May 14, 2012 12:08 am

Key: Customised and open programmes

Key: Customised programmes

The first 10 criteria are based on feedback from executive education purchasers; the next five from each business school. These criteria are presented in rank form, with the leading school in each column ranked number one. The last two criteria are for information only, and do not contribute to the ranking.

Figures in brackets show the percentage each criterion contributes to the overall ranking weight. The weighting accorded to the first nine criteria is determined by the level of importance that clients attach to each.

Preparation (8.4): The level of interaction between client and school, the extent to which purchasers’ ideas were integrated into the programme, and the effectiveness of the school in integrating its latest research.

More

On this story

IN Executive Education

Programme design (8.4): The flexibility of the course and the willingness of schools to complement their own faculty with specialists and practitioners.

Teaching methods and materials (8.0): The extent to which teaching methods and materials were contemporary and appropriate, and included a suitable mix of academic rigour and practical relevance.

Faculty (8.5): The quality of teaching and the extent to which teaching staff worked together to present a coherent programme.

New skills and learning (8.4): The relevance of skills gained to the workplace, the ease with which they were implemented, and the extent to which the course encouraged new ways of thinking.

Follow-up (6.7): The extent and effectiveness of follow-up offered after the course participants returned to their workplaces.

Aims achieved (8.6): The extent to which academic and business expectations were met, and the quality of feedback from individual participants to purchasers.

Facilities (7.0): Rating of the learning environment’s quality and convenience, and of supporting resources and facilities.

Value for money (8.0): Purchasers’ rating of the programme’s design, teaching and materials in terms of value for money.

Future use (8.0): The likelihood that clients would use the same schools for future customised programmes, and whether they would use the school for the same programme.

International clients (5.0): The percentage of clients with headquarters outside the business school’s base country and region.

International participants (3.0): The ­extent to which customised programmes have participants from more than one country.

Overseas programmes (4.0): The international reach of the school’s customised programme teaching.

Partner schools (3.0): The quantity and quality of programmes developed or taught in conjunction with other business schools.

Faculty diversity (5.0): The diversity of faculty according to nationality and gender.

Total responses: The number of individual surveys completed by clients of the school. Figures in brackets indicate the total number of years of survey data included in the ranking.

Custom revenues: Income from customised programmes in 2011 in $m, provided optionally by schools. Figures are based on average dollar currency exchange rates for 2011.

. . .

Key: Open enrolment programmes

The first 10 criteria are based on feedback from course participants, the next six from each business school. These criteria are presented in rank form, apart from women participants (a percentage). The leading school in each column is ranked number one. Revenue data are provided for information only and are not part of the ranking.

Figures in brackets show the percentage each criterion contributes to the overall ranking weight. The weighting accorded to the first 10 criteria is determined by the level of importance that participants attach to each.

Preparation (7.6): The provision of advanced information on content, and the participant selection process.

Course design (8.5): The flexibility of the course and appropriateness of class size, structure and design.

Teaching methods and materials (8.3): The extent to which methods and materials were contemporary and appropriate, and included a suitable mix of academic rigour and practical relevance.

Faculty (8.8): The quality of the teaching and the extent to which teaching staff worked together to present a coherent programme.

Quality of participants (7.9): The extent to which other participants were of the appropriate managerial and academic standard, the international diversity of participants and the quality of interaction among peers.

New skills and learning (8.8): The relevance of skills gained to the workplace, the ease with which they were implemented, and the extent to which the course encouraged new ways of thinking.

Follow-up (7.3): The level of follow-up offered after participants returned to their workplaces, and networking oppo­rtunities with fellow participants.

Aims achieved (8.6): The extent to which personal and professional expectations were met, and the likelihood that participants would recommend the programme.

Food and accommodation (6.7): Rating of the quality of food and accommodation.

Facilities (7.5): Rating of the learning environment’s quality and convenience, and of supporting resources and facilities.

Women participants (2.0): The percentage of female participants.

International participants (3.0): Amalgamation of the percentage of participants from outside the business school’s base country and region.

Repeat business and growth (5.0): Amalgamation of growth in revenues and percentage of repeat business.

International location (3.0): The extent to which programmes are run outside the school’s base country and region.

Partner schools (3.0): The quantity and quality of programmes taught in conjunction with other business schools.

Faculty diversity (4.0): The diversity of fac­ulty according to nationality and gender.

Open-enrolment revenues: Income from open programmes in 2011 in $m, provided optionally by schools. Figures are based on average dollar currency exchange rates for 2011.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2014. You may share using our article tools.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.