An Analysis of Global Strategy of the Prominent Business School in the Emerging Market (China)

An Analysis of the Global Strategy of Prominent

Business Schools inan Emerging Market (China)

Word Count: 9625Participant Name: Kai DaiParticipant ID: Y590College: Pembroke CollegeAgreed Supervisor: Dr. Jin ZhangDate: 11 March 2012

1

An Analysis of the Global Strategy of Prominent Business Schools in an Emerging Market (China)

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

2. Methodology

3. Introduction

4. The EnvironmentThe Value of Education Global education Rankings Value of a Globalized / International Education Models of Globalized / International EducationOutwardInward

5. The Business of EducationGovernment Involvement in Higher Education in ChinaFunding Sources – Public vs Private?The Financial Value of GlobalizationThe Market Value of Globalization The Risks of Globalization

6. An analysis of 10 Prominent Business Schools in ChinaTen schools, Ten Paths A Comparative History The Achievement of Prominence Globalization Strategies in PlaceBenefits and Barriers in Common Markets

7. Conclusion - Identifying a Market TrendThe History of Global Education The Current Market Recommendations - The Future of Global Education

8. Bibliography

9. AppendicesAppendix A: Financial Times Global MBA Rankings 2012Appendix B: Financial Times Global EMBA Rankings 2011

Appendix C: Data Questionnaire Sample(CEIBS)

2

3

4

55689

1112

151516161717

202021212629

32323233

34

35354045

2


1. Executive Summary

Globalization in education can be defined as an institution’s expansion into international markets academically and physically so as to increase growth within the institution through the develop-ment of foreign markets and to enhance an institution’s global image in the provision of its’ own unique academic offering in these new markets.

As the owner of a number of private educational institutions in the United Kingdom, I am intently aware of market trends in Far East Asian education, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that many industry leaders are beginning to view prominent Chinese Business Schools as powerful yet unpredictable as they haven’t yet fully entered the foreign markets available to them, for reasons that are not widely understood or apparent.

This project indicates a study of the history, development and internal strategic directives for the globalization of 10 prominent business schools in China. With China considered an emerging mar-ket in the industry of education it is wise to understand and anticipate the strategic direction that this global shift is going to take and the implications it will have on other markets.

The objectives of this as my Individual Project were to explore and understand the makings of a prominent business school and thus prominent business education in China, focusing on postgradu-ate education via MBA (Masters of Business Administration) and EMBA (Executive Masters of Busi-ness Administration) programmes of note in Mainland China and Hong Kong. I aimed to understand first their history and development in a comparative analysis among these prominent institutions, and then to understand their individual globalization strategies – leading me to a comprehensive understanding of who was in position to lead an upcoming market shift in education, why and what implications this shift will have in the market of global education.

The outcome of my Individual Project on An Analysis of the Global Strategy of Prominent Business Schools in an Emerging Market (China) is a comparative report with an analysis of the strategic future of these institutions, concluding with my own recommendations toward the globalization of Chinese business education. I have found this Individual Project to be a valuable exercise in consid-ering the strategic direction of my own organization and our own further development internation-ally.

3


2. MethodologyI chose to begin this project with an overview of the environment surrounding international higher education, outlining the value of postgraduate education in business, global education rankings and common models of a globalized education. In this I input a great deal of personal experience and the experiences of a number of professionals in education that I had interviewed for their opinions and experiences, such as Managing Directors of private colleges in the United Kingdom, Pro-Vice Chan-cellors of public institutions in the United Kingdom, Xiao Zhangs (Vice Chancellors) of institutions in China, Student Recruitment Agents, Immigration specialists in the United Kingdom and America and above all, international postgraduate students themselves.

After providing an overview of the environment of international higher education I then outlined what I felt was the Business of Education, which includes an overview of the value of globalization in education.

I then identified the ten most prominent business schools in China (including Hong Kong) based on global and Chinese rankings and selected these to perform a research study and comparative analy-sis on the history, development and globalization strategies of each institution, identifying how they came to be of prominence in business education. This research was conducted through a series of telephone interviews with marketing and development staff at each institution as well as an extensive amount of online and publication research available to the public.

Throughout this, I conducted further research into the market of globalized postgraduate business education itself such as the monitoring of trends and shifts over recent years as well as to identify common benefits and barriers to entering common markets in education such as the United King-dom, America and Europe.

From this, and in terms of understanding the projection potential and aims of the most prominent business institutions in China, I have concluded with my own recommendations for the strategic de-velopment of these prominent institutions globally.

4


3. Introduction

It is common knowledge that the ranking of an institution holds a significant impact upon its’ gradu-ates and their career potential, as well as the development of an institution in its’ ability to recruit students to its’ programmes and faculties. Revenue generation in this form in terms of education is most certainly linked to reputation and an institution’s ability to achieve its’ chosen aims. Prominent institutions in postgraduate business programmes are often sizeable and historic, but have they hit a development plateau? How can they continue to grow and push the envelope of development – increasing their reputation, ranking and of course, financial growth?

A common plight of institutions in China is the exploitation of their local student markets and the saturation of competitor institutions also within these markets. In considering the strategic future of these institutions must they look to other markets and if so, how? Globalization in education can be a significant growth strategy and can be successful in a variety of forms, such as outward globalization – the development of a physical presence outside of their primary location internationally, or the fran-chising and validation of qualifications in partnership with international institutions as an initiative to enhance the brand and quality stamp of the institution abroad whilst accessing revenue potential from a foreign market unhindered by their current competitors. Inward globalization - the develop-ment of international partnerships and qualifications to be delivered co-operatively within the busi-ness school in China and to internationalize their curriculum as well as to implant foreign expertise is also often a highly successful globalization strategy. Inward globalization can provide the potential for students to earn multiple or joint awards and to internationalize the academic delivery of the institu-tion, thus greatly benefiting its’ reputation and ultimately, their student recruitment.

So what then is the best way forward for these prominent institutions in China? Why have or haven’t they globalized already, and what has led to their current stages of development? In terms of further growth, is globalization the best recommendation for these institutions and if so, in which direction?

5


4. The Environment

The Value of EducationMany recent articles have been published regarding the value of postgraduate education in business such as an MBA or an EMBA in relation to weathering recessions, career prospects and international opportunities, with the general consensus that the achievement of such a qualification adds value to an individual and their potential, as demonstrated below:

Source: www.payscale.com

The perception of graduates from institutions with significant rankings is typically one of exceptional standard when compared against graduates from standard ranking and/or quality institutions in the same field of study. Graduates holding MBA or EMBA qualifications from prominent institutions tend to fare exceptionally well in either entering or progessing throughout their careers, with typically more than 80% of graduates from top ranking institutions obtaining at least one viable job offer prior to their formal graduation event.

As such, a postgraduate qualification from a prominent institution is of significant value in the career market – and this value has a price that could be further advantageous to Chinese Business Schools and the image of global education in China in general.

In the last 15 years, China introduced its’ own institution ranking system solely for Chinese institu-tions. This system was borne out of pressure and an assessment of competition nationally. China’s in-stitution ranking system is privately run rather than government sponsored or directed and is viewed as an independent resource in a student’s selection of institutions and their reputable status.

Prior to the introduction of this ranking system, student recruitment and institutional growth was fair-ly stable and predictable within China however, upon introduction of this ranking system the market immediately shifted and students flocked to the highest ranking institutions, leaving the lower ranked

$-

$50,000.00

$100,000.00

$150,000.00

$200,000.00

$250,000.00

$300,000.00

No HigherEducation

UndergraduateDegree

MBA EMBA

Global

UK

6


institutions with greatly damaged recruitment. This forced institutions within China to compete with each other for students on a scale not previously experienced in this market, and in turn opened up multiple opportunities for Chinese institutions and their abilities to compete within their own market as well as abroad.

Global Education Rankings

Global Education Rankings are done annually by reputable organizations such as The Financial Times and Forbes, as well as ARWU (Academic Ranking of World Universities), which compiles a compre-hensive list of internationally accredited business schools and how they compare to their competitors globally.

To participate in these rankings schools must meet strict criteria for inclusion. Once this entry criteria has been met for inclusion surveys are conducted for the institution itself and its’ previous graduates.

Global Rankings are available for a range of programmes and faculties, however I have limited my research and the scope of this project to postgraduate programmes in Business – namely the MBA (Masters of Business Administration) and the EMBA (Executive Masters of Business Administration).

Within these rankings for 2011 – 2012 the following representations of Chinese institutions were present:

On the Financial Times Global MBA Rankings 2012 top 100 Business Schools*, 6 Chinese institutions were represented:

Ranking School

10 Hong Kong UST Business School

24 CEIBS

28 Chinese University of Hong Kong

37 University of Hong Kong

54 Peking University

65 Hult International Business School (US/UK/UAE/China)

Global representation of the top 100 MBA Rankings as compiled and assessed by The Financial Times can be visualized as follows:*Please see the Appendix A: Financial Times Global MBA Ranking 2012

7


On the Financial Times Global EMBA Rankings 2011 top 100 Business Schools*, 9 Chinese institutions were represented:

Ranking School

1 Kellogg / Hong Kong UST Business School

11 CEIBS


15 Washington University / Olin School of Business / Fudan University School of Management

20 Arizona State University: Carey (China)

26 OneMBA: CUHK/RSM/UNC/FGV Sao Paulo/EGADE (China, Netherlands, US, Brazil, Mexico)

36 University of Western Ontario: Ivey (Canada / China)

43 Tongji University / ENPC

61 Euromed Management (France/China)

On the Academic Ranking of World Universities in general, Chinese institutions are represented in:

1.5% of the top 200 Universities5.25% of the top 400 Universities7% of the top 500 Universities

Global representation of the top 500 World Universities as compiled and assessed by ARWU can be visualized as follows:*Please see the Appendix B: Financial Times Global EMBA Ranking 2011

China / Hong Kong

6%

America51%United

Kingdom13%

Europe11%

Canada5%

Australia2%

India2%

Other Asia5%

Middle EastSouth America

3%

MBA Rankings

8


Source: www.arwu.org

Value of a Globalized / International Education

The value of a globalized education against a non-globalized education comes down to common per-ceptions that will bring students to an institution that can meet these assumptions and perceptions well.

Students in China commonly perceive a globalized education to include a large amount of western in-put, western concepts, experience and even western teaching staff that bring their own international business experience as an asset to the teaching programme. The future of business is becoming less and less inhibited by physical barriers due to technological advancements and innovations and as such, an international or border-less education has significantly increased in value.

Students of prominent business schools in China are typically extraordinarily ambitious and are look-ing to learn business from the aspect of international / western culture, successful foreign financial structures, experience, international case studies, foreign concepts of investment as well as to gain a degree of international experience to complement their studies rather than to limit their learning potential to that of only local expertise and a single nationalist focus.

The families of these Chinese students hold their own perceptions of the value of a globalized educa-tion, often developed over history and culture but that which is rapidly changing with the times. Fam-ilies generally view a globalized education as that which holds international brand recognition, better employment prospects both at home in China with an international degree and experience abroad as well as better career prospects and potential internationally for jobs with a globalized degree than a local degree of the same value.

China / Hong Kong 6%

America 25%

United Kingdom 6%

Europe 27%

Canada 4%

Australia 3%

India 16%

Other Asia 7%

Middle East 1%

South America 5%

ARWU Top 500 Rankings

9


Historically, Chinese families wanted for their children to study in the West and stay in the West, how-ever, recent changes have caused great shifts in China’s economy and the opportunities locally have increased significantly for graduates of programmes such as these with a globalized education. Be-cause of this it is becoming increasingly apparent that the mindset of many Chinese families has also shifted in that these families now desire for their children to study in the West and return to China or to study a globalized education at a prominent school in China and then remain in China to utilize the opportunities now there.

From the viewpoint of employers in China, traditionally western business qualifications held signifi-cant value as they were unique and reasonably rare. However, with the influx of Chinese international students into foreign institutions as a common progression route of their studies this has diluted the value of a general foreign business qualification comparatively to a local business qualification. As such, Chinese employers have become far more aware of an institutions’ global ranking and repu-tation, to the point that unless you have graduated from a top western business school, a foreign degree means little more than that from a standard business school in China.

These perceptions within the education market have created an opportunity for Chinese business schools to internally develop themselves to be more competitive in the market place, with a focus toward globalization strategies as a direct strategic aim.

The value of a globalized education is clearly demonstrated in the amount of growth in this market since 1975, as demonstrated below:

Source: OECD, Education at a Glance, 2011

Models of Globalized / International Education

Globalization in education can be defined as an institution’s expansion into international markets academically and physically so as to increase growth within the institution through the development

0

1

2

3

4

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009

Million Students

Year

International StudentsGlobally

10


of foreign markets and to enhance an institution’s global image in the provision of its’ own unique academic offering in these new markets.Globalization in education offers an opportunity for Vertical Integration. Contemporary motives for Vertical Integration are:

• Value Migration to downstream (lengthening of programme lifespans)A common aim of international students is to initiate and undertake the majority of their under and postgraduate studies at a home institution and then to achieve a further qualifica-tion from a reputable foreign institution as a complementary asset to their education. Within this, globalization offers an opportunity to retain these students through vertical integration by offering such foreign qualifications “in-house”, thus retaining a student for a longer term and in turn lengthening their programme lifespan.

• Differentiation Differentiation can be a motivating factor for vertically integrated globalization in the creation or development of a new product or programme, the alteration of a product or programme or the offering of a bespoke programme. In differentiating an institution’s products potential is created to enter new markets or to expand upon an institution’s offerings within their exist-ing markets. Vertically integrating these differentiations is of great benefit to an institution in that they no longer serve as an intermediary or platform for their global competitors, but can retain a reasonable market share for themselves.

• Innovation (feedback from student market)Working within the knowledge of the current educational trend of valuing a globalized educa-tion, innovative approaches to VI can be identified and exploited whereas these opportuni-ties were previously outsourced to institutions abroad. Double qualifications, injections of foreign concepts, teaching, staff and materials and foreign experience as a component of a course/product are methods in which an institution can re-brand and innovate their product / programme to sell an international experience rather than just a programme, vertically inte-grating this desireable experience as opposed to traditionally outsourcing it.

Strategies of globalization can be split into two forms, outward globalization and inward globalization – both methods can present in a number of models and can be implemented individually or simulta-neously to great benefit to an institution if implemented and developed properly.

An overview of these models are:

11


Outward1. Chinese institution develops a physical presence abroad

A common and aggressive strategy of outward globalization is to develop a presence or cam-pus of an institution directly in foreign markets. This has been done successfully by a number of Chinese based institutions such as Ceibs in Ghana and Cheung Kong in the United Kingdom and America.

In this model, an institution retains full control over their campus, qualification, recruitment, quality control and administration of their site in the foreign country, and it is treated as a direct campus or arm of the base institution in China. In this model revenue is generated and distributed solely to and by the Chinese institution.

2. FranchiseAccording to Harvey, L., 2004–11, Analytic Quality Glossary, Quality Research International, (www.qualityresearchinternational.com)

“Franchise programmes are study units of one higher education institution adopted by and taught at another institution, although the students formally obtain their qualification from the originating institution.”

In this model, a Chinese institution contracts out its’ programmes to be made available to students abroad through the intermediary of an overseas based institution. The final award to the student is that of the Franchising Institution – in this case, the Chinese institution. Educational oversight and quality assurance are maintained in partnership between both institutions, but overall quality control is directed by the franchising institution, whereas the overseas institution generally conducts recruitment and course delivery with a degree of rea-sonable independence. In this model revenue to the Chinese institution is generated through a fee per student recruited by the host institution.

3. ValidationAccording to UNESCO, (Vlãsceanu, et al., 2004) (www.qualityresearchinternational.com), validation is“The process by which a programme is judged to have met the requirements for an award by a relevant institution with degree-awarding powers (institutional self-evaluation) or by a relevant examining board (validation by an outside examining body).” In this model, a Chinese institution can recognize the curriculum, delivery and quality control of a programme designed and developed by a foreign institution, granting a final award from the Chinese institution. The Chinese institution formally recognizes the quality of the host institution and the course is delivered with a significant degree of independence by the host institution. In this model, revenue to the Chinese institution is generated through a fee per final award issued.

http://(www.qualityresearchinternational.com

http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com

12


4. Partnership ArrangementsPartnership and Joint Delivery Arrangements are another aggressive globalization model in which two insitutions combine the delivery of a single or part of a single programme to be delivered either at one location or both. A successful model for this has been implemented by Peking University and the London School of Economics in 2006 with the introduction of a LSE-PKU Double Masters in International Affairs.

In this particular (and common) model, students study a percentage of their programme at one institution and then transfer to the second foreign institution for the final portion of their studies, in the end each institution recognizes the student’s achievement at the other and the student is awarded an equal qualification from both institutions upon graduation.

Other successful models in this range within postgraduate studies in business are those such as collaborative delivery, in which a percentage of an institution’s programme is delivered off-site or abroad at a host institution as well as at the Chinese institution, to the benefit of their students in providing an international experience portion of their studies. This model may also be considered inward globalization, as the strategic aim of a collaborative approach for the purposes of providing international experience to an institution’s student cohort is targeted to local markets, rather than foreign.

In these models, revenue and cost is shared accordingly between the two institutions.

Inward

1. Foreign institution develops a physical presence at the location of a Chinese institution.A common inward globalization strategy is to bring in a foreign institution to the location of the host institution. This is often done under a collaborative arrangement in that the foreign institution delivers a number of modules of a particular programme at the location of the host institution. This injects western teaching staff, experience, curriculum and a degree of internationalized education to local students without them having to travel abroad. Students within this model can achieve a single or double qualification from both or either institution, depending on their programme and progression route of choice. The Chinese institution is treated as a platform in arrangements in which the final award is from the foreign institution. This has been demonstrated successfully in the collaboration between Insead and Tsinghua University for the delivery of their joint MBA programme.

In this model, revenue and cost to both institutions is shared as per a collaborative agree-ment.

13


2. Chinese institution, Chinese degree, International experienceIn this model, students are recruited to a Chinese institution and the majority of the course is delivered at the institution’s location in China. A small percentage of modules are deliv-ered collaboratively at a host institution abroad however, these modules are recognized by the originating institution in China. Final award is from the Chinese institution, though other models are certainly applicable, such as double awards. This model presents strong benefits to an institution in China in terms of student recruitment, as students are able to study at and achieve the award of a prominent Chinese institution, but also to gain a reasonable amount of international learning experience as a part of their degree. In this model, revenue to the Chinese institution is generated through their own recruitment and a cost per student is typi-cally given to the temporary international host institution.

3. ValidationAn inward model of validation is very similar to an outward model of validation. A foreign institution formally recognizes the quality of a particular programme developed and delivered by a Chinese institution, granting a final award from the foreign institution – potentially also leading to a double award. In this model, students are able to achieve a double qualification for single delivery of the programme at their chosen institution’s location in China, which has an appeal to certain markets in China. Revenue to the originating institution is generated through their own student recruitment whereas revenue to the foreign institution is gener-ated through a fee per final award issued.

4. FranchiseInward franchising is also very similar to that of outward franchising in that a foreign insti-tution contracts out its’ programme to be made available to students abroad through the intermediary of the Chinese institution. The final award to the student is that of the foreign institution. Educational oversight and quality assurance are maintained in partnership be-tween both institutions, but overall quality control is directed by the foreign institution for the purposes of the single programme and award. Recruitment is directed by the Chinese institution, and allows for a high level of competition in the local student market given the standing of the foreign institution and its’ particular qualification.

5. Franchise for the purpose of Increased Intake PotentialWithin the Chinese education system, every institution accredited with degree awarding powers in China is regulated by the central government, and each institution is granted an annual allocation on the number of degrees that they can issue / intake students for that year (that will be recognized by the Chinese government). This holds the risk of severely limiting an institution’s recruitment potential each year to that which is set by the central government and may not necessarily be reflective of an institutions realistic recruitment potential.

As such, an inward globalization strategy of franchising qualifications from a foreign institu-

14


tion allow a Chinese institution to fill their own degree place allotments but then continu-ing to recruit to programmes franchised from foreign institutions in which the final award is solely from the foreign institution – of which there is no allotment or recognition require-ments of China’s central government. This strategy can inject a significant revenue stream on top of that which is budgeted based on an institution’s annual degree awarding allotment.

6. Articulation In this model, for postgraduate qualifications, a Chinese institution can articulate their award with a foreign institution, leading to the foreign institution recognizing a partial award such as a Postgraduate Diploma for direct entry into a postgraduate top up programme, such as a dissertation module at the foreign institution. This increases the perceived value of an institution in China given it’s clear progression links to a prominent foreign institution, and a student’s potential to pursue a qualification primarily in China with a short term and low risk top-up opportunity abroad. In this model revenue to the foreign institution is separate from that of the Chinese institution as the programmes present a clear division.

15


5. The Business of Education

In considering the Business of Education one must first consider the determinants of Industry Profit-ability. The three key influences of industry profitability are:

• The value of the product to customersWhat value does a postgraduate qualification in business from a prominent Chinese institu-tion hold in the local student market? What value does such a qualification hold in foreign markets? How can this value be increased?

• The intensity of competitionWhat prominent business school competition exists in China, and who are an institution’s direct competitors? Who are an institution’s direct foreign competitors? How does global education ranking play into these value perceptions?

• Relative bargaining power at different levels within the value chainWhat USP (Unique Selling Point) does an institution hold in terms of its’ competitor’s offer-ings?

It is further prudent to consider the type of overall strategy that an institution currently has in place and what they aim to achieve. Internal strategic exercises such as determining “how blue is your ocean?” (ref: http://www.blueoceanstrategy.com/abo/test.html) can be useful in determining whether an institution and it’s strategic aims are within Red Ocean or Blue Ocean strategic realms of business, and can impact decisions and implementation in going forward with chosen strategies.

Once an institution’s overall globalization strategy and aims are in place, further considerations re-garding the business of education need to be evaluated , such as the following:

Government Involvement in Higher Education in China

The vast majority of Higher Education Instititutions, particularly those with degree awarding powers applicable for recognition by the Chinese government, are owned and funded by the central govern-ment / are “public institutions”. Degree awarding power is controlled and issued by the Chinese cen-tral government and as such there are exceptionally few private institutions operating in China with Chinese degree awarding powers. Often private institutions in China are eligible to award Associate Degrees, which are equivalent to a UK Higher National Diploma, at which point a student can enter into a “top-up” arrangement with an institution holding degree awarding power for the achievement of a full degree. This has limited the potential and market for private institutions to form and develop in China, as well as having limited the potential for foreign institutions to develop a physical presence and operate in China independently.

http://www.blueoceanstrategy.com/abo/test.html

16


Furthermore, the amount of degrees that an institution in China can award is limited by an annual degree allotment allocated to each institution by the Chinese central government, as outlined above in Section 5 – The Environment, Models of Globalized Education, Inward Globalization point 5 – Fran-chise for the Purpose of Increased Intake Potential. However, these annual allocations do not apply to degrees of foreign institutions issue in China but which do not require recognition by the Chinese central government, such as the situation of a number of inward globalization models described in Section 5.

Funding Sources – Public vs Private?

The vast majority of prominent Chinese based institutions are public institutions or, government owned institutions. These insitutions are still driven by student recruitment as a primary source of revenue, but revenue is cycled through and distributed by the Chinese government for the operation of the institution.

A very small minority of prominent Chinese based institutions are privately owned, such as Cheung-kong Business School, owned by Li Ka-Shing. These institutions hold degree awarding power, recog-nition and accreditation from the Chinese central government however, their funding and revenue generation is predominantly driven from student recruitment and other private sources such as benefactors, research grants, etc.

Regardless of an institution’s funding source, be it public or private, the competition and drive for student recruitment as a focus of operations remains the same, and institutions must look to new channels to constantly increase both their recruitment potential and results.

The Financial Value of Globalization

Globalization in education presents a number of financial opportunities for an institution in general, in that globalization can be viewed as a diversification decision to influence an institution’s rate of profit.

In considering the basic issues in diversification decisions, superior profit derives from two sources:

Industry AttractivenessRate of Profit > Cost of Capital Competitive Advantage

The industry attractiveness of a globalized education, in multiple forms, is identified below in The Market Value of Globalization however, in general this is driven by perceptions and assumptions made within the international education market which in turn add value to a globalized education. If an institution is able to globalize and diversify their product/programme in an attractive format within the international education industry this will significantly increase the potential for superior profit.

17


Gaining and maintaining competitive advantage can be difficult within the industry of higher educa-tion outside of achievement in educational rankings and brand identity. Commonly public institutions must operate within set budgets and revenue restrictions in China, such as annual degree allotments and tuition fees set by the government but must in turn compete with each other within these re-strictions. Private institutions in China have a competitive advantage in that they set their own prices and budgets, but are still subject to annual degree allotments. This has created a Red Ocean environ-ment within China’s prominent educational institutions in which the competition is fierce, prompting institutions to look to globalization as a new strategy to clear their waters. If an institution can gain competitive advantage through successful globalization strategies and implementation, this too will significantly increase the potential for superior profit.

The Market Value of Globalization

As previously outlined, the value of an institution’s programmes are significantly impacted by market perceptions – which in turn drives recruitment to an institution therin generating revenue.

With the globalization of an institution and its’ programmes the perception of increased value is cre-ated by the injection of foreign, and particularly western, materials and learning objectives into the programme of study, a foreign format of delivery against global ranking criteria and even on the injec-tion of foreign staff into an institution. Assumptions are made based on an institution’s international links and presences, which creates added value to an institution and it’s programmes, thus increasing recruitment and overall brand reputation.

Globalization creates possible strategic dimensions in geographic specialization, Brand Identification, Quality of Product, Vertical Integration opportunities and those involving host and home govern-ments. These are all significant contributing factors to the market value of globalization.

The Risks of Globalization

Each model of globalization presents its’ own series of benefits and risks, however the most common risks associated with educational globalization are:

Dilution of Quality

The ranking of an institution is predominantly based on the quality of an institution and their process-es and records of a high and strict degree of educational oversight. Educational Quality is managed at an institution’s base location as an integral part of its’ overall operations and management teams. Globalization both outward and inward present significant risks to the oversight and management of this same level of quality for an institution, as it places responsibility and, more significantly, a high degree of trust potentially in an entity outside of the institution’s full control. If operated poorly by the second entity, be it a foreign institution or a branch institution of the primary institution this can significantly dilute the quality stamp of the primary institution to disastrous and immediate effect.

18


Cost

The cost involved in a number of globalization models, again both inward and outward, can be sig-nificant – particularly in the development of a physical site outside of China. Other significant costs involved include the value of time spent developing, agreeing and implementing franchise, validation and articulation agreements, as well as partnership and collaborative arrangements.

Legal Implications

Legality issues can arise within partnership and collaborative arrangements such as financial guaran-tees of recruitment, programme property rights in further franchising or validation opportunities as well as the obvious issues of appropriate legal standing for partners in their host countries.

Policy

Policy can pose a significant risk to globalization strategies and models. Outward models focus on ac-cess to foreign student markets, which can shift and change suddenly in accordance with the policies of the host country, such as with the case of the immigration authority in the United Kingdom, the UK Border Agency. Between 2008 and 2011 the UK Border Agency proposed, implemented and has made multiple changes to their policies regarding the accreditation of institutions and the immigra-tion regulations of foreign students in the United Kingdom. These changes have severely affected foreign student recruitment to the United Kingdom overall, with many institutions both public and private reporting a 60% drop in foreign student recruitment in 2011 alone due solely to student immigration issues. These changes were unanticipated and are ongoing, thus institutions that were present or developed in the UK prior to 2008 have had to drastically alter their strategic direction to weather these changes, many of which have closed or moved elsewhere globally as a result, viewing the United Kingdom as a failed approach.

Policy is also a significant risk to inward globalization in China, as internal Chinese central government policies are absolute and can change without anticipation in terms of foreign institution involvement in China and the ability for Chinese institutions to work with these foreign institutions. Great time and cost can be lost with the change of a single policy.

Failed Implementation

As with any strategic venture, the risk of failed implementation is significant and must be evaluated and implemented carefully. As demonstrated by HRN Europe, 2009, the 10 primary reasons that strat-egy fails are:

19


Execution 81%Resistance to Change 78%Not communicated to all the people involved 77%The plan is vague 76%The goal isn’t compelling 72%Lack of team involvement 71%Too many goals 70%The goal isn’t clear 68%The cultural implications are overlooked 67%The correct metrics aren’t chosen 66%

Competition

Competition presents an obvious and overlying risk to any business strategy, including educational globalization. In analyzing competition for the purposes of strategizing, it is important to consider the structural determinants of competition using a model such as Porter’s Five Forces of Competition Framework.

This framework outlines the roles played by Buyers, Suppliers, Potential Entrants and Substitutes to influence Industry Rivalry – in which outlines concentration, diversity of competitors, product dif-ferentiation, excess capacity and exit barriers as well as cost conditions – all to the effect of quantify-ing and qualifying a diversification strategy such as globalization and the potential profitability and viability of such a strategy. The concepts outlined by the Five Force Analysis have been ever present in my personal understandings and research in pursuit of analyzing this market and it’s potential for prominent Chinese institutions.

Although these are common barriers to successful strategy implementation, some demonstrate clear and specific interaction with the implementation of a globalization strategy, such as “too many goals” in which an institution may be tempted to globalize both inward and outward simultaneously, or with a multitude of programmes. Cultural implications may be overlooked or not investigated and re-searched to an appropriate degree prior to implementation, such as in the non-educational industry case example of American retail giant Walmart’s failed attempt at entry into Japan primarily due to an inappropriate assessment of culturally driven demand and implications.

20


6. An Analysis of 10 Prominent Business Schools in China

Ten Schools, Ten Paths

The following ten prominent business schools in China have been selected based on their rankings globally, their rankings within China and a number of other criteria designed to capture a broad range of institutions such as their current level of globalization, reputation for globalization prior to further research throughout this project and location within China, so as to ensure a broad and varied range of history and development for those institutions in mainland China and Hong Kong.

These institutions are:

# Institution Global Ranking* Ranking in China**

1 Hong Kong UST Business School

10 2

2 Ceibs 24 1


28 6

4 University of Hong Kong 37 4

5 Peking University: Guanghua 54 8

6 Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business

n/a n/a

7 Tsinghua University n/a 5

8 Beijing International MBA n/a 3

9 Renmin University n/a n/a

10 Xiamen University School of Management

n/a n/a

Rankings based on MBA programme only. Source: Financial Times Global MBA Rankings 2012*Please see the Appendix A : Financial Times Global MBA Ranking 2012**Source:<<Bloomberg Business Week/Chinese Version>> ,9/12/2011

21


A Comparative History The history and development of these prominent institutions within China is varied, with 50% found-ed between 1911 – 1990, 40% founded between 1991 – 2000 and 10% founded after 2001.

Foundation

Name of the School/Year of foundation Year of the foundation of its business school

Tsinghua University/1911 1926Renmin University School of Business/1950 1950The Chinese University of Hong Kong/1963 1976

Xiamen University School of Management/1921 1987Hong Kong UST Business School/1991 1991

CEIBS/1994 1994Guanghua Management School - Peking

Uni/1994 1994The University of Hong Kong/1911 1995

BiMBA/1998 1998Cheungkong Graduate School of Business/2002 2002

The Achievement of Prominence

Beijing

GuangdongProvince

Guangxi

Guilin

JiangxiProvince

HunanProvince

YunnanProvince

GuizhouProvince

Chongqing

FuJIanProvince

Hong kong

Shenzhen

Xiamen

Aomen

SichuanProvinceChendu

Shenyang City, Liaoning Province

Neimenggu

Hebie ProvinceShanxi

Province

Sanxi Province

NingxiaProvince

Gansu

Qinghai

Xizhang

Xinjing

Jilin Province

Heilongjiang Province

Shandong Province

HenanProvince

HubieProvince

Zhejiang Province

Jiangsu Province

AnhuiProvince

Shanghai

DalianTianjin

Tsinghua University/1911

Renmin University School of Business/1950

CEIBS/1994

Guanghua Management School - Peking Uni/1994

BiMBA/1998

Cheungkong Graduate School of Business/2002

The Chinese University of Hong Kong/1963Hong Kong UST Business School/1991The University of Hong Kong/1911

CEIBS/1994Cheungkong Graduate School of Business/2002

Xiamen University School of Management/1921

CEIBS/1994

Cheungkong Graduate School of Business/2002

22


Rationale

The rationale behind the formation of each business school differs greatly – some being driven by government initiatives, others through merges and strategic alliances and others through admirable idealisms. In speaking with 6 of the 10 institutions that disclosed such information the following ratio-nales were presented:

Xiamen University School of ManagementIn 1983, CCMEP (Canada-China Management Education Program) led Xiamen University to associate with Canadian institutions Dalhousie University and Saint Marys. Between 1983 and 1992 Xiamen University sent 70 professors to these institutions in Canada for the purpose of educational advance-ment and exchange for the benefit of all institutions and their academic development.

Renmin University School of BusinessRenmin University’s school of business was formed out of a government initiative.

Hong Kong UST Business SchoolHK UST Business School was formed out of a partnership between the Kellogg School of Manage-ment, Northwestern University (Kellogg) and Hong Kong University of Science and Technologys School of Business and Management (HK UST Business School )

Guanghua Management School – Peking UniversityGuanghua Management School is a part of Peking University, established through the merger of Peking University’s department of Economics and Management, and the Centre of Management Sci-ence.

BiMBAThe business school was formed in 1998 by Mr. Du Yifu. Mr Du created the business school in order to import advanced management knowledge into China as a means of contributing to the social devel-opment of China.

CEIBSA private university, the business school was formed in 1994 for the fundamental purpose of promot-ing foreign trading and economic cooperation between China and the European Union by acting as an education platform for training high profile business professionals and government officials.

Funding

As previously stated in Section 6 The Business of Education, Funding Sources – Public vs Private? :

The vast majority of prominent Chinese based institutions are public institutions or, government owned institutions. These institutions are still driven by student recruitment as a primary source of revenue, but revenue is cycled through and distributed by the Chinese government for the operation of the institution.

23


A very small minority of prominent Chinese based institutions are privately owned, such as Cheung-kong Business School, owned by Li Ka-Shing. These institutions hold degree awarding power, recog-nition and accreditation from the Chinese central government however, their funding and revenue generation is predominantly driven from student recruitment and other private sources such as benefactors, research grants, etc.

Of these ten prominent business institutions in China, funding and ownership is divided as follows:

Institution Funding

Government Private

BiMBA Cheungkong Graduate School of Business

Hong Kong UST Business School CEIBS (semi-private)

The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Renmin University of China

The University of Hong Kong

Xiamen University School of Management

Guanghua Management School - Peking Uni

Tsinghua University

MBA / EMBA Programmes

Of the research gathered and readily available, only a number of these institutions published and released details of their current student population numbers, as outlined below:

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Current MBA Student Population

Current MBA StudentPopulation

24


Tuition Fees

Tuition fees are significantly varied among China’s most prominent institutions, as outlined below:

MBA tuition fees are of a similar variation:

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

EMBA Tuition fees (USD)

Tuition fees (USD)

01000020000300004000050000600007000080000

MBA Tuition Fees (USD)

MBA Tuition Fees (USD)

25


Student Demographics

The average age of students of MBA programmes at these institutions is 30 years of age, with the highest reported average age at 37 years by Hong Kong UST Business School and the lowest average age at 27 by the University of Hong Kong.

The average age of students of EMBA programmes at these institutions is 37 years of age, with the highest reported average age at 39 by Renmin University School of Business ad the lowest at 35 by BiMBA.

All responding institutions reported the gender of their students to be predominantly male across both MBA and EMBA programmes, and expressed a desire to increase their intake of female students.

The percentage of foreign student within each business school can be demonstrated as follows for 6 of the 10 institutions that had disclosed these figures:

These students are reported to be from Europe, America, the Middle East, South East Asia, Brazil, New Zealand, Korea, Singapore, Canada, Mexico and India.

A Solid Academic Team

Of these ten institutions, 9 disclosed details of their teaching staff, all 9 of which include foreign teaching staff appointments. In this the most notable are BiMBA in reporting that 50% of their teach-

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Percentage of Foreign Students within the MBA programme

Percentage of ForeignStudents within the MBAprogramme

26


ing staff are foreign and CEIBS reporting 67 full time foreign teaching staff. CEIBS’ foreign teaching staff can be further identified by nationality as per the following:

Graduates

Graduate statistics were disclosed by 3 of the 10 institutions, allowing for a satisfactory 30% sample for an overview of the potential of these institutions, given their foundation and development history.

Xiamen University School of Management reported 3,192 MBA graduates to date where BiMBA has reported over 2,000 MBA graduates to date. CEIBS has reported an impressive 10,000+ MBA gradu-ates to date and a staggering 80,000 EMBA graduates to date.

Globalization Strategies in Place

Of these ten institutions, two were particularly forthright in disclosing their current levels of globaliza-tion – CEIBS and Hong Kong UST Business School.

Hong Kong UST Business School does not operate an independent presence outside of China but is involved in exchange programmes for undergraduate and MBA studies with over 100 partner institu-tions worldwide, including the United Kingdom and the United States. Examples of Hong Kong UST’s Business School joint delivery programmes are:

Executive MBA jointly delivered with Kellogg School of ManagementMSc with New York UniversityExecutive Education Programmes with London Business School, Insead, UCLA and New York Univer-sity.

Plans are in place to further enhance student exchange programmes with more partners overseas as

Chinese 33%

European 22%

North American

36%

Asia & Pacific 7%

Other 2%

Teaching Staff Nationalities at CEIBS

27


part of the school’s globalization strategy. Hong Kong UST does not yet hold its’ own overseas offices but have put a stronger focus on the existing strength of their partnerships with overseas institutions for exchange and collaborative programmes. Hong Kong UST’s strategy is to act as a gateway to the world and China for Chinese students to experience overseas education and vice versa.

Hong Kong UST Business School’s current level of globalization is an excellent example of success in simultaneous outward and inward strategies in place.

CEIBS presents an interesting case study as it has initiated a highly successful outward globalization strategy in an uncommon market – a Blue Ocean strategy for globalization, if you will.

CEIBS in itself is a joint venture formed between The European Commission, The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Co-operation and Shanghai Jiaotong University. CEIBS operates primar-ily in Shanghai, but surprised the education world in early 2009 with the commencement of it’s first MBA cohort based in Accra, Ghana.

This programme is a direct product of CEIBS, implemented with the support of the China Develop-ment Bank and the Ghanian government. The Ghana MBA programme’s first student cohort consisted of 42 African students, 71% of which were Ghanian and 29% of which were Nigerian. Students ranged from independent business persons to government officials and judicial figures, at a per student tu-ition fee of $30,000 USD. (source: http://www.economist.com/whichmba/ceibs-in-ghana)

CEIBS’ presence in Ghana is an example of outward globalization in the form of a limited physical presence, in that CEIBS does not own and operate an independent campus in Ghana (yet) but rents administrative and teaching space for the purpose of their single programme of delivery. Instructors are based in Shanghai and travel to Accra however, this is changing now that a successful cohort has graduated and the tested market has proven itself to be viable. CEIBS aims to deliver an additional programme of a full time MBA at their location in Accra as well as to develop a permanent campus of CEIBS in this location and an African case-studies centre as well as programmes for women, small businesses and village elders. Further globalization plans in place for CEIBS seem to focus on the development of their Africa venture rather than the common strategy of developing links with other Higher Education Institutions globally. CEIBS’ strong links with Chinese, European and African govern-ments and financial institutions provide stability to the institution in terms of growth, finance, quality control and recruitment. (source: http://www.economist.com/whichmba/ceibs-in-ghana)

CEIBS was criticized initially with the announcement of its’ intentions in Africa, and the global edu-cation industry watched with rapt attention as this venture unfolded and in turn, succeeded. It has become apparent that through CEIBS, China has positioned itself well in Ghana and is poised to take further hold in opportunities where western ventures neglected to recognize and exploit.

28


Of these ten institutions, each has achieved prominence through various stages in its’ development but all share the common trait of some current level of globalization, be it inward or outward directed, simplified examples of which for each applicable institution are as follows:

Institutions Inward Globalization Outward Globalization

Hongkong UST Business School Kellogg-HKUST EMBA HKUST-NYU MS in Global Finance

Ceibs Origin of Ceibs is essentially international, as it was formed as a joint venture of Shanghai Jiaotong University and European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD)

Global MBA in Accra, Ghana

Chinese University of Hongkong OneMBA(EMBA ) 5 Schools, 4 Continents.

OneMBA (EMBA) 5 schools ,4 continents

Mainland China MBA(with Tsinghua University)

University of Hongkong Local MBA with International Connections(London, New York and Shanghai)

MBA(international)with Fu-dan University in Shanghai

EMBA –Global Asia (London Business School,HKU Business School and Columbia Business School)

Peking University Guanghua School of Management

Various established International Links and Joint Degree pro-grammes

International Module with various global business schools (ie: Wharton )

Cheungkong Graduate School of Business

Global Faculty and Various estab-lished International Partnerships

US and Europe Office and teaching facilities

Tsinghua University Tsinghua –MIT Management Education Project

Tsinghua INSEAD EMBA Pro-gramme

Beijing International MBA, Na-tional School of Development, Peking University

Joint MBA programme between of Peking University and Vler-ick Leuben Gent Management School with Vlerick final Degree Award

n/a

Renmin Unviersity Various International links, EMBA jointly offered by Renmin and the State university of New York

n/a

Xiamen University School of Management

Small international linkages have been formed.

n/a

29


Benefits and Barriers in Common Markets

The numbers of international students studying globally have increased dramatically since 1975 from 0.3 to an average of 3.7 million students per annum. There is significant competition for a market share of these numbers and institutions in common host markets are scrambling to position them-selves accordingly. Shifts have occurred in the most common destinations for international students, with the United States of America maintaining its’ position as the number 1 destination for foreign students, with the United Kingdom and Western Europe trailing not far behind. Significant shifts have occurred within this market between 2001 and 2010 with the introduction of new popularized desti-nations, as outlined below:

Source: Atlas of Student Mobility, http://www.iie.org/projectatlas

America 28%

United Kingdom 11%

Germany 9% France

7% Australia

4% Japan

3%

Spain 2%

Belgium 2%

All Others 34%

2001

America 20%

United Kingdom 12%

France 8%

China 7%

Australia 7%

Germany 7%

Canada 5%

Japan 4%

All Others 30%

2010

30


As demonstrated above, in the last 10 years China itself has become a significant destination for inter-national students, holding a 7% market share alone.

The top host destinations for international students in 2009 and 2010 are demonstrated below, with every single destination showing growth from the previous year.

Source: Atlas of Student Mobility

A number of factors create and drive these destinations to become popular markets for international students, such as:

ImmigrationThe immigration policies and opportunities of a host country/study destination can be a significant factor in a student’s decision to study abroad. Factors such as the ease of obtaining a student visa, working rights and eligibility during a student’s studies, the eligibility of a student to bring their de-pendents to their host country during their studies and their own eligibility to work, work rights in a host country for graduates, the ease of obtaining a working visa after graduation and a student’s eligi-bility for eventual settlement or permanent residence in their host study country can all be contribut-ing factors to a student’s decision to study abroad.

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

Top Host Destinations

2009 Total InternationalStudents

2010 Total InternationalStudents

31


ReputationReputation of the educational quality of an institution or an entire country can be a significant fac-tor in the creation of popular international student destinations. The United States of America has a strong reputation in this market in part due to the student experience presented in popular west-ern cultural media and the overwhelming amount of globally top ranked institutions present in the United States. The United Kingdom has a reputation which in part drives their share of this market in the perception of a high quality and traditional education, such as with its’ prominent “red brick” institutions.

Career Progression Opportunities in Host CountryA further consideration of career progression opportunities in a host country is also a driving factor behind these market trends, in that a large percentage of international students either enter into their foreign studies or exit their foreign studies with the intention of remaining in their host country professionally and long term. Countries such as America, Canada and Australia are appealing for this purpose due to their English speaking environment and straightforward immigration routes to obtain working permits. Employers in these countries are keen to hire international graduates and many obtain formal job offers prior to completing their graduation from their postgraduate course of study.

Countries such as the United Kingdom were once appealing for this reason, and employers are still keen to hire international graduates however, immigration policies have created a deterrent to inter-national students and not only are drastically fewer international students now applying to study in the UK, many are now leaving the United Kingdom for other study destinations.

Countries in which English is not a national language traditionally see fewer intakes of international students, despite the language of tuition offered for their course of study. In countries such as China, foreign students may not view broadening their plans from studying to staying as a feasible endeavor outside of major areas such as Shanghai, Beijing or Hong Kong, and this in turn can shift the market away from Chinese institutions. However, because of recent power shifts and the economic growth of China, this has also created a great interest for international students to potentially study within China at a prominent Chinese institution as a means of strategically positioning themselves as gradu-ates with strong Chinese experience and assets in order to fully utilize the opportunities that are presenting themselves due to this economic and power shift.

32


7. Conclusion - Identifying a Market Trend

The History of Global Education

As outlined above, global education has rapidly become a major market within the industry of higher education, demonstrated by 12.3 rate of increased international student movement between 1975 and 2009. In the last decade China itself has gone from holding a non-significant market share of international students globally in 2001 to a 7% market share in 2010.

Chinese perceptions throughout history of a global education was that a western education was a “better” education and it held great value within China, prompting an influx of Chinese students com-pleting or pursuing their higher education aspirations abroad. Chinese institutions focused on com-peting within their own local markets and few risked venturing abroad in an attempt to reach foreign markets.

The Current Market

Prominent Chinese institutions are working to steadily increase their market share of the global international student market, and many of their prominent business schools have already positioned themselves well to take a firm hold for themselves utilizing both inward and outward globalization strategies.

With China’s emergence on the world scale as an economic superpower, perceptions are changing about the value of Chinese education to foreign markets as well as the value of foreign education in Chinese markets. This has allowed for a multitude of globalization opportunities to arise for such prominent Chinese institutions, and it is vital that they explore and utilize these opportunities as they are presented in order to remain competitive and current.

Various innovations have been developed and successfully implemented in the pursuit of globaliza-tion by institutions such as CEIBS with their successful entry into Ghana, a Blue Ocean strategy in that rather than attempting to develop a presence in an already saturated market such as America or the United Kingdom, CEIBS has focused their efforts on their development in Africa and have even gone so far as to develop as a joint government and financial industry initiative within this severely under-developed market in Africa.

Other prominent Chinese institutions have established themselves outwardly through partnering with foreign institutions of note, such as that of Hong Kong UST Business School, with over 100 partner institutions world wide.

33


The Chinese University of Hong Kong Business School is an integral part of the OneMBA programme, an exceptionally high profile 21 month MBA programme delivered truly globally, in 5 countries over 4 continents toward the achievement of a student’s MBA. This programme idealizes global education and the value of gaining business experience in a number of international settings. Models such as that of the OneMBA programme are becoming increasingly popular such as the TriumEMBA delivered by London School of Economics, New York University and HEC (France) and the HKU EMBA –Global Asia programme between London Business School, HKU Business School and Columbia Business School.

Globalized education is well valued in the current market of higher education and although a number of prominent Chinese institutions are already well placed in this market, a number are clearly lagging behind.

Recommendations - The Future of Global Education

The future of global education is clearly heading toward a borderless education model with a high value placed on global experience throughout the duration of a student’s learning. This trend has developed so rapidly and solidly that there is no reversion to the old system of a localized education delivery model in the foreseeable future, given the value that has been proven of a global education over the last decade alone.

Due to rapid changes in our global economy, as we understand, there is no single economy any lon-ger. China has taken its’ place as an emerging economic power and has played a major role in driving the demand of highly intuitive business individuals with global experience and perspectives. This in turn has pushed Chinese business institutions to deliver a truly globalized education so as not only to compete but to lead this changing and diverse industry into its’ next stages.

34


8. Bibliography

1. Porter, E. Michael (1996), “What is Strategy” Harvard Business Review, # 96608-PDF-ENG

2. Mintzberg, Henry (1994), “Crafting Strategy” Harvard Business Review, # 87407-PDF-ENG

3. Mintzberg, Henry (1994), “The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning” Harvard Business Review, #94107-PDF-ENG

4. Grant, M. Robert (2010), Contemporary Strategy Analysis 7th Edition

5. Shaz Ansari, Strategy Tools, (21/09/11)

6. Porter, E.M. (2008), The Five Competitive Forces that shape Strategy, Harvard Business School. Reading # R0801E-PDF-ENG

7. W. Chan Kim, Renee Mauborgne (2004), “Blue Ocean Strategy” Harvard Business School, # R0410D-PDF-ENG

8. W. Chan Kim, Renee Mauborgne (2004), “Blue Ocean Strategy: Reconstruct Market Boundaries” Harvard Business School # 1630BC-PDF-ENG

9. W. Chan Kim, Renee Mauborgne (2004), “Blue Ocean Strategy: Analytical Tools and Frameworks” Harvard Business School, # 1629BC-PDF-ENG

10. Carr, C. and Collis, D. (2011), “Should You Have a Global Strategy?” MIT Sloan Management Review - Vol. 53 No. 1

11. Kim, W. C. and Mauborgne, R. (1999) ,“Creating New Market Space,” Harvard Business Review, January-February: pp. 83-93

12. Philip Kotler, Kevin Lane Keller, Malcolm Goodman, Torben Hansen (2009), Marketing Manage-ment (European Edition)

13. Rolf D. Cremer, Chinese Business School and the future of management in the post-crisis era,(www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-614X.htm)

14. Payscale.com. (http://www.payscale.com)

15. ARWU. (http://www.arwu.org)

16. OECD,Education at a Glance,2011, (http://www.oecd.org)

17. Harvey,L. 2004-11,Analytic Quality Glossary,Quality Research International (www.qualityre-searchinternational.com)

18. UNESCO, (Vlãsceanu, et al., 2004) (www.qualityresearchinternational.com)

19. Http://www.blueoceanstrategy.com/abo/test.html

20. HRN EUROPE,2009 (www.hrneurope.com)

21. Http://www.economist.com/whichmba/ceibs-in-ghana

22. Atlas of Student Mobility, http://www.iie.org/projectatlas

35


Global MBA Rankings 2012FT.com Business School Rankings - Custom PDF download

Rank

in 2

012

3 y

ear

avera

ge r

ank

Sch

ool nam

e

Countr

y

Weig

hte

d s

ala

ry (

US$)

Sala

ry p

erc

enta

ge

incr

ease

1 3 Stanford Graduate School of Business US 192,179 129

2 3 Harvard Business School US 178,249 122

3 2 University of Pennsylvania: Wharton US 172,353 120

4 2 London Business School UK 152,981 134

5 6 Columbia Business School US 166,497 131

6 5 Insead France / Singapore 144,355 97

7 8 MIT: Sloan US 157,337 120

8 7 IE Business School Spain 156,658 139

9 10 Iese Business School Spain 133,888 148

10 8 Hong Kong UST Business School China 127,600 144

11 - Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad India 175,076 140

12 11 University of Chicago: Booth US 152,585 109

13 14 IMD Switzerland 144,045 78

14 22 University of California at Berkeley: Haas US 146,811 91

15 18 Duke University: Fuqua US 139,405 108

16 20 Northwestern University: Kellogg US 145,834 96

17 15 New York University: Stern US 134,093 115

18 18 HEC Paris France 121,061 107

19 17 Dartmouth College: Tuck US 151,182 111

20 15 Indian School of Business India 129,512 177

20 17 Yale School of Management US 142,455 124

20 21 University of Oxford: Saïd UK 134,805 108

23 - National University of Singapore School of Business Singapore 97,625 185

24 21 Ceibs China 123,058 150

24 30 Cornell University: Johnson US 141,727 116

26 24 University of Cambridge: Judge UK 132,758 96

27 42 Warwick Business School UK 118,151 94

28 - Chinese University of Hong Kong China 100,408 160

29 27 University of Michigan: Ross US 129,649 101

30 30 Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Netherlands 103,628 114

31 33 Manchester Business School UK 117,016 116

32 32 UCLA: Anderson US 136,331 108

33 24 Esade Business School Spain 114,988 115

34 31 Nanyang Business School Singapore 102,350 129

35 37 Carnegie Mellon: Tepper US 132,325 109

36 32 Cranfield School of Management UK 125,196 88

37 - University of Hong Kong China 106,720 121

38 37 University of Virginia: Darden US 134,936 109

38 37 City University: Cass UK 111,552 86

40 37 Emory University: Goizueta US 124,832 111

41 37 Australian School of Business: AGSM Australia 118,943 90

42 36 SDA Bocconi Italy 102,854 120

43 40 Georgetown University: McDonough US 123,290 107

44 45 University of Toronto: Rotman Canada 94,255 101

45 44 Rice University: Jones US 118,617 117

46 38 Imperial College Business School UK 104,619 74

46 54 Melbourne Business School Australia 110,701 78

46 59 Indiana University: Kelley US 113,217 118

49 - Pennsylvania State University: Smeal US 109,114 125

49 50 University of Rochester: Simon US 112,992 129

51 - Coppead Brazil 110,103 151

51 50 Texas A & M University: Mays US 108,606 134

51 51 University of Texas at Austin: McCombs US 121,170 93

54 - Peking University: Guanghua China 79,914 201

54 68 University of Cape Town GSB South Africa 141,490 90

56 55 University of North Carolina: Kenan-Flagler US 118,959 92

57 52 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign US 105,726 117

58 47 University of Maryland: Smith US 109,375 92

59 54 York University: Schulich Canada 88,283 100

59 62 Purdue University: Krannert US 103,304 112

61 - Washington University: Olin US 106,668 105

61 56 Vanderbilt University: Owen US 114,265 101

61 61 University of Southern California: Marshall US 121,060 94

61 71 McGill University: Desautels Canada 89,623 97

65 73 Hult International Business School US / UK / UAE / China 100,631 95

66 - Sungkyunkwan University SKK GSB South Korea 100,779 102

66 68 Ohio State University: Fisher US 105,426 113

68 54 University of Western Ontario: Ivey Canada 100,738 88

69 63 Boston College: Carroll US 109,440 95

70 71 Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School Belgium 94,661 88

71 45 Lancaster University Management School UK 97,124 88

72 - University of Minnesota: Carlson US 108,994 96

73 79 University of Washington: Foster US 109,088 90

74 - Georgia Institute of Technology US 110,118 86

74 68 Wisconsin School of Business US 108,990 109

76 - Incae Business School Costa Rica 84,411 131

77 - Michigan State University: Broad US 98,784 101

77 69 Boston University School of Management US 106,762 98

79 - George Washington University US 104,814 104

80 79 Wake Forest University: Babcock US 108,737 127

81 69 University of California at Irvine: Merage US 99,333 97

82 81 University of British Columbia: Sauder Canada 80,898 76

83 - University of Pittsburgh: Katz US 88,783 137

83 87 University of Edinburgh Business School UK 97,733 63

85 79 University of Notre Dame: Mendoza US 106,171 104

86 - Northeastern University US 93,824 112

86 76 Birmingham Business School UK 87,274 87

86 87 University College Dublin: Smurfit Ireland 102,026 70

89 75 Thunderbird School of Global Management US 100,803 89

90 73 University of Iowa: Tippie US 92,978 128

91 - Aston Business School UK 83,286 85

91 - SP Jain Center of Management Dubai / Singapore 79,809 146

93 - Universität St Gallen Switzerland 91,106 60

94 74 Durham Business School UK 91,718 61

95 81 University of South Carolina: Moore US 93,053 105

95 84 Ipade Mexico 90,900 176

95 91 Bradford University School of Management UK 87,228 110

98 91 Brigham Young University: Marriott US 101,189 118

98 94 SMU: Cox US 101,286 90

100 94 Babson College: Olin US 106,506 85

Table notes

Although the headline ranking figures show the changes in the survey year to year, the pattern of clustering among the schools is also significant. A total of 197 points separate the top school from the school at number 100 in the ranking. The top 10 schools, from Stanford GSB to Hong Kong UST Business School, form the leading group of world-class business schools. A total of 63 points separate Stanford from HKUST. The second group is headed by the Indian Institute of Management, -Ahmedabad, which scored 68 points more than SDA Bocconi, leader of the third group. The fourth group, which includes schools ranked from 72nd to 100th, is headed by University of Minnesota: Carlson.

© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2012. "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd. This PDF created on 11th March 2012.


Rank

in 2

012

3 y

ear

avera

ge r

ank

Sch

ool nam

e

Countr

y

Weig

hte

d s

ala

ry (

US$)

Sala

ry p

erc

enta

ge

incr

ease







7 8 MIT: Sloan US 157,337 120

















24 21 Ceibs China 123,058 150








































































95 84 Ipade Mexico 90,900 176



98 94 SMU: Cox US 101,286 90


Table notes



9. Appendices

Appendix A: Financial Times Global MBA Rankings 2012

36



Rank

in 2

012

3 y

ear

avera

ge r

ank

Sch

ool nam

e

Countr

y

Weig

hte

d s

ala

ry (

US$)

Sala

ry p

erc

enta

ge

incr

ease







7 8 MIT: Sloan US 157,337 120

















24 21 Ceibs China 123,058 150








































































95 84 Ipade Mexico 90,900 176



98 94 SMU: Cox US 101,286 90


Table notes



37



Rank

in 2

012

3 y

ear

avera

ge r

ank

Sch

ool nam

e

Countr

y

Weig

hte

d s

ala

ry (

US$)

Sala

ry p

erc

enta

ge

incr

ease







7 8 MIT: Sloan US 157,337 120

















24 21 Ceibs China 123,058 150








































































95 84 Ipade Mexico 90,900 176



98 94 SMU: Cox US 101,286 90


Table notes



38



Rank

in 2

012

3 y

ear

avera

ge r

ank

Sch

ool nam

e

Countr

y

Weig

hte

d s

ala

ry (

US$)

Sala

ry p

erc

enta

ge

incr

ease







7 8 MIT: Sloan US 157,337 120

















24 21 Ceibs China 123,058 150








































































95 84 Ipade Mexico 90,900 176



98 94 SMU: Cox US 101,286 90


Table notes



39



Rank

in 2

012

3 y

ear

avera

ge r

ank

Sch

ool nam

e

Countr

y

Weig

hte

d s

ala

ry (

US$)

Sala

ry p

erc

enta

ge

incr

ease







7 8 MIT: Sloan US 157,337 120

















24 21 Ceibs China 123,058 150








































































95 84 Ipade Mexico 90,900 176



98 94 SMU: Cox US 101,286 90


Table notes



40


Appendix B: Financial Times Global EMBA Rankings 2011

EMBA Rankings 2011FT.com Business School Rankings - Custom PDF download

Curr

ent

rank

3 y

ear

avera

ge

Sch

ool nam

e

Countr

y

Sala

ry t

oday

(US$)

Sala

ry incr

ease

(%

)

1 1 Kellogg / Hong Kong UST Business School China 419,416 63

2 2 Trium: HEC Paris / LSE / New York University: Stern France / UK / US 307,808 58

3 3 Columbia/London Business School US / UK 259,833 85

4 4 Insead France / Singapore / U.A.E. 219,441 60

5 5 University of Chicago: Booth US / UK / Singapore 219,736 70




9 - UCLA / NUS U.S.A / Singapore 232,928 72

10 8 London Business School UK / U.A.E. 180,409 79

11 18 Ceibs China 267,062 72

11 19 Kellogg / York University: Schulich Canada 182,969 66


14 14 Chinese University of Hong Kong China 275,866 57

15 15Washington University: Olin School of Business/Fudan University School of Management

US / China 237,847 52


17 16 Kellogg / WHU-Otto Beisheim School Germany 163,628 79


19 19 National University of Singapore School of Business Singapore 219,571 58

20 30 Arizona State University: Carey China 239,622 66


22 16 UC Berkeley / Columbia US 204,244 50

23 - Korea University Business School South Korea 234,006 93



26 - Cornell University: Johnson US 226,040 66

26 25 OneMBA: CUHK/RSM/UNC/FGV São Paulo/EGADE China / Netherlands / US / Brazil / Mexico 184,615 55


29 - University of Oxford: Saïd UK 191,168 66


31 24 ESCP Europe France / UK / Germany / Spain / Italy 138,657 72


33 29 Essec / Mannheim France / Germany 151,282 73



36 32 University of Western Ontario: Ivey Canada / China 182,992 62


38 -WU (Vienna University of Economics and Business)/University of Minnesota: Carlson

Austria 146,414 56




41 42 University of Pittsburgh: Katz US / Brazil / Czech Republic 172,112 50

43 29 Purdue / TiasNimbas / CEU / GISMA US / Netherlands / Hungary / Germany 141,199 51

44 - Cornell University; Johnson/Queen's School of Business US / Canada 152,732 64

45 41 National Taiwan University College of Management Taiwan 209,688 47




49 - Vanderbilt University: Owen US 162,104 63

50 - Henley Business School UK 140,008 69

51 60 Villanova School of Business US 175,621 57

52 50 Temple University: Fox US 155,979 51

53 57 Aalto University School of Economics Finland / S. Korea / Singapore / Poland 134,914 51

54 - Texas A & M University: Mays US 170,471 45

54 52 National Sun Yat-sen University Taiwan 141,656 61

56 43 Tongji University/ENPC China 147,316 70

57 - Yonsei University GSB South Korea 151,819 66


57 61 FIA - Fundação Instituto de Administração Brazil 195,214 30


61 - Euromed Management France / China 138,582 56

62 - University at Buffalo, The State University of New York US / Singapore 146,090 60

62 59 Ashridge UK 141,970 60

64 69 Georgia State University: Robinson US 153,219 48

65 - University of Florida: Hough US 141,483 47

65 56 Stockholm School of Economics Sweden / Russia / Latvia 130,166 49

67 - Fordham University Graduate School of Business US 156,418 56

67 - University of Pretoria: Gibs South Africa 180,836 56

67 - SDA Bocconi Italy 138,488 50

70 63 Rutgers Business School US 158,108 38

70 75 SMU: Cox US 167,015 38

72 64 Koç University Graduate School of Business Turkey 135,771 56

73 52 University of Alberta/University of Calgary: Haskayne Canada 138,591 48

74 71 Tulane University: Freeman US 167,458 54

75 - University of Georgia: Terry US 147,856 43

76 60 Copenhagen Business School Denmark 119,410 41

76 64 University of Texas at Dallas: Jindal US 131,569 40


78 61 Universität St Gallen Switzerland 129,414 50



82 80 Auburn University US 147,792 48


84 73 Queen's School of Business Canada 120,780 37

85 - Nyenrode Business Universiteit Netherlands 108,488 42

85 84 University of Strathclyde Business School UK 121,893 34

87 - University of Arizona: Eller US 127,870 46

88 84 University of Utah: Eccles US 133,570 43

89 84 Baylor University US 131,582 58

90 - University of Rochester: Simon US / Switzerland 121,911 46

90 - University of Houston: Bauer US 136,382 41

90 83 Pepperdine University: Graziadio US 168,652 36


94 82 University of Miami School of Business Administration US 128,842 34

95 81Bradford School of Management/TiasNimbas Business School

UK / Netherlands / Germany 109,936 50

95 91 Loyola University Maryland: Sellinger US 118,630 55

97 96 IAE Business School Argentina 157,403 46

98 93 Ipade Mexico 179,016 51

99 93 University of Denver: Daniels US 151,236 44

100 88 Michigan State University: Broad US 119,524 39

Table notes

Although the headline ranking figures show changes in the data year to year, the pattern of clustering among the schools is equally significant. Some 290 points separate Kellogg / Hong Kong UST Business School at the top, from the school ranked number 100. The first ten business schools,from Kellogg / Hong Kong UST Business School to London Business School, form the top group of schools. The second group is headed by the Ceibs, which would need to increase its score by 5 points in order to move up a group. Top of the third group is the joint programme from Cornell University: Johnson and Queen's School of Business.Some 40 points separate the top and bottom schools in this third group. The fourth group is slightly closer together, separated by 33 points.


41



Curr

ent

rank

3 y

ear

avera

ge

Sch

ool nam

e

Countr

y

Sala

ry t

oday

(US$)

Sala

ry incr

ease

(%

)











11 18 Ceibs China 267,062 72





US / China 237,847 52
























Austria 146,414 56

























62 59 Ashridge UK 141,970 60








70 75 SMU: Cox US 167,015 38




























98 93 Ipade Mexico 179,016 51



Table notes



42



Curr

ent

rank

3 y

ear

avera

ge

Sch

ool nam

e

Countr

y

Sala

ry t

oday

(US$)

Sala

ry incr

ease

(%

)











11 18 Ceibs China 267,062 72





US / China 237,847 52
























Austria 146,414 56

























62 59 Ashridge UK 141,970 60








70 75 SMU: Cox US 167,015 38




























98 93 Ipade Mexico 179,016 51



Table notes



43



Curr

ent

rank

3 y

ear

avera

ge

Sch

ool nam

e

Countr

y

Sala

ry t

oday

(US$)

Sala

ry incr

ease

(%

)











11 18 Ceibs China 267,062 72





US / China 237,847 52
























Austria 146,414 56

























62 59 Ashridge UK 141,970 60








70 75 SMU: Cox US 167,015 38




























98 93 Ipade Mexico 179,016 51



Table notes



44



Curr

ent

rank

3 y

ear

avera

ge

Sch

ool nam

e

Countr

y

Sala

ry t

oday

(US$)

Sala

ry incr

ease

(%

)











11 18 Ceibs China 267,062 72





US / China 237,847 52
























Austria 146,414 56

























62 59 Ashridge UK 141,970 60








70 75 SMU: Cox US 167,015 38




























98 93 Ipade Mexico 179,016 51



Table notes



45


Appendix C: Data Questionnaire Sample(CEIBS)

Data Questionnaire

School CEIBS

Location Shanghai (main)

Name and contact of people spoke to

Always been busy, cannot go through

History

When formed? 1994

How formed? (Government, private, etc.)

If government, which level of government? (Central, Provin-cial, Municipal, etc.)

European Commission, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation, and Shanghai Jiaotong University

Who owns it? Joint venture

How is the institution funded? (government, private, etc.)

Not-for-profit joint venture established under an financial agree-ment between MOFTEC and the European Commission

Has the institution ever traded under a different name? When?

CEMP 1984, CEMI 1989

What was their route to achiev-ing university status? Did they start as a college, etc.?

Not as a college but formed initially as a business school – no university status

When was the business school formed?

1994

Why was the business school formed? For what reasons? (Competition, external pressure, internal pressure, etc.)

For the fundamental purpose of promoting foreign trading and economic cooperation between China and EU, by acting as an educational platform for training high class managers and govern-ment officials

What is their ranking in China? (MBA / EMBA)

2 (FT2011)

What is their ranking in Asia? (MBA / EMBA)

5 (FT2011)

What is their ranking globally? (MBA / EMBA)

11 (FT2011)

When did they become promi-nent in global rankings? (MBA / EMBA)

Since 2000

Additional Information gathered:

46


Development

Current student population size? No specific detail available

Current Business School stu-dent number?

No specific detail available

Current MBA student number? 198

Current EMBA student number? 58

Physical size (sq.ft, how many campuses, where, etc.)

5 Hectacres

Do they have satellite centres? No specific detail available

Student Demographics MBA EMBA

Average age 26-29 38

Average income No specific detail available No specific detail available

Years of business experience 6 yrs 14 yrs

Gender 30% Female 28% Female

When business school formed? Why? How? (Market Demand, competitor pressure, etc.)

In 1994, For the fundamental purpose of promoting foreign trading and economic cooperation between China and EU, by acting as an educational platform for training high class managers and govern-ment officials

Undergraduate Tuition fees per year

N/A

How many years for under-graduate?

N/A

Tuition fee per year for MBA? Chinese Students 34,562 USD

International Students 45,000 USD

How many years for MBA? 18 months

Tuition fee per year for EMBA? Chinese Students 58,343 USD

International Students 64,685 USD

How many years for EMBA? 18 months

Funding

How is business school funded? By partners involved

Where is funding from? From the partners and public fund

How is the funding distributed? No specific detail available

Research – is this a research university?

Yes, very much so with 14 reseatch centres

What % of funding goes to research?

No specific detail available

47


What type of research? (medi-cal, innovation, IT, etc.)

Academia Sinica EuropaeaAutomotive ResearchCase DevelopmentChina InnovationChinese Private EnterprisesEntrepreneurship and InvestmentHealth Care Policy and ManagementLeadership and ResponsibilityLeadership Behavioral LaboratoryLujiazui Institute of International FinanceOrganization and People ExcellencePurchasing and Supply ManagementService Economic ResearchSustainability and Supply Chain Management

Is research a prominent strate-gic directive for the Institution?

Yes, very much so. A centre of excellence in business manage-ment and research with Asia and worldwide.

Foreign studentsWhat % of students in the busi-ness school are foreign?

N/A

What % of students in overall institution are foreign?

45%

Nationalities of foreign stu-dents?

USA, Canada, Mexico, Germany, Spain, France, Holland, UK, Australia, Thailand, Singapore, India, Japan, Korea

Age range of foreign students? 26-34Foreign students taught in what language?

English

How are foreign students funded?

N/A

How are foreign students re-cruited? (agents, partner institu-tions abroad, etc.)

Via partners in China, eg. Shanghai Jiaotong University who has long standing contacts with businesses in the country , and is thus able to act as a channel, and European Foundation for Manage-ment Development which is an international membership organiza-tion, based in Brussels, with more than 700 member organizations from academia, business, public service and consultancy in 80 countries.

TeachingWhat language is teaching in for the MBA and EMBA?

English

Is English featured within these courses?

Yes

What demographic is their teaching staff?

(nationality, average age, gender, years of experience in business )

67 Full-time professors, from 14 countries. 33% is Chinese, 67% is foreigners (22% Europe, 36% North America, 7% Asia & Pacific)

48


Graduate Stats

How many grads of the MBA to current?

10,000+

How many grads of the EMBA to current?

80,000+

When was the first intake of the MBA?

1994

When was the first intake of the EMBA?

1995

Average students per year for MBA?

190

Average students per year for EMBA?

700

How many intakes per year for each programme? (MBA and EMBA)

N/A

Globalization Strategy

Do they have a presence out-side of China? If so, where?

Yes Africa

Is this presence independent or in a partnership with a foreign institution? Collaborative deliv-ery? Franchised?

Independent but with financial support from China Development Bank, and African Government

Do they have a foreign partner-ship IN China at their institution? (ie: do they work with a foreign university to deliver foreign qualifications at their institution in China)

Not so much. CEIBS tends to delivery its own EMBA and MBA Programmes and awards.

If so, who is the foreign institu-tion? Where is their base?

n/a

Do they have any international links or strategic partners? If so, how does this link function?

They do have strong links with Chinese, European, and African governments and banks. Not so much with other HEIs. These links bring to CEIBS financial, quality control, and recruitment benefits.

Are plans in place to develop (or further develop) overseas? Where? Why?

Yes, the intention seems to be in Africa at this stage. Could po-tentially due to the fact that Africa, China and Europe wish to strengthen their business and political ties, and CEIVS is a platform for that.

49


What barriers have they experi-enced in developing overseas? (immigration barriers for stu-dents, regulation barriers, qual-ity control barriers, cost barriers, etc.)

No significant barriers are found due to strong financial, legal, and educational support from governments, banks, and European Foundation for Management Development.

Additional Information (notes) gathered:

At the establishment of CEIBS, The signing parties on the official founding contract were Shanghai Jiaotong University and the European (EFMD). These organizations continue to provide the institutional guarantees that make CEIBS a centre of excellence in business management and research with Asia and worldwide.

Quality is guaranteed by Shanghai Jiaotong University and the European Foundation for Management Development where these organizations continue to provide institutional guarantees to en-sure CEIVS a centre of excellence in business management and research with Asia and worldwide. The latter is recognized globally as an accreditation body of quality in management education and has established accreditation services for business schools and programmes, corporate universities.

Kai DaiEMBA 2010-2012

Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge

CB2 1AG UK

An Analysis of the Global Strategy of Prominent Business Schools in

an Emerging Market (China)

Documents

An Analysis of Global Strategy of the Prominent Business School in the Emerging Market (China)