OPEN
UNIVERSITY
0332 FBA EARLY PROPOSAL
At the first meeting of the programme team, held on 13 July, it was decided that the next meeting, to be held from 10.30 to 13.00 on Wednesday 21 September, would move directly to discuss the details of such a programme - the principles involved were already agreed. This paper, which was requested by the team, looks at some of the alternatives open to the OBS.
Indeed, perhaps the most important aspect of this programme is that, as reported in the minutes of that first meeting, below, there was unanimous support for the statement of principles encapsulated in the above 'mission statement'. The notes below, therefore, relate to the details (with the introductory paragraph in each case summarising the agreements about the related principles already achieved)
This title sounds right! But it might also be run in tandem with other outside programmes - especially the FIM; to offer more specific flavours (where the basic FBA would be heterogeneous - with a wide range of topics and methods; even VQs!).
Subsequent to the meeting it became apparent that the programme might revolve around a 'membership programme' rather than a normal award (this is discussed below). In this case the letters FBA (OU) might stand for Fellow of the Business Alumni (of the OU or possibly OBS, though I would suggest that the former still carries more weight), rather than Fellow of Business Administration. It still carries much of the flavour we would want.
Since the meeting, Andrew Thomson has, as agreed, contacted the Institute of Management. He reports that they are enthusiastic. They think the time has come for such a post-MBA programme. On the other hand, they seem to want this to be a national programme (possibly taking onwards their idea of the chartered manager). I would suggest that this should be very much welcomed - we agreed something like this in our original discussion. On the other hand, I would suggest that we go ahead with our own (OBS/OU) scheme - as a pilot for any national scheme; and in the process set standards which will suit our own needs. We should, of course, work closely with, and in conjunction with, IM; but, if we are to avoid some of the political problems which sank the chartered manager, we should clearly take the lead (albeit as a pilot). We should also clearly brand our offering - hence the FBA (OU) now proposed. With our scale of business, and the resources we can call upon if needed, it is very much in our interests to set the standards - and to establish ourselves as the dominant brand leader.
It was agreed that the most important contribution should be that students on the programme should be formally assessed, and external courses accredited (though OUVS). The form of assessment, though should be less intensive (TMAs not exams and only 1/2 credit every two years after an initial 1 credit qualifier). This would be easy where CATS points were available, but harder for other offerings (though the onus would be on the organisation running these and/or the manager requesting). There was also some - inconclusive - debate about how levels might be easily controlled. Proof of performance might posed administrative problems - but it was suggested that managers should have to submit this annually (with a sample checked). The register of fellows might be published annually in a yearbook.
As the addendum to the minutes suggested, David Asch subsequently pointed out that university charters do not allow withdrawal of awards - so we would probably have to treat this as a 'membership programme'; since the 'removal' of the FBA - from those who do not continue with the requisite education - is central to the programme as proposed. This would have the additional advantage that the programme would be totally under the control of OBS, without reference to the rest of the OU.
It has been suggested by Martin Sullivan that we might make the first 1 credit qualification a proper award (needed as a prerequisite for the membership programme), and use this to maintain control of all the courses - which would have to meet the standards imposed in this way. This is one approach, but I would suggest that - as our existing standards are largely imposed by course teams rather than by any external inputs - we simply make certain that we impose similar standards on the (membership) FBA - using the existing award standards as the test.
Even so, it seems to be especially important that standards are maintained just as rigorously as for an award programme, and we will set the precedent for others to follow;
I) EXTERNAL ACCREDITATION - thus, we need to follow our existing procedures for accreditation, and where possible use OUVS (say) to accredit external courses; exactly as if it were an OU award.
II) INTERNAL ASSESSMENT - the programme board/course team model would seem to be once more appropriate. On the other hand, in view of the possible numbers of small modules, it would seem sensible to have just one (or several) course teams which would supervise a number of projects - with individuals within the team actually managing the individual modules. In any case, we will need to set up our own (simple but effective) procedures to replace the UCA1 (and possibly make these more rigorous - in terms of supervision of actual developments!).
Ideally, the standards would impose 'post-MBA' levels. In reality, most of the material is likely to emerge from undergraduate programmes. This need not pose a problem. We have always recognised that the MBA was not distinguished by the intellectual level of the participants, but by the level of knowledge and experience demanded by the courses. In the case of the FBA, which is likely - for most fellows - to broaden rather than deepen their knowledge base, even this latter difference may be dropped. Even so, the intellectual level - at least - and probably the type of content should be at least an undergraduate standard.
It has already been decided that, in view of the less intensive nature of the programme, proof of performance should be only by completion of TMAs. No examinations would be required of any course (even of those which might require other students to take such exams). The proof of 'standard' (even for the pre-qualification) would be set by the entry requirements.
If possible, the TMAs (and possibly even the tutorials) should be decoupled from the wider university timetables; so that fellows could complete them truly at their own pace.
As any other system would be costly, registration of completion of courses would be notified (as completed or annually) to a central (PC based) register. Only a sample of entries would be checked (say 20%) to ensure accuracy. The register would possibly be published, in printed form as a yearbook or on the VAX.
The intention would be to require only a relatively slow rate of progress. I would suggest that this should be 1/4 credit (100 hours) per annum. This might be made up of smaller modules, or from larger ones. In order to allow for sabbaticals, a 'bank' of 1/2 credit's worth of courses taken would allow for a two year 'holiday'. At the other extreme, membership would be withdrawn as soon as a fellow was 1/2 credit in arrears - though appeals (on the grounds of hardship, such as unemployment) should be allowed for.
The initial 1 credit of qualification would be built up from the same modules, and - on a similar basis - should take no longer than 4 years to achieve (but could be taken in 1 year or less).
We must offer a complete programme. The broad model for this should be that of professional development (such as that offered in medicine) and not the DBA (though it would be complementary to that. It should cover Updating (with new developments - such as 'Post Porter'), Broadening of Management Knowledge (including further electives from the MBA) and topics from Outside of Management (such as those from Technology and Social Sciences). It might use existing OBS material (especially the MBA options), new low resource OBS modules (based on the MA in Education model - if even these low resources could be justified, on the back of the new need for modules to tailor our output), other OU courses, (accredited) offerings from other institutions and offerings from some commercial providers (such as the large consultancies and the multinationals - though it was recognised that there would be significant problems with accreditation). Whatever the approach, the programme should offer the widest possible range of choice - with the 'manager' controlling his or her own syllabus (with guidance from OU staff) - the aim being to create the 'Renaissance Manager' (as suggested by the Police College)! Such a wide range would also allow us to test leading edge developments (such as electronic delivery) with minimal risk; which would enable the OU to still be at the leading edge (albeit with small numbers of FBA students) in 10 - 20 years time. It might also offer a pilot project for rolling out similar (on-going membership) offerings at lower levels.
If the programme is to work, it must offer a wide range of material - wider even that the MBA. This will be the situation over time, in any case, for two decades of membership (for example) will demand at least 5 credits of material (much the same as the MBA). But, more problematically, it will probably demand a relatively wide range at start-up; to convince the customers that it is viable. Three categories of material have so far been identified:
I) UPDATING - this material would update the fellows with the most recent theoretical (and practical) developments. In view of its time critical nature, it would be most obviously delivered by face-to-face methods; by OBS staff (full and part-time; using new material being developed for courses) as much as by other institutions - though the latter would be important contributors. It might be, in part, modules prepared to update the main MBA courses.
II) BROADENING OF MANAGEMENT KNOWLEDGE - this could include further electives from the MBA, as well as low-resource modules prepared in order to 'tailor' offerings for new audiences (and joint use by the FBA might make some of these more cost effective). It would, again, be possible for other institutions to offer electives in this category - probably (as in the case of Cranfield) from their executive education programme (and the 30+ suitable courses, in this category, on offer at Cranfield would go a long way to providing the 'breadth' we need on start-up.
III) OUTSIDE OF MANAGEMENT - this category would relate to the most 'broadening' courses of all. It might encompass almost any of the courses from the rest of the OU, or at least those from the undergraduate faculty - as well as those from other institutions. On the other hand, we would need to screen the menu of these, to ensure that it did not diverge too far from the concepts behind the FBA. Thus, most of the courses from social sciences and technology might be relevant, as would be some from arts and science - and possibly some from education and maths. Suitably tailored (reduced - with minimum effort - from full credit to 1/8 credit modules, say, with different tutorial provision; to differentiate them, and their price, from the undergraduate programme) these would also rapidly broaden the base of the programme. They would also, if suitably chosen, contribute to the unique 'renaissance manager' flavour we would like.
One issue, especially if the programme is eventually adopted as a 'national' standard, is the proportion of 'external' offerings allowed. We have previously set the requirement as half should be OBS sourced, and I would suggest that this remains the case; though I would also suggest that this could include offerings from the rest of the OU (which might pose problems on paper of resource/revenue transfers, but which would all ultimately benefit the OU). Of the rest, I would suggest we encourage one or two of the top business schools (such as Cranfield, who have already indicated their willingness to participate, and Warwick) to become 'partners' whose offerings would be included on our lists (as 'externals' however). Other institutions would follow the normal accreditation path - and the lists would be provided to counsellor not directly to the students.
It might be desirable to structure the programme so that fellows have to cover a mix of material; say one third update, one third broadening and one third outside.
On the other hand, so far it has been suggested that a major aspect of the programme would be that the fellows would decide their own educational needs. They should by that time (having completed an MBA) be well able to take such decisions themselves; and would be far better placed to do so than us. Despite this, it would seem that we should expect to have to offer (at a fee) counselling (face to face or via COSY) as to what might be the optimal pattern of courses to achieve the objectives set by the fellows themselves.
In view of the small amount credit needed annually, we should expect ourselves to offer smaller modules - perhaps splitting up larger courses to 1/8 credit courses (though fellows could always take a larger amount in one year, and pool the difference).
In addition, outside courses might be shorter still, perhaps 20-30 hours. Accordingly, the requirement should perhaps be described in hours - 100 (OU) hours rather than 1/4 credit (allowing a 10% discount for the removal of the examination) or CATS points. The equivalent external (face to face) hours might be - in line with our normal approach - half this level. In both cases, however, any amount (in hours) over the 100 hours could be pooled to be offset against the next year.
We should recognise that the programme could be used as a pilot for the OU to expand to lower levels. As such we should keep the relevant offices (most notably that of Ann Floyd) aware of what we are doing. As with IM, however, we should be certain to take the lead - and not be held back by bureaucratic problems.
The most important factor of all is that the programme must provide the opportunity for, and incentive for, managers to continue education beyond their formal (up to MBA) courses of study. This is the
prime raison d'etre, as well as the main USP, for the programme. Everyone talks about on-going education - but nobody provides it! It is also, of course, the main unknown - will a sufficient number of managers support the programme to make it financially viable? Even so, it was felt that the risk was worth taking; not least because it would enhance the image of the School (and add students to other programmes. But the risk should be contained by reducing any investment to the bare, rigorously controlled minimum. If the market proved to be large, which it might eventually do, the advantage of being first into it (especially on the scale that the infra-structure of the OU could offer) would give us an overwhelming advantage.
This is clearly the USP for the programme and it would appear, from the reaction of the IM at least, that there is a reasonable potential. Even so, resource exposures should be limited (see later) and the prime initial focus should be on the OBS image. The main short-term action, in this context, is market research. In the immediate future input from corporate customers was being sought by David Mercer, in conjunction with the MDAs, and this will eventually be supplemented by research on an Alumni questionnaire.
This was the most contentious issue. It raised a number of important questions:
One implication was that the main control on the performance of the managers - at least in terms of intellectual level - was by reference to their previous qualifications. Subsequent control would (without reference to examinations) only be in terms of their having completed course (and submitted adequate TMAs - a policy which has, in any case, always applied to OU 1/8 credit courses). This also posed some problems for the professional institutions - what is their equivalent of an MBA?
In theory this should pose no problems. Our own MBAs will clearly qualify, and will offer a known quantity. Other MBAs will qualify through the normal accreditation procedures, and in theory should pose no problems. The reality will be, however, that this will in effect be the only genuine test of quality - where later performance is to be measured only on TMAs. As such, it is possible that we may find ourselves in the invidious position of refusing entry to some MBAs from 'unsuitable' institutions! I would suggest that we must draw such lines in the sand, or require them to take examined courses in the first (qualifying) credit.
The problem will be that much greater for professional institutions, since few of them would even claim to run post-graduate courses. Here we may have to be even more selective - and insist on examined courses for the qualifying element.
The focus is on the development of individual managers, rather than on the provision of management teaching. This means that a wider range of material - including that outside of conventional management education - may be needed; including outside offerings (accredited through OUVS). The need for enlightenment ('renaissance') as well as instruction was emphasised.
This point was covered above.
It also means that there would be no standard model, but that each manager would be assisted to develop his or her own path.
As was this one.
Thus, even more than the existing MBA, the programme would focus on the individual education needs of the manager rather than the training needs of organisations - though it was recognised that the latter would be intimately involved in the process (not least because they would fund almost all managers). The need, though, would be for a personalised package - perhaps with the guidance offered through tele* (teleconferencing of all types). At the other extreme, however, this would probably require that we take a number of partners. The prime partner might well be the IM (in the form of a strategic alliance), but secondary partners might include other institutions (Cranfield etc - preempting their entry as competitors) as additional providers and commercial organisations (such as Shell) as sponsors - and possibly a limited range of commercial providers (such as consultancies).
In view of the seniority of the fellows, it should be recognised that the focus should be solely on their individual needs; and upon their educational rather than training needs. Our objective should be to further develop them as individuals. As described earlier, an important part of this would be through the one-to-one counselling. It might also demand closer ties with senior management in organisations; a move which we should welcome.
At the same time we should recognise that almost all fellows would have their fees paid by their employers. As such, we should involve as many of these in the programme (not least in the design of it); though not in the individual education of their managers! We might, for instance, invite them to contribute specialist modules (on the work Shell, for example, is doing with LBS on the 'learning organisation'), or we might offer modules at their locations and in collaboration with them - after all, it is intended that their board members may be fellows.
As indicated earlier, the quality of the programme could, and should, be enhanced by taking as (specialist) partners the best of each of the field we might be involved in. The educational establishments (Cranfield et al) have already been mentioned, but the leading consultancies (such as Boston Consulting) might also be considered, and leading organisations in general (such as Shell and DTI). The 'product' thus should be seen as the work of a consortium of the most expert organisations in a wide range of fields - co-ordinated and managed by the OBS as much as delivered by it.
CLUB
A hidden OBS agenda was to provide the 'Club', alumni network, which was discussed in the management team's 'away-day'. It would be hoped that the expertise of these managers might also be used to add to the wider strength of those MBA options taken. A hidden agenda for BIM might be to resuscitate their 'professional manager' concept.
The 'club' element of the FBA should be explored and developed - as a major feature - once it is under way. This will, we believe, ultimately be a major element of OBS provision to its 'students'. At the same time, the FBA should be used - as far as possible (without jeopardising its main mission) to pilot such 'club' provision.
The IM requirements would seem to be complementary to our own, but care should be taken that they do not overwhelm our own!
The prime focus in terms of resourcing is the minimisation of exposures. The risks involved may now appear less, based on the responses, such as that from the IM, we are receiving. Even so, the initial offerings must be delivered within minimal budgets. To this - initial - end, the costs of the initial offerings might be held down as follows:
1) ADMINISTRATION
The additional work - above the normal registration on courses (as associate students) - should, as far as possible, be held within OBS; and concentrated in the presentations office (supported only by manual and PC based systems).
2) COURSES
Only existing courses (OU & Cranfield) would be used, with the fellows as associate students (in the OU):
a) OBS COURSES
In this context, the nine (half credit) MBA options would be available - where the OBS fellows would only have taken three of these and external fellows would have taken none; though it should be recognised that some of the options might be unsuitable for specific students, so the effective extra availability for these might be as low as four courses. [800 - 1,800 hours of credit; with 100 hours per year needed]
In addition, the new (half credit) Certificate and Diploma courses would be available for all external fellows and for some OBS fellows. [up to 800 hours]
It has to be recognised that all of these [adding up to between 800 and 2,600 hours of qualification] are half credit courses (representing two years of 'qualification') but - in the absence of the examination - we might be able to spread each of them across two years of tuition.
b) OU COURSES
The main (suitable) OU courses [adding up to a total of 7,500 hours of qualification], for general application (marked *) or for enthusiasts in the subjects (especially where they are 1 credit in length - giving 4 years of qualification), might be:
SOCIAL SCIENCES FACULTY
D103* - Society & Social Science: a foundation course (level1/1 credit)
D212* - Running the Country (2/1)
D213* - Understanding Modern Societies (2/1)
D214 The United States in the Twentieth Century (2/1)
D215 - The Shape of the World (2/1)
D216* - Economics & Changing Economies (2/1)
D317 - Social Psychology (3/1)
DSE202 - Introduction to Psychology (2/1)
[1,600 hours]
TECHNOLOGY FACULTY
T102* - Living with Technology (1/1)
T202 - Analogue & Digital Circuits (2/1)
T203 - Materials (2/1)
T245* - Managing in Organisations (2/0.5)
T247* - Working with Systems (2/0.5)
T264* - Design (2/0.5)
T302 - Innovation: Design & Technology (3/1)
T362 - Design & Innovation (3/0.5)
T363 - Computer-Aided Design (3/0.5)
THD204* - Information Technology & Society (2/1)
TM282 Modelling with Mathematics (2/0.5)
[1,600 hours]
ARTS FACULTY
A102* - An Arts Foundation Course (1/1)
A205 - Culture and Belief in Europe 1450-1600 (2/1)
A206 - The Enlightenment (2/1)
A210* - Approaching Literature (2/1)
A214 - Understanding Music (2/1)
A220 - Princes & Peoples 1620-1714 (2/0.5)
A221 - State, Economy & Nation in Nineteenth Century (2/0.5)
A231 - Religious Diversity: Britain from 1945 (2/0.5)
A232 - Science & Technology in Everyday Life 1870-1950 (2/0.5)
A294 - Fifth Century Athens (2/0.5)
A316 - Modern Art (3/1)
A318 - War, Peace & Social Change 1900-1955 (3/1)
A319 - Literature in the Modern World (3/1)
AA301 - Philosophy of the Arts (3/1)
AS283 - The Rise of Scientific Europe 1500-1800 (2/0.5)
[2,400 hours]
SCIENCE FACULTY
S102* - A Science Foundation Course (1/1)
S203 - Biology: form & function (2/1)
S236 - Geology (2/0.5)
S246 - Organic Chemistry (2/0.5)
S247 - Inorganic Chemistry (2/0.5)
S271 - Discovering Physics (2/0.5)
S280 - Science matters - (2/0.5)
[900 hours]
MATHEMATICS FACULTY
M120* - Discovering Mathematics (1/0.5)
M121* - Using Mathematics (1/0.5)
M221 - Exploring Mathematics (2/0.5)
M246 - Elements of Statistics (2/0.5)
[400 hours]
CROSS FACULTY (U) COURSES
U206 - Environment (2/1)
U207 - Issues in Women's Studies (2/1)
U208 - Third World Development (2/1)
[600 hours]
c) EXTERNAL COURSES
In the first instance it might be advisable to limit our 'partnership' programme to just Cranfield. The relevant 'Executive Development Programmes' [shown with the 'standard' hours, which are twice the scheduled face to face level, totalling 3,800 hours] offered are:
Foundation Management Programme (200 hours - fee £6,050)
General Management for Specialists (200 hours - fee £7,900)
Senior Managers Programme (200 hours - fee £8,550)
The Cranfield Development Programme (400 hours - fee £12,250)
Director as Strategic Leader (100 hours - fee £2,875)
Strategic Management in the Service Sector (100 hours - fee £2,600)
Strategy and Strategic Management (100 hours - fee £2,100)
Managing Strategic Change (100 hours - fee £2,100)
Integrating Financial and Corporate Strategy (50 hours - fee £1,850)
Using Financial Figures in the Boardroom (100 hours - fee £2,150)
Integrating Marketing & Financial Strategies (25 hours - fee £725)
Strategic Marketing Management (100 hours - fee £2,500)
Effective Marketing Management (100 hours - fee £1,800)
Marketing for Service Businesses (100 hours - fee £1,800)
Marketing Industrial & Technological Products (100 hours - fee £1,800)
Marketing Plans (25 hours - fee £995)
Managing Creativity (25 hours - fee £725)
Developing Information Systems Strategies (100 hours - fee £1,975)
Implementing Information Systems Strategies (100 hours - fee £1,800)
Managing Information Systems Projects (100 hours - fee £1,800)
Business Process Redesign (200 hours - fee £2,995)
Logistics Management Programme (100 hours - fee £1,800)
Logistics Strategies in Europe (100 hours - fee £1,800)
Achieving International Excellence in Manufacturing (100 hours - fee £2,150)
Developing Project Management Techniques (100 hours - fee £1,800)
Developing Project Managers Skills (100 hours - fee £1,800)
Project Management in Service Based Organisations (100 hours - fee £1,800)
Management by Projects (100 hours - fee £1,800)
Managing Project Resources (100 hours - fee £1,800)
Managing People Effectively (150 hours - fee £3,300)
Organisational and Interpersonal Skills (125 hours - fee £3,150)
Managing People through the Stress of Change (50 hours - fee £1,200)
Managerial Effectiveness for Women (100 hours - fee £2,350)
Practical Skills for Managing People (125 hours - fee £2,550)
HRM Strategy & Policies (100 hours - fee £1,800)
Employee Relations Skills (100 hours - fee £1,800)
[total 3,825 hours]
Thus, even in the initial stages there would be an overall total of up to 14,000 hours of qualifying study on offer (140 years of qualification!); 800-2,600 hours from OBS, 7,500 from OU and 3,825 from Cranfield.
In subsequent years, once the volumes had justified further development, the first priority would be to improve the OBS position:
1) MODULARISATION OF THE EXISTING COURSES
The highest priority should be given to splitting the existing courses into 100 hour modules. This may not prove a problem for most courses, where the blocks (which are often relatively independent of each other) are already around this size - but may need introductory material to cover any missing elements. Such 'modularisation' should be targeted to cost less than £20,000 per module.
2) FACE TO FACE SEMINARS
We should use OBS academics (typically central academics, but also regional staff and tutors) to run face to face seminars (preferably of three days, 50 'standard' hours, length) in the core areas of the FBA (Update and Broadening of Management Knowledge). These should be run at prices matching those of Cranfield - allowing extra income for academics (and giving them invaluable exposure to senior management) as well as paying for more academics on the core programmes. These seminars should also be used to develop the new modules (see below).
3) NEW LOW RESOURCE MODULES
These should be short; to both improve the flexibility of the programme and to improve the flexibility of academic resource usage. They should, therefore, typically be around 50 hours (1/8 credit).
They should follow the 3/4th level models - and especially that of the MA in Education - with most of the teaching undertaken via set books and readers (co-published). Even the study guide (which should be short) might be co-published. The only television should be talking heads or lectures recorded (cheaply) in the OU studio - not by the BBC. Residential/Day Schools might be used (but fully costed).
Development should usually move through the face to face seminars detailed above, and where possible should also offer material for tailoring the other programmes. Target costs for such modules should be less than £25,000.
In addition, we should look to developments on the other fronts:
a) OU
We should persuade the other faculties to similarly modularise their most popular courses.
b) External Suppliers
I suspect we will not need to recruit further 'partners' beyond Cranfield (except for organisations such as Shell and DTI), but we will need (via OUVS) to accredit others.
PRICES
Cranfield courses already have, of course, set prices; from which we would receive a 'trade discount' on our fellows.
OBS modules should be held at least at the existing prices ; despite the removal of some costs. The higher level of service, in the form of more/better quality (i.e. central academic) tutoring and better quality accommodation, should be used to justify even higher prices .
A major problem may be the rest of the OU, where even the associate student prices are far below those we expect; even the MA in Education only charges around £500 per full credit! Again, we might raise these by the extra support elements; in particular with much lower tutorial groups and better accomodation.
hits