Review: International Conference and Annual Meeting 2017

Well, here goes my next review. My school, Tarleton State University, is pushing for AACSB accreditation. For those who may not know accreditation is a designation that recognizes that you meet some minimum threshold of standards. As it relates to AACSB specifically, they are the premier accrediting body for business schools. So, it is kind of a big deal. They make sure that we have processes and procedures in place to insure faculty development, assessment of programs, funding models, etc. We have joined AACSB, filed our initial report, have been assigned a mentor, and are actively working on our self-evaluation report. All of this to tell you that attending various AACSB functions is part of the process as we learn the ins and outs of accreditation, identify opportunities for improvement, and network with other AACSB member schools/faculty. In this particular case, I am attending #ICAM2017 . This is their big international conference and annual meeting. This year, it is in Houston Texas. I've never been a big fan of Houston though I have to admit, the more times I come here, the more it grows on me.

Back to the conference. My first session was a pre-conference workshop. AACSB has what they call "Affinity Groups". This particular affinity group was the Online Affinity Group. Ironically, at least to me, this was their very first meeting. I would have thought that such a group would have been around a while. But, being the very first meeting, there was a bit of housekeeping that was necessary. We started off by reviewing a set of by-laws and then moving to approve them. They had already been in the AACSB online repository for review and they were modified versions of by-laws from other affinity groups so that was a pretty smooth process. They rest of the meeting was at the heart of what you might think the Online Affinity Group is about. They setup 6 poster sheets with topics on them; topic that were identified in the AACSB online forum. Each person was to choose one they were interested in and then identify a second one they were interested in. For the first have of the rest of the meeting you discussed your topic with others interested in the same topic and then over the last have, you moved to your other topic and did the same thing with a different group (for the most part) of people.

Online Affinity Group Meeting
The first topic I participated in was "Curriculum & Learning: Design for Online Learning". We started off by introducing ourselves and describing our experience with online learning...and teaching. One of the biggest issues discussed was the importance for training and support for faculty. Additionally, funding and faculty buy-in are musts. The issue of insuring quality online offerings came up to which one person identified Quality Matters and how they use them to certify the quality of their courses. With respect to training faculty, some indicated that training was mandatory before a faculty member could teach a course while others indicated that training was optional. Additionally, it was noted by a few individuals of differences between younger versus older faculty and their interest and developing and seeking help in developing online courses. In general, it seemed like most participants at the table were more or less involved with online courses/programs but it was clear that everyone was interested in various nuances that could be used to improve what they are doing. One program brought up an interesting approach, at least interesting to me given that we do not do it. Their program is synchronous. They require students to participate in online courses synchronously. This is great for interactivity but can be problematic for student over widely dispersed areas and for those who have work/life conflicts. But, in their environment, it seems to work. They stressed the need for internal support, keeping supplementary videos at 10 minutes or less, and they use WebX to communicate with students. The one last thing worth noting was that everyone at this session was using Blackboard for the Learning Management Systems (LMS) thought the school providing synchronous online courses is considering moving to Canvas due to their ability to align course results with assessment data.

The second session I sat in on during the Online Affinity Group's session was over Improving Online Delivery. A LOT of the content was simply a rehash of the content from the first session. Synchronous versus asynchronous came up again. A discussion about online groups and appropriate sizes came up; 10-20 is too many, 4-5 is ideal. The issue of asynchronous projects and how students collaborate was mentioned. One thing I thought was interesting was the need for course updates. One school requires courses to be updated every three years. Some schools pay professors for those updates. However, one person mentioned that there's no definition of what constitutes "an update". In my particular field, this is not an issue;) The use of instructional designers should not be overlooked. This table also mentioned the use of WebX to work with students. In fact, they use WebX to interact with students online and , for hybrid classes, then have a flipped classroom in which students only work on projects in face to face classes. They also mentioned that they have students physically show up to campus for 1 week at the beginning of their programs.

Technology in Business Schools

This session was for the the Technology in Business Schools (TBSr) Affinity Group. A large portion of the session was on describing the roll that TBSr fulfills, the benefits to membership, etc. The speaker, from the University of Texas, described the value of membership from the perspective of a dean as providing advice on targeting dollars invested in IT, assessments of investment effectiveness, etc. From a college's IT director perspective, it provides  exposure and opportunities to learning from some of the best in the business, a confirmation of efforts, and so on. Related to this are some of the benefits which includes bench marking, best practices, TBSr survey results, reviewing and sharing of literature, etc. Membership also provides opportunities to develop relationship, attend their annual conference, and engage with members throughout the year, each of which can be helpful when trying to address problems today's business schools face.

One thing that drew my attention were some of the results from the 2015 TBSr survey in which the average AASCB school spent approximately $1000 per student on IT/IS and approximately $8000 per faculty member. What I found interesting was the comparison to non-AACSB accredited school which was approximately $700 and $6500 respectively. The conclusion was clear. AACSB schools invest more heavily in technology than their non-accredited counterparts.

Another very interesting benefit discussed was the external review they provide. A free service (the only charge is paying for reviewer travel), they will examine a school's use of metrics, IT/IS administration, application support, lab and classroom scheduling, desktop support, mobile device support, budget responsibilities, digital signage, research support, classroom and instructional support, event support, infrastructure management, etc. Essentially, the process is to establish the scope, build a team, go through a discovery process which includes initial exchanges of information (strategic plans, org charts, etc.) and then an onsite visit. It is very similar to the assessment process BUT, results are not shared with AACSB nor anyone else, unless you say it is ok.

The last tidbit that I thought was important was a brief discussion about building a new building. Make sure you have somebody, if not multiple somebodies that support technology on campus heavily involved in the approval process of a new building. Once the walls are up, construction is done. But, technology changes so fast that any new construction needs to be built with the idea that the technology infrastructure can be easily updated and implemented in a way that maximizes the value of future technologies with minimal impact on building renovation in the future.

Plenary I – Daring Leadership: The Four Pillars of Courage

Dr. Brown talked about "the four pillars of courage" and the role that vulnerabilities play with respect to courage. The author of several books, Dr. Brown related vulnerabilities to courage in an entertaining and unique way. She was quite clear that she is referring to social vulnerability as opposed to other types of vulnerabilities such as system vulnerabilities.The four pillars of courage are vulnerabilities, clarity of values, trust, and rising skills. Values keep you grounded and provide guidance when faced with difficult situations. Trust is needed to make deep connections and finally, rising skills, help you learn from mistakes and allow you to improve. She is far more articulate that I am. See her TedTalk by clicking on her image above.

Online Education: Challenges and New Business Models

I am some of my colleagues were a little disappointed with this session. It was not the speakers. I think we were just looking for more actionable content; things that we could take back home and implement in order to improve our online programs and courses. Rather, this session was more focused on some of the social ramifications that online education enables and causes.

Plenary II: Culture and Customers
This session was interesting. Presented by Aylwin B. Lewis, President and CEO of Potbelly Sandwiches. He gave a very cool talk about how he has tried to developed a diversified, values based leadership team at Potbelly Sandwiches and tie that to a corporate strategy that resonates all the way down to local employees at their stores. This guy is inspirational and if you get the chance to see him speak, take the time. It is worth it. 

Documenting Faculty Contributions in Engagement, Innovation, and Impact

Now, this was the best session so far in terms of identifying actionable content that we could take back and do something with. The session began by briefly identifying engagement, impact, and innovation as "defined" by AACSB. But, as noted in this brief discussion, their definitions are purposefully vague enough so as to allow schools to more operationally define them within the context of the mission and values of your particular school. So, a brief discussion among the audience ensued to define the each term as "we" understood them. Then, each speaker proceeded to provide sample definitions from their respective institutions and then provided sample examples of artifacts for each term. These definitions and metrics were developed This, I felt was particularly valuable. Both presentations can be found in the AACSB Exchange and are each worth looking through for those examples. but, briefly, one of the examples was about teaching effectiveness (AACSB Standard 12). They use peer evaluations, student scores on standardized tests, etc as metrics with which to assess teaching effectiveness. Then, in the specific example they provided, they have each faculty member document their performance on each of those metrics. They do this annually and require it as part of their qualification for merit raises. This session was pretty darn good. Take a look at those slides. Well worth it.

Leveraging the New AACSB Brand
This was more of a housekeeping session. It was somewhat relevant though. AACSB is making a strong push to make their "brand" more recognizable to potential students and businesses. Part of that includes not only new logos but also a logo for AACSB Members who are not necessarily accredited. This impacts us as we are members working towards accreditation. What this means is that we can start using their member logo to let our students know that we are members of AACSB and start to tell them our "story".

Plenary III – Brace for Impact

This was another interesting session. The speaker was Margaret Heffernan. She too has a TedTalk that has gone somewhat viral. Actually, she has several. But, this one was about her book, Willful Blindness. She painted a picture of a world not only full of problems but also full of opportunity. Perhaps one of the things that stuck out most to me was her description that business leaders are better educated, have more resources, and access to more information than they have ever had in human history and yet, mistakes continue to get bigger and more impactful than ever before. Part of this, she argued, has to do with willful blindness in which people simply do not want to take the risk of speaking up for fear of somehow being ostracized. Relating it to Ms. Brown's earlier talk, she reiterated the necessity for courage and for people to be willing to take chances, even when the outcome is uncertain.

Defining and Measuring Impact

This was my final session. It was one of the best which was nice, leaving on a good note. The two speakers first related AACSB definition of 'impact'. Impact is about making a difference, having a strong effect, about change that can be attributed to a particular action, etc. While the standard provides a list of examples of impact, the speakers explained that you neither have to provide examples of all of their list not are you limited to there list. But, the speakers also noted that the AACSB's definition is purposefully vague as it is really up to individual schools to define what impact means to them. To that end, they stressed relating impact to your mission statement. Look for impact as it relates to the important issues you've identified in your mission statement. Talk to stakeholders such as students, alumni, businesses, etc to determine what they think impact means and how the school has impact. The speakers distinguished between quality and impact, where quality might describe journal rankings, acceptance rates, etc whereas impact might be represented by research being used by external stakeholders, faculty invitations to present at conferences, citations, etc. They also stressed the need for balance and less emphasis on inputs (student profiles, organizational structure, etc) and more focus on outputs (student placement, career opportunities, number of majors graduated, etc.). As I said, this was a good session. It came with some actionable things we could take back and use to improve what we do.

All in all, this was a pretty good conference. We got to spend some time connecting, learn a few things, and get away from the office for a bit. And, as I understand it, my office is still there. I have volunteered to attend next year's ICAM. But, I think my Dean is on to me...it's in Hawaii;)