Name of the ranking | FT Executive Education Custom Ranking |
---|---|
Geographical scope | Global |
Name of person in charge of ranking | Judith Pizer |
Website of the ranking | https://rankings.ft.com/rankings/2955/executive-ed... |
Publication frequency | annual |
First year of publication | 2007 |
Most recent year of publication | 2024 |
Date of last update | 2024-08-20 |
Ranking organization | The Financial Times Limited |
Website of the methodology | https://www.ft.com/executive-method |
Methodology | The custom programme ranking features the top 90 business schools. FT defines customised executive education as short general management or specialist non-degree business education training courses for employees of private companies (e.g. finance or industrial corporations) or organisations (e.g., NGOs, national government departments or charities). Typically, custom programmes are commissioned by a senior manager in view to address specific training needs and all participants would be employed by the same (or group of) company/organisation/government body. Participating schools must be accredited by either AACSB or Equis, or have an affiliation with an AACSB/Equis accredited organisation. They must also have earned revenues of at least $1mn in 2023 from custom programmes in order to participate in the ranking. The ranking of customised course providers is compiled using data from the business schools and their corporate clients. Each school must have a minimum of 10 clients who have commissioned programmes from them. At least five clients per school must complete the FT survey for a course provider to be eligible for the final ranking. The ranking considers the following indicators: Preparation (9.2%) - level of interaction between client and school, the extent to which clients’ ideas were integrated into the programme and the effectiveness of the school in incorporating its latest research into teaching. Programme design (9.3%) - flexibility of the course and willingness of schools to complement their faculty with external experts. Teaching methods and materials (9.0%) - extent to which teaching methods and materials were contemporary and appropriate, and included a suitable mix of academic rigour and practical relevance. Faculty (9.2%) - quality of teaching and the extent to which teaching staff worked together to present a coherent programme. New skills and learning (9.3%) - relevance of skills gained to the workplace, the ease with which they were implemented and the extent to which the course encouraged new ways of thinking. Follow-up (7.8%) - extent and effectiveness of follow-up offered after course participants returned to their workplace. Aims achieved (9.4%) - extent to which academic and business expectations were met and the quality of feedback from individual participants to course commissioners. Value for money (8.9%) - clients’ rating of the value for money of the programme’s design, teaching and materials. Future use (8.0%) - likelihood that clients would reuse the same school for other customised programmes in the future and whether they would recommission the same programme. International clients (5.0%) - based on the percentage of clients with headquarters outside the business school’s base country and region. Overseas programmes (2.0%) - international reach of the school’s customised programme teaching. Growth (5.0%) - based on the overall growth in revenues from customised programmes as well as growth in revenues from repeat business. Partner schools (3.0%) - quantity and quality of programmes developed or taught in conjunction with other Equis- or AACSB-accredited business schools. Faculty diversity (5.0%) - diversity of school faculty according to citizenship and gender. The first nine criteria, including “future use”, are based on data from companies and organisations that commissioned executive courses. The next five are based on data from business schools. Schools are ranked for each of these criteria. |
© IREG 2019. All rights reserverd.
Design and implementation: solv.pl