Experimental feature

Listen to this article

00:00
00:00
Experimental feature
or

Customised programmes

The first 10 criteria, up to “Future use”, are rated by the companies that commissioned executive courses; the last five are based on data reported by business schools. These criteria are presented in rank form, with the leading school in each column ranked number one. The final two criteria are for information only and do not inform the ranking. Figures in brackets show the weight each criterion contributes to the overall ranking. The weighting accorded to the first nine criteria, from preparation to value for money, accounts for 72 per cent of the total ranking’s weight. It is determined by the level of importance that clients attach to each.

Preparation (8.3): the level of interaction between client and school, the extent to which clients’ ideas were integrated into the programme and the effectiveness of the school in integrating its latest research.

Programme design (8.5): the flexibility of the course and the willingness of schools to complement their faculty with external experts.

Teaching methods and materials (7.9): the extent to which teaching methods and materials were contemporary and appropriate, balancing 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 (8.3): the relevance of skills gained to the workplace, the ease with which they were implemented and the extent to which the course encouraged new thinking.

Follow-up (7.2): the extent and effectiveness of follow-up offered after the course participants returned to their workplaces.

Aims achieved (8.4): the extent to which academic and business expectations were met and the quality of feedback from individual participants to course commissioners.

Facilities (7.2): a rating of the learning environment’s quality and convenience and of supporting resources and facilities.

Value for money (7.7): clients’ rating of the programme’s design, teaching and materials in terms of value for money.

Future use (8.0): the likelihood of clients using the same school again for other customised programmes, and whether they would recommission 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 school faculty according to nationality and gender.

Total responses: the number of individual surveys completed by the school’s clients. Figures in brackets indicate the number of years of survey data counted towards the ranking.

Custom revenues: the income from customised programmes in 2014 in $m, provided optionally by schools. Revenues are converted into US$ using the average dollar currency exchange rates for 2014.

Footnotes

† These data are provided for information only. For schools whose main headquarters are outside the US, figures are based on average dollar currency exchange rates for 2014.

‡ The first figure refers to the number of individual surveys completed by clients of the business school. The figure in brackets indicates the total number of years of survey data included in this ranking. Data are retained for those schools that participated in the 2014 or 2013 ranking but were not ranked in that year.

* Includes revenue from food.

** Includes revenue from food and accommodation.

*** Aggregate total for open and customised programmes. Although the headline ranking figures show changes in the data year to year, the pattern of clustering among schools is equally significant. About 350 points separate the top school, Iese, from the school ranked number 85. The top 10 business schools, from Iese to Cranfield School of Management, form the top group of custom providers. The second group is lead by Insead and the third by Universidad Adolfo Ibañez. The top and bottom schools in the second group are separated by 175 points; in the third group there is a 85-point gap between top and bottom.


Open-enrolment programmes

The first 10 criteria are rated by programme participants; the next six are based on data submitted by the business schools. These criteria are presented in rank form, apart from female participants (%), with the leading school in each column ranked number one. Revenue data are provided for information only and do not inform the ranking. Figures in brackets show the weight each criterion contributes to the overall ranking. The weighting accorded to the first 10 criteria, from preparation to facilities, accounts for 80 per cent of the total ranking’s weight. It is determined by the level of importance that participants attach to each.

Preparation (7.7): the provision of advanced information on programme content, and the participant selection process.

Course design (8.6): the flexibility of the course and appropriateness of class size, structure and design.

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

Faculty (8.7): 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 (6.6): a rating of the quality of food and accommodation.

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

Female participants (2.0): the percentage of female course participants.

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

Repeat business and growth (5.0): an 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 school faculty according to nationality and gender.

Open-enrolment revenues: the income from open programmes in 2014 in $m, provided optionally by schools. Revenues are converted into US$ using the average dollar currency exchange rates for 2014.

Footnotes

† These data are provided for information only. For schools whose main headquarters are outside the US, figures are based on average dollar currency exchange rates for 2014.

* Includes revenue from food.

** Includes revenue from food and accommodation.

*** Aggregate total for open and customised programmes. Although the headline ranking figures show changes in the data year to year, the pattern of clustering among the schools is equally significant. Some 300 points separate the top school from the one ranked 75. The top 11 schools, from IMD to University of Virginia: Darden, form the elite providers. The second group runs from Fundação Dom Cabral to USB Executive Development at 57; some 150 points separate these two. The third group is headed by Grenoble Graduate School of Business.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2017. All rights reserved.
myFT

Follow the topics mentioned in this article