ABS ER Group Meeting 2012. Educational Partnerships & the Case of Central & Eastern Europe

1. ABS ER Group Meeting 2012. Educational Partnerships & the Case of Central & Eastern Europe Simon Mercado, Associate Dean, Nottingham Business School With acknowledgement to: John Leopold (NUBS), Emil Helienek (NBS).

2. Partnering in Management Education

3. Partnering in management education • FACTS: • 1. Most institutions regard international collaboration with fellow HEIs as a key tool for globalisation or internationalisation. • 2. International agencies, research councils, and accreditation bodies actively promote, fund or sponsor international partnering. • 3. Effective cross-border partnerships benefit the sector, its institutions and stakeholders. • 4. The quality, character and value of our international ties are integral to our institutional experiences and identities. • 5. Partnership agreements are fundamental to commercial activity and to international trade in higher education services (next slide)

4. Main Categories of International Trade in Higher Education (GATS) • Cross Border Supply Includes any type of course provided cross border through distance education or online. • distance education • e-learning • virtual universities • Commercial presence Foreign universities, institutions or investors establish direct or indirect presence in another country for purpose of supply of service • branch or satellite campuses • franchising arrangements • Consumption Abroad Supply of educational service to individuals who become ‘mobile’ before consumption of service abroad • Study abroad • Presence of natural persons People to move between countries to provide educational services on an essentially temporary basis • Flying faculty arrangements • professors, teachers, researchers working abroad

5. Joining Forces: the HE sector • Perceived benefits include: • knowledge gains and transfers • benchmarking opportunities • access to partner resources and skills • operational and experiential benefits (for staff & students) • enhanced capability/marketability (for graduates) • market extension/reach • increased revenues • access to funding • economies of scale/cost sharing • brand enhancement/joint branding opportunities • (local) market intelligence

6. Partnership concentrations - a tentative typology TNE CURRICULA/MOBILITY RESEARCH FACULTY

7. Partnering in management education In practice the HE scene presents a mix of partnership examples: ‘strategic’ partnerships/collaborations (which exist in service of specific institutional goals, strategic aims or interest). By extension, strategic partnerships may be: ‘Nodal’ (Stand-alone) ‘Bi-Nodal’ ‘Multi-Nodal’ (Comprehensive) Naturally, certain partnerships may be deemed to be core or priority, very often those multi-nodal links that serve a more developed internationalisation agenda. Greater strategic value is likely to apply where objectives focus simultaneously or comprehensively on a spread of institutional, research, mobility, and curricula based interests (Hudzik, 2010)

8. and the rest… • Of course, for many of us at least, there may be a range of partnerships within our portfolio that might not be of strategic value or purpose and which may in fact be damaging to brand or strategy.These may include: • Skeletons • Paper Aeroplanes • Mules • Skunks & • Lettuces • These may be legacy arrangements, a product of displaced or outmoded strategies, or simply the product of uncoordinated/ad hoc internationalisation processes.

9. Your Existing Partnerships • Know what you have and why you have it. • Measure and profile the benefits tied to your partnerships • Think in terms of a partnerships portfolio. • Define major platforms for partnership and potential linkages. • Establish hierarchies or networks as appropriate. • Define evaluation criteria for each major category. • Focus on strategic partnering and on building strategically aligned partnerships that: ‘have a purpose, value and fit with the mission, vision and strategy of your institution and ‘offer you assets and opportunities available only through engagement’

10. The NBS Case

11. Comprehensive Multi Platform Cross Platform (Multi-Focus) Validation Curriculum Exchange/Mobility Recruitment/ Access Research EDP Twin Platform (Twin Focus) STA ART ERAS EXC RPA RDA OS JD DD Franchise Joint Degree Double Degree Erasmus/LLP Int. Exchange Study Abroad Articulation Research Project Research Degree Single Platform (Single Focus) Exemplars Educational partnerships across four key platforms…

12. …hierarchically ordered

13. Focus & Priorities • Delegated provision • Franchises • Low-level of academic control • Reputational risk • Partner controlled recruitment • Poor financial return @ 10-30% of UKRP (FRA) 01-10% of UKRP (DEL) • Joint Research • Exchange/Mobility Links • Joint/Double Degrees • Direct Delivery (off-shore) • Articulation • High-level of academic control coupled with brand benefits • Partnership model recruitment • Good financial return @ 25-50% UKRP (JD/DD) 75-100% UKRP (Direct)

14. Imaging the network (EAIE, 2011)

15. Partnership Evaluation/Benefits – The 6Rs • Systematic Examination of prospective partnerships in relation to the 6Rs: • Reputation(R1)- encouraging measurement of association benefits linked to partner institution’s positioning, portfolio, status and ranking. • Revenue (R2)– encouraging measurement of fiscal or monetary benefits, both direct and indirect. • Risk(R3)– the extent to which a partnership exposes the institution tosome combination of political, security, financial and legal risk. • Reach(R4)– the extent to which a partnership either reinforces market presence or takes the institution into (new) target markets or territory. • Resource(R5) – encouraging measurement of resource demands and/or the extent to which the partnership provides access to complementary resources. • Research(R6)– the extent to which a partnership delivers research benefits or provides a platform for research links and knowledge exchange.

17. Portfolio Evaluation by R1/R4 Assessment Low-priority market Mid-priority market High priority market High REPUTATIONAL BENEFITS Partnership Category: Exchange (mobility) 5* 4* 3* 2* 1* 0* Links under review Terminated links Low High REACH BENEFITS

18. R6 Visualisation Tool reputation revenue risk (avoidance) 0 = low/negative 5 = high/positive research reach Small double degree project with high-standing institutional partner in mature, low-risk market with high QA. Faculty developing joint teaching and research. De minimus indicators resource

19. R6 Visualisation Tool reputation revenue risk (avoidance) 0 = low/negative 5 = high/positive relevance reach Profitable franchise with emerging private university in ‘new’ (low/mid risk) market for parent university. De minimus indicators resource

20. The Case of Central & Eastern Europe

21. NBS and CEE Partnerships

22. Management Education & HE - CEE • Last twenty years characterised by: • rapid liberalisation and development of sector • the influence of Bologna and growth in international cooperation • restructuring of academic systems (market & EHEA adjustments) • progressive recognition of foreign degrees • slow emergence of private sector • increasing number of incoming international students • rise of regional co-operation (CEEMAN) & regional accreditation • emergence of local world class providers • IEDC (Slovenia); Kozminski (Poland); CEU BS (Budapest) + • 2 EQUIS/ 12 EPAS Management Schools within region • QS Europe Top 50 list 2012 (MBA Rankings) 3 CEE Schools – CEU, Corvinus, Warsaw

23. The co-operation cycle • Arguably three key periods in terms of relations with foreign HEIs: • Post-reform period based on knowledge transfer (PHARE/TACIS +) • Post-Bologna period (Internationalisation push combined with major structural reforms) • Post-accession period (Characterised by new BoP, accreditations and rankings gains)

24. Working with CEE partners- some complicating variables and tendencies • PD often based on heritage * • PD often ad hoc * • Pattern of copying programs from more experienced Western counterparts * • Institutional goal often to satisfy professors * • Same teaching methods across the board * • Difficult and bureaucratic approval processes • Hierarchical decision-making processes • Need for top-level engagements • Internal University politics presents risk • Relatively new and variable QA systems • Subsidised fee structures (public sector) * Virginijus Kundrotas President of BMDA – Baltic Management Development Association / CEEMAN Vice President

25. Working with CEE partners- some enabling factors • Strong partnership orientation • Relatively low psychic distance • Academic discipline and quality (in stronger institutions) • Student quality • Faculty quality and proactivity • Expertise in accessing/securing funding • Booming private sector • Willingness to adopt UK QA practices • Scope and appetite for depth in partnerships • Lack of recognition of some degrees (MBA/Top-Ups) = opportunity • Strong business community and burgeoning market for MD

26. Stories & Conversation