreditation (Rev. ed.). Tampa, FL: Author. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from http://www. aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp
AACSBInternational.(2009).Accreditedschools.
Tampa,FL:Author.RetrievedMarch11,2009, from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/ accreditedmembers.asp
Cotton, C. C., McKenna, J. F., Van Auken, S., & Yeider, R. A. (1993). Mission orientations and deans’ perceptions: Implications for the new AACSB accreditation standards.Journal of Organizational Change Management, 6(1), 17–27.
Creswell, J. W. (2004).Educational research: Planning,conducting,andevaluatingquantita-tiveandqualitativeresearch (2nded.).Colum-bus,OH:MerrillPrenticeHall.
Henninger,E.A.(1998).TheAmericanassembly ofcollegiateschoolsofbusinessunderthenew standards: Implications for changing faculty work.Journal of Education for Business, 73, 133–137.
Kemelgor,B.H.,Johnson,S.D.,&Srinivasan,S. (2000).Forcesdrivingorganizationalchange:A businessschoolperspective.Journal of Educa-tion for Business,75,133–137.
Mayes, B. T., Heide, D., & Smith, E. (1993). Anticipatedchangesinthebusinessschoolcur- riculum:AsurveyofdeansinAACSBaccredit-edandnonaccreditedschools. JournalofOrga-nizationalChangeManagement,6(l),54–63. McKee, M. C., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T.
(2005).Institutionalfieldofdreams:Exploring theAACSB and the new legitimacy of Cana-dian business schools.Canadian Journal of
AdministrativeScience,22,288–301. McKenna, J. E, Cotton, C. C., &VanAuken, S.
(1995).Businessschoolemphasisonteaching, research and service to industry: Does where you sit determine where you stand?Journal of Organizational Change Management, 8(2), 3–16.
Miles,M.P.,Hazeldine,M.F.,&Munilla,L.S. (2004). The 2003 AACSB accreditation stan-dards and implications for business faculty:A shortnote.JournalofEducationforBusiness, 80,29–34.
Pastore,J.M.,Jr.(1989).Developinganacademic accreditationprocessrelevanttotheaccounting profession.CPAJournal,159(5),18–26. Porter, L.W., & McKibbin, L.W. (1988).
Man-agement education and development: Drift and thrust into the 21st century? New York: McGraw-Hill.
Roller, R. H., Andrews, B. K., & Bovee, S. L. (2003). Specialized accreditation of business schools:Acomparisonofalternativecosts,ben-efits,andmotivations.JournalofEducationfor Business,78,197–204.
Slone, R. R., & LaCava, J. (1993). Responding tothenewB-schoolchallenges:Anin-process observation.JournalofOrganizationalChange Management,6(1),64–71.
Yin, R. K. (2003).Case study research: Design andmethods(appliedsocialresearchmethods). ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
APPENDIX
AssociationtoAdvanceCollegiateSchoolsofBusiness(AACSB)InternationalAccreditationCost SurveyQuestions
1. YouhavebeenidentifiedasanAACSBInternationalmemberschoolinoneofthefollowingcategories.Selecttheonethat bestdescribesyourschool:
_____ Recentlyearnedinitialaccreditation(last18mo.)
_____ Currentlyincandidacypartnershipin_____yearofprocess(Fillintheblank.) _____ Havecompletedselfevaluationreportandareawaitingpeer-reviewteamvisit _____ Recentlycompletedpeer-reviewteamvisitandareawaitingaffirmationbyIAC 2. Howmanyyearswasyourschoolengagedintheaccreditationprocess?
3. WhatpromptedyourschooltoseekinitialaccreditationbyAACSBInternationalasopposedtoanalternativeaccreditingagency? (Pleaseprovideonlythetopthreeprioritiesifyouelecttogivemultiplereasons.)
4. Duringtheaccreditationprocess,forthefollowingcategorieswhatnewdirectcostsdidtheschooloruniversityincurinpursuitof accreditation?(Pleaseprovideadollarrangeordollarpointestimate.)
a. Facultypositions(total):$___________peryear b. Technologyinvestmentforfaculty:$____________ c. Technologyinvestmentforstudents:$_____________ d. Facultyprofessionaldevelopment:$____________peryear
e. Newfacultypositions:_________;Averageperline$____________peryear f. Professionaltravelexpenditures(ifseparatefromitemd):$___________ g. DuesanddirectexpendituresforattendanceatAACSBmeetings:$___________ h. AveragenumberoffacultyattendingAACSBmeetingsperyear:________ i. Independenttravelbudgetfordean?_____;Ifyes,amount:$_________ j. Estimateofdirectcostsassociatedwithpeer-teamvisit:$____________ k. Didyourschoolinviteconsultant(s)tocampusforreview?________
Ifyes,whatwerethetotaldirectexpendituresfortheconsultants?$__________ l. Didyourschoolconductamockreview?_________
Ifyes,whatwereyourdirectcostsassociatedwiththemockreview?$____________
m. Directinvestmentbytheuniversitytoenhancebusinesslibraryholdingsorinformationaccess:$___________peryear(average) n. Estimatedirectrecruitmentcoststofillfacultyslotsessentialtoaccreditationefforts:$____________peryear
(Donotincludesalaries.)
o. Other?Pleasespecifybycategoryandcostsbelow.
5. Whatnewindirectcostsdidtheschoolincurinpursuitofaccreditation?Examplesareprovided;pleaseaddthosethatyoucanidentify. a. Remodelingorrefurbishingbuildings,offices,lobbies,receptionareas:$__________
b. Upgrading:$__________
c. Other?Pleasespecifybycategoryandcostsbelow.
6. Ofallcostsidentifiedabove,weretheyfullyanticipatedintheaccreditationplansubmittedtoAACSB?_________ Ifno,inwhatareasdidcostsexceedestimates,andinwhatareasdidcostsfallbelowprojections?
Aboveetimates Belowestimates
a. ______________________ a. ______________________ b. ______________________ b. ______________________ c. ______________________ c. ______________________ d. ______________________ d. ______________________ e. ______________________ e. ______________________
7. CanyoumakeanygeneralizationsaboutestimatingcostsassociatedwithseekingAACSBaccreditation?Ifso,whatarethese? 8. Whattypesofcostswerenotconsideredinyoursubmittedplanbutbecameimportantoressentialtosuccessintheprocess? Pleasespecifybycategoryandcosts.
9. Werethecostsassociatedwiththeprocesseveramajorobstacletocompletingtheprocess?__________Ifyes,pleaseexplain. 10. WhatsuggestionscanyouofferthatmayhelpothersgainbettercontrolofcostsintheAACSBInternationalaccreditationprocess?
