Table Of ContentAxel Muller-Hofvenschitild
The Strategic Tool for Evaluating Educational Returns
GABLER EDITION WISSENSCHAFT
Axel MOlier-Hofvenschi6ld
The Strategic Tool
for Evaluating
Educational Returns
Investigating the Value of Customised
Executive Education with a Focus on
Strategy Process Capability
With a foreword by Prof. Dr. Ulrich Steger
Deutscher Universitats-Verlag
Bibliografische Information Der Deutschen Bibliothek
Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen
Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet Ober
<http://dnb.ddb.de> abrufbar.
Dissertation Universitat Lausanne, 2001
1. Auflage November 2004
Aile Rechte vorbehalten
© Deutscher Universitats-Verlag!GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2004
Lektorat: Brigitte Siegel! Nicole Schweitzer
Der Deutsche Universitats-Verlag ist ein Unternehmen von
Springer Science+Business Media.
www.duv.de
Das Werk einschlieBlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschOtzt.
Jede Verwertung auBerhalb der eng en Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes
ist ohne Zustimmung des Verla.9s unzulassig und strafbar. Das gilt insbe
sondere fOr Vervielfaltigungen, Ubersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die
Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.
Die Wiedergabe von Gebrallchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen usw. in diesem
Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme, dass solche
Namen im Sinne der Warenzeichen-und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei zu betrachten
waren und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dUrften.
Umschlaggestaltung: Regine Zimmer, Dipl.-Designerin, Frankfurt/Main
Gedruckt auf saurefreiem und chlorfrei gebleichtem Papier
ISBN-13: 978-3-8244-8220-7 e-ISBN-13: 978-3-322-81857-7
DOl: 10.1007/978-3-322-81857-7
To My Family
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted, counts".
Albert Einstein
Foreword
Management education is a booming business. More and more consultants are moving into
this area, forcing business schools to defend their traditional territory. American schools are
allying themselves with institutions in other parts of the world and setting up subsidiaries,
joint ventures and strategic alliances to leverage their know-how. On the business side, the
number of Corporate Universities -establishments dedicated to management development -
is growing rapidly, even in Europe. In the "battle to win talent", companies want to show that
they provide their top executives with the best chances of success.
However, the picture is not all rosy. These days every expense has to prove its value added,
and management education is no exception. But as this analysis shows, a more in-depth
evaluation than the "happy-sheet" survey handed in at the end of a programme is difficult to
compile. First one needs to ask the question, "Who is the evaluation for, e.g., the accounts
department, HR, the participants or their superiors?" Another tricky question is, "Are you
measuring HR indicators or programme learning goals?" It is not at all clear that learning
goals, even for customised programmes, are tied to companies' "normal" HR evaluation
process (often in the form of a balanced scorecard) and the related incentive schemes (the
reason for this would require a thesis on its own).
Furthermore, as this analysis has revealed. there are at least 12 different concepts of "how"
to evaluate. But is it really worth the effort? Can't we assume that grown managers can take
care of their own education, take what they need and alert their HR people if their time has
been wasted? And last but not least, how can the evaluation be worded in such a way that it
is short and straightforward enough for busy managers to be bothered to answer, but still
allows one to gather useful, relevant information?
But these are just the sorts of challenges that a business school relishes. One has to
understand that measuring the benefits of management education is much more of a multi
dimensional exercise, and that the results are only the beginning of a meaningful dialogue
between the stakeholders involved - HR, sponsors, accountants, participants, etc. - leading
to a better alignment of development goals and delivery. This calls for a "balanced scorecard
approach", as described in this excellent contribution, and a process driver, who makes sure
that the information thus acquired is acted upon. But all the difficulties explain why there is
huge support for a better evaluation of management education in general but an obvious
reluctance to tackle these difficulties head on and improve the evaluation system through
VII
more experimentation and testing of new tools. This thesis demonstrates how this can be
done in the framework of one of the most global, and hence complex, companies.
Has this research revealed any surprises? At a first glance, there are surprisingly few
learning differences between the "tailor-made", company-specific programmes and the open
general management programmes. Two explanations are possible: first, business schools do
not really "tailor" programmes, but just repackage them using "off-the-shelf modules. There
are clearly differences between business schools in this respect, often depending on their
business model and size, but I doubt that this is the main reason. More plausible for me is
the second interpretation, which is that managers selectively pick "nuggets" from whatever
programme they are on, and "twist" the knowledge to fit their needs. After all, the basic
process of management development remains the same, i.e., that programmes offer a
platform (and time-out) to reflect and to conceptualise a rich, but often fragmented and
intuitive, knowledge base. Equipped with a better understanding, based on frameworks and
accepted experience about what works and what does not, participants emerge with their
newly acquired knowledge, ready to face any challenge.
But this is as fundamental - and generic - as the notion that companies have more to earn
than they spend. We need to know more about the specifics, which is why this thesis is an
extremely useful basis for evaluation for every Corporate University or HR department.
Ulrich Steger
VIII
Acknowledgements
"An investment in know/edge pays the best interest".
Benjamin Franklin
The research presented here has been a great learning journey and has opened up many
new and rewarding perspectives for me. Although researching and writing is an individual
activity, I am grateful for having a great supportive team during my time of research, who I
would like thank now.
First of all, I would like to thank Professor Dr. Ulrich Steger and Professor Dr. Alexander
Bergmann PhD., who greatly supported my research and the realisation of this thesis. Both
made my research possible through their ideas and help.
Furthermore, I would like to thank Professor Dr. Bernard Catry for being on my doctoral
committee and for his valuable comments.
lowe many thanks to the staff at the DaimlerChrysler Corporate University, who have been a
supportive team as well. Especially, I would like to thank Mr. Stephan Egnolff and Mrs. Sara
Niese, who initiated and supported my research as my supervisors. Furthermore, I would like
to thank the DaimlerChrysler Corporate University for the scholarship and the opportunity to
research at DaimlerChrysler. Finally, I would like to include all employees and programme
participants, who contributed to my research.
I have benefited from several research colloquia in Lausanne and in Stuttgart and I would
like to thank all participants for their ideas and comments.
I would like to thank my friends as well, in Stuttgart and elsewhere. Many of them have
helped me by giving me constructive feedback and proof reading the script. All of them have
ensured that the last two years were a balanced experience of research and leisure, work
and play.
Last but not least, I would like to thank those who constantly encouraged and supported me
on my journey. Above all, lowe more than thanks to my parents Johannes Stefan and Isolde,
my sister Nike Kristin and my wife Elizabeth.
Axel Mueller-Hofvenschioeld
IX
Contents
Introduction and Overview ........................................................................................... 1
1.1 The Research Context ........................................................................................... 3
1.2 The Research Objectives ..................................................................................... 11
1.3 The Research Assumptions and Hypotheses .................................. . ...... 12
1.4 The Research Structure ................................................................. . . ...... 13
2 Theoretical Frame ....................................................................................................... 17
2.1 Research Questions for the Theoretical Frame .................................................... 18
2.2 On Executive Education: The Content Foundation of Our Research .................... 18
2.3 On Evaluation: The Methodical Approach of the Research .................................. .45
2.4 Integration of Content and Method: The Research Frame .................................. 100
3 New Evaluation Approach ........................................................................................ 102
3.1 The Strategic Tool for Evaluating Educational Returns (STEER)........ 102
3.2 Development of STEER ................................................................... . . ....... 103
3.3 Description of STEER ..... ........ ................. ............ ............. .... .... ... ...... .... . 116
3.4 Implementation of STEER............................................................. .137
3.5 Expected Benefits of STEER.......................................................... .142
4 Application in the Field ............................................................................................. 145
4.1 Description of the Field of Research - The DaimlerChrysler Corporate University. 145
4.2 Comparative Study - Customised vs. Non-Customised Executive Programmes. 158
5 Results ....................................................................................................................... 179
5.1 Dimension One: Results of the Comparative Study ............................................. 179
5.2 Dimension Two: Inferences on the Quality of the TooL ...................................... 244
6 Limitations of the Research ..................................................................................... 250
6.1 Methodical Shortcomings ................................................................................... 250
6.2 Applicability and Transferability of Results ... ....... ... ..... ................. . ......... 253
7 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 256
7.1 Summary of Findings ...................................................................................... 256
7.2 Outlook and Suggestions for Further Research .... ... .... ..... . ................... 262
8 Appendix ................................................................................................................... 267
9 Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 293
XI
Detailed Contents
Foreword ..............................................................................................................................V ll
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. . ........ IX
Contents ................................................................................................................................X I
Detailed Contents ........................................................................................ . ....... XIII
List of Abbreviations Used .............................................................................. .. ...... XIX
List of Figures ........................................................................................................ . . ... .xXI
List of Tables .................................................................................................. . .... .xXIlI
Introduction and Overview ........................................................................................... 1
1.1 The Research Context ................................................................... . .. ...... 3
1.1.1 The Phenomenon of Corporate Universities ....................... ............... .. ... 5
1.1.2 The Aspect of Customisation in Executive Education ................................ 7
1.1.3 The Increase in Educational Demand for Strategic Management .............. 8
1.1.4 The Need for Evaluation ............................................................................ 9
1.2 The Research Objectives ...................................................................................... 11
1.2.1 The Conceptional Research Objective ..................................................... 11
1.2.2 The Empirical Research Objective .............................. .. .. 12
1.3 The Research Assumptions and Hypotheses .......................... .. .. ............. 12
1.4 The Research Structure ........................................................................................ 13
2 Theoretical Frame ....................................................................................................... 17
2.1 Research Questions for the Theoretical Frame 18
2.2 On Executive Education: The Content Foundation of Our Research .................... 18
2.2.1 The Aspect of Teaching Strategy ........................ " .................................. 20
2.2.1.1 Defining Strategy Process Capability ........................................ 20
2.2.1.2 Defining SHRD as a Way to Build Strategy Process Capability .. 30
2.2.2 The Aspect of Customisation .................................................................. 37
2.2.2.1 Customisation: A New Field of Research ......... 38
2.2.2.2 Customisation: A Debated Area in Practice.................. 41
2.3 On Evaluation: The Methodical Approach of the Research............ .. ........... .45
2.3.1 Underlying Evaluation Concepts in Psychology and Pedagogy. .. ........ 46
XIII
