|Name of the ranking
|FT Executive Education Custom Ranking
|Name of person in charge of ranking
|Website of the ranking
|First year of publication
|Most recent year of publication
|Date of last update
|The Financial Times Limited
|Website of the methodology
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 15 clients and at least five of these must complete the FT survey for a school to be eligible for the final ranking). In total, client responses account for 80 per cent of the table weight. They are weight according to programme type. Clients select one of three options to categorise their programme: strategic (delivered to top management and designed to influence an organisation’s direction); general (delivered to management on operational aspects of an organisation); or functional (related to a specific function, such as marketing). Strategic programmes have the largest weighting and therefore the greatest impact on the ranking. Responses are also weighted according to the seniority of the individual responsible for specifying the course, the size of the client organisation and the number of schools with which that client has commissioned customised courses in the past three years. The last five criteria are calculated from information provided by schools on international clients, overseas programmes, growth, partner schools and faculty diversity.
Schools taking part must be internationally accredited by Equis or AACSB and to have earned revenues of at least $1mn in 2022 from their ranges of custom non-degree programmes in order to participate in the 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 (7.9%) - 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 (8.8%) - 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.