From:
A.R.Plath@open.ac.uk [mailto:
A.R.Plath@open.ac.uk]
Chris,
I've worked for a couple of institutions that have had single company
programs, and, as you might guess, the answers to your questions all
include
the phrase: 'It all depends' in them. (Now doesn't that sound like
something I'd say to a group of students!)
First, a number of questions need to be asked about the motive, design
and
delivery of such programs. A few of these questions are below:
What are the motives of the institution for going into what we call
'tailored company programs?
Are they simply to 'sell more product'? Or are they somewhat more
complex,
taking into account the opportunities for mutual learning that can come
from
such a venture. This type of program can have added benefits to an
institution in terms of opportunities for research - placement for
students,
and enhancing the reputation for relevance among the business community.
For faculty it can bring real rewards in terms of a deep and rich
understanding of a single organisation; something that we rarely gain
such
access to.
What are the motives of the 'firm' in seeking such a tie up with a
single
institution?
See above about joint learning opportunities, but also, one has to think
that companies want the best quality relevant education for their
employees.
Now what is 'best' is a complex question. Who is to decide? Me, an
experienced educator with years of experience with a whole range of
students, or You, an experienced manager with years of experience within
a
given company. Both of us, I would argue are myopic, and so, an open
spirit
of inquiry into what is best should result in a true dialogue among
corporate sponsor and institution.
Who Calls the Shots?
Now I get down to the 'nitty - gritty' of the problems that I've seen.
Every good teacher I know is interested in collaboration with his or her
students around learning. But too often the tie up between a company
and an
institution can become adversarial rather than collaborative. This is
because sometimes (too often I think) one or the other of the corporate
partners seems to gain the 'upper hand' in the deal. Students can then
get
squeezed by the power dynamics that go on between the two main players,
and
get completely ignored in the politics that get played. My own
experience
is that this happens when either the seller wants the money so badly
that
they'll do anything to get the business, or when the buyer comes to the
table with very little idea of what they really need from the
partnership.
(Note here that I stress the word partnership quite strongly. I have
worked
extensively with two major programs with global companies; one that
worked,
one that was less of a success. The key difference between the two: the
extent to which the partnership was collaborative.
How deeply are the staff of the institution and the line management of
the
company involved in and committed to the project?
This should seem self evident, for without this commitment from all
sides;
the poor student again gets squeezed.
Have costs (both money and other resources like staff) been accurately
identified and included in the agreements.
For both sides this is important. For the seller, it is all too easy to
over trade, to make commitments that can't be met with current staff
resources, and then to fail to take the extra cost of more staff into
account. Don't forget there are increased 'relationship' costs in any
partnership, and these must be paid for. On the company side, there are
not
only the costs of the program, but also of time off work, selection of
members, support, down time on key projects, travel time, etc. etc. etc.
There are many other question, but I don't want to make this too long,
so
I'll stop now, and respond directly to a couple of your questions. They
key
point that I'm trying to make here is that like any other joint venture,
a
tailored company program is a partnership, not a buyer - seller kind of
arrangement. If the institution or company forgets this, it is more
likely
to be less beneficial.
1) I strongly prefer an MBA classroom with most of the students
having
good work experience, and currently working. The learning from
the
diversity of classmates including competitors) is of great value
to
me.
What happens when they are all from the same company or
industry?
Students will still learn from each other because they are often from
different functions within the company. Lessons that come from cross
industry comparison need to be considered by the instructor, and made
more
explicit. Give you students credit for an ability to synthesise from
case
studies and readings. In many ways, a single company program can prove
to
be even more rich than mult i- company groups because of the fact that
the
students come to understand that what they once saw as 'the company way'
is
not so common. Moreover, they can be quite critical of their employer,
and
of the material, and this leads to a very interesting dialectic in the
groups. In the end, I find that the main benefit of single company
programs
is the fact that students make clearer links to the relevance of the
material to their own work. This helps me to learn also.
2) I prefer to teach for the future of the students, and fear
sponsoring companies with a shorter time horizon. Has anyone
had a
conflict with the sponsor about what should be covered?
Yes, but conflict isn't always bad. There needs to be a dynamic tension
between what we know and what they know, and a collaboration based on a
good
partnership (easier to say than to do) should lead to a far better and
more
relevant student experience.
3) What happens to students who change jobs, change companies,
etc.
It
seems that most of my students have at least one job change
during
their
attendance for the MBA. If I have a company specific program
for
one
company, what happens to the student who joins the competitor?
So far in both projects, this has not been a problem. But then we are
in
Europe where this situation is not so common. Folks seem to stay with
their
employers throughout the program. For those that leave, I can only
suggest
that they be offered a place on an 'open' enrolment equivalent of the
course. I would note that students who are properly selected and
supported
by their employer often see the program as a reason to stay on.
And, educationally, what's good about a program that draws its
entire
class from the same company and location?
. See above.
By the way, I'm not saying that these things always work. The
'success' rate I've seen is roughly 50%. Again, the key difference is
in
seeing these projects as 'educational joint ventures' in which both
partners
pay serious attention to helping each other to provide the 'best' (by
whatever definition) quality of education for the students.