Business Accreditation and Curriculum Alignment

By Dr. Vlad Krotov & Dr. Pitzel Krotova

AACSB and ACBSP Curriculum Standards

Obtaining an international accreditation for a business school usually requires extensive revisions of existing curriculum in order to meet the requirements of curriculum-specific accreditation standards. For example, Standard 4 of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) requires that “the school delivers content that is current, relevant, forward-looking, globally oriented, aligned with program competency goals, and consistent with its mission, strategies, and expected outcomes” (AACSB International, 2022). Similarly, Standard 6 of the Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP) requires that “the curriculum must be comprised of appropriate business and professional content to prepare graduates for success” and that the business school “must have a systematic process to ensure continuous improvement of curriculum and program delivery” (ACBSP, 2022). In this article, we talk about the most important elements of a business curriculum and how these elements can be aligned in order to meet the accreditation requirements and build an effective, self-sustaining quality assurance system in relation to business curriculum.

Curriculum Elements

In short, curriculum describes what is taught at a business school and how it is taught (Squires, 2012). A curriculum is usually formalized using a document or a plan that spells out the following:

1. Program learning outcomes (PLOs) that graduates must master
2. Course learning outcomes (CLOs) or goals that outline smaller and specific learning objectives to be achieved within each course comprising the program
3. Alignment of program learning outcomes (PLOs) and course learning outcomes (CLOs); this alignment is usually provided with the help of a course alignment matrix (CAM) that shows how individual courses and their CLOs support PLOs
4. Appropriate assessment tools that can be used to measure CLOs and/or PLOs
5. The content or material to be taught within each course comprising the program in the form of course syllabi

There are many other elements that comprise a curriculum (see Table 1). All these elements must be properly aligned to ensure effective development of the desired competencies among students.

Curriculum Element	Description
College Mission	Defines the aim of a college, its main reason for existence
Market Conditions	Economic marketplaces often dictate which professions or competencies are in demand in the workplace
Compliance Standards	Accreditation and governing bodies often mandate competencies that a particular program needs to develop
Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)	High-level goals (or competencies) that students are expected to attain as a result of completing a particular program of study
Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs)	Specific course-level objectives (or competencies) that students are expected to attain as a result of completing a specific course
Course Materials	Training materials used as part of a course: textbooks, books, journals and journal articles, electronic and multimedia materials, etc.
Pedagogy	Various theories, methods, or tools employed to develop competencies among students
Technology	Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) used to deliver course content
Physical Resources	Physical facilities (e.g., classrooms, labs, specialized equipment, etc.) allocated to a course or program
Credit Hours	Amount of face-to-face or online interaction between a student and an instructor devoted to a particular course or program
Assurance of Learning (AoL)	How attainment of particular learning outcomes (or competencies) is assessed and reported at the course and program level

Table 1. Curriculum Elements (Camba & Krotov, 2015)

Curriculum Alignment

Curriculum alignment can be viewed as a triangle with the following three cornerstones: curriculum, teacher, and test (see Figure 1).

The model shows the need for the three elements to be connected or aligned. Educational goals that are targeted by the curriculum become the basis of defining the work to be done by teachers. Formal testing (or assessment) is used to evaluate the degree to which teachers further deliver the educational goals set forth by the curriculum. Thus, a well-aligned curriculum can also be viewed as a self-sufficient quality control system.

Managing Curriculum Alignment

Lewin’s process-based change management model (see Figure 2) can be used as a guiding framework for an effective curriculum alignment initiative.

Figure 2. Lewin’s Change Management Model (Kaminski, 2011)

The first stage of the curriculum alignment process is the so-called “unfreeze” stage. This stage aims to prepare for the desired changes in the curriculum by having clear and open communication with all the relevant stakeholders in relation to the desired changes in the curriculum. In this stage, people involved in delivering and managing the curriculum analyze the current curriculum and identify the changes that are necessary in order to meet the accreditation standards or achieve the desired improvements in relation to the curriculum. All the stakeholders participating in the “unfreeze” stage need to be convinced that new materials, structures, and processes must be adopted in order to achieve desired improvements. In the second stage called “change,” the stakeholders implement the intended changes to the curriculum. This phase is time-consuming, confusing, and costly. The third stage of the curriculum alignment process is the “refreeze” stage. During this stage, changes to the curriculum are stabilized. The main concern in this phase is to ensure that change becomes a permanent part of the normal process and the system does not revert to the old ways and habits.

References

AACSB International (2022). 2020 Guiding Principles and Standards for Business Accreditation. Retrieved from https://www.aacsb.edu/educators/accreditation/business-accreditation/aacsb-business-accreditation-standards

ACBSP (2022). Accreditation Standards. Retrieved from https://acbsp.org/page/accreditation-standards

Camba, P., & Krotov, V. (2015). Critical success factors in the curriculum alignment process: The case of the college of business at Abu Dhabi University. Journal of Education for Business, 90(8), 451-457.

English, F. W. (2000). Deciding What to Teach and Test: Developing, Aligning, and Auditing the Curriculum. California: Corwin Press, Inc.

Glatthorn, A. A. (1999). Curriculum alignment revisited. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15(1), 26.

Kaminski, J. (2011). Theory applied to informatics-Lewin’s change theory. Canadian Journal of Nursing Informatics, 6(1).

Squires, D. (2012). Curriculum alignment research suggests that alignment can improve student achievement. Clearing House, 85(4), 129-135.

AACSB, ACBSP, Accreditation, Change Management, Curriculum, Curriculum Alignment

December 8, 2021December 8, 2021

Risk Management for Business Schools

By Dr. Vlad Krotov and Dr. Jacob Chacko

The 2020 Business Accreditation Standards by AACSB require a business to “maintain an ongoing risk analysis, identifying potential risks that could significantly impair its ability to fulfill the school’s mission, as well as a contingency plan for mitigating these risks.” With the recent events surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on educational institutions around the globe, there is a growing realization among business schools and their leaders of the importance and usefulness of Risk Management in their organizations. In this article, we briefly discuss the Risk Management Process and offer simple, practical guidelines on how to identify, analyze, and mitigate risks with the help of a formal Risk Management Plan that is aligned with a broader Strategic Management Plan devised by a business school.

Simplifying Assumptions

In this article, we make a number of assumptions in relation to Risk Management (see Figure 1). We believe that these assumptions will simplify the Risk Management Process and make it more effective in mitigating the identified future risk events.

Figure 1. Risk Management Assumptions

First, we believe that Risk Management is not a “bulletproof shield” for protecting a business school against all possible risks. It is rather a tool or a method that, if used effectively, can reduce the negative impact of risk on the organization. Risk Management can also be misused and turn into a vain exercise. This usually happens when the Risk Management process is (a) based on flawed analysis that does not properly identify and analyze important risks, (b) too complex and, thus, impractical, or (c) not backed by adequate resources required for risk mitigation. Second, we also believe that Risk Management is subjective. Risk Management is much closer to art rather than science; it is based on subjective reasoning and viewpoints, requires imagination for proper risk identification, and is heavily impacted by the “unknowns.” Because of that, we are strongly against a naïve, overly quantitative approach to Risk Management. We do support a formal, structured approach to risk analysis that makes use of appropriate quantitative and qualitative factors. Third, we believe that simplicity is the most effective response to the inherent complexity and serendipity of the environment that many business schools are operating it. We believe that overly complex, highly structured plans are inherently “fragile” in the face of the uncertain, highly complex, and turbulent environment that many business schools are increasingly finding themselves in. Simple, agile plans and structures are more robust and effective during the times of turbulence and uncertainty.

Risk Management Process

Risk Management can be defined as a continuous process comprised of the following steps or phases: analysis of strategic priorities and relevant internal and external factors, identification and definition of risk bearing events, analysis of risks based on likelihood and severity of their impact, mitigating risks by devising response strategies and actions and assigning people responsible for these actions, and monitoring of risks and periodic reporting in relation to these risks to key stakeholders (see Figure 2). Each of these steps is discussed in more detail in the sections below.

Analyzing Strategic Priorities and Relevant Internal and External Factors

Risk Management starts with the analysis of the current strategic priorities. As explained in Standard 1 of the 2020 Business Accreditation Standards published by AACSB, risk management is a part of a broader strategic management process and should be carried out in a way that supports a business school in attaining its strategic goals and objectives. Many of the internal and external risks can be identified by analyzing an organization’s internal strengths and weaknesses together with external opportunities and threats (the so-called SWOT analysis).

Identifying and Defining Risks

After this analysis, the organization should be able to identify and clearly describe important risk bearing events it is facing in relation to its internal and external environments. Examples of external risks include:

- Growing competition for students among existing educational institutions
- Drops in enrollment due to demographics changes
- Deficit of resources due to worsening economic conditions

Examples of internal risks include:

- Decreases in funding due to budgeting changes at the university level
- Inadequate staffing
- Turnover in leadership

A table with clear descriptions of identified risks should be the main deliverable of the risk identification and definition phase.

Analyzing Risks Based on Likelihood and Impact

While all kinds of risks can and should be identified as a part of the Risk Management process, not all risks have the same estimated likelihood and potential impact. Thus, each risk should be carefully analyzed to determine (1) the likelihood of an event occurring and (2) severity of its impact (see Figure 3).

This categorization of risks allows one to prioritize attention and resources in relation to possible future events. Events that are very likely to occur and which can possibly have a great impact on an organization should be treated as critical events. These events require special attention and resources to prevent their negative impact on the organization. Possible future events with moderate likelihood and moderate-to-high impact should be treated as important risk events. While being treated with adequate attention and resources, as a rule, these events should require less attention and resources than critical events with high likelihood and high impact. Low likelihood events with moderate-to-high impact should require a moderate level of attention and resources. Events with moderate-to-high likelihood and low impact should be acknowledged and dealt with, but with a minimum level of resources. Finally, events with low likelihood and low impact should be discussed but probably excluded from a formal risk management plan to keep it simple.

Mitigating Risks by Devising Mitigation Actions and Assigning Responsibilities

After analyzing each possible risk event in terms of its likelihood and impact on the organization, possible actions for mitigating these risks should be devised. It is important to assign to each risk event a “risk owner”—a person responsible for taking a lead on these risk mitigation actions. More thought and extra planning should be put into critical and important events. Important organizational leaders should not be “overextended”; they should be assigned as “leads” only to critical and important risk events.

Monitoring Risks and Establishing Period Reporting to Key Stakeholders

People in charge of the specific risks should be given the formal task of monitoring the internal and external environment of a business school and carrying out mitigation actions designed to protect the organization from a possible negative impact of an event in a proactive fashion or carrying out emergency actions designed to minimize the impact of an event that has occurred already. Without a person responsible for monitoring and mitigating a potential risk event, the organization my find itself in a situation where the event is not identified or dealt with in a timely fashion. Periodic updates by people assigned to risk events should be sent to the dean. The dean can compile all of these reports in a formal Risk Management Plan update that is sent to all the key stakeholders quarterly, biannually, or annually—depending on the complexity and uncertainty of the environment that the school is operating in.

Risk Management Plan

The most important deliverable of the Risk Management process is in the form of a formal risk management plan that is updated periodically, depending on the Strategic Planning cycle length of a business school. The main elements of an effective Risk Management Plan are summarized in Table 1 below.

Strategic Goal 1 – Emphasize Faculty & Staff Development

Risk Description	Importance	Risk Owner	Mitigation Actions	Reporting Timeline	Status Updates
Inferior instructional quality in online courses	Critical	Dept. Chairs, Faculty	Comprehensive faculty training, audit of online classes	On-going	All online courses have been reviewed using a standard quality rubric
Failure to attract and retain qualified faculty	Important	Dean, Dept. Chairs	Faculty development opportunities, faculty satisfaction survey	Annual	A formal business faculty development program was established in collaboration with the Faculty Development Center
Failure to maintain appropriate portfolio of qualified faculty	Important	Dept. Chairs, Assoc. Dean	Develop and maintain a faculty resource plan	Annual	A faculty resource plan has been designed in accordance with AACSB definitions
Failure to maintain AACSB accreditation	Moderate	Dean, Assoc. Dean	Ensure adherence to AACSB standards, focus on continuous improvement	On-going	Faculty sufficiency issue has been communicated to the university’s senior leaders

Table 1. Elements of a Risk Management Plan

Note that the plan contains all the outcomes or deliverables of the steps or phases of the Risk Management Process discussed above. Periodic status updates reported by the people in charge of the risk events are appended to each of the identified risks. Another important characteristic of this Risk Management Plan summary is that it is explicitly linked to Strategic Goal 1 found in the Strategic Plan of the business school.

AACSB, Risk, Risk Management, Strategic Planning

October 6, 2021October 21, 2021

A Simple, Robust Assurance of Learning (AoL) System for a Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) Program

By Vlad Krotov, PhD

AACSB, AoL, Assurance of Learning, CAM, Curriculum Alignment, DBA, PLO

Client

A young, large private university in the Middle East undergoing initial accreditation with WASC and AACSB.

Client Requirements

Designing a simple and robust Assurance of Learning system for a Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) executive doctoral program offered by a large private university in the Middle East. The system had to meet the following requirements:

a) Compliant with AACSB Standards. The College of Business where the program was offered was going through initial accreditation with AACSB; therefore, the system had to meet all the AACSB requirements in relation to AoL

b) Simple. The system had to be simple enough so that the DBA faculty could quickly understand and contribute to the continuous quality improvement program based on this AoL system. This was important to accommodate changes in the faculty roster teaching in the DBA program as well as general changes in the policies and the curriculum of this newly established DBA program

c) Reliable. The system had to produce reliable, useful results. It was important for the system to have a “pre-test” and then a “post-test” to produce meaningful results in relation to program learning goals. Also, the measurement tools had to incorporate both quantitative and qualitative results for further improvements.

Solution

As the first step, the curriculum of the DBA program was aligned along the five Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs). The results of the curriculum alignment process are provided in the Course Alignment (CAM) matrix below (see Figure 1):

**Figure 1. Course Alignment Matrix (CAM) for the DBA Program**

The extent to which Doctoral of Business Administration (DBA) students have mastered the learning outcomes of the program is assessed at 3 strategic points: METH 1 “Introduction to Business Research” course (Assessment Point 0), RSCH 1 “Research Proposal” (Assessment Point 1), and RSCH 2 “Dissertation” (Assessment Point 2) (see Figure 2 below).

**Figure 2. AoL System for the DBA Program**

At each of the assessment points, the Research Evaluation Rubric is used to assess student performance. The rubric relies on two other rubrics developed by the College: General Analytical Writing Assessment Rubric and Oral Presentation Rubric. In METH1 course, the basis for assessment is student “mock” dissertation proposal – an exercise where students, based on their limited knowledge of their research domain and high-level understanding of research methods, describe and present a rough plan for their possible future dissertation research. The assessment is done by the instructor teaching this course. This assessment point is used to establish a baseline for student knowledge and skills in relation to the program learning outcomes shortly after they join the DBA program. In RSCH the basis for assessment is the actual research proposal document and presentation. Finally, in RSCH 2 the basis for assessment is the final dissertation document and the final dissertation defense. In RSCH 1 and RSCH 2 assessment is done by the dissertation committee chair. In both cases, assessment results are submitted to the Program Director for analysis. Subsequent changes in the curriculum are subjected to the standard curriculum revision process implemented by the College and presided over by the College Curriculum Committee.

Results

With this simple, robust AoL System, the college was able to “close the loop” in relation to the DBA program in just one year (see Figure 3) below:

The results of the newly designed AoL system indicate a noticeable growth in the level at which doctoral students master the PLOs across semesters (see Figure 4 below). These improvements are largely a result of the recommendations for curriculum and policy changes submitted by the DBA faculty participating in the AoL process using the rubrics used in assessment.

**Figure 4. AoL Results Across Semesters**

The College believes that this assessment method allows for a closer monitoring of individual students with respect to their achievement of the learning goals of the program. The AoL system was received positively by AACSB Review Team.

AACSB, AoL, Assurance of Learning, CAM, Curriculum Alignment, DBA, PLO