Aacsb report

AACSB TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary...............................................................................................1I. Situational Analysis...............................................................................................6II. Mission Statement...............................................................................................11III. Strategic Management Planning Process..............................................................13IV. Assessment Tools and Procedures........................................................................15V. Financial Strategies..............................................................................................25VI. New Degree Programs.........................................................................................29VII. Faculty Tables......................................................................................................29VIII. Policies for Faculty Management.........................................................................32IX. Appendices.........................................................................................................X. A1

List of Acronyms A. Annual Maintenance Report, 2004-2005B. Annual Maintenance Report, 2005-2006C. Annual Maintenance Report, 2006-2007D. Annual Maintenance Report, 2007-2008E. Annual Maintenance Report, 2008-2009F. Progress Report to AACSB (responding to issues identified by Continuing Review G. Team), January 2006SoBA Enrollments (Undergraduate, MBA, and MAcct, 2004 – 2009)H. SoBA Organizational ChartI. SoBA Strategic PlanJ. SoBA Faculty Hires for Past Five YearsK.

UM is located in Missoula, which has a variety of outdoor, leisure, and cultural attractions that appeal to prospec-tive students and faculty members; this environment allows for success, balance, and quality of life.

AACSB TABLE OF CONTENTS

Faculty Incentives/Research (Professorships, Distinguished Faculty Fellowship L. and Faculty Fellowships, Competitive Research Grants, and Sabbaticals)SoBA Center for Student Excellence Proposal (presented to UM’s Retention M. Committee in August 2009) Presenters/N. Byrnes Accounting & Finance Research Seminar Series (2004 – 2009)Presenters/Visiting Scholars and Preeminent ExpertsO. Presenters/P. Gilkey Executive Lecture Series (2004 – 2009)Awardees/Q. Pioneer in Industry Awards (2004 – 2009)SoBA Internship ProgramR. Business Advisory Council Membership (2004 – 2009)S. Faculty Awards for Past Five YearsT. Number of SoBA Graduates by MajorU. SoBA Assessment Sample TemplateV. SoBA Assessment Writing RubricsW. “Academically Qualified” and “Professionally Qualified” Faculty PolicyX. “Participating” Faculty PolicyY. Excerpts from the Collective Bargaining Agreement between The University Z. of Montana University Faculty Association and the Montana University System (effective July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2009) regarding faculty policies (retention, development, evaluation, reward, etc.)

AA. Table 2-1BB. Table 2-2CC. Table 9-1, 2008-2009DD. Table 10-1, 2008-2009EE. Table 10-2, 2008-2009FF. Table 10-2 A, 2008-2009GG. Table 10-2B, 2008-2009HH. Table 10-2, Fall 2009 II. Table 10-2A, Fall 2009 JJ. Table 10-2B, Fall 2009

UM’s School of Busi-ness Administration (SoBA) is the largest professional school on campus, awarding 350 undergraduate degrees during the 2008 – 2009 academic year.

School of Business Administration Fifth Year Maintenance Report

AACSB EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. EXEcUTIVE SUMMAry1

BAckgroUND INForMATIoN/oVErVIEw The University of Montana (UM), a comprehensive liberal arts institution that receives par-tial support from the state of Montana, was founded in 1893. UM ranks 17th in the nation and 5th among public universities in producing Rhodes Scholars. UM has been profiled in recent editions of The Princeton Review as one of the nation’s “Best 371 Colleges” (2010), “Best 368 Colleges” (2009), and “Best Value Colleges” (2007). UM has produced 10 Tru-man Scholars, 14 Goldwater Scholars, 36 Udall Scholars, and 40 Fulbright Scholars. Several UM programs are ranked among the nation’s best, including programs in Creative Writing, Wildlife Biology, Journalism, and Pharmacy.

UM is located in Missoula, which has a variety of outdoor, leisure, and cultural attractions that appeal to prospective students and faculty members; this environment allows for success, balance, and quality of life. Abundant year-round recreational opportunities exist, including skiing, fishing, hunting, hiking, and biking. Glacier National Park and Yellowstone National Park both are in close proximity. The campus occupies 200 acres with more than 60 buildings and a 25,000-seat football stadium – and has been described by Rolling Stone magazine as the “most scenic campus in America.”

The scope of UM’s operations is substantial for Montana. The university’s budget for 2008 – 2009 was nearly $225 million (Missoula only) and was nearly $290 million when taking into account all UM campuses (Butte and Dillon). The market value of UM’s endowment at June 30, 2009 was nearly $94 million. During 2008 – 2009, nearly 16,000 donors contrib-uted more than $22.5 million.

UM collectively offers 62 degrees at the bachelor’s level, 58 degrees at the master’s level, and 22 degrees at the doctorate level. During the 2008 – 2009 academic year, UM awarded 2,768 degrees (2,210 undergraduate and 558 graduate). UM’s School of Business Administration (SoBA) is the largest professional school on campus, awarding 350 under-graduate degrees during the 2008 – 2009 academic year.

The SoBA, which has been singled out as one of UM’s standout programs in recent edi-tions of The Princeton Review (2009 and 2007), formally offered its first program in busi-ness in 1918. Programs in the SoBA were first accredited by AACSB in 1949 – making us one of the first fifty schools to earn AACSB accreditation. The SoBA’s MBA program first earned accreditation in 1982, and the SoBA first earned separate accounting accredita-tion in 2001. The SoBA granted its first undergraduate degree in 1918, its first MA degree in 1933, its first MBA degree in 1967, and its first MAcct degree in 1993. (Copies of the SoBA’s annual reports for the past five years are attached as Appendices B – F, respective-ly; a copy of our progress report to AACSB dated January 2006 is attached as Appendix G.)

1Please refer to Appendix A for a list of acronyms used in this report.

Page 1

The SoBA, which has been singled out as one of UM’s standout programs in recent editions of The Princeton Review (2009 and 2007), formally offered its first pro-gram in business in 1918.



The SoBA offers a Bachelor of Science degree in Busi-ness Administration (with majors in Accounting, Fi-nance, International Business, Information Systems and Technology – newly named Management Information Systems effective with the 2009 – 2010 academic year, Management, and Marketing). The SoBA also offers Master’s of Accountancy (MAcct) and Master’s of Busi-ness Administration (MBA) degree programs. The MBA program is offered both in the traditional format and in an off-campus format; nearly all MBA students pursue solely an MBA degree, but several have pursued joint JD/MBA or MBA/PharmD degrees. Enrollment informa-tion for the SoBA for the 2008 – 2009 academic year is presented in Appendix H. The SoBA is organized into three departments: (1) Accounting & Finance (A&F); (2) newly named Man-agement Information Systems (MIS); and (3) Manage-ment & Marketing (M&M). The dean is assisted by an administrative team consisting of one associate dean, three departmental chairs, the MAcct director, the MBA director, a director of information technology, a devel-opment/alumni relations officer, and directors of three affiliate centers: American Indian Business Leaders (AIBL), the Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER), and the Montana World Trade Center (MWTC). Appendix I is a SoBA organizational chart.

We are extremely fortunate to be housed in the beauti-ful Gallagher Business Building (GBB). Thanks in large part to a partnership forged with Microsoft Corpora-tion and Hewlett-Packard Company (facilitated through several alumni), we enjoy state-of-the-art technology in the GBB (with software updated every other year by Microsoft at essentially no cost to us and hardware updated every third year by Hewlett-Packard at steeply reduced costs). The GBB incorporates network, comput-er, presentation, and distance learning technology and is networked and connected to The University of Mon-tana Wide Area Network and the Internet. The building uses interactive videoconferencing technology to allow two-way interactive instructional television signals to be routed to the appropriate rooms in other Montana cit-ies. Although we are part of a sometimes slower-moving

system, and must deal with university bureaucracies not uncommon to similar schools, our faculty and staff have access to our own technology support staff that works on information technology issues throughout the GBB.

cUrrENT coNDITIoNSGeneralBecause we are one of only two flagship universities in the state, and because we have chosen to engage in outreach to the academic and professional community through numerous activities and roles, we believe that we have a special relationship with the local business community. Our graduate programs fill a need for ad-vanced management education in Montana: Our MAcct program is one of two state graduate accounting pro-grams, and we offer the only MBA program supported by the state of Montana. Mission and Strategic Management ProcessThe SoBA is guided by its mission statement, which states: The University of Montana’s School of Busi-ness Administration is a collegial learning community dedicated to the teaching, exploration, and application of the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in a competitive marketplace. The mission is placed into action by a strategic plan, a copy of which is attached as Appendix J. Making everything possible is our most valuable resource – a dedicated and committed group of qualified faculty members constantly striving to advance the quality of instruction, intellectual contributions, and service outreach provided by the SoBA.

Throughout all of these efforts, the SoBA has involved numerous stakeholders, both formally and informally, as it has revised its mission and strategic plan, encouraged increased scholarly efforts, and implemented its Assur-ance of Learning (AoL) plan. In the spirit of continuous improvement, we have sought input from students, alumni, employers, faculty, staff, administration, and members of the Dean’s Business Advisory Council and the departmental advisory boards.

Assessment and AoLPrior to AACSB issuing its AoL standards, the SoBA had

Page 2



an effective assessment program based on indirect measures. During the past five years, we have devel-oped and implemented a comprehensive AoL program based on direct measures. This effort – which was led by a SoBA Assessment Committee, the chair of which has attended several AACSB assessment conferences – required significant “buy in” from our faculty members and is beginning to yield meaningful and helpful results, as discussed more fully in Section V. of this report. This AoL process has led to positive changes and enhance-ments in our curriculum and overall climate and has advanced the culture of assessment at the SoBA.

Faculty Deployment and Intellectual ContributionsThe SoBA recognizes that effective faculty recruitment, selection, and development are central to our mission of providing a high-quality business education. Individual faculty members are evaluated in a number of ways, including annual performance reviews, promotion and tenure reviews, and post-tenure reviews. Our faculty members generally teach 3/3 loads. Reductions in the number of courses taught may be granted in certain situations (e.g., because of significant involvement in administrative activities, because of significant research output, etc.).

Our faculty members are accomplished educators and researchers, receiving numerous national, state, and campus awards in their respective fields. One of our marketing professors was named UM’s Distinguished Scholar in 2004 and recently was named a Montana University System (MUS) Regents’ Professor – making her the first female and first SoBA professor to earn that prestigious honor.

Our faculty are generally skewed toward higher rank. Specifically, for 2008-2009, we had 36 tenured or tenure-track faculty, and 24 of them were tenured, with 14 of those who were tenured being promoted to the highest rank possible (full professor). Retirements have been rather steady, and other turnover has been relatively low. Faculty members who have left for posi-tions at other institutions often do so for advancement

or family reasons.2 Please see Appendix K for a listing of the SoBA’s faculty hires during the past five years.

The past decade has seen the quantity and quality of intellectual contributions from our faculty grow signifi-cantly. Never before has such a wide cross-section of faculty members published so much – and in so many quality journals. We expect that the next five-year period will see even greater research produc-tivity by our faculty members, and we attribute this in-crease in productivity, in part, to additional mechanisms now in place to reward and motivate faculty members to be productive scholars. These mechanisms include three professorships, one distinguished faculty fellow-ship, eight fellowships, competitive summer research grants, and sabbatical leaves (and are described in more detail in Appendix L). Faculty members who benefit from these programs/designations make “brown bag” presentations on Fridays.

Students and CurriculumThe quality of our students is demonstrated in various ways, including placement success, pursuit of advanced degrees, and performance on nationally normed exams. (Please see the discussion of the ETS Major Field Test in Business and the CPA exam in the “Accomplishments and Effective Practices” section below.) In the past five years, many of our students have continued their educa-tions at the master’s and doctoral levels at some of the nation’s finest schools of accounting, business, and law (e.g., University of Arkansas, University of Oregon, Uni-versity of South Carolina, University of Utah, University of Washington, and Washington State University). Our experience shows that many of these students become loyal and generous SoBA alumni as they become suc-cessful in their careers.

2For example, an associate professor of management left in spring 2009 to become the Endowed Chair in Entrepreneur-ship and Leadership at Washington and Lee University in Lex-ington, VA; a marketing assistant professor left in spring 2009 to join the faculty at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, her alma mater; the former chair of the A&F Department left in spring 2006 to become the dean at another institution; and a marketing assistant professor left in spring 2006 to join the faculty at the University of Arkansas.

Page 3



We assess trends in business and business educa-tion when evaluating the curriculum. Monitoring and improving curricular processes begins with individual members of the faculty, who typically are involved in departmental, school, and sometimes university curricu-lum committees. We also seek input from students and members of our various advisory councils/boards with respect to curriculum design.

Instructional Resources/OtherExcellence in teaching is of paramount importance to us. The allocations that we receive from UM are not adequate to support our instructional mission and our educational initiatives. Supplemental funding, therefore, was put in place in 2002 through “program tuition,” a differential tuition assessment that provides significant revenue generated from SoBA graduate and upper-divi-sion undergraduate courses.

We also are ambitiously seeking substantial gifts to fund more student scholarships, educational centers, physi-cal expansion, and supplemental programs. We recently have placed requests with central UM administration to increase support for our accounting, entertainment management, and management programs. These sourc-es, if secured, will enable us to grow and to continue to achieve excellence in business education.

AccoMPlIShMENTS AND EFFEcTIVE PrAcTIcESThe SoBA has several practices/proposals in place and has achieved various accomplishments that demon-strate leadership, high quality, and continuous improve-ment of our programs.

Organization/StructureIn late August 2009, the concept of a SoBA Cen-•ter for Student Excellence was presented to UM’s Retention Committee. We think that our proposal would take our career development function (ex-plained in Section II.B.) to an even higher level. A follow-up meeting with UM’s Retention Committee is scheduled for mid-September, and we are await-ing word from the Provost’s Office as to what extent resources will be made available to us to begin

implementing the concept. Appendix M is a copy of the proposal. The • Byrnes Accounting and Finance Research Seminars sponsored 35 presenters during the past five years. Appendix N lists these presenters, and Appendix O lists some of the other visiting scholars and preeminent experts who have visited the SoBA and conducted “brown bag” and research presenta-tions to our faculty. Government and industry leaders presented at the •Gilkey Executive Lecture Series during the past five years, providing opportunities for students and members of the community to learn from individu-als in high-level positions. Appendix P lists these presenters. The • Pioneer in Industry Awards (spearheaded by the Montana Academy of Distinguished Entrepreneurs, or MADE) honored nine business leaders during the past five years. Appendix Q lists these awardees, eight of whom were able to interact with our

students in classes and small-group settings. MADE (www.business.umt.edu/made), which was •formed in late 2002, generally meets in the GBB twice each year and has fully embraced its mission of promoting and projecting the spirit of entrepre-neurship to the SoBA and its students through vari-ous educational opportunities and special events. Our entertainment management program•

(www.umtentertainment.org) is unique in that it was designed and assembled by top names in the entertainment industry from Montana. These pro-fessionals appreciate receiving their “starts” at UM, and they are now in positions to “give back” and provide students in the program networking/intern-ship/employment opportunities.The BBER is the pre-eminent business research or-•ganization in the state of Montana. Over its 60-year existence, it has established a record of timely and insightful research, nationally recognized publica-tions, and in-depth seminars and presentations on all aspects of economic outlook. It has grown in size and stature to become one of the most successful research units of its kind in the country. The BBER has had an active leadership role with the national

Page 4


AACSB

Association of University Bureaus of Economic Research (AUBER) organization, hosting national AUBER meetings in Missoula and twice (once in the past five years) having the BBER director serve as AUBER’s national president. The MWTC is one of more than 300 world trade •centers on a global basis, but one of only three lo-cated on a college campus (and, to our knowledge, the first to be so situated). In addition to providing a rich hands-on learning environment for students, it offers executive-education opportunities and con-sulting engagements to our faculty members.The GBB serves as the national headquarters for •American Indian Business Leaders (AIBL), which has been in existence for sixteen years and has 72

chapters nationwide.The SoBA Internship Program, the largest on UM’s •campus, has been in existence for 28 years. Appen-dix R contains a brief description of the program.In 2006, we began stringently enforcing course •prerequisites and implemented a requirement that students could not enroll in upper-division SoBA courses without first having earned at least a “C” (2.0) in all lower core courses. As a result, faculty have observed a marked increase in the readiness of students in upper-division courses. We are proud to have an active and engaged Dean’s •Business Advisory Council (BAC) that meets twice each year (see Appendix S for a listing of the mem-bers of our BAC for the past five years); we also have advisory boards for each of our three departments and for each of our affiliated centers (BBER, MWTC, and AIBL).

Student Learning/Student EngagementOur students scored in the 85th percentile nation-•ally (spring 2009) – with 15% of our students taking the exam scoring at or above the 90th percentile – and in the 80th percentile nationally (summer 2009) on the ETS Major Field Test in Business. The • John Ruffatto Business Plan Competition (man-aged by MADE) is one of the oldest in the country; more than 50 businesses presented at the competi-tion have since been launched.

Our MAcct students score well above national aver-•ages on the CPA exam. Please see the Accounting Accreditation Report for further information. A MAcct graduate (2008) was recently selected for •one of the highly competitive FASB Post-Graduate Technical Assistant positions.Beta Alpha Psi (BAP) has received “superior” status •from the national organization for six consecutive years.The Dean’s Student Advisory Council meets at least •once each semester, providing administrators with a direct ear to student voices and concerns. In 2007, one of our management professors agreed •to initiate and direct an International Program within the SoBA for the benefit of our students (and faculty members). The director chairs the SoBA’s International Programs Committee and primarily supports and oversees international exchanges of various kinds.

Teaching and Research QualityOur faculty members are committed educators and •scholars have received a number of national, state, and campus awards. See Appendix T for a listing of these awards and honors for the past five years.

CONCLuSiONOverall, we feel that we are achieving our mission and have the processes in place to achieve continuous improvement in terms of teaching, research, and ser-vice/outreach – though we face certain challenges not uncommon to similar institutions. Our dedicated faculty and staff strive to constantly improve and, as a result, SoBA graduates are positioned to meet the challenges of today’s dynamic business world. We have numerous and varied strengths, including a faculty that has been more intellectually active during the past decade than at any other time in the SoBA’s history and, therefore, has improved its reputation within the national and international academic communities; a contemporary curriculum that we regularly review and modify; state-of-the-art technology for teaching and learning; and well-developed integration of programs with the busi-ness community.

Page 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


AACSB

II. SITUATIoNAl ANAlySIS

A. what historical, national, local, and other factors shape the applicant’s mission and operations?

UM has a student body of more than 14,000, with nearly 12,500 of those students being undergraduates. It employs approximately 550 full-time faculty members and more than 200 part-time faculty members. Because UM is one of only two flagship universities in the state, most UM students (approximately 75%) come from Montana.

With demographic trends projecting a decrease in the number of high school students in Montana, UM President George M. Dennison has placed a priority on increasing en-rollments in graduate education (which efforts, thus far, have been directed mainly at launching new graduate programs as opposed to growing enrollments in existing graduate programs). The SoBA’s graduate students at the Missoula campus tend to continue with graduate study within three years of completing their undergraduate work, while students in our off-campus programs typically have been in the workforce for approximately eight years and employed on a full-time basis while furthering their graduate education. The SoBA is one of only two state schools to offer a MAcct degree (with MSU – Bozeman the other). The SoBA is the only business school in Montana with separate accounting accredi-tation, which we earned in 2001. The UM College of Technology (COT), also in Missoula, is a separate academic unit that offers a variety of two-year programs. We have requested that the COT and its programs be excluded from the scope of our accreditation review.

We are a collegial learning community that ensures that we are serving the specific needs of our local community and region, but we also strive to interact with and involve constitu-ents outside our geographic location (e.g., 2007 and 2008 training of Chinese and African business leaders and managers; increased focus on recruiting international students for our undergraduate and graduate programs; encouraging faculty exchanges or teaching as-signments in other states and/or countries). We are part of a supportive community and, therefore, we are able to offer our students experiential exercises and learning in a variety of areas. Because Montana has a limited amount of financial resources to devote to higher education (see Section II.B.), we make the most of what state monies we do receive by efficiently deploying resources without sacrificing effectiveness in delivering high-quality education.

B. what are the applicant’s relative advantages and disadvantages in reputation, resources, sponsors, and supporters?

rEPUTATIoNWe enjoy a strong reputation within Montana and the immediately surrounding region, with some of that reputation attributable to the quality and affordability of UM, but we are not well known by the business communities outside of that geographic area.

In response to feedback from members of the Dean’s Business Advisory Council and •

Page 6

SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS

we are a collegial learning commu-nity that ensures that we are serving the specific needs of our local com-munity and region, but we also strive to interact with and involve constitu-ents outside our geographic loca-tion...


AACSB

from our senior students, we hired a director of career development in late 2005. She has worked to change the culture at the SoBA in terms of our students’ preparedness for professional employ-ment, and she has collaborated with our faculty to ensure that students participate in resume critiques, “mock” interviews, and presentations/workshops aimed at such critical concepts as professional eti-quette and networking. SoBA graduates are highly competitive with gradu-•ates from leading business schools in the area and in the nation. Employers value the strong work ethic and willingness to learn demonstrated by our stu-dents. For more information, please see

www.business.umt.edu/career.Our faculty members have received numerous na-•tional, state, and campus awards, as demonstrated by the achievements shown on Appendix T.Close ties with our award-winning BBER contribute •to our understanding of the local, state, regional, and national economies; the MWTC provides ex-periential learning opportunities for students with global interests; and the national headquarters of AIBL is located in our GBB (with our dean serving on AIBL’s advisory board). According to UM’s Davidson Honors College, during •the past five years, the SoBA has typically had more than 40 students, on average, enrolled in the UM honors program – representing approximately 6% of the total honors students enrolled at UM.The SoBA has student organizations that develop •leadership/followership, organizational, and com-munications skills. Recent accomplishments include: Beta Alpha Psi has earned “superior” chapter rating for six consecutive years; Montana Information Systems Association recently awarded scholarships to its president and vice president (courtesy of contributions from MIS alumni); and AIBL is the only national American Indian non-profit organization in the United States dedicated solely to empowering business students.

Some of our reputational disadvantages include the fol-lowing:

The SoBA faculty members generally reflect the •population of the surrounding region and of UM and, therefore, those profiles demonstrate relatively little diversity. During the 2008 – 2009 academic year, 7 of our 36 tenured or tenure-track faculty (ap-proximately 19%) originated from countries other than the United States, which provides some inter-national diversity, but none of our current faculty members is African-American or Hispanic. Similarly, although UM and the SoBA have appreciable enroll-ments of Native American students (3.23 % and 3.80 %, respectively), our student population reflects relatively little diversity.UM has a somewhat “open” admissions policy. •Please see www.umt.edu/plan for demographic information relating to the 2008 entering class at UM. The SoBA’s programs do not currently have GPA requirements for entrance. To ensure that SoBA majors are prepared for upper-level coursework, the SoBA began stringently enforcing prerequisites for all SoBA courses and instituted a policy in 2006 that prevented students from taking upper-division SoBA courses without having earned at least a “C” (2.0) in every lower-core course. These measures contributed to overall quality enhancement, but UM’s administration is unlikely to look favorably on a quantitative GPA threshold as a “gatekeeping” mechanism for entrance into upper-division SoBA courses, which we think is the most efficient and effective way to further enhance quality. MBA enrollment (on campus and off-campus) has •been difficult to grow because of a rather finite (Montana residents) and saturated target market.We have a need for more scholarships, particularly •at the freshmen and graduate levels, to assist our students in making their educational experience not only enriching but affordable.

rESoUrcESThe SoBA faces certain competitive disadvantages and challenges with respect to resources. First, according to the study, “Trends in College Spending: Where Does the Money Come From? Where Does It Go?,” released by the Delta Cost Project in January 2009, Montana is

Page 7



AACSB

ranked 50th in the country in terms of state spending per student at a public research university. According to the same study, the national average for students’ share of costs for education and related expenses at public research institutions (2006) was 51%. Montana ranked last at 74%.

Contributing to Montana’s ranking in terms of state spending per student, the Montana Board of Regents followed the recommendation of Governor Brian Sch-weitzer (as detailed in his “College Affordability Plan”) in 2007 and determined that no tuition increases would take place on campuses within the MUS for the 2007 – 2009 biennium. In May 2009, the MUS Board of Regents – despite a recommendation against tuition increases from Governor Schweitzer – determined that UM and MSU – Bozeman could raise tuition 3% for resident stu-dents and 8.5% for nonresident students for the 2009 – 2011 biennium.

These resource constraints directly affect the SoBA in the following ways:

Our faculty must bear relatively high teaching loads •(typically 3/3). UM’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) con-•strains what our dean can do with respect to aug-menting base salaries for our faculty members. Our dean has supplemented the salaries of our more productive faculty members with “soft” monies raised from cultivating relationships, but it has been increasingly difficult to maintain these relationships and establish new ones in the current economic en-vironment. Because we compete nationally for new faculty members, we are finding that some excellent faculty candidates accept offers from other schools – based primarily on our compensation/benefits packages. We face salary-inversion issues in that the starting •salaries of new faculty members typically are higher than the salaries of our current tenured professors. Housing in the Missoula area is relatively expensive. •According to a recent study by the BBER, over the past 20 years, the average price of a Montana home grew 96 percent, but per capita income grew only

26 percent. Many faculty candidates, therefore, encounter substantially higher housing costs than expected for a rural area – exacerbating our con-cerns regarding our future competitiveness in terms of compensation.

SPoNSorS AND SUPPorTErSOur current dean has guided the SoBA for nearly a quarter-century and, as a result, we reap numerous benefits associated with his longevity and effectiveness – and enjoy the support of businesses and individuals (particularly those with a presence in Montana and/or the Pacific Northwest). Although our alumni tend to be very loyal and generous, we are constantly challenged to ensure that our operations remain “within budget.” Please see Section VI., “Financial Strategies,” for addi-tional information regarding our financial resources and strategies.

c. what internal, environmental, or competitive forces challenge the applicant’s future?

The SoBA faces various internal challenges. First, we are experiencing some difficulty in competing with other schools for faculty members because of the relatively high teaching load (generally 3/3) with below-average base salaries and benefits. Second, an upcoming (with the date not yet determined) change in leadership is imminent, with our dean entering his 24th year in that position. The inevitable transition of leadership to a new dean will provide many challenges and opportunities. Third, we need to engage in a marketing/web-devel-opment campaign to more effectively compete for and successfully recruit students from outside of Montana. As part of this effort, we have begun to develop and implement a branding strategy for the SoBA (with able assistance from a Disney Company executive, an emeri-tus member of our BAC); however, we have much work to do in this regard. Fourth, a significant amount of time and energy has been consumed by our intensive focus on fundraising for the Gilkey Center for Leadership, Entrepreneurship, and Executive Education – meaning that we have not been able to devote priority attention to other needs, initiatives, and projects

Page 8



AACSB

requiring “soft” support. (For more information on the Gilkey Center, please see section II.D.) Fifth, administra-tive infrastructure – especially human capital – to sup-port the programs planned by the SoBA is insufficient. Program initiatives envisioned that will require more administrative infrastructure include our entertainment management program, our entrepreneurship program, and expanded career and internship opportunities for our students (including international opportunities). Finally, our entertainment management program, entre-preneurship program, and Small Business Institute cap-stone course offer myriad benefits to our students, but we also face certain challenges in administering these two programs and this course and how we should most effectively balance the involvement of professionals who enrich the educational experience of our students.

As is the case with many units in higher education, environmental forces present challenges for us. For example, the Montana Board of Regents (BOR) recently mandated a transferability initiative in response to the Montana Legislature’s concern about ease of transfer-ability for students. The initiative requires all courses across the MUS to be evaluated by faculty with respect to learning outcomes so that similar or equivalent courses may be assigned common numbers and new, standardized course rubrics. This process – which has the potential to decrease our enrollments because stu-dents can take courses at less expensive colleges – has required our faculty to participate in lengthy meetings and discussions. Although this work is critical work, it demands that faculty spend substantial extra time completing these tasks.

Although the current state of the economy means that some students will decide to continue to pursue their education and perhaps earn graduate degrees – we presently are projecting a modest increase in enroll-ments, but our data is unofficial for another two weeks – it also undoubtedly means that some will decide to delay their schooling (even on a part-time basis). Be-cause our funding is dependent to a large extent on our enrollments, we face the prospect of lower institutional – and possibly SoBA – enrollments, and thus receiv-

ing less monies to fulfill our mission (despite increased costs incurred in delivering an outstanding educational experience to our students).

The delivery of the off-campus MBA program through-out Montana consumes a great deal of resources despite lower enrollments. Many of our MBA faculty members travel by car at least once each semester to two or three locations in Montana, often to instruct only a handful of students at each location. With our MBA program being the only one supported by the state of Montana, we likely cannot meaningfully scale it down; however, we are using new technologies (e.g., Mediasite, Elluminate) and considering different deliv-ery models in an effort to mitigate the stresses on our faculty members.

We recognize the competitive pressures of online pro-grams. This increasing competition, in addition to other challenges, has contributed to a failure to steadily grow enrollments in regional state-supported universities such as UM during the past several years. The resource constraints mentioned above have prevented us from exploring the offering of high-quality online degrees.

In addition, a respected competitor, Montana State University – Bozeman (MSU – Bozeman), is less than 200 miles to our east – in a scenic part of Montana in close proximity to many of the amenities that our faculty, staff, and students enjoy. We directly compete with MSU – Bozeman in terms of attracting students, placing them upon graduation, and hiring quality faculty. Both UM and MSU – Bozeman have business programs accredited by AACSB – International; both offer undergraduate majors in accounting, finance, marketing, and manage-ment; both offer graduate degrees in accounting; and both have reputable entrepreneurship specialties. Some of the major differences include our separate account-ing accreditation and our MBA program. In addition, we offer undergraduate majors in two areas that MSU – Bozeman offers as minors: international business and management information systems. MSU – Bozeman also offers minors in entrepreneurship and small business management; we offer no minors.

Page 9



AACSB

D. what opportunities exist for enhancing the applicant’s degree offerings?

Given our resource constraints, we are particularly sen-sitive about adhering to our “core competencies” and not overextending into other areas that might exacer-bate our situation. However, we feel that several initia-tives would allow us to enhance our degree offerings. Some of these are the following:

We are positioned in several ways to work across •campus for more integrated instruction. First, we have new management in UM’s Technology Transfer office, which should allow more cooperation among faculty in other units interested in the commer-cialization of their intellectual property – creating more opportunities for entrepreneurship instruc-tion, including accounting, finance, and market-ing. Second, the increasing internationalization of campus – including the new International Studies major beginning in 2010 – should strengthen our International Business major at the SoBA. Third, a joint master’s degree – resulting from a partnership between UM’s Computer Science Department and our Management Information Systems Department – would encourage greater cooperation between the two departments (the antithesis of the relation-ships typically found between computer science and MIS). Because the Provost has been unable to provide appropriate funding assurances to date, we have not been able to admit our first class into the MS in IS program (which would, if it moves forward, be housed in the Computer Science Department).With resources to replenish funding for an exist-•ing faculty line, more accounting electives could be offered at the undergraduate and graduate levels. In addition, our A&F Department is studying the possibility of a “3+2” program option, combining the baccalaureate and master’s degrees.With a leadership change fully implemented as •of summer 2009, our MBA programs (on-campus and off-campus) are poised to collectively explore new opportunities. We are excited about the new director’s vision for our programs; her enthusiasm and propensity to collaborate with entities across

campus in further developing these programs; and her ideas for moving forward with improvements to the programs, curricula, and marketing strategies.Our successful programs in entertainment manage-•ment and entrepreneurship are certificate programs only. We think that, with resource assistance, these programs could contribute to enrollment growth for UM (in terms of entertainment management) and the SoBA (in terms of entrepreneurship).

To grow and flourish and provide additional opportu-nities for our students, the SoBA is embarking on the construction of the Gilkey Center for Leadership, Entre-preneurship, and Executive Education. The Gilkey Center will form the hub of a thriving regional business environ-ment, providing a venue for business development and new opportunities in leadership, entrepreneurship, and executive education. The MUS Board of Regents autho-rized us to spend $5.1 million to construct the Gilkey Center. We have raised approximately $4.2 million thus far and, after value-engineering analyses and construc-tion drawings to be finalized during 2009 – coupled with willingness from benefactors for in-kind contributions (e.g., cement and steel) – we expect to be able to break ground by fall 2010 (with completion estimated to take at least one year).

E. what degree programs are included in the accreditation review, and what is the number of graduates in the previous year for each program?

The SoBA offers the B.S. degree in Business Administra-tion with majors in Accounting, Finance, International Business, Management, Management Information Systems (newly named), and Marketing. Also offered are the MBA degree without emphasis and the MAcct degree.

Appendix H lists the SoBA’s undergraduate, MBA (combined), and MAcct enrollments for the past five years. Appendix U contains information relating to the 2008 – 2009 academic year in terms of numbers of SoBA graduates in each of the SoBA’s degree programs.

Page 10



AACSB

III. MISSIoN STATEMENT

The University of Montana’s School of Business Administration is a collegial learning community dedicated to the teaching, exploration, and application of the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in a competitive marketplace.

We are confident that this statement accurately reflects who we are and what we do, what initiatives are brought forth, and what decisions are made. The SoBA’s mission and opera-tions are shaped by our location, the economic-development focus of the community and state in which we are situated, the political climate in Montana, the grand history of UM, the current economic conditions facing Missoula, Montana, the United States, and the world. In particular, the SoBA’s mission emphasizes our status as a collegial community. Time and again, we are reminded – generally by faculty colleagues and students – that we are a special place because of the camaraderie, respect, and friendship shared. Our community encompasses various stakeholders, including our students, alumni, and friends – all of whom are interested and involved in our fundamental priority of learning. Within the SoBA community, faculty, students, staff, and administrators strive to work together toward common goals. Decisions are made with a focus on the potential impact on that community and its culture.

In addition, we believe that the term “dedicated” accurately describes the passion and commitment with which members of our community approach their roles. The mission statement makes clear that teaching excellence is our major focus (in our degree and non-degree programs as well as the faculty and center outreach efforts), along with “explora-tion and application” of critical knowledge and skills. This language means that students in our community have opportunities to explore through traditional class research and also a variety of experiential opportunities, while faculty and centers in our community explore a variety of issues in their quantitative, qualitative, and pedagogical research as well as outreach initiatives. The term “application” here suggests that students can apply and practice what they have explored using case studies, research projects, internships, and simulations, to name a few. Members of our faculty and centers apply what they have explored through consulting, application-based research, and outreach efforts. Finally, we are focused on helping our community members to compete and to succeed – a challenge that we take very seriously. Specifically, we are focused on our students succeeding as managers and professionals, but do not ignore the success goals of our other constituents. In general, our mission reflects the broad scope of our activities and programs and the open-mindedness of our community. The SoBA is but one component of a state institu-tion, which allows us to be more flexible with whom we serve and how we serve them.

The SoBA communicates its mission visually in a wide variety of ways, including printing it in UM’s undergraduate catalog, displaying it on the SoBA’s home page of its Internet website (www.business.umt.edu), displaying it on the SoBA’s LCD screens in the lobby of the Gallagher Business Building, ensuring that it appears on the syllabi for every business course, and including it in various promotional (e.g., newsletters/Dean’s Report) and

Page 11

The SoBA’s mission and operations are shaped by our loca-tion, the economic-development focus of the community and state in which we are situated, the political climate in Montana, the grand history of UM, the current economic conditions facing Missoula, Montana, the United States, and the world.

MISSION STATEMENT


AACSB

advising documents (e.g., “check sheets” relating to our six undergraduate majors). The SoBA also communicates its mission orally at faculty and staff meetings, in addi-tion to meetings of the Business Advisory Council and the Dean’s Student Advisory Council.

During our last AACSB review (2000, with continuing review until fall 2002), the SoBA’s mission statement was as follows: “The faculty and staff of the School of Business Administration at The University of Montana – Missoula are committed to excellence in innovative experiential learning and to professional growth through research and service.” A discussion started about poten-tial revisions to the mission statement in 2003, following which individual faculty and administrators discussed the mission with a variety of stakeholders and brought back feedback. The faculty went through an exercise during a retreat to define the organization (led by two faculty members in Management) in spring 2005, again followed by feedback from stakeholders. First attempts at drafting a new statement were conducted during a re-treat in spring 2007. Several faculty members compiled and reviewed data and notes from the previous mission discussions and, during the next retreat in fall 2008, a robust discussion led by two of our strategy professors was held regarding the mission statement. Faculty ap-proved this mission statement in December 2008.

The mission statement is reviewed and revised at our faculty retreats. However, we also collect input from external stakeholders (e.g., alumni and members of our Business Advisory Council), students, and staff members periodically.

Our current mission statement directly relates to the mission statement of The University of Montana – Mis-soula through a focus on students and faculty, their exploration and application within their fields, and overall success as the ultimate goal: “The University of

Montana – Missoula pursues academic excellence as in-dicated by the quality of curriculum and instruction, stu-dent performance, and faculty professional accomplish-ments. The University accomplishes this mission, in part, by providing unique educational experiences through the integration of the liberal arts, graduate study, and professional training with international and interdisci-plinary emphases. Through its graduates, the University also seeks to educate competent and humane profes-sionals and informed, ethical, and engaged citizens of local and global communities. Through its programs and the activities of faculty, staff, and students, The Univer-sity of Montana – Missoula provides basic and applied research, technology transfer, cultural outreach, and service benefiting the local community, region, state, nation, and the world.”

We serve a larger state institution and, therefore, most of our student population is drawn from the state and the region. When appropriate, the program-specific mission statements indicate this phenomenon. For example, the MBA mission (adopted in April 2007) is as follows: “Serving our region by educating ethical lead-ers who are effective in managing organizations in the global environment.” This statement demonstrates that our MBA program is regionally focused.

The MAcct program prepares students to become CPAs. Its mission is as follows: “The Master’s of Accountancy program provides breadth and depth in accounting, taxation, and business to develop a high level of under-standing, skill, and leadership capability for advance-ment in the accounting profession and other related business careers.”

Page 12

MISSION STATEMENT


AACSB

IV. STrATEgIc MANAgEMENT PlANNINg ProcESS

STrATEgIc PlANThe SoBA’s strategic-planning process is driven by faculty. The strategic plan centers on processes to strengthen the curricula (undergraduate and graduate) and improve instruc-tion, develop faculty and enhance intellectual contributions, and strengthen outreach activities to the local area, state, and region. It also focuses on internal areas critical to our success and to our continuous-improvement efforts, including staff development, succes-sion planning, technological resources, and communications initiatives.

In fall 2008, the SoBA – led by the Accreditation Committee and two of our strategy pro-fessors – discussed and eventually adopted a revised strategic plan. This particular retreat was an important launching point for us, and we leveraged off of the excitement, enthu-siasm, and creativity demonstrated by our faculty members to move forward in a positive fashion.

As is the case with the mission statement, the strategic plan is reviewed and revised at our faculty retreats, but we also collect input from external stakeholders (e.g., alumni and members of our Business Advisory Council), students, and staff members. General propos-als for changes to the strategic plan, which first took place during a faculty retreat in Au-gust 2002, were evident; more concrete discussions took place in spring 2005 and spring 2007. In fall 2008, faculty broke into four groups (by plan section with which they most identified or were most involved). Four group leaders revised each section based on that group’s discussion. The four main sections that still form the cornerstone of our strategic plan are the following: (I) Undergraduate Education, (II) Graduate Education, (III) Intel-lectual Contributions, and (IV) Outreach and Service. All four sections then were brought together and discussed as part of the complete group, with this discussion led by the same two faculty members (primarily for editing purposes). This strategic plan was adopted by the SoBA faculty in November 2008.

With the departure of one of the above strategy professors this past summer (he joined Washington and Lee University in Lexington, VA as the Endowed Chair in Entrepreneur-ship and Leadership), we asked another management/strategy professor to help us add a fifth section, “Administration and Infrastructure,” to the strategic plan. With the addition of the fifth section, we revised the other four sections (focusing primarily on eliminating redundancy, ensuring consistency, and making similar changes). All of these changes and, therefore, the strategic plan in its current version, were approved by SoBA faculty mem-bers this past summer.

The strategic plan is formatted similarly to the previous SoBA strategic plan, with differing section goals supported by strategies and action plans – with each of these delineating ex-pected timeframes and person(s) or entity(ies) responsible. A majority of the timeframes listed in our strategic plan are described as “ongoing” or “annually.” It is important to note that every director, program, center, and initiative is included in the strategic plan, but

Page 13

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS

Because the SoBA is part of a larger institution, we recognize that our strategic plan must be congruent with the strategic plan that guides UM.


AACSB

enough flexibility exists that we can add other compo-nents as necessary or appropriate. (As noted earlier, a complete copy of our strategic plan is included as Appendix J.)

Because the SoBA is part of a larger institution, we recognize that our strategic plan must be congruent with the strategic plan that guides UM. A UM commit-tee, the Academic Strategic Planning Committee – which has one of our marketing professors as a member – has been analyzing and proposing changes to UM’s strategic plan for the past fifteen months. A copy of the current version of UM’s strategic plan can be found at http://www.umt.edu/asp. The SoBA’s strategic plan dovetails with UM’s strategic plan and, based on infor-mation to date, we expect it to dovetail with any revised strategic plan adopted by UM. We will monitor the progress made by UM’s Academic Strategic Planning Committee and work to ensure congruence between our strategic plan and UM’s strategic plan.

rESoUrcES

The SoBA resources include faculty, staff, facilities, and finances. The SoBA manages these resources in a man-ner intended to maximize their efficient and effective use. Guidelines and policies for faculty development, reward, and support are outlined in UM’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) as well as the SoBA Faculty Handbook. The CBA also includes provisions addressing promotion and tenure criteria, as well as FEC guidelines.

The SoBA has a fiscal officer, who has worked in that ca-pacity for more than fifteen years. She assists the dean on all financial and budgetary matters. The dean has held his position for more than twenty-four years and, as a result, the SoBA enjoys a sense of stability, continu-ity, and predictability not found at many schools. The dean plays an active role in the budgeting process, and he works closely with the fiscal officer in this area.

For more information regarding our financial resources and strategies, please refer to Section VI., “Financial Strategies.”

SoBA STrATEgIc PlANNINg AND BUDgET COmmiTTEE

We make SoBA committee assignments on a calendar-year basis. For 2010, we have determined to form a SoBA Strategic Planning and Budget Committee (SPBC). We had a similar committee in place approximately five years ago and, although it was disbanded, our strategic-planning efforts continued in full force – under the oversight of our SoBA Administrative Team. For the past five years, this team has met every other week during each semester and is comprised of the dean, associate dean, three departmental chairs, three program direc-tors (MAcct, OCMBA, and on-campus MBA), director of information technology, senior director of development and alumni relations, fiscal officer, and center (AIBL, BBER, MWTC) directors. During that time, and on the alternating weeks, the dean and associate dean each has met with the departmental chairs. It is our position that a SPBC will be able to focus more keenly on issues of strategic and budgetary importance to the SoBA and help to more closely monitor our progress on various strategic and budgetary initiatives. We plan to deter-mine the composition of the SPBC during fall 2009.

Page 14

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS


AACSB

V. ASSESSMENT ToolS AND ProcEDUrES

Because learning is so key to the SoBA’s mission, we are committed to improving our teaching through direct and indirect means of assessment, integration, and application of knowledge. The SoBA’s assessment process, which involves a broad cross-section of our stakeholders, provides us with the opportunity to identify what our students are learning and allows us to improve the learning environment through our curricula.

Our faculty designed Assurance of Learning (AoL) processes for each of the three pro-grams in the SoBA: Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, MAcct, and MBA. We focus primarily on direct measures of learning, multiple modalities, and benchmarking. Although we use course-embedded exercises to the extent possible, much of our assess-ment activity is at the program level. Faculty members engage in diagnosing root causes of any problem areas and work, through the committee structure, to identify effective and cost-efficient solutions. We follow through with additional measurements to confirm that the desired improvements occur after curriculum changes.

SoBA provided support for AoL committee leaders, both undergraduate and graduate, to attend a variety of assessment training conferences, including AACSB meetings, discipline-specific meetings, and other conferences aimed at a more general university audience. Based on these training opportunities and available assessment articles, our approach to AoL activities has evolved over time.

UNDErgrADUATE ProgrAM

The Undergraduate Curriculum and Assessment Committee, with representatives from each department, brainstormed learning outcomes for the B.S. in Business Administration program. After identifying a large number of possible goals and using affinity diagrams to consolidate like goals, committee members prioritized the top five desired outcomes and identified measureable objectives for each:

SoBA graduates will possess fundamental business knowledge and integrated busi-1. ness knowledge.SoBA graduates will be effective communicators.2. SoBA graduates will possess problem solving skills.3. SoBA graduates will have an ethical awareness.4. SoBA graduates will be proficient users of technological skills.5.

The detailed objectives and their metrics can be found on campus in the AoL binder. The Undergraduate Curriculum and Assessment Committee then determined that the core curriculum, taken as a whole, adequately addressed all five learning goals. In fall 2008, the

ASSESSMENT TOOLS AND PROCEDURES

Page 15

Faculty members engage in diagnosing root causes of any problem areas and work, through the committee structure, to identify effective and cost-efficient solutions.


AACSB

Undergraduate Assessment Committee (UAC)3 again polled instructors of core classes to identify the levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning used in teaching the material at various places in the core curriculum. (The Undergraduate AoL binder, available on campus, con-tains the Curriculum Map and supporting documents.)

The UAC decided to use a Six Sigma DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control) approach for AoL. Committee members approved an assessment template that includes reducing variation, seeking root causes for identified deficiencies, finding effective and cost-efficient solutions, and, through follow-up mea-surements, confirming that the changes actually im-proved the learning outcomes. The steps employed for each assessment activity follow:

Identify goal and objective for activity.1. Develop appropriate metrics.2. Choose a sample of “authentic” work.3. Measure the work.4. Diagnose difficulties and identify opportunities 5. for improvement.Develop and analyze alternative solutions.6. Choose solution(s).7. Implement solution(s).8. Measure to see if improvement is achieved.9.

(See an example template in Appendix V.) As the com-mittee collects sufficient data over time, it will construct control charts to verify that the students have held on to the gains achieved. The matrix on pages 17 and 18 summarizes completed and planned assessment activi-ties for the undergraduate core (with the undergraduate AoL binder containing complete details of all assess-ment activities).

3In 2006, we split the Undergraduate Curriculum and Assess-

ment Committee into two committees to ensure that both

charges received adequate attention. The committees work

together for curricular changes brought about by AoL activi-

ties.

UNDErgrADUATE ProgrAM chANgES rESUlTINg FroM Aol ProcESS

Over the past five years, the SoBA faculty made a num-ber of changes to the undergraduate program based on both direct and indirect measurements. These changes included completing major changes in prerequisites to the upper core, supporting student writing, more effec-tively addressing business ethics, implementing career development activities, and student advising.

Fundamental Business Knowledge. Early during our re-view period, the committee members focused on ensur-ing that our graduates possessed fundamental business knowledge. In April 2005 and August 2005, two samples of students from the capstone course took the ETS Major Field Test in Business. The committee members expected that our students would perform at or above the national average for the test. In each case, students performed slightly above the national average, with the summer school group performing better than those who took the test in the spring semester. Except for finance, students scored above the national averages for the combined scores from the two samples. In the spring sample, however, scores for upper-division classes gen-erally lagged behind the national average, with finance surfacing as a problem area. In subsequent meetings, the Undergraduate Curriculum and Assessment Com-mittee and the SoBA faculty diagnosed a problem in the preparation of students taking the finance course. In some cases, students had not completed the math sequence prior to taking FIN 322 (Principles of Finance). The faculty members teaching the class reported that they did a considerable amount of remedial work during the class on material that should have been covered in prerequisite core classes. These faculty members thought that the level of material taught in the class would be enhanced if the instructors could be confident that students had already completed the lower core prior to taking FIN 322. Instructors of other 300- and 400-level classes reported similar experiences. In a fac-ulty meeting, the SoBA faculty agreed to require that, in order to enroll in any 300/400 level class, students must complete each of the lower core classes with a “C” (2.0)

Page 16



AACSB

BAchElor oF ScIENcE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTrATIoN


Page 17

Table continued on page 18...

SemesterFundamental/

Integrated Knowledge

Communication Skills

Problem Solving/Creative

Thinking

Ethical Awareness/

Decision Making

Technological Skills Other Satisfactory

Result? ACTION

2002-03, 2006 WPA (Direct) NoDesigned

SOBA Writing Assessment

Spring 2005 SOBA Test (Direct) No

Decided to use the ETS Major

Field Test

Spring 2005, Summer 2005 MFT (Direct) No

Changed prerequisites for

upper-division core classes (C

or better in lower core); Preliminary

metrics show improvement.

2002-04 Senior Survey (Indirect) No

Hired Director of Career

Advancement; Survey shows improvement

Spring 2007 DIT-2 (Direct) No

MGMT 320 becomes Gen.

Ed. Course; add’l metrics pending

Spring 2007 Essay Eval. (Direct) No

Proposal to Dean: Initiative for Excellence

in Business Communication; Pilot Spring ’09; Implementation

in Fall ’09

Spring 2008 Mock Interview (Direct) Yes None

Spring 2008 Essay Eval. (Direct) Yes None

Spring 2008 Senior Survey (Indirect) No

Initiated Group Advising for

Sophomores and Juniors/Seniors to standardize

advising; Revised web page

Spring 2008 Process Analysis (Direct) Yes None

Fall 2008 Lockheed Martin (Direct) Yes None

Fall 2008 Mock Interview (Direct) Yes None

LEARNING OUTCOMES


AACSB

BAchElor oF ScIENcE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTrATIoN, coNTINUED

or better. It was our hope that the new prerequisites would reduce the variation in student abilities for those enrolled in upper-division classes. In spring 2009, the committee repeated the ETS Major Field Test in Business for our first graduates under the new prerequisite rule. When compared to all of the institutions administering the test, our students scored at the upper end of the category that included the 85th

to 89th percentiles. Our students improved dramatically in the area of finance, scoring at the 90th percentile. They also scored at the 90th percentile in accounting and international issues. In fact, each subject area was at or above the 75th percentile, a significant improvement over the 2005 administrations of the test.

Writing Proficiency. A second area of concern centered on our students’ ability to write coherent and persua-sive business documents. As a requirement of gradu-ation, all UM undergraduate students working toward their first bachelor’s degree must take and pass the Writing Proficiency Assessment (WPA). It was imple-mented to help to ensure that “all graduates of the University possess the ability to write with clarity of thought and precision of language.” Please see www.umt.edu/writingcenter/upperdivisionwritingproficien-cyexam.htm for more information on the WPA. Based on university guidelines, advisors encourage students to take the exam after completing 45 credit hours of academic work, but many students wait until their last semester to do so. Based on data from 2002 – 2003


Page 18

Fall 2008 Intern Employer Survey (Direct)

Intern Employer Survey (Direct)



Intern Employer Survey (Direct) Yes

None for undergrad

program. MIS students will now see chairperson

to ensure a match between

skills and job requirements

Spring 2009 MFT (Direct) Yes None

Spring 2009 Mock Interview (Direct) Yes None

Spring 2009Strategy/Policy Case Analysis

(Direct)Results pending

Spring 2009Oral

Presentations (Direct)

Results pending


(Direct)Results pending

Spring 2009 Web Page (Direct) Results pending

Spring 2009 Intern Employer Survey (Direct)




Intern Employer Survey (Direct) Yes None

Planned Activities

Fall 2009 MFT

Spring 2010 Senior Survey (Indirect)

Spring 2010 MFT


(Direct)

Strategy/Policy Case Analysis

(Direct)

Strategy/Policy Case Analysis

(Direct)

SemesterFundamental/

Integrated Knowledge

Communication Skills

Problem Solving/Creative

Thinking

Ethical Awareness/

Decision Making

Technological Skills Other Satisfactory

Result? ACTION

LEARNING OUTCOMES


AACSB

and 2005 – 2006, the UAC observed that SoBA students failed the WPA at a higher rate than students from the rest of the campus. Members of the committee hypoth-esized that the type of writing students were asked to do on the WPA was not reflective of the type of business writing that our students would be expected to do upon graduation. After discussion, the committee decided to conduct its own assessment.

In spring 2007, the UAC collected a sample of essays written by students applying for scholarships. Commit-tee members selected this particular essay for assess-ment because it was a high-stakes piece of student work, and the students were encouraged to revise their essays before submitting them to the Scholarship Com-mittee. Because students applying for scholarships are generally our better students and the essays were im-portant for receiving scholarships, the faculty wished to see averages of 3 or better on a 4-point scale for each of the rubrics used. Students did not perform adequately. After discussion of the assessment results at a faculty retreat, members of both the Undergraduate Curricu-lum Committee and the UAC brainstormed a variety of potential solutions. The faculty ultimately decided to focus on a program that encourages writing across the core curriculum, with frequent and consistent feedback on writing skills.

In spring 2009, the UAC piloted the program, using two writing evaluators to support faculty. The graders scored each of four essays from five sections of MIS 270 (Man-agement Information Systems) according to a common rubric. (See Appendix W for the rubric and results.) Two sections of the course received numeric scores from the rubric as feedback, while two sections received numeric scores and written feedback. One section, a control group, received neither numeric nor written feedback. As expected, the control group did not improve over the four essays. Both of the other groups improved signifi-cantly, with the group receiving written feedback show-ing most of the gains in just one feedback opportunity.

The program will be implemented across the core cur-riculum during the fall 2009 semester, with progressively

more complex writing assignments in the upper division core classes. Writing evaluators will grade a variety of written assignments, giving written and numeric feed-back. All students will receive the writing rubric. They will all have on-line access to resource materials on business writing, including grammar rules and sample business documents. Early in fall 2009, the SoBA faculty will act on a new proposal to require students to successfully com-plete UM’s WPA prior to being admitted to the SoBA’s upper-division business classes.

Ethical Awareness. All students at UM take an ethics course as part of the university’s “General Education” program. Prior to this year, none of our business courses had been approved as ethics courses, despite repeated attempts to receive the designation. To complete the requirement, students took a variety of classes from all over campus. The SoBA faculty expressed concern that the students did not receive adequate conceptual foundations to equip them to make ethical decisions in business environments. In spring 2007, samples of students from Accounting 201 (Financial Accounting) and a senior accounting class piloted the Defining Issues Test for moral reasoning (DIT 2), an instrument developed by the Center for the Study of Ethical Development. We expected our students to perform at or above the national average for the test. SoBA sophomores generally performed slightly better than the national average for sophomores, but SoBA seniors scored slightly lower than the national average for seniors. After presenting the results at a SoBA faculty retreat, it was determined to do an additional assess-ment that would sample from all business majors.

An instructor for MGMT 340 (Management and Organi-zational Behavior), a core course, assigned background material on Lockheed Martin’s ethical principles, its ethi-cal decision-making model, the company’s commitments, and the hierarchy for addressing ethical concerns. The instructor asked students to assume they were employ-ees of Lockheed Martin, and she gave them ten ethical situations for response. The students scored well above our pre-determined cutoff for acceptable performance.

Page 19



AACSB

Concurrently, university faculty reviewed the “General Education” program and approved new guidelines for each category of courses. Under the new guidelines, the university committee approved MGMT 320 (Busi-ness Ethics) for General Education credit. While we do not currently offer enough sections of the course for all business students, we plan to move in that direction. Another administration of the DIT 2 test should provide data on the effectiveness of the course.

Career Development. For years, the associate dean conducted a senior survey (an indirect assessment) dur-ing the spring semester. In addition to other topics, the survey focused on students’ satisfaction with UM Career Services. In spring 2002, we found that only 4.1% of stu-dents said that they were very satisfied with UM Career Services. A total of 66.8% of students said they were not satisfied or marginally satisfied. The dean worked with his Business Advisory Council and raised money to hire a SoBA career development director. In November 2005, our career development director joined us and began working with faculty members to prepare students to find jobs.

The 2008 senior survey included questions about the SoBA career development activities. When asked about students’ overall satisfaction, 75% were satisfied. In ad-dition, 78% were satisfied with the resume critique and the mock interviews, 74% were satisfied with employer panels and workshops, and 78% were satisfied with networking functions.

The evidence also indicates that career development activities changed the culture of the undergraduate program and impacted our learning goals. Rather than waiting until after graduation to look for jobs, most students now prepare for job opportunities during their junior and senior years. We found that the career de-velopment activities also helped students improve their interpersonal skills (Learning Goal 2). Employers now complete an assessment of students’ interpersonal skills during mock interviews.

Student Advising. For many years, a combination of pro-fessional advisors and faculty members helped students navigate program requirements. University advisors saw freshmen, but SoBA professional advisors, with help from trained student peer advisors, met one-on-one with sophomores. At the junior and senior levels, faculty members worked with our majors to help them under-stand career opportunities. Advising personnel designed a myriad of handouts to explain university and school requirements, and a web page provided much of the same information.

Although the university recognizes our system as a model for advising, our graduating seniors typically rate the service as barely adequate. In the 2008 senior survey, more than half of the students responding ex-pressed concern with advising for general education and elective selection. More than 40% were unhappy about the help they received in selecting a major, although 88% of them stated that they understood their major requirements. Students were unhappy with their faculty advisors (44%), the peer advisors (55%), and the SoBA Advising Office (28%). They rated the advising web page unfavorably (63%). Two-thirds of the students admitted that they did not see their advisors regularly. Student comments varied widely, but a theme emerged concern-ing the quality and timeliness of the information that the students received.

During the 2008 – 2009 academic year, the SoBA added group advising to the advising opportunities available to students. We held “mandatory” meetings, by stu-dent classification, to place targeted information into student hands. We explained changes in university and school requirements in a general session and then broke out into sessions for each major. Faculty members and peer advisors, sufficient in numbers to minimize stu-dent waiting time, worked individually with students to answer questions and prepare schedules for the upcom-ing semester. We assured students that they could still see their faculty advisors for one-on-one sessions and that they were welcomed to visit the advising office. In addition, an MIS intern recently revised the SoBA advis-ing web page. By the time of the 2010 senior survey,


Page 20


AACSB

enough students will have been advised under the new approach for us to receive an indication on the effective-ness of the changes to the advising program.

mAcct ProgrAM

Accounting faculty members developed the following learning goals for the MAcct program:

MAcct students will obtain a deeper mastery of 1. technical accounting competencies. MAcct students will understand the role of 2. the accounting profession in business and the economy, along with the importance of profes-sionalism and ethics in carrying out this role. MAcct students will be effective communica-3. tors.MAcct students will apply critical thinking skills4. . MAcct students will be prepared for certification 5. as a CPA.

The Accounting Accreditation Maintenance Report contains more detailed information about the metrics used to measure each of the goals. The matrix on page 22 summarizes completed and planned AoL activities for the MAcct program.

mAcct ProgrAM chANgES rESUlTINg FroM Aol ProcESS

Entrance Requirements. The accounting faculty ob-served that a number of students were placed on proba-tion after being admitted to the MAcct program. The MAcct director conducted a five-year study of all MAcct students to determine the cause of poor performance. She found that the GPA in upper-division accounting courses was the best predictor of MAcct success, but that metric was not used in the admissions process. Subsequent to the study, the MAcct Curriculum, Admis-sion and Assessment Committee (MAcct CA&AC) voted to require a 3.0 or better GPA in upper-division account-ing courses, with the change going into effect in 2006. The committee members also voted to require, rather than prefer, a minimum GMAT score of 500 for

admission. Since the change, only one student has fallen into the probation category. As expected, MAcct enroll-ments went down immediately after the change, but they have since returned to pre-change levels.

Writing Proficiency. The MAcct CA&AC annually as-sesses student writing using the written portion of the MAcct exit exam. Results from the spring 2008 written exit exam were unsatisfactory. After further study of the results, the committee determined that international student performance was a large part of the issue. As a result, international students now have additional requirements regarding English skills. In addition, the written assessment of the exit exam has been moved to the fall semester to allow sufficient time for remedia-tion, should a student have a serious deficiency. In ad-dition, MAcct courses have included heavier emphases on writing. The Accounting Program Assessment Binder contains further information on assessment and AoL at the MAcct level.

MBA ProgrAM The MBA Curriculum, Admission, and Assessment Committee (MBA CA&AC) developed desired learning outcomes for the MBA program based on the program’s mission. MBA students will demonstrate:

Integrated knowledge and understanding of 1. various business functionsStrong communication skills supportive of their 2. leadership abilitiesIntegrity and ethical behavior in individual and 3. collective workAnalytical and critical thinking in decision mak-4. ingAn understanding of emerging trends in infor-5. mation technology and the interplay between information technology and organizational strategyAn understanding of the implications of the 6. globalized business environment


Page 21


AACSB

SemesterDeeper Mastery

of Accounting Competencies

Role of the Profession /

Professionalism / Ethics

Communicate Effectively Critical Thinking Certification

Preparation Other Satisfactory Result? ACTION

All Years CPA Exam Pass Rates

CPA Exam Pass Rates

CPA Exam Pass Rates

CPA Exam Pass Rates

CPA Exam Pass Rates Yes

Self-reported, Compared to

national average for grad students

All Years Placement Survey (indirect) Yes Administered

by CS

All Years Program Eval (indirect) Yes

Free-response student

evaluation of MAcct at end of

program

Spring 2007 Exit Exam Exit Exam Exit Exam Exit Exam Exit Exam Yes None

Fall 2008 Adv Board score exit essay Yes None

Fall 2008 Present to local CPAs Yes None

Spring 2008 Exit Exam Exit Exam Exit Exam Exit Exam Exit Exam No

Assistance needed for

foreign student writing skills

Fall 2008 Written Portion of Exit Exam Yes None

Fall 2008 Present to local CPAs Yes None

Spring 2009 Exit Exam Exit Exam Exit Exam Exit Exam Yes None

Spring 2009 Exit Survey TBD evaluating responses

Fall 2008/Spring 2009

Employer evals for interns




Employer evals for interns Yes None

Planned in AY10

Fall 2009 Present to local CPAs

Fall 2009 Written portion of exit exam

Fall 2009, Spring 2010 Employer evals

for interns

Spring 2010 Exit Exam Exit Exam Exit Exam Exit Exam

LEARNING OUTCOMES

MASTEr’S oF AccoUNTANcy

Page 22



AACSB ASSESSMENT TOOLS AND PROCEDURES

Page 23

MBA ProgrAM

Semester

Functional knowledge

and integration

Communication Ethics Analytical skills Technology Global

business Other Result ACTION

Spring 2008Exit Survey and Exit Interviews

(Indirect)

Need for improvement

Change in sequence

of courses; Foundation

course redevelopment

Fall 2008 Listening Road Map (Direct) Satisfactory

Fall 2008 Case Assign (Direct) Satisfactory

Fall 2008 Case Assign (Direct) Satisfactory

Spring 2009 Integr. Project (Direct)


Change in course

curriculum and format

Spring 2009 Case Assign (Direct) Satisfactory

Spring 2009 Writing Eval (Direct)


Implementing and

encouraging students to

take Business Writing App.

course in fall; Committee to determine if

required

Spring 2009 Present (Direct) Need for improvement Same as above

Spring 2009Exit Survey and Exit Interviews

(Indirect)Pending

LEARNING OUTCOMES


The MBA AoL binder contains more detailed information on metrics used to measure the above goals. The matrixbelow and on page 24 summarizes completed and planned AoL activities for the MBA program.

There has recently been turnover in the leadership of the MBA program. While not all records of assessment activity prior to fall 2007 are available, the new MBA di-rector is making assurance of learning a priority for both programs (on-campus and off-campus). Both programs currently share the mission statement and learning goals/objectives. The MBA CA&AC will be working in 2009 – 2010 to determine the direction of both programs and whether a sharing of mission and

learning goals/objectives should continue. If not, a new mission and learning goals and objectives will be drafted as appropriate.

MBA ProgrAM chANgES rESUlTINg FroM Aol ProcESS

Communication. The MBA CA&AC took writing samples and scored them using the writing rubric in Appendix W. Based on marginally satisfactory results, the MBA CA&AC identified writing as an area for potential im-provement. In the 2009 –2010 academic year, the MBA CA&AC will submit a proposal to the faculty to require a communication skills course of all MBA students. To measure the effectiveness of the change, the MBA


AACSB

CA&AC will perform another writing assessment after the new course is in place. The MBA AoL binder contains additional information on the assessment.

Foundation Courses. Based on student input on exit surveys and interviews, the faculty decided to update the on-line delivery of the foundation courses taken by students who have little undergraduate course work in business. Prior to the change, instructors relied solely on asynchronous delivery. Students interacted with faculty primarily through the use of email and on-line discus-sion boards. Beginning in fall 2008, several instructors augmented on-line delivery using Elluminate, web-con-ferencing software designed for e-learning. The software enables students bound by place to interact with their professor and other students, enriching their experience and allowing them to participate much as they would in a classroom setting. Beginning in fall 2009, all instructors teaching in the foundation program will work as a group

Page 24


Plan for 2009-2010

Fall 2009 Pre-test

Case Assign (Direct)


Exit Survey and Exit Interviews

(Indirect)

Internship Interviews (Indirect)

Spring 10 Integr. Project (Direct)

Writing Eval. (Direct)

Post-test (Direct)


Alumni Survey (Indirect)

Exit Survey and Exit Interviews

(Indirect)

Internship Interviews (Indirect)

Semester

Functional knowledge

and integration

Communication Ethics Analytical skills Technology Global

business Other Result ACTION

LEARNING OUTCOMES

MBA ProgrAM, coNTINUED

with Extended Learning Services on the UM campus to redesign the foundation courses to have a common look, feel, and delivery method. The effectiveness of the changes will be determined by additional questions on the exit survey and interviews after the redevelopment, as well as integrated course evaluations in the founda-tion courses themselves.

Sequencing Finance and Accounting Courses. Due to student responses on the exit surveys and interviews, as well as departmental needs, the sequence of ac-counting and finance courses within the MBA program was changed in fall 2008 and a new finance course was added to the curriculum as an elective. The MBA CA&AC is considering adding another accounting elective course to the spring schedule after indirect feedback in spring 2009 regarding graduates’ preparation and certain deficiencies in MBA business plans in the John Ruffatto Business Plan Competition.


AACSB

VI. FINANcIAl STrATEgIES

SoUrcES oF FUNDSAs part of a state institution, the SoBA receives its major funding from the state of Mon-tana. For fiscal year 2009, the SoBA’s state budgets totaled $5,583,840, which includes $450,000 from program tuition. For fiscal year 2010, we estimate the SoBA’s state budgets to total approximately $5,646,000, and we expect this estimate to include approximately $475,000 from program tuition.

Although state funding in dollars has increased since 2005 (when it was $4,955,969), the following chart shows that support as a percentage of the university’s budget has actually decreased, even though SoBA enrollments have remained relatively steady and programs have been added. While UM’s general funds budget increased approximately 26% from FY05 to FY09, the SoBA’s general funds budget increased at less than half of that rate, or approximately 12.7%. The result is that SoBA general funds as a percentage of UM general funds was reduced from 4.6% to 4.1% during this period, representing nearly $700,000.

Total student enrollment by headcount in fall 2008 at UM was 14,207. In fall 2008, there were 1,879 SoBA students, which is about 13% of total enrollment. At that time, total FTE enrollment for the university was 12,435, and SoBA students made up 847 FTE, or nearly 7%, of that total. By neither measure does state support to the business school equal the percentage of business school student enrollment.

In FY09, personnel costs, including payroll benefits, comprised $5,400,380, or 97%, of the total state general fund budget. Although the majority of state funding covers payroll costs, the SoBA is understaffed. Two years ago, for FY08, the Provost’s Office requested more involved operating plan information than had been prepared in previous years. At that time, we listed the need for clerical staff as the highest priority issue. To meet UM’s average staffing ratio at that time, the SoBA would have needed 8 new clerical staff lines, as well as funding for 2.21 FTE staff lines approved but not funded by the state of Mon-tana. The SoBA has not received any increase in state dollars for staff funding.

In addition to general funds from the state of Montana, the SoBA also receives special allo-cations from student computing fees, which are distributed centrally. In FY09, for student employment in our computer lab and help desk – an extraordinarily popular lab used by students from across UM, but staffed only by SoBA – we received $36,242. For equipment

FY05 FY09

UM General Funds $106,801,580 $134,692,549

SoBA General Funds $4,955,969 $5,583,840

SoBA Funds as a % of UM Funds 4.6% 4.1%

FINANCIAL STRATEGIES

Page 25

while UM’s gen-eral funds budget increased approxi-mately 26% from Fy05 to Fy09, the SoBA’s general funds budget in-creased at less than half of that rate, or approximately 12.7%. The result is that SoBA general funds as a percent-age of UM general funds was reduced from 4.6% to 4.1% during this period, representing nearly $700,000.


AACSB

for the building and for computers for faculty and staff, the allocations totaled $62,900. These central alloca-tions remain fairly steady from year to year, although the trend has been a slight decrease.Another revenue source is our designated accounts (which provided approximately $222,000 in FY09). Some examples are the following:

$23,600 from printing in the computer lab. This •money is used to help cover the salaries for students working in the lab, as well as some of the technology needs for the computer labs and the SoBA.$31,700 from event revenue charged to groups •who use the Gallagher Business Building. The GBB continues to be a much-used meeting area for the community. The most vivid example of this is the Regional Training Institute offered by the U.S. Forest Service each year during the week of spring break.$71,600 from Off-Campus MBA program •charges which come from the distributed learn-ing fees paid to Extended Studies (formerly Continuing Education). These fees help support distance learning in the SoBA, and especially MBA operational costs.

Because only approximately 3% of the general fund is available for operational costs, the SoBA looks to its donors and supporters for help. Private gifts are by far the largest non-state source of financial support for the SoBA. The business school’s total budget in FY09 was $7,232,374. This includes all state revenues as well as all donations. Total expenses paid from private sources were $1,389,392, or 19% of the total budget. Donated funds were used for the following:

unfunded and under-funded staff lines;•faculty fellowships, professorships, and research •grants;student scholarships;•special programs support, such as entertain-•ment management;travel expenses for guest speakers;•travel expenses for faculty and administrators;•student travel;•

student salaries;•assessment materials;•faculty recruiting;•professional membership dues for faculty;•databases for faculty and students; and•office supplies and repairs.•

FINANcIAl STrATEgIESAs is evident, the SoBA continues to receive support from businesses, alumni and friends. As stated in an ex-cerpt from the UM Foundation Fiscal Year 2008 Annual Report for Campus-Wide Invest in Discovery Campaign Statistics:

The SoBA raised $12.4 million during the cam-paign period (2002 – 2007) of The University of Montana’s Invest in Discovery Campaign (which surpassed its target of $100 million). The follow-ing is a breakdown of that support: (i) Student Support: $1.15 million, going toward estab-lishment or enhancement of thirty endowed scholarships (in addition to annual scholar-ships); (ii) Faculty Support: $3.5 million, going toward establishment or enhancement of ten faculty awards (including professorships and fel-lowships); (iii) Program Support: $4.24 million, going toward establishment or enhancement of seven “Opportunity Fund” endowments ($2.8 million), start-up of Career Development pro-gram ($0.25 million), and support for restricted programs such as BBER, AIBL, and Entertain-ment Management ($1.18 million); and (iv) Facilities: $3.5 million, including fundrais-ing launched for Gilkey Center for Leadership, Entrepreneurship, and Executive Education.

Our fundraising priorities for 2009 – 2010 follow:

Gilkey Center Raise an additional $1.2 million to complete the Gilkey Center, initiated during the 2002 – 2007 Invest in Discovery campaign. We have raised nearly $4.2 million of the $5.1 million authorized for expenditure. We received


Page 26


AACSB

FINANcIAl STrATEgIES TABlEFINANcIAl SUPPorT For ADMINISTrATIVE AND INFrASTUcTUrE STrATEgIc AcTIoN ITEMS


Page 27


Action Plan FY09 Cost FY10 Cost Continuing Annual Cost Source of Funds

Strategy 1a, Adequately staff and support SoBA offerings, programs, and initiatives

1a1, fill vacant faculty lines $93,500(Premuroso)

$96,000(Swift)

$100,823 (Shay)$107,802 (Campbell)

$90,640 (LaBarge)State general funds

1a1, improve staffing ratios $0 $0 Approx. $85,000 to fill current unfunded lines State general funds & donors

1a2, adding faculty line $0 $0 $116,230 (including benefits) State general funds

Strategy 1c, Support faculty teaching:

1c1, fund summer curriculum grants $0 $2,500

Dependent on # of faculty applications and availability of funds; each award approx.

$2,500

Donors

1c3, support faculty on exchanges $17,885 $0, at this time Dependent on faculty requests

In FY09 this was a shared expense by central administration &

donors

1c6, maintain support in int’l. exec. education $19,675 $2,800 Approx. $3,000 Donors

1c9, support faculty attendance at conferences $98,900 Anticipated to continue at approx.

FY09 amount of $98,900Anticipated to continue at approx.

FY10 amount of $98,900 Donors

nearly $500,000 from generous donors during fiscal year 2009.

Faculty AwardsRaise $250,000 to endow a ninth faculty fellowship as part of a long-term goal to increase faculty support through pro-fessorships, fellowships, and chairs.

Career AdvancementRaise $300,000 to support the Career Advancement pro-gram over three fiscal years, including FY10, FY11, and FY12. Initially funded with $250,000 raised and contributed by the Dean’s BAC, this privately funded program has dramatically changed the student mindset relating to career develop-ment and strategies for entering the workforce.

Entertainment ManagementRaise $100,000 in support of the Entertainment Management program A rich schedule of industry guest lec-turers and experiential learning opportunities require more funding than is available through the SoBA’s institutional budget.

Unrestricted Funding Raise $200,000 in support of the SoBA’s FY10 and/or FY11 operating budget to provide for faculty profes-sional development, student experiential learning, and other opportunities.

Because assessment is vitally important, the SoBA has increased its financial support for this effort. During spring and summer 2009, the SoBA administered the ETS Major Field Test in Business to graduating seniors. The SoBA spent approximately $5,500 on these adminis-trations. In addition, faculty and administrators regularly have attended AACSB conferences. For example, the SoBA sent four faculty/administrators to the May 2008 AACSB accreditation conference in Denver, and it sent four faculty/administrators to the Orlando annual meet-ing in April 2009.

In the SoBA strategic plan, the financial goals and strate-gies are included in the Administration and Infrastruc-ture section (pages S16-23).


AACSB

Page 28


FINANcIAl STrATEgIES TABlEFINANcIAl SUPPorT For ADMINISTrATIVE AND INFrASTrUcTUrESTrATEgIc AcTIoN ITEMS, coNTINUED

Strategy 1f, Support faculty and staff professional development

1f2, Maintain support for staff professional development Approx. $600 Anticipated to continue at approx.

FY09 amountAnticipated to continue at approx.

FY10 amount State travel budgets & donors

Strategy 1h, Provide outstanding support to students

1h2, Director of Career Advancement $52,500 $52,500 $52,500 Donors & state budgets

Strategy 1i, Support student experiential learning activities

1i5, Grow Business Plan Competition $20,150 $25,000 Approximately $25,000 Business contributors

Strategy 2a, Raise money for SoBA operating funds and student financial aid assistance opportunities

2a4, increase funding for scholarships $200,000 Anticipated to continue at

approximately $200,000Anticipated to continue at approximately $200,000 Donors

Strategy 2b, Increase potential funding for programs

2b1, MBA program $108,230 (Not including faculty salaries) Approximately $110,000 Anticipated to continue at approx.

FY10 amount plus faculty salaries State budgets & program users

2b2, UMEM program $153,175 Approximately $165,350 Anticipated to continue at approx. FY10 amount

State budgets, donors & program users

2b3, MADE & Entrepreneurship Program

$37,450 (Not including faculty salaries) Approximately $40,000 Anticipated to continue at approx.

FY10 amount plus faculty salariesState budgets, donors & program

users

Strategy 3a, Provide adequate office & teaching technological resources

3a1, install new computers on 3-yr. rotation $52,350 Approximately $55,000 Approximately $55,000 per year State special allocations, state

faculty rollover funding, donors

3a2, support in providing software Approximately $18,500 Approximately $22,400 Approximately $23,000 State special allocations, donors

3a6, support in upgrading equipment for graduate assts. Approximately $500 Approximately $1,000 Approximately $1,000 State special allocations, donors

Strategy 5b, Construct the Gilkey Center

5b, construct the Gilkey Center $60,300 Approx. $400,000 Approx. $170,000 Donors

Action Plan FY09 Cost FY10 Cost Continuing Annual Cost Source of Funds

Strategy 1d, Support and facilitate faculty research

1d1, fund summer research grants $31,000 $31,000

Dependent on # of faculty applications and availability

of funds; each award between $2,500 - $4,000

Donors

1d3, support professional memberships $3,700 Anticipated to continue at approx.

FY09 amt. of $3,700Anticipated to continue at approx.

FY10 amount of $3,700 Donors

1d3, support travel to meetings See above, 1c9 Anticipated to continue at approx. FY09 amount

Anticipated to continue at approx. FY10 amount State travel budgets & donors

1d5, recognize faculty for publishing $155,000 Anticipated to continue at approx.

FY09 amountAnticipated to continue at approx.

FY10 amount Donors


AACSB

VII. NEw DEgrEE ProgrAMS

No new degree programs have been introduced since the SoBA’s previous accreditation re-view and, as of the date of this report, no definitive actions have been taken with respect to new programs being contemplated.

VIII. FAcUlTy TABlES

Tenure-track faculty members are hired on the recommendation of a search committee that generally includes all tenure-track faculty members within the department in which the new faculty member will be housed, after conducting national searches. In accordance with MUS policies, non-administrator faculty members may not be hired with tenure, although up to three years of service credit may be brought forward to UM for purposes of promotion and tenure.

Adjunct instructors are hired on the recommendation of the applicable departmental chair. Adjunct instructors can be hired using term contracts of not more than one aca-demic year. Most of our adjunct instructors teach on a part-time basis and hold full-time positions in the private sector. Courses taught by adjunct instructors are assigned “master” teachers. A “master” teacher is a tenured or tenure-track faculty member who assists the adjunct instructor with course content and management. The “master” teacher typically reviews the syllabus, consults on exam content and format, and advises on dealing with sensitive student issues.

We have elected to use the new standards and present the new tables that AACSB will require for site visits beginning in 2010 (as approved at the Annual Meeting in Orlando in April). Faculty are classified as either “academically qualified” (AQ) or “professionally qual-ified” (PQ) and as either “participating” or “supporting” based on applicable SoBA policies (as set forth in Appendix X and Appendix Y). Appendix Z contains excerpts from UM’s CBA regarding policies addressing retention, development, evaluation, and reward of faculty.

We recognize that intellectual contributions enhance the quality of classroom instruction and improve business theory and practice. Table 2-1 (Appendix AA) shows the portfolio of intellectual contributions generated by SoBA faculty over the past five years. The portfo-lio of intellectual contributions is dispersed across all three kinds of contributions, with discipline-based being most prominent (262), followed by learning and pedagogical (77), and contibutions to practice (15). (Please note that, in situations involving more than one author from the SoBA, we have listed each author as having made an intellectual contribu-tion – thus resulting in multiple counts for the same scholarly product.) These results are consistent with the SoBA mission, particularly given that we are predominately focused on undergraduate education and career preparation – and especially considering that our mission emphasizes “teaching, exploration, and application of . . . knowledge.” In addi-tion to publishing in peer-reviewed journals listed in Table 2-1, our faculty members are

FACULTY TABLES

Page 29

we recognize that intellectual contri-butions enhance the quality of classroom instruction and improve business theory and practice.


AACSB

engaged in peer-reviewed presentations and faculty research seminar presentations, both of which serve to foster the scholarship process. Table 2-2 (Appendix BB) shows in which peer-reviewed journals our faculty’s scholarly works have appeared during the past five years (and how many times).

Table 9-1 (Appendix CC) shows the composition of faculty members who “participate” in the SoBA’s mis-sion versus those who “support” the mission. Faculty members are classified as “participating” if they teach and contribute to the management of the SoBA (e.g., through advising students, through committee service, etc.).

Using Student Credit Hours (SCHs) as the metric for academic year 2008 – 2009, Table 9-1 (Appendix CC) shows that all three of the SoBA’s departments exceed-ed the minimum requirement for “participating” faculty (60%) – with the A&F Department at 78.6%, Informa-tion Systems and Technology at 99.2%, and the M&M Department at 73.6%. The sufficiency ratio for the SoBA as a whole was 82.1% for academic year 2008 – 2009, which exceeded the minimum requirement of 75%. The SoBA had approximately 60 faculty members (including tenured, tenure-track, and adjunct) who taught in the SoBA’s degree programs during academic year 2008 – 2009, resulting in approximately 43 FTE faculty members.

Tables 10-1 (Appendix DD) and 10-2 (Appendix EE) sum-marize faculty qualifications for SoBA faculty members teaching during the 2008 – 2009 academic year. The data in Table 10-2 (Appendix EE) show the SoBA’s calcu-lations relative to deployment of its faculty for aca-demic year 2008 – 2009 and demonstrate that all three departments exceeded the minimum requirement for AQ faculty of 50%, with the A&F Department at 65.4% for academic year 2008 – 2009, the Information Systems and Technology Department at 74.7% for academic year 2008 – 2009, and the M&M Department at 58.5% for

academic year 2008 – 2009. In addition, as shown in Table 10-2A and Table 10-2B (Appendix FF and Appendix GG, respectively), both the MBA program (80.4%) and the MAcct program (58.8%) exceeded this requirement for academic year 2008 – 2009. Please see the Account-ing Maintenance Report for further information on the MAcct program. As reflected in Table 10-2 (Appendix EE), the SoBA as a whole also met this requirement for academic year 2008 – 2009 (64.1%).

As indicated in Table 10-2 (Appendix EE), the AQ + PQ percentage for the SoBA as a whole was 83.6% for aca-demic year 2008 – 2009 – or 6.4% below the standard. Table 10-2 (Appendix EE) and Table 10-2B (Appendix GG) show that none of our three departments nor the MAcct program met the 90% standard during academic year 2008 – 2009, while Table 10-2A (Appendix FF) reflects that the MBA program did meet the 90% stan-dard for academic year 2008 – 2009. Please see the Accounting Maintenance Report for further information on the MAcct program.

Significantly, for fall 2009, Table 10-2 (Appendix HH) shows that – as a result of recent efforts with respect to our AQ/PQ deficiencies – the SoBA as a whole meets the 90% standard (90.5%). In addition, both the MBA (Table 10-2A, Appendix II) and MAcct (Table 10-2B, Appendix JJ) programs meet this standard for fall 2009 (at 92.4% and 100%, respectively).

During the past couple of years, we have worked dili-gently to raise our AQ/PQ percentages. Naturally, these percentages have fluctuated to a degree over the years. Our faculty is comprised of educators and scholars who possess a tremendous amount of pride in their work and their reputations; they all appreciate the impor-tance of staying active and current with their research. The confluence of a number of factors helped us to raise our AQ/PQ percentages from fall 2008 to fall 2009 to the point that we exceed the standard on a school-wide

FACULTY TABLES

Page 30


AACSB FACULTY TABLES

Page 31

4Three of our faculty members – two of whom fall within the “other” category as of the date of this report – are awaiting confirmation as to whether a peer-reviewed piece has been accepted without the need for further revisions. Once that revise-and-resubmit process is fully completed (it was de-layed due to editor’s travel schedule, but is expected to occur at any time), then the acceptance will raise our AQ/PQ stand-ing by several percentage points. It is worth noting that this work earned a “best paper” award at a national conference.

basis, and we are confident that the trend is even more positive on a go-forward basis.4 First, publications are, in part, a function of timing; we had several faculty members who were neither AQ nor PQ who earned acceptances during spring and summer 2009. Signifi-cantly, several of these faculty members collaborated on research projects. Second, a couple of our senior faculty members who had not been active with their research retired or went on leave and were replaced by either AQ or PQ faculty members. Third, in the spirit of continu-ous improvement, departmental chairs began to visit with faculty members who were not actively publishing about ways in which these faculty members could gen-erate research. The procedures used were varied; some faculty members were placed on formal “plans” by their departmental chair and some were periodically asked about their progress in less formal ways. In any case, the message that we fully expect our faculty members to remain current through their intellectual contribu-tions, professional activities, or a combination thereof resonated with the faculty members who had not been actively publishing. Finally, we became more focused on hiring only adjunct instructors who met the require-ments for PQ classification as outlined in our policy.


AACSB POLICIES FOR FACULTY MANAGEMENT

Page 32

IX. PolIcIES For FAcUlTy MANAgEMENT

The SoBA’s policy for “Academically Qualified” and “Professionally Qualified” faculty members is attached as Appendix X.

The SoBA’s policy for “Participating” faculty members is attached as Appendix Y.

Excerpts from the Collective Bargaining Agreement between The University of Montana University Faculty Association and the Montana University System (effective July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2009) with respect to certain policies for the retention, evaluation, devel-opment, evaluation, and reward of faculty members are attached as Appendix Z. Please see www.umt.edu/hrs/recruitment.html for UM’s policies regarding faculty recruitment.