Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore how AACSB might better position itself through brand management.

The paper attempts to offer suggestions on a different branding strategy for AACSB

The paper suggests that AACSB establishes different levels of accreditation, each having different standards and each having a different level of prestige. This repositioning of the AACSB brand would make the accreditation standards flexible, depending on the resources a school wanted to devote to business education, and the prestige that the school wished to achieve with accreditation.

The paper contributes to the literature by proposing a solution that will enhance the value of AACSB accreditation to schools of different resource endowments.

This study aims to identify the strategic leadership and change management used to obtain the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accreditations as well as the research development on AACSB in the past decade.

This study used a systematic literature review following Petticrew and Roberts’ study. The articles were limited to empirical studies published from 2013 to 2022, taken from the Dimensions AI database.

The findings suggested that two leadership styles were used to obtain AACSB accreditation: dominance-oriented transformational and financial leadership, alongside three traits of academic leaders: commitment, engagement and encouragement. Additionally, three change management models/processes were found in the articles: teaching evaluation framework, temporary isomorphism and authenticity. Finally, they discovered that the object of the studies on AACSB accreditation had been narrowed down from the organizational level to smaller objects consisting of schools’ identity, teaching, learning and business schools’ key players.

As this study only used Dimensions AI, potential articles related to the topic outside the database could not be obtained. Thus, it limits the scope of the findings of this paper.

This study informs academic leaders in business schools about the role of strategic leadership and change management in obtaining AACSB accreditation.

Through a systematic scoping review, this study presented a decade of research development on AACSB in addition to the strategic leadership and change management needed to obtain it.

The current article aims to answer the following research questions: (1) What types of business schools should pursue the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB)? and (2) What types of strategic leadership would be necessary for that?

A case study approach with archival research and interviews is employed.

The findings suggest that regional, teaching-oriented business schools at the graduate level with dominance-transformative leaders should consider acquiring AACSB accreditation due to its potential benefits, the most pronounced being an increase in the number of graduate students. Other advantages include improvements in the quality of schools' strategic planning, faculty qualifications, intellectual research contributions and assurance of learning, as well as branding.

Given its qualitative nature as a single case study with a small sample size, the findings may not be statistically generalizable. Future research could employ multiple case studies to examine several accredited schools, utilizing larger sample sizes to obtain more detailed results about the AACSB acquisition process, as well as the potential benefits and costs of AACSB.

Few studies have examined the processes and impacts of acquiring AACSB accreditation, or the associated barriers in the context of an individual, international accreditation-seeking business school, in particular those that are small and regional. Likewise, few studies have addressed management leadership issues in acquiring AACSB accreditation. Our research addressed these research gaps by describing the processes, impacts and issues associated with acquiring AACSB from the perspective of a regional, teaching-oriented institute. Further, the study helped identify kinds of leadership appropriate for the acquisition of AACSB.

The purpose of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of the research on the quality and value of AACSB International accreditation.

Data were abstracted from published journal articles between 2003 and 2017 in which the words “AACSB” and “quality” or “value” (or both quality and value) were used in the title or the article text.

In total, 91 studies were identified that have been published on the value and/or quality of AACSB accreditation. These studies focused primarily on students and faculty and were conducted using survey research methods. Results indicate that accreditation does have some effects on stakeholder value and quality.

While there is evidence to support the importance of accreditation to enhance the quality and value of business schools, additional research is needed to empirically support the quality and value propositions.

In order to effectively communicate to stakeholders how AACSB accreditation enhances the business school, the current study’s findings indicate that identification of indicators and factors that affect quality and value would be productive.

This study contributes insight on what is currently known about the quality and value of AACSB accreditation to both internal and external stakeholders from research conducted over an extended period of time.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the question of how well business school accreditation bodies manage their own brands. It does so by extending research on business school branding by Pitt et al. (2006) to explore how well business school accreditation organizations such as AACSB International – The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), the Association of MBAs, and the European Foundation for Management Development Quality Improvement System manage their brands.

An on-line survey of business school deans was conducted during October and November of 2013. SurveyMonkey was used to administer the survey to 1,131 valid e-mail addresses found for the deans of member schools.

Business school deans face complex decisions in terms of marketing. The selection of which accreditation “co-brand” to seek is both strategically relevant to the market position of the business school and has numerous financial and often career implications. The findings in this research suggest that AACSB is perceived by a broad global sample of business school deans to be generally the strongest brand, and therefore likely the best choice if a school is seeking only one accreditation.

This study contributes to the understanding of business school marketing, strategic planning, and branding in a highly competitive global market.

The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into quality management for business education. The paper provides business schools and Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) with information about two different quality standards and suggests how the AACSB accreditation process might be strengthened – thereby improving the quality of the education process and product.

The authors compare two prevalent but different approaches to quality management: the AACSB accreditation standards and ISO 9001, a set of quality requirements developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). For this comparison, the authors review the literature in the field, including published quality standards, organization examples documenting implementation of AACSB or ISO 9001 standards, and existing empirical research results on the two approaches.

Both quality approaches have their merits and followers. It seems feasible that AACSB might be able to borrow some elements from the ISO 9001 components and process to improve their accreditation process. For example, they might wish to consider more standardized auditor training, the use of a third party auditing body, incorporation of a process orientation and a system of continuous improvement, as well as more overall reliance on the quality principles in ISO 9001.

This paper is a conceptual one without empirical data. As such, it has limitations. Further research is needed to gather empirical data to continue the investigation between these two approaches to quality management in education.

It is hoped that, with awareness and integration of some of the ISO 9001 components, AACSB and educational administrators are able to improve the accreditation process for business schools, thereby improving the overall education process and product.

The paper provides a comparison of two different but prevalent approaches to quality management within educational organizations. It presents insight for business schools seeking to adopt either of these approaches and provides suggestions for improvement of the AACSB standards. This discussion is valuable as it seeks to improve the quality of business education while it operates in an environment with increasingly limited resources.

The purpose of this paper is to report on the findings of an exploratory survey designed to measure AACSB member deans’ perceptions about the recently revised 2013 Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) Accreditation Standards. In April of 2013, AACSB International released a major revision of its accreditation standards to better reflect the increased globalization of management education.

The present study surveyed AACSB member school deans via e-mail using SurveyMonkey during October and early November of 2013. A total of 1,131 valid e-mail addresses were found for the deans/heads of member schools (accredited and non-accredited). In total, 259 surveys were completed, resulting in a 23 per cent response rate for member schools with valid e-mails (n = 1,131).

The present study found that the AACSB membership largely perceives that AACSB accreditation is a basic requirement to be a credible and competitive business school, is an indicator of a quality education and is linked to enhancing a business school’s ability to be effective in faculty recruitment and student placement. Even business school’s holding association of MBA (AMBA) and the European Foundation for Management Development’s International Accreditation Program (EQUIS) accreditation seemed to think that AACSB accreditation is a basic requirement to be a competitive business school. The most notable finding of this study is that most deans indicated that they will be able to meet the 2013 standards.

Although at the time of the survey no business school had been subject to review under the new standards, member deans largely felt that the guiding principles and values and the accreditation standards themselves are achievable. In addition, there was widespread agreement that AACSB accreditation is valuable, meaningful and essential in today’s globally competitive environment.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the implications of the 2013 Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) Accreditation Standards for both business faculty and their deans who are responsible for implementing these changes.

This paper is a speculative viewpoint on the implications of the 2013 AACSB standards by a set of a co-authors that include AACSB deans who are active in accreditation reviews and serve as mentors to schools in the accreditation process and senior faculty who have written self-studies for AACSB and served as consultants for schools seeking AACSB accreditation internationally.

The implications of the 2013 AACSB business accreditation standards are arguably positive for active scholars holding a relevant doctoral degree. For example, active and engaged scholarly faculty should appreciate the ability to use additional indicators of the impact of their career’s intellectual contributions (IC) including, but not limited to, citations, editor ships, professional leadership positions and other measures of professional esteem.

The implications of the 2013 AACSB accreditation standards for deans are potentially less positive. The new standards codify one of the deans’ major duties – that of ensuring that the faculty have resources adequate to support the school’s mission.

This paper represents a starting point for understanding the implications of the 2013 AACSB accreditation standards, and that as the standards are operationalized over the subsequent years that these standards, like the previous changes in AACSB standards, will stimulate additional research on business school accreditation. The implications for both faculty and deans are speculative, but are grounded both by the literature and experience of the authors. The paper uses a set of tables to illustrate the impact of the new AACSB standards with examples for each guiding principle and standard.

The paper seeks to share a viewpoint on the benefits and value of AACSB International business accreditation and some perspectives on the evolution of business accreditation on a global basis.

This is a commentary/viewpoint paper.

AACSB accreditation is global brand delivering external validation of high‐quality business schools providing key stakeholders, students, faculty and employers, with a decision criterion for selecting institutions with which to be associated.

In an increasingly competitive, global market for leading business students and an ever‐increasing number of business programs that deliver management education, differentiation is critical. Earning AACSB International accreditation can provide an important external validation and statement that can be an important factor in identifying high‐quality business schools by prospective students, faculty, and employers.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the impact of AACSB accreditation on the autonomy and costs of limited resource institutions whose missions are primarily teaching.

To evaluate the research questions, a content analysis of all publications in the EBSCO Business Source Premier Database for the period January 1, 1990 through December 15, 2012 was conducted.

The findings indicate that in the process of becoming AACSB accredited, faculty members of the subject institutions shift their focus more toward research and less toward teaching activities, and that the institutions become less autonomous and more like their benchmark AACSB institutions. In addition, the costs of AACSB accreditation are likely to be significant for the subject institutions.

The findings of the study point to the need for additional theoretical and empirical research related to the research questions. First, there is a need to formulate a conceptual framework for clearly identifying and measuring the implicit and explicit costs, including all of the opportunity costs, associated with accreditation. In addition, there is a compelling need to develop a conceptual framework and measurement system that will allow business schools to better assess their quality and productivity. For limited resource institutions whose missions are primarily teaching this system should comport with the schools’ teaching missions.

The findings suggest that the subject institutions seeking AACSB accreditation should carefully consider a number of questions before pursing accreditation. First, is the institution's mission congruent with AACSB standards or will its mission have to be changed? If AACSB accreditation is deemed to be appropriate, how will the associated changes in resource needs and resource allocation serve to further the institution's mission? And, what are the incremental costs of accreditation, and does the institution have the resource base to sustain accreditation?

The study is the first to conduct a detailed content analysis to evaluate some of the costs and benefits of AACSB accreditation for limited resource institutions whose missions are primarily teaching.