Publications

Posted on

Why Accreditation Work Overloads Faculty (and What to Do About It)

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Growing Accreditation Burden Placed on Faculty

Accreditation is widely regarded as a cornerstone of quality assurance in business education. Frameworks established by organizations such as AACSB International, ACBSP, EFMD Global, and AMBA&BGA emphasize continuous improvement in strategic alignment, student learning, research productivity, societal impact, accountability, etc. Without any doubt, the goals underpinning most business accreditation standards are both important and valuable for any business school. 

In practice, however, accreditation work often places a significant and growing burden on faculty. Across many business schools, faculty members find themselves stretched between teaching, research, service, and an expanding set of accreditation-related responsibilities. Over time, this imbalance can lead to faculty frustration, disengagement, burnout, and, ultimately, a weakening of the quality improvement systems that business accreditation is meant to strengthen.

Why Accreditation Overloads Faculty

Understanding why accreditation work overloads faculty is the first step toward designing a more sustainable and effective approach. Some of the most frequently encountered accreditation burnout factors among faculty are discussed below. 

Accreditation as “Extra Work”

One of the most common issues is that accreditation is not fully integrated into existing academic processes and workflows. Instead, it is treated as something extra: an additional layer of reporting, meetings, and documentation on top of existing responsibilities. On the top of their normal responsibilities, faculty are often asked to: 

  • Participate in strategic planning exercises
  • Collect and analyze Assurance of Learning (AoL) data
  • Participate in assessment meetings
  • Document curriculum changes and improvements
  • Maintain records for faculty qualifications
  • Contribute to accreditation reports

None of these tasks are inherently unreasonable. In fact, most faculty members are more than willing to participate in these activities, especially when they see resulting tangible quality improvements. The problem is that these activities are often introduced without removing or redesigning other responsibilities.  As a result, accreditation becomes perceived not as part of academic work but as administrative overhead that is to be minimized or avoided.

Fragmented Systems and Inefficiencies

In many schools, accreditation processes evolve organically rather than being intentionally designed. Over time, this leads to fragmentation, redundancies, and inefficiencies:

  • Data stored across multiple spreadsheets and folders
  • Inconsistent templates and reporting formats
  • Repeated requests for the same information
  • Lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities in relation to accreditation

With numerous fragmented processes and data sources, faculty may spend more time managing the process than improving student learning and advancing other strategic priorities. This inefficiency is one of the biggest hidden drivers of overload.

The “We do Everything” Trap

Another source of strain is the tendency to over-engineer accreditation systems. In an effort to demonstrate rigor, schools often:

  • Introduce too many strategic goals and objectives
  • Pursue seveal impact areas at once
  • Create too many learning outcomes
  • Use excessive numbers of assessment measures
  • Collect more data than they can meaningfully analyze

While the intention behind this unnecessary complexity is to strengthen credibility, the outcome is often the opposite: faculty become overwhelmed, discussions become superficial, and the focus shifts from improvement to superficial compliance. Effective accreditation is not about doing everything. It is about doing what matters.

Lack of Clear Ownership

Business school accreditation is inherently a cross-functional process. But without clear ownership, it becomes everyone’s responsibility and, therefore, no one’s priority. Common symptoms of this situation of “diffused responsibility” include:

  • Faculty unsure of what is expected of them
  • Assessment coordinators overloaded with coordination tasks and delay assessment reports
  • Deans and department chairs involved only intermittently
  • Everything is “due tomorrow!”

Without defined roles and accountability, faculty are left navigating ambiguity on their own, which increases both workload and stress.

Misalignment with Faculty Incentives

Perhaps the most overlooked issue is that accreditation work is often weakly aligned with faculty reward systems. Teaching and research are typically recognized in evaluation, promotion, and tenure decisions. Accreditation work, however, may be undervalued or inconsistently recognized. That is why accreditation work is usually done by a small group of committed individuals.

This creates a structural imbalance where the effort required is high, but the incentives are limited. The small group accreditation champions often feel that everyone benefits from their work, yet the burden of accreditation falls only on their shoulders – with no tangible benefits for them personally. 

Reducing Faculty Overload: What Works

Reducing faculty overload in accreditation is not about doing less; it is about “working smarter.” Schools that manage accreditation effectively recognize that sustainable systems are those that align with existing academic work, emphasize clarity over complexity, and distribute responsibility in a fair, structured, and supportive way. Rather than layering additional tasks onto already busy faculty, these institutions redesign accreditation processes so they are simple, integrated, and purposeful. The result is a system that not only reduces burden but also enhances the quality of insights and continuous improvement efforts. The following principles highlight what consistently works in building accreditation systems that are both efficient and impactful.

Integrate Accreditation into Existing Workflows

Assessment should be embedded into normal teaching activities rather than treated as a separate process. For example:

  • Use existing assignments as AoL measures
  • Incorporate assessment reflection into regular faculty meetings
  • Make faculty credentialing a normal part of the onboarding and faculty evaluation processes 

When accreditation becomes part of what faculty already do, the perceived burden decreases significantly.

Simplify and Refocus the System

Less is often more. Strong accreditation systems typically:

  • Have a clear focus on the mission and one clear defined area of impact
  • Use a limited set of high-quality KPIs
  • Focus on a manageable number of learning outcomes
  • Prioritize meaningful data-driven improvement over data volume

Clear focus reduces faculty workload while improving the depth and usefulness of insights.

Clarify Roles and Responsibilities

A clear organizational structure in relation to an accreditation project reduces confusion, duplication, and finger-pointing. Effective approaches include:

  • Defined responsibilities for AoL leads, program coordinators, and administrators
  • Standardized templates for data and report submission
  • Centralized data management supported by simple technology tools

When expectations are clear, faculty can contribute efficiently without unnecessary friction. 

Align Incentives

Faculty engagement improves dramatically when accreditation work is recognized and rewarded. Some examples of rewards can include: 

  • Explicit recognition in annual evaluations that lead to salary increases
  • Course releases or workload adjustments
  • Linking accreditation contributions to service expectations

Appropriate alignment of intentions transforms accreditation from a burden into a valued contribution.

Provide Dedicated Support

Perhaps the most important factor is ensuring that faculty are not expected to manage complex accreditation systems on their own.

  • Successful schools often rely on:
  • Dedicated accreditation staff
  • Centralized coordination and data management
  • External expertise when needed

This allows faculty to participate in accreditation while focusing on what they do best: teaching, research, and meaningful engagement with the external community. 

A Shift in Perspective

At its best, accreditation is not about compliance; it is about clarity. When done right, an accreditation initiative provides a clear and structured way for schools to understand how they can improve. But when poorly designed, it can obscure these goals under layers of bureaucratic processes and reports. Faculty overload is not an inevitable consequence of accreditation. It is a signal that the system needs to be redesigned.

Accreditation work overloads faculty not because the standards are unreasonable, but because the systems used to meet those standards are often inefficient, fragmented, and misaligned with academic realities.

By integrating processes, simplifying structures, clarifying roles, aligning incentives, and providing proper support, business schools can transform accreditation from a burden into a meaningful driver of continuous improvement.

How an Accreditation Consultant Can Help

Designing accreditation systems that are both rigorous and sustainable requires experience, perspective, and a clear understanding of what works in practice and what does not. An accreditation consultant such as Accreditation.Biz can help schools streamline their processes, avoid common mistakes, and build systems that are simple, effective, and aligned with existing faculty workflows. Most importantly, such support can reduce faculty burnout while strengthening the overall quality of accreditation efforts. And when that transformation happens, faculty are no longer overwhelmed; they become genuinely engaged in the process of making their business schools better. 

Posted on

Where Business Schools Go Wrong with AACSB Standard 9 (and How to Fix It)

AACSB Standard 9

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

AACSB Standard 9 and its Importance

AACSB’s Standard 9: Engagement and Societal Impact is, in many ways, one of the most important elements of the accreditation framework. It asks business schools to look outward and demonstrate not only what they teach or research, but also how they make a meaningful difference in society.

Yet, despite its importance and intuitive appeal, AACSB Standard 9 is also one of the most frequently misunderstood standards. Quite often, it’s not because schools lack impact, but because they struggle to define it clearly, measure it rigorously, and align it strategically.

Common Mistakes in Relation to AACSB Standard 9

Over time, three recurring patterns emerge in schools that find themselves struggling with this standard. The mistakes that schools make in meeting the requirements of AACSB Standard 9 are usually related to three areas: focus, evidence, and alignment. Each of these areas is discussed in more detail in the sections below. 

Mistake 1: No Clear Focus

Most business schools are deeply engaged in their communities. They support small businesses, encourage student consulting projects, partner with nonprofits, and contribute to regional development in various ways. These efforts are real, meaningful, and often impressive.

However, a common problem arises when these activities are presented as a collection of disconnected initiatives, rather than as part of a coherent societal impact strategy.

The underlying assumption seems to be: the more we do, the stronger our case. In reality, the opposite is often true. When a school attempts to demonstrate impact across too many unrelated areas, its narrative becomes diluted. Reviewers are left asking a simple but critical question:

What is this school actually trying to achieve in terms of societal impact?

AACSB is not evaluating how many good things a school does. Instead AACSB is evaluating whether the school has made a deliberate, strategic choice about where it wants to make a difference and whether this impact is clearly demonstrated.

Strong business schools resolve this by focusing their efforts. They identify one primary area of societal impact, such as entrepreneurship, sustainability, regional economic development, etc. After that, they formulate a coherent strategy around it. Other activities may still exist, but they are secondary. The primary focus provides strategic clarity and direction. 

Mistake 2: No Evidence of Impact

If lack of focus is the first issue, lack of evidence is the second problem. Many accreditation reports are filled with statements describing what the school did:

  • “We hosted workshops for local businesses.”
  • “Students completed consulting projects.”
  • “Faculty formed partnerships with external stakeholders.”

While these statements often reflect valuable and time-consuming efforts, they stop short of demonstrating what Standard 9 actually requires: impact.

This distinction is subtle but critical:

Activities describe effort. Impact demonstrates results.

Without evidence of outcomes, even the most impressive initiatives can appear superficial. Reviewers are not simply asking, “What did you do?” They are asking:

What changed because of what you did?

A shift in mindset is required. Schools must move from reporting inputs and outputs to documenting outcomes and effects.

Consider the difference:

Activity-Oriented StatementImpact-Oriented Statement
“We conducted 10 workshops”“45 small businesses improved financial performance, with average revenue increasing by 12%”
“Students completed projects”“Students completed projects”

The principle is straightforward:

If you cannot measure it, you cannot claim it as impact.

This does not mean every outcome must be perfectly quantified. However, credible evidence, whether quantitative or qualitative, must demonstrate that something meaningful has changed as a result of the school’s efforts.

Mistake 3: No Alignment with Mission

Even when schools define an impact area and attempt to measure it, a third issue often undermines their efforts: misalignment with the school’s mission and core activities.

It is not uncommon for schools to select a societal impact theme because it is timely or widely valued. For example, environmental sustainability is an important and globally relevant issue. But problems arise when this chosen focus is not supported by the school’s actual capabilities.

A typical scenario looks like this:

  • The school claims sustainability as a key impact area
  • Offers no sustainability-related courses
  • Produces little or no research in the field
  • Has limited faculty expertise or partnerships in that domain

In such cases, the societal impact narrative begins to feel disconnected and almost symbolic rather than substantive.

Reviewers quickly recognize this gap and ask:

If this is truly your focus, where is the evidence across your system?

Strong schools ensure alignment between their chosen area of impact and their overall strategy. Their societal impact is not an isolated theme. It is embedded across the institution.

This alignment typically includes such areas as:

  • Strategic Planning (Standard 1): Societal impact is included in strategic planning
  • Curriculum (Standard 4): Courses reflect the impact focus
  • Research (Standard 8): Faculty produce relevant work
  • Engagement (Standard 9): Partnerships reinforce the same theme

Most importantly, the chosen area of societal impact should be formalized in the strategic plan, supported by:

  • Clear goals
  • Specific objectives
  • Defined initiatives

This ensures that impact is not accidental but intentional and sustainable.

From Fragmentation to Strategy

Taken together, these challenges point to a broader transformation in relation to its social impact strategy that a business school must undergo. The transition is not about doing more; it is about becoming more focused and intentional with respect to creating a positive societal impact.

The table below contrasts a strong approach to societal impact with one that is weak and superficial. 

Weak ApproachStrong Approach
Many disconnected activitiesOne clear impact focus
Descriptions of effortEvidence of outcomes
Loose alignmentMission-driven integration
Ad hoc initiativesStrategic execution

How an Accreditation Consultant Can Help

In many cases, business schools already possess the ingredients needed for a strong Standard 9 narrative. What they lack is not activity, but coherence.

An external accreditation consultant, such as Accreditation.Biz, can play a critical role in bridging this gap. Specifically, an accreditation consultant can help with the following: 

  • Fresh perspective: Help identify a societal impact area that naturally aligns with the school’s mission
  • Clear metrics: Help define specific and measurable outcomes
  • System alignment: Help ensure integration across strategy, teaching, research, and engagement
  • Ongoing support: Assist with monitoring, evaluating, and refining impact over time

Standard 9 is not a one-time reporting exercise. It requires continuous attention and structure. The right guidance can make a significant difference in the time and effort it takes to meet this, without any doubt, important AACSB standard. 

Conclusion: Clarity Over Quantity

Most business schools are already contributing to society in meaningful ways. The challenge posed by Standard 9 is not to increase activity but to increase clarity, focus, and evidence in relation to societal impact.

In the end, a strong societal impact narrative answers these four simple yet demanding questions: 

  • What impact do we aim to create?
  • How are we creating it?
  • Is it aligned with our strategy? 
  • What evidence shows that it is actually happening?

Schools that can answer these questions convincingly are not only better positioned for AACSB accreditation but also better positioned to fulfill their broader purpose within society. And that, ultimately, is what Standard 9 is all about.

Posted on

Why Accreditation Efforts Stall (and How to Restart Them)

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Accreditation is widely recognized as one of the most powerful mechanisms for continuous improvement in business schools. Whether operating under the standards of AACSB International, EFMD Global, the Association of MBAs/BGA, ACBSP, or other accreditation bodies, business schools are expected to demonstrate systematic processes for improving academic programs, supporting faculty development, ensuring that students achieve meaningful learning outcomes, and advancing broader organizational goals.

However, despite good intentions, many accreditation initiatives lose momentum over time. Business schools may begin with enthusiasm and strong leadership support, but progress can gradually slow. Committees stop meeting regularly, and critical accreditation processes—such as assurance of learning (AoL), faculty qualification tracking, and strategic planning—become inconsistent. In some cases, accreditation efforts stall completely, putting the school at risk of losing accreditation or failing to achieve reaccreditation.

Understanding why accreditation efforts stall (and how to restart them) is essential for schools that want to maintain their accreditation status and continue improving their academic programs.

Why Accreditation Efforts Stall

Leadership Transitions

One of the most common reasons accreditation initiatives stall is leadership change. When a dean, associate dean, or accreditation director leaves the institution, the momentum built around accreditation can quickly dissipate.

New leaders often arrive with different priorities, and accreditation processes may temporarily fall to the background while the administration focuses on other pressing issues such as enrollment, budgeting, or program development. Without a dedicated champion, accreditation initiatives can easily lose direction.

Unfortunately, accreditation timelines do not pause during leadership transitions. Required reporting cycles, assurance of learning processes, and faculty qualification tracking must continue regardless of administrative changes.

Accreditation Is Treated as a One-Time Project

Another common issue is the perception that accreditation is a temporary project rather than an ongoing management system. Business schools sometimes mobilize faculty and staff only when an accreditation visit approaches, producing large amounts of documentation in a short period of time.

Once the review is completed, however, many of these processes lose priority. Committees stop meeting, data collection slows, and institutional knowledge begins to fade.

Accreditation bodies increasingly expect continuous improvement systems, not periodic bursts of activity.

Faculty Burnout and Administrative Overload

Accreditation work often falls on a small number of dedicated faculty members or administrators. Over time, these individuals can become overwhelmed by the demands of data collection, reporting, and coordination across departments.

Without clear systems and support structures, accreditation work can feel like an additional administrative burden rather than a meaningful quality improvement process. When key individuals step back, the entire system may stall.

Poor Data Management

Many schools struggle with maintaining consistent and reliable accreditation data. Information related to faculty qualifications, research productivity, Assurance of Learning results, and strategic initiatives is often scattered across spreadsheets, emails, and departmental files.

When data systems are fragmented, preparing accreditation reports becomes time-consuming and frustrating. Faculty may lose confidence in the process, and institutional leaders may underestimate the effort required to maintain compliance.

The Risks of a Stalled Accreditation Process

When accreditation systems stall, the risks can be significant.

Schools may fall behind on critical processes such as:

  • Assurance of Learning data collection and analysis
  • Faculty qualification monitoring
  • Strategic planning and impact reporting
  • Documentation required for accreditation reviews

Over time, these gaps can lead to negative outcomes during accreditation reviews, including additional documentation requests, accreditation deferral, or even the loss of accreditation status.

Beyond reputational consequences, losing accreditation can affect student recruitment, employer perception, and partnerships with other institutions.

For these reasons, maintaining momentum in accreditation processes is essential.

How Schools Can Restart Accreditation Efforts

Reestablish Clear Governance Structures

The first step in restarting stalled accreditation efforts is to reestablish clear governance structures. Schools should ensure that accreditation responsibilities are clearly assigned and supported by institutional leadership.

Effective accreditation systems typically include:

  • A designated accreditation leader or director
  • Faculty committees responsible for Assurance of Learning
  • Administrative support for data collection and reporting
  • Regular review meetings to monitor progress

Creating clear accountability helps restore momentum and ensures that accreditation work is distributed across the organization.

Simplify and Systematize Processes

Many stalled accreditation systems suffer from unnecessary complexity. Schools often develop overly elaborate assessment systems that become difficult to sustain over time.

Restarting the process often requires simplifying procedures, clarifying responsibilities, and implementing manageable data collection systems that faculty can realistically maintain.

Maintain Continuity During Leadership Changes

Because leadership transitions are inevitable, institutions should ensure that accreditation systems do not depend entirely on one individual.

Documentation, procedures, and data systems should be delegated to different people and structured in a way that allows new leaders to quickly understand the institution’s accreditation processes and continue them without disruption.

The Role of Accreditation Consultants in Maintaining Momentum

One of the most effective ways to prevent accreditation initiatives from stalling is to engage experienced accreditation consultants.

An accreditation consulting firm such as Accreditation.Biz can provide continuity, expertise, and project management support that helps schools maintain steady progress even during periods of organizational change.

In general, accreditation consultants can assist institutions in several critical ways:

Maintaining Continuity During Leadership Transitions

When internal leadership changes occur, consultants can provide stability and ensure that accreditation processes continue without interruption. Because consultants are already familiar with accreditation standards and institutional systems, they can not only maintain the momentum but also help new administrators quickly understand the status of ongoing initiatives.

Preventing Costly Mistakes

Accreditation standards are complex and constantly evolving. Schools that attempt to navigate these requirements without experienced guidance may inadvertently make mistakes that delay accreditation progress. Experienced accreditation consultants can help business schools interpret standards correctly and design simple yet effective systems that are less likely to stall. 

Providing Immediate Expertise

Hiring a full-time accreditation officer can take months, and new staff may require significant time to develop expertise in accreditation standards and reporting processes. In contrast, accreditation consultants can begin supporting the institution almost immediately, bringing years of experience and proven frameworks for managing accreditation systems.

Keeping the Process Moving Forward

Perhaps most importantly, consultants help maintain momentum. Accreditation requires consistent attention over multiple years. External advisors provide structure, accountability, and project management discipline that ensures progress continues even when internal priorities shift. Quite often, even simple reminders about important accreditation requirements and deadlines can help everyone stay on track. 

Accreditation as a Long-Term Commitment

Successful accreditation is not achieved through short bursts of activity before peer review team (PRT) visits. Instead, it requires a sustained commitment to continuous improvement, supported by effective leadership, clear systems, and reliable data.

When accreditation efforts stall, the consequences can be significant. However, with the right governance structures, simplified processes, and experienced guidance, institutions can quickly restart their accreditation initiatives and regain momentum.

For many schools, partnering with experienced accreditation consultants provides the expertise and continuity needed to keep accreditation systems functioning smoothly. Such partnerships can help business schools ensure that the institution continues moving forward and avoids costly setbacks.

In the end, accreditation is not just about meeting external standards. It is about building a stronger institution that consistently delivers high-quality education and meaningful learning outcomes for its students.

Posted on

When “Good” Isn’t Good Enough: Continuous Improvement After You Meet AoL Targets

AACSB Standard 5 Continuous Improvement

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Understanding the Intent of AACSB Standard 5

Under AACSB Standard 5, Assurance of Learning (AoL) is far more than reaching a certain numeric target in relation to student competencies. The standard expects every accredited business program to articulate clear and measurable program learning outcomes (PLOs), meaningful performance targets, assess those outcomes using valid and reliable instruments, analyze and discuss the results, and implement improvements based on those findings.

The final component, often referred to as “closing the loop,” is what transforms assessment from a measurement exercise into a quality enhancement system. Without documented improvement actions that follow from data analysis, the AoL cycle remains incomplete. The goal is not simply to demonstrate that learning occurred, but to show how assessment evidence systematically informs better teaching, better curriculum design, and stronger alignment with the school’s mission and strategic objectives.

When Targets Are Missed vs. When Targets Are Met

When assessment results fall below the established benchmark, the path forward is relatively clear. Faculty recognize that something may need adjustment. They may refine assignments, recalibrate rubrics, modify instructional strategies, or introduce additional student support mechanisms. In these situations, improvement feels necessary and natural.

However, a more subtle situation occurs when results meet or exceed the target. When 85%, 90%, or even 95% of students achieve the learning objective, the discussion often becomes brief. Faculty may conclude that everything is working well and that no changes are required. While this response appears reasonable, it risks undermining the spirit of continuous improvement underscoring AACSB Standard 5. Assurance of Learning is not designed to confirm adequacy; it is designed to promote ongoing enhancement.

Reflecting on Success

When targets are met, the first responsibility of faculty is thoughtful reflection. Strong results should prompt careful inquiry into their underlying causes. Some of the questions that can be asked in the light of strong results are discussed below. 

Question 1: Why Were the Results Strong?

First, the faculty analyzing results can reflect on the question of why the results were so strong. The following questions can be asked: 

  • Were there specific pedagogical approaches that contributed to improved performance? 
  • Did better alignment between course objectives and assessment instruments make expectations clearer to students? 
  • Was there greater consistency in rubric application across sections? 
  • Did curricular sequencing better prepare students for this particular competency?

Answering these questions generates valuable institutional knowledge. Instead of assuming that success will automatically continue, faculty identify the practices that produced strong outcomes and ensure they are sustained, documented, and shared. This deliberate reflection strengthens program competencies and reduces reliance on individual teaching styles alone. In doing so, the program builds a more resilient and transferable model of effective instruction.

Question 2: Was the target challenging enough? 

A second, more challenging question must also be addressed: were the set targets sufficiently demanding? If results consistently and comfortably exceed the benchmark, it may indicate that the performance standard was set too low. Targets should not be symbolic thresholds designed for easy attainment; they should represent meaningful expectations that reflect the school’s aspirations and strategic positioning.

Raising performance thresholds, refining the criteria for “exceeds expectations,” or introducing more sophisticated assessment tasks may be appropriate responses. Increasing the target does not signal dissatisfaction with students or faculty. Rather, it reflects confidence in student capability and a commitment to academic rigor and growth. Continuous improvement often requires redefining what excellence looks like.

Question 3: Are there additional opportunities for improvement? 

Even when targets are appropriately calibrated and performance is genuinely strong, opportunities for further enhancement often remain. Continuous improvement does not always mean correcting deficiencies; it can involve innovations that deepen and expand learning. Faculty might consider whether students can demonstrate more advanced integration of knowledge, stronger analytical depth, greater ethical reasoning, or more polished communication skills.

In this sense, improvement becomes developmental rather than remedial. The absence of problems does not imply the absence of growth potential. A mature AoL system encourages faculty to explore incremental refinements that gradually elevate program quality over time.

AoL Is About Improvement, Not Percentages

Ultimately, Assurance of Learning is not about achieving a particular numerical threshold. It is about cultivating a disciplined, evidence-based culture in which faculty use assessment data to continuously enhance student learning and advance the school’s mission and vision. Whether targets are missed, met, or exceeded is secondary to the central question: how does this information help us improve?

When programs treat strong results as the end of the conversation, AoL becomes a compliance exercise. When they treat strong results as an opportunity for reflection, recalibration, refinement, and innovation, they embody the true intent of AACSB Standard 5: continuous improvement. Continuous improvement is not triggered only by shortcomings. It is a permanent expectation—one that remains in force regardless of how impressive the numbers may appear.

Posted on

One Cannot See One’s Own Eyes: Why Business Schools Benefit from an Accreditation Consultant

External perspective from an accreditation consultant

“One cannot see one’s own eyes.” — Ethiopian proverb

This simple proverb captures a powerful truth: no matter how capable or experienced we are, we all have blind spots. 

That insight applies directly to business schools pursuing accreditation.

From within an institution, everything may appear aligned:

  • A clearly articulated mission
  • A strategic plan approved by faculty and administration
  • Faculty with strong academic and professional credentials
  • Assurance of Learning (AoL) processes in place
  • Active engagement with students and stakeholders

And yet, accreditation reviews are conducted by external peer reviewers representing other, often similar business schools and such bodies as:

  • AACSB International
  • EFMD Global (EQUIS)
  • Association of MBAs (AMBA)

These organizations evaluate schools from a different vantage point: one that is comparative, evidence-based, and standards-driven.

What feels coherent internally may look fragmented externally. What feels “good enough” may not meet global peer expectations. This is where “blind spots” emerge.

Common Blind Spots in Accreditation

Some of the most common and serious “blind spots” with respect to accreditation standards that we see are discussed below. 

Strategy–Execution Gaps

A compelling strategic plan exists, but documentation does not demonstrate systematic execution of the plan, measurable outcomes, or continuous improvement.

Assurance of Learning Weaknesses

Learning goals are defined, but:

  • Rubrics are missing or inconsistent
  • Data collection cycles lack discipline
  • “Closing of the loop” has never been performed in a meaningful way

All these issues can lead external peer reviews to a conclusion that the school’s assessment system is not adequate. 

Faculty Qualification Risk

Faculty classifications (e.g., SA, PA, SP, IP under AACSB) may seem to be strong overall, but there are clear gaps when faculty qualifications are analyzed by disciplines, programs, or with respect to teaching loads or future retirement projections.

Documentation and Narrative Misalignment

The self-evaluation report may describe excellence, but the supporting documents do not fully align with the narrative. Quite often, external peer reviewers usually pay less attention to what business schools say and more attention to what the actual documentation appears to suggest. 

Impact Gaps

Advisory boards exist, but their strategic influence is unclear. Corporate engagement is active, but impact evidence is limited.

Oftentimes, these issues are not real problems or failures with respect to accreditation standards. Quite often, these are just perspective gaps that can be rectified with minimal training or additional supporting documentation. 

What an Accreditation Consultant Actually Does

Of course, an accreditation consultant does not replace institutional leadership or faculty ownership when it comes to rectifying these deficiencies. Instead, accreditation consultants provide:

  • External Perspective: Accreditation consultants can read your documentation as a peer reviewer would. 
  • Standards Interpretation: Accreditation standards are principle-based and sometimes ambiguous. Experienced consultants understand how standards are interpreted during review visits.
  • Risk Identification: Accreditation consultants can identify structural vulnerabilities early, before they become findings of external reviewers. 
  • Narrative Coherence: Accreditation consultants ensure alignment among mission, vision, strategy, faculty portfolio, assurance of earning, engagement, and impact.
  • Visit Preparation: Accreditation consultants can help a business simulate reviewer questions and stress-test responses via a “mock visit.” 

In short, they help the institution see what it cannot see on its own.

Accreditation Is a Strategic Transformation — Not Compliance Exercise

Accreditation is often misunderstood as a documentation project. It is not.

It is a strategic transformation process that requires:

  • Cross-functional alignment
  • Data discipline
  • Cultural buy-in
  • Evidence of impact
  • Continuous improvement

Leading this transformation while simultaneously evaluating it objectively is extremely difficult.

Just as an organization may hire an external auditor for financial integrity, engaging an accreditation consultant strengthens academic integrity and strategic clarity.

The Value of a Second Set of Eyes

The Ethiopian proverb reminds us: You cannot see your own eyes. But someone else can.

For business schools, that second set of eyes can mean:

  • Fewer surprises during the peer review visit
  • Greater faculty confidence
  • Clearer documentation
  • Stronger strategic coherence
  • Reduced stress
  • Higher probability of a positive outcome

Seeing clearly, before others evaluate you, is not a weakness. It is strategic leadership.

Keep in mind that for many business schools pursuing accreditation the question is not whether your school is strong. The question is whether you can objectively see your own blind spots.

Sometimes, the most valuable step forward is inviting someone else to help you see.

Posted on

Do We Need an Accreditation Consultant?

International Business Accreditation Consultant

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Pursuing international business accreditation is one of the most consequential strategic decisions a business school can make. Achieving an international accreditation—such as AACSB, EQUIS(EFMD), AMBA(BGA), or ACBSP—signals quality, academic rigor, and global credibility to students, employers, and peer institutions alike.

At the same time, these accreditations are neither quick nor simple to obtain. Accreditation projects demand sustained and disciplined effort across multiple years, careful coordination among faculty and staff, and significant financial investment. For many schools, accreditation becomes not just a quality initiative, but a major organizational change effort.

When business schools move from aspiration to execution (and realize how complex, time consuming, and expensive an accreditation effort can be), a practical and often unavoidable question emerges for deans and other academic leaders: 

Do we need an accreditation consultant?

While some institutions attempt to manage the accreditation process entirely in-house, many discover that the scope, risk, and complexity involved make external support both economically and strategically sound. Indeed, there are numerous advantages to working with knowledgeable, experienced, trustworthy, and motivated accreditation professionals. Some of these advantages are discussed in the sections below. 

Cost Savings and Predictable Expenses

In many countries, hiring a full-time accreditation professional is expensive. For example, in the United States, a realistic base salary to hire someone is around $80,000 or more. When payroll taxes, benefits, professional development, and overhead are added, the true cost can approach twice that amount.

A contract with an accreditation consultant is often significantly less than the fully loaded cost of a permanent hire. Just as important, consulting fees are predictable, time-bound, and milestone-driven, allowing institutions to budget with far greater clarity and confidence.

By hiring an international accreditation consultant for business schools, such as Accreditation.Biz, schools gain access to senior-level expertise at a fraction of the cost of building the same capability internally.

Allowing Faculty to Focus on the Core Mission

Faculty are hired to teach, conduct research, mentor students, and contribute intellectually to the discipline—not to manage accreditation logistics. Accreditation projects require extensive work in such areas as:

  • Assurance of Learning (AoL) system design
  • Data collection and validation
  • Documentation and reporting
  • Continuous improvement narratives

An accreditation consultant absorbs much of this operational and technical burden. This allows faculty to focus on teaching, research, and service to the school and broader community—the very activities that accreditation agencies, such as AACSB, expect institutions to prioritize.

Avoiding Costly Mistakes in a High-Stakes Process

Accreditation is not just time consuming. It is expensive. For example, to obtain AACSB accreditation, business schools often face:

  • Tens of thousands of dollars in accreditation and membership fees
  • Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) in indirect costs related to faculty and staff hiring, new faculty workload models, and research infrastructure

Thus, mistakes in interpretation, sequencing, or implementation can be very costly. Poorly designed AoL systems, confusing faculty qualification policies, or weak strategic alignment can lead to delays, additional visits, or adverse outcomes. An experienced accreditation consultant helps institutions get it right the first time, reducing rework, delays, and unnecessary spending.

Reducing the Risk of Accreditation Failure

International business accreditation, such as AACSB, is too important to approach experimentally. It is better not to be accredited than to start the process, invest heavily, and fail. Accreditation project failure can negatively affect:

  • Institutional reputation
  • Faculty and staff morale
  • Student recruitment and retention
  • Confidence among employers and other external stakeholders

Accreditation consultants bring pattern recognition developed across many institutions. They understand where schools typically struggle, how peer review teams actually interpret standards, and what constitutes an optimal way to meet the requirements of a particular standart. This experience significantly lowers institutional risk.

Maintaining Momentum

One of the most common challenges in accreditation is loss of momentum. Internal leadership changes, shifting priorities, or faculty turnover can stall accreditation progress for months or even years. An accreditation consultant provides:

  • Clear timelines and deliverables
  • External accountability
  • Continuous forward pressure

This helps schools stay on schedule and avoid the slow drift that often undermines accreditation efforts.

Translating Standards into Practical Action

Accreditation standards are intentionally principle-based and flexible—but that flexibility can be confusing. Many business schools fall into extremes: they either don’t do enough to meet an accreditation standards, or do things in the most tedious and expensive way. Accreditation consultants, with their practical experience, help translate accreditation standards into:

  • Practical, validated policies and procedures
  • Simple and scalable quality improvement systems related to strategic management and assurance of learning
  • Templates and documentation that align with formal standards and actual expectations of peer review team members

Rather than guessing what accreditation reviewers really want, business schools canb benefit from experience-based interpretation grounded in prior visits and outcomes.

External Perspective

Internal accreditation project teams can become too close to their own processes and viewpoints. An external accreditation consultant brings an objective, independent perspective that helps identify blind spots, inconsistencies, and overcomplication. This outside view is especially valuable when:

  • Preparing for eligibility or initial accreditation
  • Conducting gap analyses
  • Preparing for peer review team visits

Deficiencies should be detected and addressed in advance, so that there are no unpleasant surprises during the actual high-stake accreditation milestones. 

Building Sustainable Systems

Good accreditation consulting is not about “checking boxes.” It is about building sustainable systems that continue to function long after the review visit. Experienced consultants focus on:

  • Long-term sustainability of the accreditation project
  • Continuous improvement culture
  • Faculty ownership without burnout

This focus helps ensure that accreditation is not just achieved—but maintained efficiently.

Conclusion: Who Benefits Most from an Accreditation Consultant?

Some large, well-funded business schools have the internal expertise and resources to manage accreditation independently. Even so, many of these institutions find that they can save time and money by outsourcing parts of the process—such as AoL system design, mock visits, or standards gap analyses.

For smaller institutions and international business schools, the benefits are often even greater. Limited internal resources, unfamiliarity with North American or European business education processes, and high financial stakes make external expertise particularly valuable.

In these cases, working with an experienced accreditation consultant—such as Accreditation.Biz—can mean the difference between a controlled, successful accreditation journey and an expensive, stressful, and uncertain one.

Posted on

Why Faculty Resist AOL and How to Fix This

Faculty AOL Meeting

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

AACSB Standard 5 is one of the most important accreditation standards because it makes business schools explicitly accountable for student learning. Unfortunately, in practice, Assurance of Learning (AOL) often presents the greatest challenges for most business schools undergoing accreditation.

Across business schools worldwide, AOL is the area most associated with faculty resistance, missed deadlines, incomplete data, and the infamous failure to “close the loop.”

Importantly, this resistance rarely comes from a lack of commitment to students or teaching quality. Instead, it usually reflects how AOL is designed, supported, and managed within the institution.

The most frequent causes of faculty resistance to AOL are examined below, along with—and perhaps more importantly—what actually works to get past those obstacles.

1. Faculty Don’t Understand AOL

The Problem

Many faculty members experience AOL as a confusing, jargon-heavy, compliance-driven exercise. Terms like learning goals, rubrics, direct measures, and closing the loop can feel abstract, disconnected from day-to-day teaching, and inconsistently applied across programs.

When faculty don’t clearly understand what AOL is, why AOL exists or how it improves student learning, resistance is almost inevitable.

What Works

The following can be done to equip faculty with practical AOL knowledge:

  • Invest in practical, faculty-centered AOL training
  • Focus on how AOL supports better teaching, not just accreditation
  • Provide hands-on workshops using the school’s actual courses and assignments

For example, Accreditation.Biz works directly with faculty to both train them on AOL concepts and co-develop assessment plans, rubrics, and reports, reducing confusion and anxiety.

2. Faculty Lack Time

The Problem

Faculty are already stretched thin by teaching, research, advising, and administrative work. AOL often feels like “one more unfunded mandate” added on top of an already overloaded workload. When AOL is perceived as extra work with no support, deadlines slip and enthusiasm disappears.

What Works

The following can be done to free up faculty time so that they can perform their normal duties and, at the same time, engage in AOL in a meaningful way: 

  • Hire dedicated AOL staff or assessment coordinators
  • Use consultants to handle technical and administrative tasks
  • Streamline data collection and reporting processes

Faculty should focus on academic judgment and improvement, not on spreadsheets, templates, and accreditation compliance paperwork.

3. There Are No Meaningful Rewards for AOL Work

The Problem

In many schools, faculty see AOL work as:

  • Invisible
  • Uncompensated
  • Not valued in tenure, promotion, or merit decisions

When faculty quickly realize that AOL efforts are not rewarded—financially or professionally—they deprioritize this important task. 

What Works

The following mechanism can be used to offer faculty tangible incentives for participating in AOL:

  • Create financial stipends or course releases for AOL leadership
  • Establish non-financial recognition, such as awards and public acknowledgment
  • Make AOL contributions a formal component of annual reviews, tenure, and promotion

Recognizing and rewarding AOL champions signals that assessment work truly matters.

4. AOL Doesn’t Lead to Real Change

The Problem

Perhaps the most demoralizing issue: faculty collect data year after year, but nothing changes. Reports are written, uploaded, and forgotten; there are no curricular revisions, no pedagogical innovation, and no feedback loops. This situation creates deep cynicism towards AOL. Indeed, why bother if nothing changes? 

What Works

The following can be done to make AOL a real vehicle for positive change and improvement in student learning:

  • Enforce full AOL cycles, including documented actions and follow-up assessments
  • Implement changes at course, program, department, and college levels
  • Actively communicate improvements that resulted from AOL to all the relevant stakeholders

When faculty see tangible improvements tied directly to assessment results, buy-in increases dramatically.

Additional Resistance Factors You May Be Overlooking

Beyond the “big four,” several other factors often fuel AOL resistance:

  • Fear of evaluation or blame (AOL perceived as faculty performance review)
  • Inconsistent leadership support
  • Overly complex assessment systems
  • Poor alignment between learning goals and curriculum

Each of these issues points back to system design—not faculty motivation.

Conclusion: It’s Not the Standard—and It’s Not the Faculty

AACSB Standard 5 is not the problem. Faculty commitment to teaching and learning is not the problem either.

In most cases, the real issue is an inefficient, overly complex, or poorly supported AOL system.

With the right design, tools, incentives, and leadership, AOL can:

  • Improve student learning in meaningful ways
  • Reduce faculty frustration and resistance
  • Strengthen accreditation outcomes
  • Build a sustainable culture of assessment

An experienced accreditation partner like Accreditation.Biz can design, implement, and manage an AOL system that meets AACSB Standard 5, supports faculty, and, most importantly, delivers real improvement in student learning.

When AOL works well, faculty stop resisting it and start owning it.

Posted on

Building a Strategic Management Process that Meets AACSB Standard 1

AACSB Standard 1 - Strategic Planning

By Dr. Vlad Krotov

Aligning with AACSB Standard 1 (Strategic Planning) entails more than just creating a strategic plan. The standard requires the creation of a continuous, systematic, and effective strategic planning process that connects the business school’s mission, vision, goals, and results in a continuous improvement cycle. AACSB Standard 1 requires business schools to articulate a clear direction, involve a diverse range of stakeholders, and regularly assess progress toward mission-related objectives. The ultimate goal of this standard is to help business schools become better versions of themselves through the AACSB accreditation process. 

This article outlines a step-by-step guide for developing and managing a strategic management process that satisfies AACSB’s requirements outlined in Standard 1 (see Figure 1). Each of these steps is covered in greater detail in the sections that follow, along with typical pitfalls associated with each step. 

Step 1: Develop a Focused and Differentiated Mission

AACSB expects a school’s mission statement to define its niche, purpose, and distinctive competencies clearly. A good, focused mission should answer the following three questions:

    1. Who do we serve?
    2. What do we provide?
    3. How are we distinct from others?

A good mission statement helps the school clarify its competitive advantage, prioritize allocation of resources, and demonstrate alignment across all academic and operational activities.

Common Pitfalls in Mission Statements

Many business schools start with a broad or generic mission statement that could apply to almost any school.

For example: “To educate future business leaders who will make the world a better place.”

This statement is inspirational but too general; it does not define who the school serves, what makes it distinctive, or where it operates. AACSB reviewers often flag such statements for lacking focus and distinctiveness.

Examples of Strong Mission Statements

A well-crafted mission provides clarity and focus with respect to the niche that the school is serving and the school’s distinctive competencies. Here are examples of AACSB-aligned mission statements:

    •  “To develop innovative entrepreneurs and business leaders in Latin America through experiential learning and community engagement.”
    • “To advance sustainable business practices by educating socially responsible leaders in Southeast Asia.”
    • “To empower working professionals in the Midwest through flexible, technology-driven business education.”

These mission statement examples are much better because they identify:

    • Target audience (entrepreneurs, working professionals, etc.),
    • Geographic focus (Latin America, Southeast Asia, Midwest), and
    • Distinctive competency (experiential learning, sustainability, flexibility).

Having a focused mission statement is important for meeting AACSB Standard 1 requirements and, on a broader note, giving the entire business school a sense of a clear, common purpose. 

Step 2: Formulate a Realistic and Measurable Vision

A vision statement should describe the school’s aspirational future while remaining achievable and time-bound. AACSB peer review teams look for evidence that:

    • The vision is realistic given current resources and market conditions
    • The school tracks progress toward the vision through specific outcomes
    • The vision guides strategic and operational decisions

Common Pitfalls in Vision Statements

One of the common pitfalls in relation to a vision statement is that some schools aim too high, too soon, or express aspirations without a clear direction. For example:

“To be the world’s best business school.”

This statement is overly ambitious, lacks context, and provides no clear improvement trajectory.

AACSB reviewers prefer visions that are ambitious yet plausible and that can facilitate progress that can be tracked over time.

Examples of better vision statements are provided below: 

    • “To become the leading provider of entrepreneurship education in South America.”
    • “To be recognized as a top regional business school for innovation and applied research.”
    • “To shape the future of sustainable business education in the Pacific region.”

These examples are ambitious yet plausible; they communicate the direction and scope of aspirations, allowing schools to show measurable progress in future reports.

Step 3: Define Strategic Goals Aligned with the Mission

Once mission and vision are clarified, the next step is to define five to six strategic goals that describe what the school intends to accomplish over the next five years. 

These goals should:

    • Support the mission and vision
    • Address AACSB requirements (such as societal impact, innovation, and engagement)
    • Serve as the foundation for assessment and reporting

Examples of mission-aligned goals include:

    • Strengthen faculty qualifications
    • Enhance global engagement and partnerships
    • Demonstrate positive societal impact through entrepreneurship development
    • Achieve and maintain AACSB accreditation

Although AACSB is currently following a six-year accreditation cycle, business schools going through accreditation usually have to prepare evidence of compliance with AACSB standard way before the 6 year mark. Thus, aiming for a five-year strategic planning cycle is advisable

Step 4: Establish SMART Objectives and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

AACSB expects measurable evidence of progress toward goals. To make attainment of goals measurable, each strategic goal should have 2-3 linked SMART objectives, which are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. Each objective should have a measurable, time-bound KPI (or several KPIs).

For example:

Goal: Strengthen academic quality and faculty qualifications.

    • Objective: Ensure 90% of faculty meet AACSB qualification standards by 2027.
    • KPI: Percentage of faculty categorized as Scholarly Academic (SA), Practice Academic (PA), etc.

Goal: Enhance societal impact.

    • Objective: Implement five community engagement projects by 2030.
    • KPI: Number of projects completed, beneficiaries reached, or partnerships formed.

These metrics provide evidence for both strategic progress and continuous improvement, a cornerstone of AACSB accreditation.

Step 5: Identify and Describe Strategic Initiatives

AACSB Standard 1 requires specifying how goals and objectives will be achieved. Each objective should be targeted by one or more strategic initiatives. A strategic initiative is a  project or program undertaken to achieve measurable results towards the mission, vision, and goals.

Each strategic initiative should include:

    • A brief description and rationale
    • The responsible unit or leader
    • Financial allocations and funding sources
    • A timeline for implementation
    • Expected outcomes linked to KPIs.

Including financial data is especially important for demonstrating that the school is serious about pursuing its strategic initiatives. Specifying sources of funds for major initiatives is also required by AACSB Standard 2 (Physical, Virtual, and Financial Resources).

Step 6: Develop a Comprehensive Risk Management Plan

AACSB expects business schools to demonstrate awareness of internal and external risks that may affect their performance. A formal risk management plan ensures proactive identification, mitigation, and communication of potential threats in the internal and external environments.

A risk management plan should include the following parts:

    • Risk Identification: identify financial, academic, operational, regulatory, technological, or reputational risks that the school is facing.
    • Risk Analysis and Prioritization: evaluate the likelihood and potential impact of each risk.
    • Mitigation Strategies: define preventive and corrective actions.
    • Accountability: assign responsible individuals or committees for each risk.
    • Crisis Reflection: discuss institutional responses to past crises (for example, pandemics or economic shocks) and lessons learned.

    An annual or quarterly review of the risk management plan, which can be done as a part of general strategic planning meetings, demonstrates that the school maintains institutional resilience and a culture of preparedness.

    Step 7: Establish a Strategic Planning Committee

    AACSB values stakeholder engagement and inclusive decision-making. A formal strategic planning committee (SPC) ensures ongoing oversight of the strategic management process.

    The SPC should:

      • Include diverse stakeholders such as faculty, students, administrators, alumni, and employers
      • Meet at least annually to review progress towards the goals in the strategic plan
      • Document discussions and decisions in detailed meeting minutes, and
      • Integrate a Risk Management Subcommittee responsible for monitoring and updating the risk plan.

    The committee’s meeting minutes serve as documented evidence of strategic management activities for AACSB reviewers.

    Step 8: Institutionalize Continuous Improvement

    The hallmark of AACSB accreditation is evidence of continuous improvement through strategic planning. At the most basic level, strategic planning can be viewed as a structured process of planning, implementing, evaluating, and refining strategic actions based on strategic, long-term thinking. The following can be done to institutionalize strategic planning: 

      • Conduct annual reviews of goals, KPIs, and risk factors
      • Adjust strategies based on internal data, stakeholder input, and environmental changes
      • Communicate progress towards meeting goals and objectives regularly to internal and external stakeholders
      • Use data from internal assessment and stakeholder surveys to inform future plans

      This cyclical, continuous process ensures the strategic plan remains dynamic, relevant, and aligned with the school’s mission, vision, goals, and objectives. Including accreditation-related objectives is important for meeting accreditation requirements and giving the strategic plan additional purpose and importance in the eyes of stakeholders. 

      Conclusion: Turning Strategy into a Living System

      AACSB Standard 1 is not just about composing a strategic plan and sharing it with all the stakeholders. AACSB aims for every business school undergoing accreditation or reaccreditation to enhance their performance through strategic planning. By following the steps and recommendations provided in this article, business schools can transform their strategic plans from static documents into living systems of continuous improvement. These systems should be inclusive, agile, driven by an overarching purpose, shaped by data-driven decision-making, and aligned with AACSB’s global standards of excellence in business education. 

      Posted on

      How Much Does AACSB Accreditation Cost?

      By Dr. Vlad Krotov

      AACSB accreditation is widely recognized as the gold standard for business school quality. In addition to being committed to excellence in business education, business schools considering pursuing AACSB accreditation must also be prepared for a significant financial commitment that all accreditation projects require. So, how much does AACSB accreditation actually cost?

      Direct AACSB Fees

      According to the official AACSB fee schedule, the total direct cost of AACSB accreditation over a six-year initial accreditation period is approximately $73,000. The breakdown of this amount is provided in Table 1 below:

      Table 1. AACSB Accreditation Fees

      Fee TypeDescriptionAmount
      Eligibility Application WorkshopStarting February 2025, AACSB requires schools to attend a mandatory eligibility application workshop$1,000
      Eligibility Application FeeOne-time fee due after submitting the initial eligibility application$2,400
      Initial Accreditation Committee Process Acceptance FeeOne-time fee due after the Initial Accreditation Committee (IAC) accepts the eligibility application$7,800
      Initial Accreditation FeeAnnual fee applied while the school is in the initial accreditation process. The first payment is due following acceptance of the eligibility application.$7,140 × 6 = $42,840
      Initial Accreditation Visit Application FeeOne-time fee charged following submission of the initial accreditation application$18,000
      Total:$73,040

      The total of $73,040 does not include the travel expenses associated with visits by the school’s assigned AACSB Mentor. These mentor visits are required by AACSB and are carried out at the institution’s expense.

      Additional Institutional Costs

      It’s important to note that AACSB fees are only part of the story. Achieving and maintaining AACSB accreditation typically requires additional investments, which vary by institution. These may include:

        • Hiring Faculty and Staff: Many schools find it necessary to hire new faculty members and staff to meet AACSB’s standards for faculty sufficiency and to manage the added workload associated with accreditation. This includes efforts in faculty credentialing, strategic planning, and assurance of learning.
        • Infrastructure and Technology Upgrades: AACSB accreditation often leads schools to improve their digital learning platforms, student services, or physical facilities to align with global best practices.
        • Training and Development: Faculty and staff may require AACSB-specific professional development to fully implement accreditation standards—especially in areas like curriculum design and assessment.
        • Accreditation Consulting: Some institutions choose to engage external consultants or hire dedicated internal project managers to support the accreditation process and address identified gaps.

      These non-fee expenses can vary widely and may easily exceed the direct AACSB fees. A thorough gap analysis—which evaluates the school’s current practices against AACSB standards—is essential for estimating the total cost of the full accreditation journey.

      Is AACSB a Worthwhile Investment?

      While the direct cost of AACSB accreditation is about $73,000, the true total may be substantially higher when accounting for staffing, infrastructure, and training investments. However, it’s important to note that most of these additional costs go towards organizational improvement, and not AACSB per se. For many business schools, the long-term benefits of international recognition, improved program quality, and enhanced student outcomes make AACSB accreditation a worthwhile investment.

      Posted on

      Should You Outsource Your AoL System?

      By Dr. Vlad Krotov

      For business schools pursuing AACSB accreditation, Assurance of Learning (AoL) is often the most misunderstood and most labor-intensive component of the accreditation process. From selecting learning goals to designing rubrics, collecting data, and closing the loop—the process can easily overwhelm internal teams already juggling teaching, research, and numerous service responsibilities.

      So the question becomes: should you outsource your AoL to a consulting company? This article is an attempt to reflect on this important question.

      When Outsourcing Makes Sense

      Outsourcing is not about handing over control—it’s about leveraging expertise to build a system that is both compliant and sustainable. Here are three scenarios where outsourcing offers significant benefits:

        1. Limited Internal Expertise. Many institutions have never been through the accreditation process. Working with consultants who’ve designed AoL systems for dozens of schools reduces trial-and-error and ensures alignment with AACSB expectations.
        2. Tight Timelines. If you’re under pressure to meet a visit deadline, building AoL processes from scratch internally may cause costly delays. A consulting partner can fast-track design, training, and implementation without compromising quality.
        3. Accreditation Fatigue. Faculty burnout is real. Outsourcing the technical design of rubrics, curriculum mapping, and data collection allows your faculty to save time and energy and focus on what matters most—using the results to improve student learning.
        4. Strained Relationships. Nagging faculty who are already sick and tired of the accreditation work will not do any good to AoL yet will ruing the relationships between faculty and administrators. With an external consultant, at least some of this negative energy can be directed to outside of the organization. 

      When to Keep It In-House

      If your school has already built a mature AoL system and simply needs minor tweaks or updated documentation, internal teams may be better suited. Similarly, if faculty ownership is a core institutional value and you have experienced accreditation leadership in place, an in-house model can work well.

      A Smart Hybrid Approach

      At Accreditation.Biz, we often recommend a hybrid approach: let outside experts design the structure and tools, while internal faculty and staff own the assessment process. This balance ensures compliance without eroding institutional culture or autonomy.

      Final Word

      Outsourcing your AoL system design isn’t a shortcut—it’s a strategic investment. The goal is not to just “pass the accreditation,” but to embed a system that continuously improves learning outcomes long after the visit ends. Because of all those reasons, your AoL should start and continue on a good note. This requires a substantial investment of resources no matter how you go about designing and implementing your AoL system.