OPEN
UNIVERSITY
0312 FBA FIRST STEPS
[We never did get approval for this programme, but the various documents – of which this is the first – show how this potentially important development might have worked]
FIRST STEPS TOWARDS AN FBA
(Fellowship - of Business Administration - programme; an informal proposal to the management team, prepared by David Mercer)
Following discussions with members of the School and, in particular, with mindful of the debates we recently had at Dunchurch, I propose to form a group to discuss the possibility of offering a taught programme beyond the MBA. This would not cover the same ground as a DBA and, in any case, is at present only in the form of an idea which we believe might be usefully explored. Agreement to these initial explorations would not imply any commitment to further development. Thus, it is planned that our discussions will initially be relatively low key, though we would intend to conduct some research amongst the larger organisations in the UK (as well as a postal survey of our alumni) to see what requirements might be (and, most importantly, what if any demand there would be). We would expect to put forward further proposals, possibly leading to a formal submission (if a programme was found to be justifiable, and potentially viable), in about a year to 18 months time.
BACKGROUND
There has been much talk about the need for managers to engage in on-going education. Our existing programmes are one answer to this. On the other hand, once the MBA has been completed there is nowhere to go for any taught programmes beyond this point. Thus, after three or so years of the MBA programme, the group of managers who should be most likely to 'purchase' on-going education have no products on offer to them.
It is true that a number of business schools, and especially commercial providers, offer seminars in a range of subjects, but these are almost all 'stand-alone' and do not easily fit into a coherent pattern of on-going education. Royal Dutch Shell, for instance, have been looking for such programmes to use by their own senior managers without any great success.
It is not clear why this gap between the expectations of managers and the reality of provision has appeared. Perhaps it is because, until recently, qualification programmes were the prerogative of universities teaching students full time, face to face, over periods of a year or more - which was clearly not a suitable solution to the on-going education of such senior managers. At the other extreme, the one-off seminars were opportunistic.
We, however, now have the means, and the motivation, to address this market more formally.
THE MARKET
It is clear that a large number of managers, and their organisations, already support such on-going education - albeit in the form of one-off seminars. It is also clear (from the growth of MBA numbers) that relatively large numbers also support formal programmes of on-going education. What is not at all clear is what might be the demand for education programmeS beyond the MBA (except that it is likely to come from the larger corporations, and especially the multinationals, who are already the major source of our MBA students) - and that is the reason for the initially low key approach, focusing on market research, which is proposed.
To date the only qualifications have been doctoral. The PhD has, as we know, very limited applicability to this group; and, indeed, they are typically unable to make the time commitments necessary to progress. The Henley DBA, on the other hand, seems to be deliberately limited in numbers; since it is proving very difficult (and expensive) to run, and is reportedly only justified in terms of its 'image' benefits.
At this stage, it is perhaps most useful to look at the problem from the opposite viewpoint. Based on our own (very loose) definitions of a core course (and on our comparable original proposals for the MBA), it would seem not unreasonable that we should look for a minimum entry of 300 students a year to the FBA programme. Clearly one objective of our research will be to see if this is achievable, but such levels may not be impossible - even based upon our own alumni - and may be even more achievable if we include the wider market (where there is, as yet, no competitive offering).
In any case, this level might be reducible since, on the one hand we would look for approaches which minimised investment. As a 'fourth level' course, there would be no need to provide the expensive BBC elements (and even the units could be 'reading list' based) so that development costs might be cut by up to two thirds. On the other hand, these students should be willing to pay relatively large fees - the commercial sector currently may charge several thousand pounds (more than for a full credit of our material) just for a three day seminar!
There has been a surprising level of interest, and indeed in activity, in terms of the 'learning organisation'. It is not unreasonable to expect that there might be just as much interest in the concept of the 'learning manager' - one who continues to learn throughout his or her working life (as all the relevant theory suggests they should!).
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO OBS
In the absence of any evidence on numbers, it has to be argued that the one guaranteed benefit would be in terms of image (which is why Henley run their DBA). The programme would clearly identify OBS as a leading business school. We have recently been attempting to upgrade our image in terms of research, but (as the debates within the Centre for Strategy & Policy have shown) in the wider business world this needs to be complemented by 'consultancy' work (typically in the form of seminars and short courses) which we are not yet able to handle. The FBA would enable us to address this deficiency.
It would also enable us to attract senior executives who are influential in sending lower level managers on our courses. The classic example was Kellogg (North West) Business School in the US who improved their image, and performance, almost overnight by investing in an 'executive briefing centre'. We have, in any case, talked (for a number of years, without any productive outcome) about expanding our offerings to short courses. This programme would address that objective in a containable manner (where our main worry has always been the potential exposure of our resource base). In addition, in view of the likely need to involve business (and government) leaders in the development of our course material (Royal Dutch Shell, for instance, want to be involved in the debate about content) this aspect would also enhance our contact with such organisations.
The elements of the FBA might also provide a useful leading-edge pilot for developing material which would later enter into our mainstream (MBA) modules. They should certainly help keep us at the forefront of new developments (in ideas as well as technology) - especially as the participants would be more sophisticated (and certainly better funded) than our lower level students.
Finally, there is a reasonable chance that this will become a large market; and the first entrant will be in a good position to dominate that market (especially when backed up by the resources available to the OU, which no other comparable institution can match).
SOME NOTES ON POSSIBLE APPROACHES
It must be emphasised that all our options are still open. The internal debate over the next year or so will (when supported by the research results) decide what are likely to be our preferred solutions. Even so, some interesting questions can already be detected:
a) How can our image best be enhanced? This is, I think, the easiest question, since almost anything we do at the FBA level will improve our image (simply because we have done such a poor PR job to date - we are already the largest business school in Europe, with just about the highest standards, yet who knows that?).
b) How can we attract influential senior managers to the programme? This is not such an easy question to answer, but the key to it surely must be in asking the organisations themselves. Our main target market may be as few as 100 top multinationals. We would propose to visit most of these and the FBA could be sufficiently flexible that we might be able to meet almost the core needs of most of these.
c) How do we reduce the investment costs so that we can afford to run a relatively wide range of offerings for relatively few participants? This is where much of the debate will probably lie, and the answers will be crucial to the viability of the whole project. Its success depends upon being able to strictly limit the initial investment - to less than a £1 million, say (comparable with the cost of 1 credit). In part it may come, as mentioned earlier, from delivering courses at the fourth level - with much less hand-holding (since these students will in the main be, by definition, 'independent learners'). The level of the material should be as high as ever, but the amount of 'transformation' (where much of the academic costs is incurred) should be lower and the add-ons (such as the BBC) should be omitted. On the other hand, the trade-off may be more direct involvement in face to face teaching by central academics - though this is needed (in the absence of the consultancy or short courses favoured by other business schools) in order to keep these academics abreast of developments in the field. We have (not least in the example of our Ethiopian project) already shown how effective we can be in running such a programme.
Another aspect is that of being able to use our existing bank of course material, throughout the OU, as a source. The OU has literally thousands of man years of development work (in the form of published, and unpublished, material) on hand. We simply need to develop the skills to find and convert this material - at an acceptable cost.
d) What might the content be? This is probably where most of the debate will probably occur, and is the reason for building a team with such a wide range of knowledge and skills. There are a wide range of options open. Just some of these might be:
I) LOWER-LEVEL REFRESHERS - surprising as it might seem, Royal Dutch Shell say that their 'delayering' means that senior managers now get less support from lower level managers and accordingly have to be better able to understand many of the lower level basics of management. They would perhaps like the options of functional courses - and, in any case, this might complement our work with the professional institutions (such as CIMA and CIM).
II) EXTRA MBA COURSES - another option might be to allow students to take some of the 6 MBA options they now have to forego (after they have completed their 3 options as part of the MBA itself).
III) HIGHER-LEVEL MODULES - we could, and should, ultimately develop further (smaller, one quarter or even one eighth credit or less) modules to teach specific concepts or techniques (IIP or multi-media use, for instance) specifically for senior managers.
IV) WIDER-EXPERIENCE MODULES - one demand seems to be for courses outside of the management discipline. This in part reflects the debate at Dunchurch, but it also arises from the senior managers' need to obtain new perspectives (to refresh their 'creative' decision-making). Thus, in terms of the latter, arts and social science courses might be relevant - as, in particular, may be those from technology and languages.
V) FUTURE (RE)ORIENTATION - with the Millenium approaching, modules on future developments might be especially applicable; and this is an area where we have unique expertise.
Possibly the best approach might be to offer sufficient flexibility for all of these approaches to be adopted - if the overhead cost can be contained - so that the 'market' can decide.
e) What about accreditation of external learning? It would seem reasonable that some part of the FBA could be earned by doing accredited courses with other institutions/suppliers. The problem here would be the range of these, so that each student might have to argue the case (and pay for accreditation) for each! Perhaps each student should have a (central academic) counsellor who is actively involved in planning their on-going education.
f) What might the structure be? First thoughts revolved around two or three extra credits on top of the MBA; following much the same format. A later idea takes the on-going education to its logical extreme. After a minimum qualification element (say, one credit), the FBA would be awarded but would then have to be maintained. This maintenance could, for instance, take the form of completing a minimum amount of education every year (or averaged over three years, say, so that students could take holidays). A student would only be able to claim his or her FBA while they met this standard - though, if they dropped out, they would be reinstated as soon as they met it once more. This would strongly reinforce the concept of continuing education, even if the level was low (perhaps as low as half a credit minimum every three years), and would make it easier for organisations to justify payment of fees.
g) What might be the context and rate of learning? It would seem reasonable to assume that, having finished with the hectic pace of the MBA, such senior managers would want to reduce to a much easier pace (less destructive of family life). In addition, they might want even more 'comfort' and personal support - so that residential schools on the Renaissance, for example, might be based in the best hotels in Florence and taught by world-class experts (with wives also taking part?).
h) What should be the module size and form? The above paragraph would suggest that modules would need to be much smaller and much more flexible than we are used to. They might be down to a sixteenth of a credit (or some equivalent 'points' value) in size. They would probably have to be available when students wanted them, to be studied at whatever pace they wanted (a sixteenth of a credit over 18 months say). Evaluation would need to be TMA based (and then be quite flexibly so), without examinations (though, having reached MBA level, this safeguard would surely not be needed).
i) What partners should we take? We could run the programme ourselves, but it might be wise to join with some of the institutions (such as LBS, Cranfield and Warwick) which might provide competition for the accredited short course element. It would also seem sensible to involve the leading multi-nationals. There would probably not be any need for significant investment by them (certainly not in terms of the budgets they are used to) but their expertise (and reputation) would undoubtedly be invaluable for the FBA.
PROPOSED 'PROGRAMME' TEAM
I have not yet had the opportunity to contact all those who would, I am certain, wish to join the team, but the list to date includes:
Giles Clark Sheila Cameron
Ken Giles Jane Whiting
Jane Henry Bob Masterton
Jackie Holloway Ian Dey
Geoff Mallory Geoff Jones
Tony Stapleton David McKevitt
Mo Vernon Sylvia Brown
Richard Wheatcroft
At a later stage I would also expect to recruit a number of members from outside the OU - mainly from the multinationals.
INITIAL COSTS
As the 'team' would initially only meet every two months or so for half a day, the time involved would perhaps be no more than 20 man days (say, £5,000). To this would need to be added the travel budget (within the UK only) of, say, £1,000 and the cost of two surveys of maybe £5,000 in total (always assuming they could not be piggybacked on planned alumni surveys - in which case the cost would be negligible).
The maximum cost is likely to be, therefore, less than £10,000 - and the results would, in any case, be valuable as research material to be eventually published!
cc FBA Programme Team
hits