Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Michel Kalika, Debra Leighton,BSIS - January 2021
efmdglobal .org/bsisbsis@efmdglobal .org IMPACT
The Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis
on Business Schools
In collaboration with survey software:
2
The Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis
on Business Schools
Michel Kalika, Debra Leighton,BSIS - January 2021
3
Executive Summary
Introduction
1. The impact of the COVID-19 crisis on business schools
2. Evolution of the main markers during the COVID-19 crisis (5)
3. Key internal challenges in the immediate future
4. Key external challenges in the immediate future
5. Scenarios
6. For the future of your school, frankly speaking, how optimistic do you feel?
7. Cluster analysis
8. Conclusion
9. Methodology
CONTENTS
4
6
9
11
13
15
21
22
25
28
5
4
The BSIS Impact Survey was undertaken between October and November to learn about the challenges which business schools face across the world as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey seeks to build a picture of the impact of the pandemic, how the sector is responding to these unprecedented challenges, and how business schools see the future.
The pandemic’s most significant impact to date has been a financial one, with a drop in student numbers and employability
opportunities, and increasing pressure on student fees. The move to remote learning has presented an immediate challenge with a need for
investment in technology and staff capability in order to meet student expectations of a remote learning environment. International student
recruitment and student mobility are key external challenges for business schools, together with central government Higher Education (HE) policies. In
terms of future scenarios, the business schools in the survey recognised the urgent need to change their business models as disruptive change is becoming a feature
of their working environment. They believe it is increasingly important to demonstrate the impact which business schools make on the world around them, along with the need to engage
in more widespread collaboration. There is an overwhelming belief that schools will work to regenerate themselves and the economy. The data generated by the survey will be used to inform and further develop the Business School Impact System (BSIS) tool, both enhancing the assessment of schools undertaking BSIS, and also to develop the programme of BSIS events and activities including the forthcoming webinar ‘Demonstrating Impact: Exploring how business schools can demonstrate their impact on the world around them’ as well as the upcoming online symposium.
Executive Summary
5
As we all realise, the global COVID-19 crisis is unpredictable both in terms of its social and economic consequences. Of course, like private and public organisations, business schools all over the world have to face this crisis. If the expected consequences were not so dramatic in humanitarian terms, we could draw on this “real case” with our students in our courses to think about crisis management!
The question of the impact of the crisis on business schools is certainly tricky, both in the long and short term. How can schools manage their activities if lockdown is in place? What long-term impact will this crisis have on the activities of business schools across the world?
For this reason, the EFMD’s business school Impact System (BSIS) team believe it is important to think about the impact of the crisis on business schools who in turn have a mission to focus on their impact on the environment and their stakeholders.
To better understand what impact the crisis has on business schools, EFMD launched a survey of deans tackling three main topics:
1- What impact has the COVID-19 crisis had on business schools?
2- What are the key internal and external challenges in the immediate future?
3- What are the scenarios for the future?
The survey was completed online between October and November 2020, and over one hundred deans responded. All the statistical analysis has been
produced in partnership with Le Sphinx.
Introduction
6
1.1. Evolution of global impact during the crisis
The first series of questions in the survey concerns the impact of the COVID-19 crisis so far. Respondents were first asked about the evolution of the global impact of the business school during the crisis. 49% of the respondents consider that it remained the same, 30% believed it has increased, and 21% responded that it has decreased.
The only significant difference between the schools is based on their geographical region: in Europe, the percentage who believe that the impact has increased is significantly lower than elsewhere (17% instead of 30%, on
average).
The global impact has
1. The impact of the COVID-19 crisis on business schools
1.2. Evolution of the different dimensions of impact during the crisis
Business schools were then asked to distinguish the impact of the crisis according to the seven dimensions of the business school Impact System (BSIS) tool. That is to say, they gave their opinion of the financial impact (budget of the business school and students’ expenditures), educational impact (recruitment, employability), economic and business development impact (student internships, new business creation), intellectual impact (research), impact on the ecosystem, societal impact, and, finally, image impact.
DECREASED REMAINED THE SAME INCREASED
7
In terms of finance, 44% of schools indicate that their financial impact has decreased, and this percentage is higher for private business schools (55%) than for public ones (35%). Public funding appears to have been more stable than private, particularly in relation to student fees and executive education revenue. As for the educational impact, 43% of schools believe it has remained the same while 29% say it has decreased, and 28% that it has increased. Thus, only 29% of business schools consider that the crisis has negatively influenced their educational impact, although the percentage is 39% for private institutions, and only 21% for public schools.
Respondents suggested that their business development impact (internships, short missions at companies, projects, and consulting activities) has mostly decreased, with 50% of schools reporting a fall. Lockdowns around the world have meant that many companies have been unable to offer students internships and on-site projects that would typically form part of the curriculum.
The intellectual impact remained the same for the majority of respondents (50%), while it increased for 32%. This is due to the fact that the lockdown, travel restrictions, and working from home has provided faculty with more time to undertake research. A slight difference appears with regard to the status of a business school, with a greater increase seen in private schools (39%) than in public ones (27%).
The regional ecosystem and societal impacts are considered to have remained stable (42%) or increased (35% for ecosystem and 38% for the societal impact). This demonstrates that over a third of business schools have taken the opportunity to be more active in their region and to launch CSR actions in response to the crisis. We have examples of business schools that have been very active in helping their students and communities who faced difficulties during the pandemic.
The image impact is said to have remained the same by the majority of schools (53%) and to have increased by 41% of them. The reported increase can be explained by the fact that numerous business schools have communicated very actively during the crisis, on social networks, or by publishing videos or reports about their actions and responses to the pandemic.
SEVEN DIMENSIONS
8
In terms of the impact zone – that is to say, the geographical zone where the business school creates an impact – 60% consider it not to have changed, but 29% of schools confirmed that their impact zone has increased due to the crisis. One of the reasons for this phenomenon is the shift to online courses and remote activities. This has enabled some business schools to extend their impact zone to reach more dispersed stakeholder groups. The effect of the pandemic and higher utilisation of technology means that schools may need to redefine their impact zones.
Your impact zone has
The Financial Impact (this includes your budget and expenditure in the impact zone, together with that of students, faculty and
other stakeholders) has
The Educational Impact (this includes student recruitment, employability and executive education) has
The Economic & Business Development Impact (this includes new business creation, student internships, consultancy and
placements) has
The Intellectual Impact (this includes publications, knowledge transfer, public lectures and conferences) has
The Impact within the Regional Ecosystem (this includes the roles of faculty and students in the community, in professional
associations, public bodies & partnerships) has
The Societal Impact (this includes CSR, sustainable development, equality and diversity) has
The Image Impact (this includes your local, national and international image) has
DECREASED REMAINED THE SAME INCREASED
DECREASED REMAINED THE SAME INCREASED
Impact dimensions
9
Revenue decreased at 43% of the schools, stayed the same for 32%, and increased for 25%. This drop reflects the consequences of the suspension of numerous Executive Education projects together with a fall in international student recruitment. The number of students has increased in 43% of responding business schools, while staying stable in 31% and decreasing in 29%. This mixed picture merits further scrutiny. The increase may be due to companies deciding to offer development opportunities for their staff as an alternative to terminating their employment, and as a way of sponsoring projects that might support post-pandemic recovery. The uptake in business education is often countercyclical. Students themselves may choose to study rather than face unemployment as graduate labour markets shrink and opportunities recede. In contrast, for the 29% of schools who have experienced a fall in student numbers, this may be due to companies deciding not to sponsor students, or to instead provide projects or offer their own staff development opportunities through short courses or Executive Education. Confusion regarding university entrance examinations during the summer presented entry barrier problems for new applicants, who have also faced travel restrictions, concerns about safety in different countries/regions and doubts about their student experience both on and off-campus. The number of Executive Education students has decreased for 46% of the sample. Since the beginning of the pandemic, a large number of companies have decided to suspend or postpone their Executive Education programmes. This is most likely because of a combination of the need to have managers available to deal with the current business challenges of the pandemic and an unwillingness amongst managers to undertake yet more remote working by participating in blended or online Executive Education offers. Many companies have been also hit financially, which made them less able to afford the programmes. This decrease is larger in private schools (59%) The pressure on student fees has increased in nearly half of the schools (49%). This figure is huge and may be explained by the fact that students believe that the course fees they have paid are appropriate for face-to-face teaching, but that the blended- and distance-learning programmes they are actually receiving should have a lower fee.
2. Evolution of the main markers during the COVID-19 crisis (5)
10
The unanticipated investment in IT systems and associated infrastructure is not recognised by students. The pressure on student fees is more significant in the US (65%) than in other parts of the world.
Student employability has decreased for 54% of business schools. This high percentage may be a result of a fall in the number of start-ups and spin-outs from business schools, together with a pause in graduate and postgraduate recruitment to posts associated with industry projects and collaborations. This may, in turn, call into question the business model of those schools which recruit students on the basis of guaranteed employment.
DECREASED REMAINED THE SAME INCREASED
Do you think that during the COVID-19 crisis:
The revenue of your business school has
The number of students has
The number of Executive Education students has
The pressure on student fees has
Student employability (paid and unpaid) has
11
Deans were asked about what they perceived to be the key internal challenges in the immediate future; 12 options were proposed, and for each option, a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 7 (very important) was applied. For the analysis, the responses to the questions were allocated to three groups: low importance (1 to 3), moderately important (4 & 5), very important (6 & 7). Mean scores were calculated for each item, and these vary from 3.8 to 6.1.
3.1. The first group of internal challenges
Three short-term priorities stand out very clearly (where % rated as important >70% and mean score >6) : 1. meeting student expectations of a remote learning environment; 2. alignment of faculty skills to this new remote delivery; and 3. investment in technology. These three priorities are at the heart of the new remote learning system; that is to say, the students, the faculty and the link between them, the technology. Obviously these three challenges will be the key success factors for exiting the crisis.
3.2. The second group of internal challenges
The second group comprised three short-term priorities (where % of important was 40-60% and with a mean score of 5); these included safety on the campus, access of students without technology and loss of income. The score of loss of income is higher in the United States than for the rest of the world.
3. Key internal challenges in the immediate future
6.1
6.1
6.0
MEANInternal challenges
1-3 4-5 6-7
12
3.3. The third group of internal challenges
The third group concerns internal challenges with a majority of moderate scores (mean <5).
IIt is interesting to highlight the absence of significant differences between business schools. That could mean that business schools are quite homogenous with regards to facing these same challenges.
5.6
5.1
5.1
MEAN
4.7
4.4
4.4
MEAN
4.3
3.8
Internal challenges
Internal challenges
Meeting faculty expectations of flexible working
Staff recruitment and development appropriate to the post-COVID environment
Relevance of reward and recognition policies
Recruitment policies for lecturers & researchers (physical relocation may not be an issue anymore)
Equality and diversity issues amongst faculty
Maintenance of a safe on-campus working environment
Access and inclusion for students with little or no access to learning technologies
Loss of income
1-3 4-5 6-7
1-3 4-5 6-7
13
As with internal challenges, deans were asked to consider the key external challenges they are facing in the immediate future. Nine options were offered, and for each of them a scale was applied, ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 7 (very important). For the analysis, the responses to the questions were allocated to three groups: low importance (1 to 3), moderately important (4 & 5), very important (6 & 7). Mean scores were calculated for each item, and this showed that there is more consensus for external challenges than for internal challenges, with mean scores only in the range of 4.6 to 5.9.
The most significant external challenge for the immediate future is considered to be international student recruitment and mobility, with 70% of respondents viewing this as very important, with a mean score of 5.9. As well as travel restrictions
and quarantine requirements, this attitude is likely to reflect perceptions of safety and risk associated with an overseas study as well as the loss of income from premium international student fees, summer schools, international exchange and
placement and internship opportunities.
4. Key external challenges in the immediate future
1-3 4-5 6-7
External challenges
International student recruitment & mobility
Central Government policy on HE
COVID-19 virus management and monitoring at central, regional and local
level
Partnerships and collaborations between HE providers and with businesses
External funding opportunities
Enterprise and employability strategies (local, regional and national)
Shift in research culture toward impact focused research
New areas of quality assurance, new standards for ranking
Local and regional government policy on HE
14
Central government policy on HE is seen as the second-most significant challenge, with 53% of respondents believing that this would be very important and a further 36% that it would remain important.
The challenge of COVID-19 virus management and monitoring at the central, regional and local level is seen as very important by 49% of respondents, although this is perhaps the fastest-moving aspect of the survey given ongoing shifts in approaches to virus management across the world as we experience the second wave of the virus and a potential third wave is predicted. Responses may be predicated on the efficacy of track and trace systems, centralised vs devolved strategies for virus monitoring, and the operational and logistical management of the COVID-safe campus.
Partnerships and collaborations between HE providers and business are seen as a very important challenge by 46% of respondents, while a further 43% believe them to be a quite important challenge. These responses are similar to those for attitudes to enterprise and employability strategies (local, regional and national), with 42% responding that these were very important and 45% rating them as quite important challenges.
47% of respondents consider external funding opportunities to be a very important challenge, with a further 41% considering these to be quite important. When taken alongside responses to question number two earlier in the survey, this is consistent with 43% of respondents stating that the revenue of their business school has decreased.
40% of respondents see the shift in research culture towards impact-focused research as a very important challenge. This may be linked with the above response relating to the challenge of external funding opportunities, with the need to evidence impact seen as a potential route to securing research income.
36% of respondents see new areas of quality assurance and new standards for ranking as a very important challenge, with a further 40% rating these as a quite important challenge. Responses may reflect the move to online and blended teaching delivery and the need for new standards to reflect digital quality more specifically.
Finally, only 32% of schools consider local and regional government policy on HE to be a very important challenge. This stands in marked contrast to the 53% who consider central government policy on HE to be very important, however 45% of survey respondents are private business schools, for whom local and regional policy may be less significant.
15
Deans were asked to consider a list of potential future scenarios comprising 26 items to be rated on a scale from 1 (highly unlikely) to 7 (highly likely). Mean scores were calculated for each item and vary from 2.6 to 5.9. For the purpose of analysis, the results have been placed into two groups. The first is items rated the most likely and the second the least likely. The group of most likely items have a mean score of between 5.1 -5.9:
5. Scenarios
5.9
5.8
5.6
MEAN
5.6
5.5
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.1
5.1
5.1
1-3 4-5 6-7
For the future, what scenarios seem likely to you?Best itemsBusiness schools will need to reconsider their business model
Demonstrating the impact of business schools will become increasingly important
Mass introduction of digital & remote teaching
New business models will lead to disruptive change
International student recruitment will be a major challenge
Competition between business schools will become stronger
Business schools will be more responsive to local, regional and national agendas
Business schools will collaborate more across industries, with private and public stakeholders
Business schools will do different things differently
Business schools will work to regenerate themselves and the economy
Some business schools will disappear
Radical change in programme design and content toward green teaching and sustainable development
Business schools will reconsider their impact zone (geographic, virtual and physical)
16
The most striking response to future scenarios is the need for business schools to reconsider their business models, with 73% of respondents believing this is highly likely, 22% believing it is likely and only 4% believing it would be highly unlikely. A mean score of 5.9 reinforces this overwhelming view.
Closely behind this response is a further overwhelming view (mean score of 5.8) that demonstrating the impact of business schools is highly likely to be increasingly important, as indicated by 66% of respondents, and as likely by a further 27%. This is despite only 29% of the sample schools holding BSIS recognition, although those that hold EQUIS (EFMD Quality Improvement System) accreditation, the EFMD Accredited (EFMD Programme Accreditation System) label or AACSB accreditation will be strongly aware of the need to measure and demonstrate their impact.
The mass introduction of digital and remote teaching is seen as highly likely or likely by over 90% of respondents. This is in line with the rapid move to alternative delivery modes, investment in new learning platforms and mobile-first technologies and the realignment of staff skills and experience to address this need.
The introduction of new business models is highly likely to lead to disruptive change according to 60% of respondents, whilst a further 32% believe it to be likely. The mean score for this response is 5.6.
57% of respondents believe that international student recruitment will continue to prove challenging, although this scenario varies according to the type of school and region, as some responding schools are less reliant on overseas students than others. With a mean score of 5.5, there has to be a strong likelihood that the international student recruitment market will be volatile for some time yet.
Nine out of ten respondents believe that competition between business schools will become stronger, with 53% believing this is highly likely and 38% that it is likely. Whilst this may not necessarily result in the disappearance of some business schools, 52% see it as a highly likely scenario, 29% as likely and 19% as unlikely. A mean score of 5.1 reflects this difference of opinion.
17
There is a strong sense from half of the respondents that business schools are highly likely to become more responsive to local, regional and national agendas, and a further 39% believe it to be likely. This is good news
and bodes well for the future resilience and sustainability of business schools and their impact on the world around them.
In line with business schools responding to external agenda, more industry collaboration with stakeholders from the private and public sectors is viewed as highly likely by 48% of respondents
and likely by 43%. The mean score of 5.3 confirms that collaboration is seen as desirable or even essential in the post-COVID environment.
Almost 90% of respondents believe that business schools are likely or highly likely to do different things differently; in other words, they will diversify their current activities and do things in a different way. This suggests that the changes that have occurred as a result of the pandemic have indeed proved disruptive.
Over 90% of respondents believe that business schools will work to regenerate themselves and the economy. This is another very positive perception and reflects an overriding optimism regarding the future direction of the sector.
Radical shifts in programme design and content toward green teaching and sustainable development are viewed as highly likely by 38% and likely by a further 51%. This may be attributed to
a closer focus on CSR and sustainable development goals. Also, over half of the survey respondents are PRME signatories and will therefore be more alert to these opportunities.
Finally, 45% of respondents believe that business schools are highly likely to reconsider their impact zone, 44% suggest that this is likely and only 11% that this is unlikely. This is consistent with the refocusing
and resetting of business school models, and the sense that they will become more global in outlook and more responsive to local, regional and national agendas.
18
The standout response in terms of least likely scenarios is that everything will be as before, with a mean score of 2.6. 74% of respondents view this continuity as highly unlikely and a further 18% as likely, with only 8% believing it to be highly likely. Clearly, there is overwhelming agreement that the world in which business schools operate has changed irreversibly.
2.6
3.7
3.7
MEAN
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.8
5.0
1-3 4-5 6-7
5.1
Weakest items For the future, what scenarios seem likely to you?
Next, the least likely or weakest items are presented, with mean scores in this group ranging from 2.6- 5.1:
Everything will be as before, with minor changes
Undergraduate student recruitment will be a major challenge
Certificates of learning will have the same value as degree programmes
Postgraduate student recruitment will be a major challenge
More distance teaching, but the rest stays the same
Business shools will do the same things differently
Collaboration between business schools will become stronger
Business schools will become more global in outlook
Business shools will become more international
New entrants e.g. GAFA will become significant within the HE sector
Major changes in curricula, courses and programmes
Business schools will become more resilient
Business schools will implement more interdisciplinary research and teaching
19
In terms of student recruitment, postgraduate student recruitment is seen as being likely to be more of a challenge than undergraduate, with almost 70% of respondents believing that postgraduate recruitment is likely or highly likely to present a challenge whilst just over half of respondents believed that undergraduate recruitment would be likely or highly likely to do so. This may be a consequence of the student employability issues discussed earlier in the report, whereby entry to a programme linked with an industry project, placement or even an employment opportunity becomes unattractive without the participation of employers.
There seems to be confidence in the value of degree programmes for the immediate future. Certificates of learning are not viewed as especially likely to have the same value as degree programmes, with almost half of respondents believing this to be unlikely or highly unlikely. This is very interesting in view of the growing importance and discussion about micro-credentials.
The presence of more distance teaching with things otherwise staying the same was seen as a highly unlikely scenario by 26% of respondents. In other words, the expectation is that there will be changes well beyond the delivery of remote teaching.
This is consistent with the view of how business schools do things. Only 23% of respondents believe it will be highly unlikely for business schools to do the same things differently. This is in contrast to the response to the earlier ‘highest rated’ item ‘business schools will do different things differently’ which only 13% believe to be highly unlikely. This suggests that the changes which have occurred have indeed proved disruptive and that diversifying business models and approaches will be essential to sustainability.
In terms of the entire business education sector, the collaboration between business schools is likely to become stronger, with 34% of respondents believing this to be highly likely and 42% seeing it as likely. This response may link with the aspect of new market entrants, which 28% of respondents see as highly likely to become more significant within the HE sector, while a further 58% believe it likely that they will. Some of the new market entrants may take the form of partners or even merged or hybrid business schools. These new configurations of current schools may mean that they are able to compete more effectively.
collaboration between business schools is likely to become stronger
20
Finally, the deans were asked to rate their optimism for the future on a scale from 1 (highly pessimistic) to 7 (highly optimistic). It should be noted that 90% of the respondents’ answers fell above the mean (4) and that 60% were on the two extreme high notes of the scale. We can therefore conclude that even if the crisis is considered as serious and challenging, a very large majority think that the current situation does not call their activity and their optimism into question.
6. Future
Similarly, business schools may become more global in outlook with 29% of respondents believing this to be highly likely and a further 50% likely. A later question on whether business schools will become more international resulted in similar responses, with 36% believing increased internationalisation to be highly likely and 40% seeing it as likely. However, 21% believed that business schools are highly unlikely to become more global in outlook and 22% that they are highly unlikely to become more international. This may be because of the local focus of some schools or due to central and regional government policy, but still this is perhaps surprising statistics given the internal and external challenges discussed earlier.
In terms of major changes in curricula, courses and programmes, 18% of respondents think it unlikely but a mean score of 4.8 for this question reflects a majority view that changes are likely. Similarly, the view of 84% of respondents that business schools are likely or highly likely to implement more interdisciplinary research and teaching would suggest that curriculum change will be a feature of the post-pandemic environment.
Finally, in terms of resilience, 36% believe it is highly likely that business schools will become more resilient, and 53% believe it to be likely. The mean score of 5.1 might have been expected to be higher given the optimism expressed elsewhere in the survey. However, it probably reflects the very real challenges of loss of income and reductions in student recruitment currently being experienced by many schools.
21
The only difference between the schools in the answers is that the private schools are more optimistic (score 5.9) than the public ones (5.1).
6. For the future of your school, frankly speaking, how optimistic do you feel?
Effective responses: 114 Mean: 5.7
Response rate: 100% Standard deviation: 1.1
For the future of your school, frankly speaking, how optimistic do you feel?
22
K-means classification
7. Cluster analysis
B. Overseas 15%
C. Inclusion 13%
D. Masters 14%
E. Bachelors30%
A. Local 28%
The classification groups individuals into homogeneous classes in terms of the variables considered. The calculation is initialised randomly. The algorithm reassigns individuals to gradually improve class homogeneity.
23
Taking all the items in the survey into consideration, we see little or no correlation between the four of them.
• The image impact of the business schools which has been influenced by the crisis• The loss of income which is an important internal challenge• The alignment of faculty skills and experiences with new models of remote delivery which is a main internal challenge• The access and inclusion for students with little or no access to learning technologies which is a main internal challenge
B. Overseas 15%
C. Inclusion 13%
D. Masters 14%
E. Bachelors30%
A. Local 28%
• Access inclusion + • Image impact increase • Loss of income +• Alignment of faculty +
• Image impact increase • Loss of income +• Alignment of faculty +
• Little optimistic • Very optimistic• Master +
• International students +• International students -
• Not very optimistic • Overseas campuses• Few Master students
• Bachelor +• Americas BS
24
Group A (28%) contains business schools concerned by image impact increase, loss of income and alignment of the faculty. They have few international students and are
from the Americas region. These are characterised as Local for the purpose of developing a typology.
Group B (15%) is business schools who have overseas campuses, mainly with Bachelor students and who are not optimistic. These are characterised as Overseas.
Group C (13%) comprises business schools who are very concerned by student Inclusion and are not very optimistic. These are characterised by Inclusion.
Group D (14%) contains business schools who are concerned by the increase in image impact, who have mainly Masters students and are very optimistic.
These are characterised as Masters.
Group E (30%) groups business schools for whom the loss of income and alignment of faculty is of great concern. They have many international students and
mainly Bachelors students. These are characterised as Bachelors.
These classifications are interesting for several reasons:➢ • Whilst responses to many of the survey questions
reflect a homogeneity in the respondent base, there are key similarities and differences within the clusters that place business schools in different positions in terms of their capacity to survive the challenges and even capitalise on the opportunities presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.
• The resultant typology enables schools to locate their own position within the landscape created by the pandemic and to identify similarities and differences compared to other schools.
• The profiles of the clusters present complementary opportunities for collaboration, partnership and mergers. These can be further explored by business schools both during and after the pandemic.
25
The purpose of the survey was to build a picture of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on business schools, to consider how the sector is responding to the unprecedented challenges and how business schools see the future. The 114 responses received were reflective of the EFMD population in general in terms of geographic location, with Asia slightly underrepresented and Europe overrepresented. The findings of the survey suggest that the business school sector is more homogenous than we might expect.
How has the pandemic impacted business schools to date?
Utilising the dimensions of the Business School Impact System (BSIS) continuous improvement tool enabled a detailed assessment of impact across global financial, educational, economic and business development, and intellectual impact, impact within the regional ecosystem, as well as societal and image impact.
The most significant impacts of the crisis so far have been on business school revenue and student numbers. Almost half of the sample reported a fall in revenue, and one third have seen a decrease in student numbers. The drop in student numbers seems to have been most noticeable in executive education, with a 59% fall in private business schools. Linked with the twin issues of falling revenue and a drop in student numbers is pressure on student fees, reported by almost half of respondents and most noticeable in the US. This may reflect a perception by students that the pandemic has impacted modes of delivery, the campus environment and the co-curricular experience, with the consequent expectation that fees should be reduced accordingly. Students also recognise that employability will be problematic, with over half of schools reporting a downturn in the proportion of graduates who find employment quickly.
8. Conclusion
26
What have been the key internal challenges?
Adjusting to a remote learning environment has presented business schools with the biggest internal challenge. This has been a combination of meeting
student expectations of their new learning environment, aligning faculty skills to remote delivery and investing in the necessary technology. Not all students
have access to remote learning technologies and addressing this issue has proved challenging, together with the need to ensure a COVID-safe campus.
What have been the key external challenges?
International student recruitment and mobility have proved to be the biggest challenges, as global and regional travel restrictions and quarantine requirements have impacted student
admissions, placements, summer schools and international study visits. Government HE policy is reported as the second greatest challenge, with schools facing additional pressure due to political
uncertainty, the imposition of campus closures and specific operating requirements if they do remain open.
What are the likely future scenarios?
Given the severity of the challenges outlined above, it is striking that the future scenarios outlined by the survey respondents are characterised by a very positive and optimistic outlook. More than three-quarters of business schools expressed the need for business models to change, in response to an overwhelming view that the world has changed irrevocably. In line with this, there is a belief that new business models will lead to disruptive change, suggesting an appetite for resetting and reinventing how business schools will do business in the future.
The need to demonstrate business schools’ impact is seen as becoming increasingly important, together with the mass introduction of digital and remote teaching.
Responses suggest that business schools share an appetite for resetting and reinventing how they will do business in the future.
27
There is a recognition that schools need to be responsive to local, regional and national agendas and to collaborate more with private and public stakeholders across industries. There is a strong belief that business schools will work to regenerate themselves and the economy. Most importantly, when asked about their optimism regarding the future, more than 90% of responses were above the mean, representing an overwhelming view that new opportunities are arising from the pandemic.
How can we conceptualise these views and experiences in order to develop a typology of schools?
Five clusters of schools emerged from the analysis of responses:
A. Local, representing 28% of respondents. B. Overseas, representing 15% of respondents
C. Inclusion, representing 13% of respondents D. Masters, representing 14% of respondents
E. Bachelors, representing 30% of respondents
This typology may assist business schools in identifying similarities and differences between themselves and their competitors, including potential complementarity that may lead to increased collaboration
and partnerships.
How then can we harness this optimism regarding the future? What will new business school models look like? And how can we strengthen our infrastructure and networks to support this vision for disruptive change?
The survey has highlighted that business schools recognise and acknowledge that the world in which they have been operating has changed forever. However, schools show a clear will to do things differently, to demonstrate resilience and to reset and reinvent themselves in order to capitalise on new opportunities and to respond to the needs of local, regional and national
agendas. Measuring impact will be increasingly important if schools are to assess and evidence success.
28
The questionnaire was created by the BSIS team, co-run by EFMD Global & FNEGE. It was piloted internally and then ran online thanks to the partnership with the software company Le Sphinx.
The survey was sent on 7 October to 1300 contacts representing 941 business schools in the EFMD database and closed one month later on 12 November. The total number of respondents was 114. The distribution of the timing of answers was
as follows.
25% of the answers were obtained during the first two days. A week after the launch of the survey, relaunches were shared to different business schools by the BSIS team. Emails were sent to a total of 180 schools.
Sample presentationAll the identification variables are used to identify the significant differences between the respondents.
9. MethodologyFr
equ
ency
Dates
29
9.1 Geographical distribution
The geographical distribution of the sample is close to the population of EFMD business schools’ database set. Indeed, 53% of the respondents come from Europe, 17% from the Americas, 9% from Asia, 8% from Central Europe, 5% from Africa, 5% from the Middle East and 3% from the Oceania-Australia region. The comparison with the EFMD database
allows us to conclude that Europe is overrepresented in the answers and that Asia is underrepresented. Two considerations could explain these differences: the efficiency of the relaunch by the BSIS team on the one hand , and the lag in the pandemic
on the other.
Region Zones EFMD database
100%
Survey sample
Africa 4% 5%
Central & Eastern Europe 9% 8%
Americas = Central+North+South 18% 17%
Asia = Central+East+South 18% 9%
Europe 43% 53%
Middle East 4% 5%
Oceania-Australia 4% 3%
100%
Africa 5%
Americas 17%
Asia 9%
Central & Eastern Europe 8%
Europe 53%
Middle East 5%
Oceania-Australia 3%
30
9.2. The respondents
The link to the survey was sent to the top-level governance of business schools. The mix in respondents depends on the status of the school, in decreasing order: Deans (77%),
Director (13%), Rector, President or Vice-Dean. We can consider that the answers represent the opinion of the top governance of
the schools.
9.3. The status of the business schools
The distribution is balanced between public business schools (55% of the sample) and private business schools (45%).
Job title:
Status of the business school:PrivatePublic
DeanVice DeanRector PresidentDirector
31
9.4. The distribution of students
Among the business schools that answered the survey, 50% of the students are enrolled in Bachelor courses, 45% in Masters and 5% in DBAs/PhDs. 62% of the schools have more Bachelors students, 34% have more Masters students.
The average percentage of executive education students is 18%, and only 8% of the sample has over 50% of executive education students.
The average percentage of international students among the responding schools is 23.4%, which represents more than 30% for 24% of the sample.
% of the total in Executive Education:
% of international students:
Total number of students in your business school:
Nb of Bachelor higher than Nb of MastersNb of Bachelor equal to Nb of MastersNb of Bachelor lower than Nb of Masters
Less than 21From 21 to 5051 and over
% Bachelor% Masters% DBA PhD
Less than 16From 16 to 3031 and over
32
9.5 Accreditations and labels
In the sample, 34% of schools are EQUIS accredited, 25% EFMD Accredited (formerly, EPAS), 46% AACSB accredited, 34% AMBA accredited, 55% are PRME signatories, and 29% BSIS labelled. The comparison with the EFMD database shows an overrepresentation of EQUIS accredited schools (20% in the EFMD database), EFMD accredited programmes (10% in the
EFMD database), and BSIS labelled schools (4% in the EFMD database). The explanation could be that these schools are particularly attuned to impact issues and that they tend to be more engaged in the EFMD network.
Which accreditations do you hold: Which additional recognitions or labels do you hold:
EQUIS
EFMD Accredited
AACSB
AMBA
National Accreditation
Other
PRME
BSIS
Other
33
The EFMD management development network includes nearly 1000 institutional members from academia, business, public service, and consultancy across 92 countries worldwide. EFMD Global offers a range of services including conferences and seminars around the world, surveys and the dissemination of knowledge, quality improvement and accreditation via EQUIS, EFMD Accredited, EOCCS and CLIP, as well as the EDAF mentoring programme and BSIS impact assessment system.
Michel KalikaProfessor Michel Kalika is the Director of the BSIS (Business School Impact System) methodology he developed for FNEGE & EFMD. He is also the President of the Business Science Institute (international DBA programme) and emeritus Professor at the University Jean Moulin, iaelyon School of Management.
Debra LeightonProfessor Debra Leighton CMBE is a Senior BSIS Advisor and assessor. Formerly Executive Dean at University of Bedfordshire business school and more recently at Coventry business school, she has worked on developing and securing accreditations with EFMD for over 10 years.
EFMD Global
As a forerunner in the field of surveys and studies, Le Sphinx is your exclusive partner with an overall response to your customer research challenges: satisfaction surveys, text mining of customer reviews, customer experience platforms, etc. Its strength lies in the alliance of its powerful software solutions and the expertise of its data scientists.
Le Sphinx
About the survey authors
More information available on: https://dataviv.net/en
More information available on: www.efmdglobal.org
EFMD Global NetworkChemin du Grand Montfleury 481290 Versoix, GenevaSwitzerland
