Tag

Programme Accreditation

Jun 25
1

EQUIS 2024 Updates

By | Resource

EQUIS 2024 Updates

 

EFMD revises the documentation supporting EQUIS periodically.  QED’s overview of the updates made as part of the 2024 publication, together with an assessment of the significance of the change can be found in this downloadable PDF file. 

As usual, clarification and guidance points have been updated within the EQUIS Standards and Criteria.  Two areas of the standards should be particularly noted: 

  • Standard 5 (Research) has been completely re-written.   
  • It now focuses very specifically on two research categories (academic publications and practice-oriented publications).  Pedagogical scholarship is no longer a category within Standard 5, but is included as one of the (practice-oriented) fields of researchand is also linked directly into Standard 2 (see below).   
  • The Assessment Criteria have been rewritten (though many of the principles behind the criteria remain as before) 
  • There is a greater focus on more ‘holistic means of research evalution’ and this also translates into changes in the Data Sheet. 
  • Standard 2 Assessment Criteria now includes a section on ‘pedagogic development and innovation’.  In addition, there are additional questions linked to the impact of degree programmes on their relevant constituencies.  

The Process Manual and related Annexes have also been reviewed. Duplication has been minimised and detailed guidance has been moved to the Annexes where relevant.  A cross map of this is provided in Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 below.  Key areas of significance to note include: 

  • The Datasheet has been updated.   
  • Tables have been renumbered – which may impact schools preparing their SAR (e.g. cross references to tables within the Datasheet. 
  • Some additional information is required to support evidence of practice-oriented research activities (Table 12a to 12d) 
  • Additional guidance has been provided in several of the annexes (e.g. Annex 7 EQUIS Advisory Guide; Annex 10: Peer Review Visit Guide). 

 As above, QED’s summary of the updates across the key documents is available in this downloadable PDF file. 

 For advice and further details on any of the above, please contact the QED Accreditation Team at info@QEDaccreditation.com. 

Feb 22
0

EFMD Programme Accreditation: Updates 2024

By | Resource

EFMD Programme Accreditation: Updates 2024

The EFMD team has issued the 2024 updates for EFMD Programme Accreditation. The 2024 updates do not include any changes to the Standards, but do provide significant additional clarity and guidance on Internationalisation and ERS within the context of Programmatic Accreditation.

QED has provided its own summary of the changes (available here). As always, the views in any QED Update reflect QED’s interpretation of updates and changes.  We’ve also provided a link to the original documents on EFMD’s website, and (as always) recommend that you refer directly to the original documentation for further insights into any of the changes.

As above, QED’s summary of the updates across the key documents is available in this downloadable PDF file.

 

For advice and further details on any of the above, please contact the QED Accreditation Team at info@QEDaccreditation.com.

Jun 01
0

Risk Registers v.2023

By | Resource

Risk management and contingency planning continue to have a higher significance in the context of business school accreditation. More and more, the ability to identify key risk exposure and PRO-ACTIVELY mitigate those risks has become part of ‘best practice’ in any business – including the business of business schools.  Over the last two-three years,  the QED team has seen several ‘shades’ of risk management within business schools – from those institutions with significant risk registers and well-embedded processes for risk management – to those who focus only on financial risk management (and revenues) to one school that stated (quite confidently) that there were no significant risks at all – because they had the ability to teach online and thus could deal with any eventuality!  (We did ask what might happen if there was a power cut or drop in internet provision…?).

We’ve previously summarised the accreditation body requirements for risk management and these are:

  • AACSB (2020 Business Accreditation Standards – Standard 1.2) requires that each School “conducts formal risk analysis and has plans to mitigate identified major risks“. The concept of risk and risk mitigation is embedded in several key topic areas.
  • EFMD ( EQUIS) also addresses the topic of risk and risk management in several standards and criteria. For example, standard 1g) sets out the requirement to “Describe the principal strategic risks that the School faces or may face in the future“. Within Standard 7, it asks for further detail on the risk management system, including expecting schools to describe “…how the School’s risk management is organised and how it is integrated into internal as well as external governance.” A risk register must be included within the Online Document Repository (ODR).

QED has compiled a simple help-sheet that may be helpful for those schools approaching this exercise for the first time.  It provides a simple overview of risk management and an example of a risk management template.  The document is available to download. 

We hope the resouce is helpful.  If you have any comments or questions, just questions, let us know.  We’d be delighted to hear from you.

May 10
0

AACSB ICAM 2023 – Key Takeaways

By | Conference Update, Resource

AACSB ICAM 2023 – Key Takeaways

ICAM 2023 was the first of five conferences that QED is attending before the end of June.  As always, it was a great opportunity to catch up with friends, clients and colleagues – as well as hear some interesting speakers and updates on accreditation. As always, there was lots to choose from – but in the interests of focusing, my top three takeaways were:

1. Societal Impact was a recurring theme in several meetings and conversations.  Several key principles within AACSB were re-emphasised throughout multiple sessions: 

  • It is up to Schools to define their areas of priority for positive societal impact – in alignment with their mission and values.  AACSB does not prescribe what areas are required.  Nor does it prescribe the use of the UN SDGs as a framework. However, many schools use the SDGs as it is widely understood and often aligns with institutional work for the PRiME network.
  • It is not about demonstrating lots of activity across a wide range of SDGs – but about deciding which areas are being championed/emphasised (again, in alignment with mission and values). Most, if not all, schools have limited resources – so AACSB is encouraging schools to decide on the key areas of societal impact and focus resources (financial, human, organisational etc) accordingly. This does not preclude other activity from taking place – but places the focus clearly on areas where it might be possible to ‘move the needle’ and have real impact.
  • Some participants are clearly struggling with the definition of impact and how to measure impact. In essence, there isn’t a ‘stock’ measurement system, as the metrics employed by any school will need to align with its identified area of focus.  However, it may be helpful to revisit AACSB’s White Paper on Societal Impact – and note particularly the definitions of, and relationship between, activities, outputs, outcomes and impact (Page 7 of the report)

2. Dr Linda Hill gave an incredibly engaging, thought-provoking session on the ABCs of Leadership and Building an Agile Organisation.  There was so much to choose from in this session, and I need to review my notes and the slides again to get more of the learning. One of the things that stood out to me were her tips for identifying key barriers to change – using six key questions

Identify Key Barriers & How to Address Them

  • How much do you spend on “shoulds” and “coulds?
  • How do you encourage diversity of thought?
  • How do you get people to view reasonable missteps and intelligent failures as learning opportunities?
  • How do you ensure that people don’t compromise too quickly – as opposed to working through differences – when making decisions?
  • Are you developing talent to be value creators and game changers?
  • Is your team collaborative-ready?

3. In the Q&A session for Initial Accreditation, the presenters shared the key reasons why iSERs are sent back to Institutions for further review before being accepted (i.e. revise and resubmit decisions).  These are:

  • Standard 1 – Strategic Plan: At the point of submitting the iSER, the strategic plan is expected to be specific and current.  This includes having key objectives, timelines and metrics (for measuring success or not).
  • Standard 5 – AoL: The iSER should demonstrate a good understanding of AoL.  A School may not be implementing the AoL process fully, but there should be a clear timeline for implementation, which demonstrates the overall understanding of the process and the ability to complete two cycles of measurement before a Peer Review Visit.
  • Standard 3 – Faculty Qualification Criteria: Faculty qualification criteria (for SA, PA etc) should be aligned with mission and reasonably specific.  For example, if a school has a strong mission to engage with practice, then the PA and IP criteria should strongly reflect the need for this engagement.  The quality of activities should also be referenced – be it quality of research publications; level and type of practice engagement or other activities.

If you were at ICAM, what were your key takeaways?  We’d love to hear them.

For those who may have missed last week’s email, take note of the inclusion of an AoL module within Accredinator.  For further details, or to book a demo, please email accredinator@QEDaccreditation.com.

Apr 11
0

EFMD Programme Accreditation: Updates 2023

By | Resource

EFMD Programme Accreditation: Updates 2023

EFMD revises the documentation supporting EFMD Programme Accreditation periodically and updates are usually provided in the first third of each calendar year.  QED’s overview of the updates made as part of the 2023 publication, together with an assessment of the significance of the change can be found in this downloadable PDF file.

The 2023 updates are not significant and focus on providing additional clarity and guidance in key areas.

NB: This document represents QED’s interpretation of the EFMD Accredited Updates.  We recommend that you view the updated documents directly – which are available from EFMD’s website

As above, QED’s summary of the updates across the key documents is available in this downloadable PDF file.

 

For advice and further details on any of the above, please contact the QED Accreditation Team at info@QEDaccreditation.com.

Jun 15
0

Updates from EFMD Conference 2022

By | Conference Update, Resource

Updates from EFMD Conference 2022

In June 2022, we attended EFMD’s Annual Conference in Prague.  The theme of the event was “What brought us here might not get us there” and it’s fair to say that the conference focused heavily on reminding us of the need to continually reflect and adapt in a constantly changing world.  We could have picked multiple points to share – but (as always) we’ve confined ourselves to just three broad areas:

Faculty Models – Connecting Research and Teaching
Patrick De Greve (Vlerick Business School) and Mark Smith (Stellenbosch Business School) presented an interesting session on employment models for faculty.  There was lots to ponder, but my key take aways were:

  • Strive to have ‘healthy’ faculty models that include aspects of each of research, teaching and service (in varying proportions, depending on misson, faculty interest etc).  Ensure there is a strong empathy and respect for each of the teaching and research activity.  One is not ‘superior’ to the other and one of the best ways to build this empathy and respect is to ensure that everyone participates in each activity to an appropriate extent.  (This may be challenging for schools that are developing very specific ‘research’ vs ‘teaching’ pathways).
  • Alternative faculty ’employment’ models are workable and can faciltate more flexible faculty management outside the normal.business school model – especially in the context of building industry links. Vlerick Business School’s ‘Partnership’ model uses an academic entrepreneurship framework to build a body of  ‘partner’ faculty with strong committment to the School, but who sit ‘outside’ of the School.
  • It is important to be able to say ‘goodbye’ to those faculty who don’t have a committment and ‘fit’ for the School’s strategy and vision.

Key Challenge: Do Business School faculty models fully serve their mission and strategic priorities?  If not, what type of model might work (do we need to think ‘outside of the box’)?  

Internationalisation
The challenge of  internationalisation within constantly changing geopolitical climates was a key theme of a session by Caron Beaton-Wells (Melbourne Business School) and Delphine Manceau (NEOMA).  In addition to advice around developing range and depth of partnerships; and using digitalisation to complement internationalisation activity; my key take-aways were:

  • Geopolitical instability is likely to remain a  disrupter internationally (the only constancy is change itself!).  This reinforces the need to build more versatile and resiliant models of internationalisation – but always keeping students “at the heart” of communities.
  • Be smart and strategic when building international relationships.  One tip was to use the public development plans of countries to build relevant initiatives in preferred (geographic) regions.  There are often opportunities for collaboration across areas of mutual benefit.
  • If not already in place, adapt curricula to prepare students to be leaders in a world where geopolitical challenges are a constant.

Key Challenge:  How are Business Schools placed to manage and adapt to geopolitical instability – both in terms of a) internationalisation activity and b) preparing students for a world of geopolitical instability.  Remember, EFMD provides a potential model to examine and reflect on internationalisation across the entire school: See EQUIS Standards 2022 (especially pages 73-74) and Annex 10 of the EFMD Programme Accreditation Process Manual Annexes.

EFMD Updates
The EFMD team presented an update on each of the key accreditations.  Most of these are covered within the most recent QED summaries of updates to each of EQUIS and EFMD Accredited (Available on the QED website for download).   The following additional points are also relevant:

  • Face-to-face peer review visits are expected to be resumed in 2023 (both EQUIS and EFMD Programme Accreditation).
  • Within EQUIS, the guidance for ERS is sometimes ‘suggestive’ in tone (e.g. “A school could.do x, y, z...”.  As Schools become more mature in the integration of ERS principles across all activities, it is anticipated that the guidance will become more ‘expectant’ (e.g. “A school should do x, y, z..“).  This is not unexpected, but continues to signal EFMD’s committment to supporting schools to develop quality ERS strategies and frameworks.
  • EFMD Accredited are about to launch three free webinars (open to all EFMD Accredited Schools).  Invites will be sent directly to the Schools and these will focus on each of internationalisation; Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs); and ERS.

For advice and further details on any of the above, please contact the QED Accreditation Team at info@QEDaccreditation.com.

 

 

 

 

Feb 22
0

EFMD Programme Accreditation: Updates 2022

By | Resource

EFMD Programme Accreditation: Updates 2022

EFMD revises the documentation supporting EFMD Programme Accreditation periodically and updates are usually provided in the first third of each calendar year.  QED’s overview of the updates made as part of the 2022 publication, together with an assessment of the significance of the change can be found in this downloadable PDF file.

The 2022 updates are notable as they mark an extensive review, designed to provide “easier orientation” for viewers, as well as reflecting relevant developments and trends.  These trends are summarised within this document.

Overall, QED’s view is that the revised documents do not carry significant changes from an accreditation viewpoint.  They are easier to follow and reference, plus the increased emphasis perceived in previous updates is continued here – with specific identification of two key areas (digitalisation and research) as areas of focus. These two ‘areas of focus’ are in addition to the normal transversal themes of Internationalisation, ERS and Connections with Practice.

It should be noted that the updates and developments include several changes to the format and content of the EFMD Programme Accreditation Datasheet.

NB: This document represents QED’s interpretation of the EFMD Accredited Updates.  We recommend that you view the updated documents directly – which are available from EFMD’s website

As above, QED’s summary of the updates across the key documents is available in this downloadable PDF file.

 

For advice and further details on any of the above, please contact the QED Accreditation Team at info@QEDaccreditation.com.

Apr 04
4

Risk Management – Overview and Sample Template

By | Resource

Risk Management & Business School Accreditation

Pro-active management of risk has assumed a higher significance in recent years – including in the higher education sector.  More recently, both AACSB and EFMD require business schools seeking international accreditation to provide details about risk management and contingency planning.  Many schools are now seeking to prepare a formal, school-level risk register or risk management template.  There are many ways to approach this exercise. QED has provided a sample overview and template register that may be useful for those schools approaching this exercise for the first time.

QED’s overview and example approach is available in this downloadable PDF file.

(Please note, you may have to log in download this file)

 

For advice and further details, please contact the QED Accreditation Team at info@QEDaccreditation.com.

Apr 20
0

EFMD Programme Accreditation: Updates 2021

By | Resource

EFMD Programme Accreditation: Updates 2021

EFMD revises the documentation supporting EFMD Programme Accreditation periodically and updates are usually provided in the first third of each calendar year.  QED’s overview of the updates made as part of the 2021 publication, together with an assessment of the significance of the change can be found in this downloadable PDF file.

Whilst most changes are unlikely to be significant, there are a small number which should be considered by institutions within the accreditation process OR preparing for re-accreditation.

NB: This document represents QED’s interpretation of the EFMD Accredited Updates.  We recommend that you view the updated documents directly – which are available from EFMD’s website

As above, QED’s summary of the updates across the key documents is available in this downloadable PDF file..

 

For advice and further details on any of the above, please contact the QED Accreditation Team at info@QEDaccreditation.com.