Dr. Linda U. Hadley: PRT ChairDean: Columbus State University, Georgia

Visit Dates: 24—26 February, 2013

Dr. Gary Giamartino Dr. Lisa C. TomsDean: Southern Illinois University—Edwardsville Dean: Southern Arkansas University

Submitted in December, 2012

Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business Murray State University

Kentucky, USA.

AACSB: 5Th Year Maintenance Report 2013

Peer Review Team Members for Murray State

Acknowledging: Ms. Stephanie Totty (BSB + MBA) for quality assistance on this 5Th Year Maintenance Report.

Page 2 of 129

Page

Contextual Background and Transmittal Notes....................................................................5

AACSB Dedicated Website .............................................................................................5How this 5Th Year AACSB Maintenance Report is Arranged ............................................5The 2003—2008 Peer Review Team (PRT)......................................................................5Profile of AJB-COB AACSB Faculty in Fall 2012................................................................5MSU and Kentucky Background......................................................................................6

Section 1: Situational Analysis........................................................................7

Historical, National and Local Influences on Mission.......................................................7AJB-COB Specific Context................................................................................................7New name of the College................................................................................................8

Our Relative Advantages and Disadvantages in Reputation, Resources, and Supporters.....8

AJB-COB’s Relative Advantages......................................................................................8

Global Footprints ...........................................................................................8Outreach Centers and Initiatives .................................................................10Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Program .......................................10Faculty Development Matrix (FDM) .............................................................10Broad Stakeholder Input into our Macro Context ........................................10Achieving the Kentucky African-American Student Diversity Plan ...............11Synergy from Diversity of our Programs .....................................................12CPA Exam Pass Rate Comparative Picture...................................................12State Farm Financial Services Center...........................................................12Intellectual Contributions and our SSRN Rankings.......................................13

AJB-COB’s Relative Disadvantages................................................................................13

Budgetary Realities and Challenges now and in the Future ........................13Aging Faculty and Consequent Recruitment/AQ Challenges .......................14Student Placement Challenges ...................................................................14

Internal, Environmental and Competitive Forces that Challenge our Future.......................14Location of MSU versus the Student and Faculty Diversity Imperative ........................14Increased Competition .................................................................................................15

Opportunities for Enhancing our Degree Offerings ............................................................15

Included Degree Programs and Numbers of Graduates from 2010/2011 ...........................15Our Scope of Accreditation ..........................................................................................15

Section 2: Progress Updates on Concerns from our 2008 AACSB Maintenance of Accreditation ................................................................................................17

Major Concern #1: Strategic Plan for 2009--2014 .......................................................17Major Concern #2: Quality of Intellectual Contributions .............................................17Major Concern #3: Classification of Faculty ................................................................18Major Concern #4: Assurance of Learning (AoL) .........................................................18Major Concern #5: The Professional MBA Program (PMBA) .........................................19Major Concern #6: Foundation Courses for the PMBA Program ..................................19

Page 3 of 129

Major Concern #7: The Cyprus MBA Program .............................................................19

Page 4 of 129

Page

Section 3: Strategic Management .................................................................20Vision and Mission Statements ....................................................................................20Changes to Vision and Mission Statements ..................................................................21Strategic Planning Process and Outcomes ...................................................................22Description of our Strategic Management Planning Process—Including Annual Planning 25Overview of Continuous Improvement Outcomes and Achievement of Mission ...........29Financial Strategies: How do we Fund our Strategic Goals and Action Items? ............30Table 3.3: The Financial Strategies Table ....................................................................31New Degree Programs Since Spring 2008 ....................................................................33

The Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS) .................................33The Professional MBA (PMBA) Program .......................................................33

Intellectual Contributions (ICs) .....................................................................................34Value of our College’s ICs and how the Substantial-Cross Section Criterion is Acheived 37Description of Infrastructure Supporting Faculty ICs Development ..............................38Table 2.1: Five-Year Summary of Intellectual Contributions (ICs) ................................39

Section 4: Participants..................................................................................41

Students: Changes in Enrollments and Admissions .....................................................41Diversity Profiles ..........................................................................................................42Changes in Advising Initiatives and Procedures............................................................42Faculty ....................................................................................................................43

Criteria Guiding the Development of Faculty Intellectual Contributions (ICs) 43Academically Qualified (AQ) Faculty Definitions ................................43Professionally Qualified (PQ) Faculty Definitions ...............................43

Faculty Management Policies ......................................................................44Faculty Recruitment, Selection, and Orientation Procedures .............44Faculty Orientation and Mentoring Procedures .................................45Faculty Promotion Policy and Process................................................45Faculty Tenure Policy and Process ....................................................46Faculty Performance Appraisal and Evaluation..................................47Criteria for Tenure/Promotion versus AQ/PQ Status: A Clarification....47Faculty Tables: Table 9-1, Table 10-1, and Table 10-2 for Spring 201248

Section 5: Assurance of Learning (AoL)..........................................................55

Blue Print for Success of AoL Efforts: Important Conceptual Underpinnings ................55Table 5.1: Continuous Improvement Paradigm (Closing the Loop on AoL) ...................56Overview of Curricula Changes since 2008: Closing the Loop ......................................58History of AoL in the Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business....................................59Undergraduate Business Curriculum and Assessment Committee (UBCAC).................59Graduate Business Curriculum and Assessment Committee (GBCAC)..........................59Broad Faculty Involvement through Learning Goals Taskforces ...................................59Rationales for Using UBCAC and GBCAC for Curriculum and Assessment ....................59

Depth and Breadth of our College Committees............................................59Figure 5.1: An Innovative AoL Influencers and Participants Framework (AoL-IPF)

60Assurance of Learning Goals for Various Programs ......................................................61

Assurance of Learning Goals for the BSB Program.......................................61Assurance of Learning Goals for the MBA Program......................................61Assurance of Learning Goals for the MSIS Program......................................61

AoL Assessment Tools, Procedures, and Results for Various Programs.........................62Figure 5.2: An 8-Step AoL Assessment Cycle using Direct Measures...........................62

Page 5 of 129

A Note on Indirect Measures of Learning......................................................................63

Page 6 of 129

Page

Section 6: Other Material..............................................................................63

Innovative and Exemplary Practices in the Bauernfeind College of Business................63

Assurance of Learning Best Practice: The Larry Guin AoL Framework .........63Assurance of Honesty (AoH) Policy..............................................................63COBIS and the 25% AACSB Rule..................................................................64The Center for Free Enterprise and Organizational Democracy...................65

Other Issues and Material.............................................................................................65

Decisions on Faculty AQ/PQ Status..............................................................65Other Faculty Processes and Procedures.....................................................65

Appendix 6.2.2A: Procedures for Admission to Graduate Faculty.....65Appendix 6.2.2B: Faculty Grievance Procedure................................65Appendix 6.2.2C: Faculty Grievance Board Formation Procedure.....65Appendix 6.2.2D: The Affirmative Action and EEO Grievance Procedure 65

AJB-COB Organizational Chart: Appendix 6.2.3............................................65Profile of Advisory Boards in the College: Appendix 6.2.4............................65

About the Author of this 5Th Year Maintenance Report: Associate Dean Dr. Gerry Nkombo Muuka 66

Important Explanatory Notes about Appendices for this 5th Year Maintenance Report ......66

Page 7 of 129

♦ AACSB dedicated website: The Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business (AJB-COB) at Murray State University (MSU) has created an AACSB-dedicated website for our 2008—2013 accreditation period. The detailed material on the website provides the core of our case for maintaining AACSB-International accreditation, first attained in 1976 (undergraduate business), 1981 (MBA) and 2008 (Master of Science in Information Systems, MSIS). The dedicated website also provides our Peer Review Team (PRT) the opportunity to review expanded coverage of those aspects of this 5Th Year Maintenance Report that may appear to be brief. The AACSB-dedicated website can be found at: http://www.murraystate.edu/cbpa/aacsb/ Username: AACSB Password: Excellence2. All Appendices pertaining to this 5Th Year Maintenance Report appear under “Appendices” on this Website.

♦ How this 5Th Year Maintenance Report is Arranged: Utilizing the official 5th Year Maintenance Report outline as provided by AACSB-International, this Report is presented as distinct sections and attendant sub-sections. Therefore, Section 1 presents the Situation Analysis; while the others are Section 2 (Progress Updates on concerns from our 2008 Maintenance Period); Section 3 (Strategic Management); Section 4 (Participants); Section 5 (Assurance of Learning); and Section 6 (Other Material). Rather than follow the normal 1-2-3-4 naming pattern, all the Tables, Figures and Appendices in this Report are named after the above 6 sections and sub-sections to which they clearly link and relate. So, for instance, Figure 1.2.1A not only belongs to Section 1 on Situational Analysis, it specifically speaks to sub-section 1.2.1 which outlines our relative advantages in reputation, resources and so on. Other tables are AACSB-mandated and therefore self-evident—that is, Table 2-1, Table 2-2, Table 9-1, Table 10-1 and Table 10-2.

♦ The 2003—2008 Peer Review Team (PRT): In a few places in this Report, we allude to the 2008 PRT. The members of this team were Dr. Kjell Knudsen (PRT Chair and Dean, University of Minnesota at Duluth), Dr. David Billings (at the time Dean, University of Alabama at Huntsville), and Dr. Len Frey, Dean of the College of Business at Arkansas State University. Any reference to the previous PRT is, therefore, to Dr. Knudsen, Dr. Billings, and Dr. Frey.

♦ Profile of AJB-COB AACSB Faculty in Fall 2012

In order for the Peer Review Team (PRT) to have a useful frame of reference as you kindly go through the rest of this 5th Year Maintenance Report, we provide the following statistics and pie charts to describe the 59 AACSB faculty in our College as of November 2012, the date of this Report. The College has an additional 31 faculty—for a grand total of 90—who are all domiciled in the College’s two non-business departments and the Computer Science portion of the department of Computer Science and information systems. The 31 are broken down as follows: Journalism & Mass Communications (I5 faculty members), Organizational Communication (11 faculty members), and Computer Science (5 faculty members).

In terms of overall Faculty Sufficiency (a Table 9-1, AACSB Standard 9 dimension), our College has 52 Participating Faculty (or 88% of the 59 AACSB total faculty) while the other 7 (or 12%) are Supporting Faculty. In the matter of Faculty Qualifications (AACSB Standard 10 and the all-important Table 10-2), the 59 AACSB faculty have the following profiles: 38 (or 64%) are academically qualified (AQ); 18 (or 31%) are professionally qualified (PQ); while the balance of three (or 5%) are neither AQ nor PQ. When did we hire (or simply engage) these 59 faculty? Table 10-1 reveals that 32 (or 54%) of them were hired before year 2000, meaning that the balance of 27 (or 46%) have only been in the school since 2000. Of the 27 faculty engaged since 2000, thirteen (or 48%) have been with the school since 2008, our most recent AACSB accreditation maintenance year. Ten of the 13 are participating faculty. Why are these numbers self-evidently necessary? At the very least, they demonstrate that our school continues to add “new blood” and, we hope, a useful cross-pollination of ideas on teaching and intellectual contributions (ICs).

Page 8 of 129

Contextual Background and Transmittal

Finally, in Figure 1 we break down our 59 AACSB faculty by Gender, Race, Rank, and Tenure Status. 70% of our faculty are men, while 30% are women. In terms of race, our faculty are 81% white, 11% Asian, 4% African-American, while the balance of 4% are “other.” In terms of rank, 47% of our faculty are Full Professors, 19% are Associate Professors, 19% are Assistant Professors, while 15% are Lecturers who include Supporting and Adjunct Faculty. Figure 1 concludes by showing that 68% of our AACSB faculty already have tenure, 17% are un-tenured, while the remaining 15% are in non-tenure track positions.

Page 9 of 129

Figure 1: Pie-Chart Profile of our 59 AACSB Faculty by Race, Gender, Rank, and Tenure Status.

Non-Ten-ure

Track15%

Un-Tenured17%

Tenured68%

AJB-COB Faculty by Tenure Status

♦ MSU and Kentucky Background: Murray State University (MSU) is one of eight (8) public universities in the state of Kentucky. At 4.369 million people in 2011, Kentucky is the 26 th

largest of the 50 states in the nation. Its ethnic diversity profile is 86.3% white (versus 77% for MSU, in Fall 2011), 7.8% African American (7% for MSU), 3.1% Hispanic/Latino (1% for MSU), 1.1% Asian (1% for MSU), 0.2% American Indian (0% for MSU), and 0.1% Pacific Islander (0% for MSU). The balance for MSU is 12% international students, 1% multi-racial, and 1% unknown. Kentucky’s 8 public universities, with estimated enrollments in Fall 2011 indicated in parenthesis, are: the University of Kentucky (28,094), University of Louisville (22,249), Western Kentucky University (21,048), Eastern Kentucky University (16,062), Northern Kentucky University (15,738), Morehead State University (10,971), Murray State University (10,623), and Kentucky State University being the smallest at 2,746 students in Fall 2011. MSU has been accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) since 1928.

For more than three-quarters of a century, MSU has served students from the region, the nation, and the world. Founded in 1922, the university has grown from an enrollment of 202 students in its first year to 10,623 in Fall 2011. Students receive individual attention from an MSU teaching faculty of 401 as of Fall 2011. Murray State University fosters an exciting and challenging learning environment. Part of the evidence is to be found in our national rankings. Examples of these include:

♦ Being ranked among U.S. News & World Report’s Best Colleges for 21 consecutive years. The 2012 rankings placed Murray State in the top 10 public universities in the South, among the top 25 of both public and private schools, and the 14th-ranked public regional university in the nation.

Page 10 of 129

Assistant Professor

19%

Associate Professor

19%

Professor47%

Lecturer15%

AJB-COB Faculty by RankAsian11%

Black

4% Other4%

White

81%

AJB-COB Faculty by Race

Female30%

Male70%

AJB-COB Faculty by Gender

♦ Being ranked among Forbes Magazine’s Top Colleges for four consecutive years. In addition to being named to the 2011 America’s Top Colleges list, Forbes also designated Murray State as one of “America’s Top 100 Best College Buys.”

Page 11 of 129

♦ G.I. Jobs magazine once again ranked MSU a “2012 Military Friendly School.” The list honors the top 20 percent of all colleges, universities and trade schools nationwide that are doing the most to embrace America’s veterans as students.

♦ The Chronicle of Higher Education named Murray State one of its “2011 Great Colleges to Work For.” The designation specifically recognized MSU for “Confidence in Senior Leadership” and “Professional/Career Development Programs.”

Located in the Jackson Purchase lake area of west Kentucky—some 11 miles from Land Between the Lakes—Murray State is a state/tax-assisted comprehensive university with seven academic colleges and schools: the Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business (AJB-COB), the College of Education, the College of Humanities and Fine Arts, the College of Health Sciences and Human Services, the College of Science, Engineering and Technology, the Hutson School of Agriculture, and the recently created School of Nursing. The university is a nationally recognized residential comprehensive institution, with eight Residential Colleges on a campus where 60% of the students are female (Fall 2010), 72% of all students are full-time (Fall 2010 figures), and 18% are graduate students. In 2009/2010 (the latest date for which we have such data), MSU awarded some $98 million in Student Financial Aid, broken down into grants ($15 million); Scholarships and Tuition Waivers ($33 million); Student Employment and Assistantships ($7 million); as well as $43 million in Student Loans. The university's 236-acre main campus is in Murray, a city of 17,741. In July 2012, Murray received the rare distinction of being the Friendliest Town in America. This was part of Rand McNally and USA Today’s Best of the Road competition. The city of Murray beat five other finalist cities for the award, including San Luis Obispo (California), Cloudcroft (New Mexico), College Station (Texas), Frisco (Texas) and Joplin in Missouri. Murray is located in Calloway County, which has a population of some 37,000 people. The main campus comprises 74 major buildings, including classroom and office buildings and two libraries. The University is committed to international education as an integral dimension of the university experience. For a university our size and relatively unattractive rural location, MSU attracts an impressive international student enrollment (12% in Fall 2011) from 48 countries covering all 7 continents of the world, and from nations as diverse as Armenia and Zambia. In terms of faculty profile, of the 401 total faculty at MSU in Fall 2011, some 58% were men (compared to 70% in our College); 25% were full professors (47% for our College); 24% were Associate Professors (19% for our College); 28% were Assistant Professors (19% for our College); and 23% were lecturers, compared to 15% in our College.

♦ Section Transmittal Note: Here, we provide analyses that enable the peer review team (PRT) to understand the context within which the Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business operates.

1.1 Historical, national, local and other influences on our Mission and overall Operations.

♦ AJB-COB-Specific Context: The Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business (AJB-COB) is organized into 6 departments: Accounting; Computer Science and Information Systems; Economics and Finance; Management, Marketing, and Business Administration (the largest of the six departments in terms of both student and faculty numbers); Journalism & Mass Communications; and the Department of Organizational Communication. The latter two are non-business, non-AACSB departments. In addition to undergraduate programs in each of these areas, the College also offers six graduate degrees: the MBA, Master of Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS), the Master of Science in Economics, the Master of Mass Communications, the Master of Organizational Communication, and the Master of Science in Telecommunications Systems Management (TSM), which is offered jointly with the College of Science, Engineering and Technology. Only the MBA and MSIS are AACSB graduate programs.

Page 12 of 129

SECTION 1: SITUATIONAL

MSU began offering programs in business in 1935. The College was formed in 1966. The Department of Journalism and Mass Communications and the Department of Organizational Communication were added in 2000 following a campus-wide re-organization, triggering a change in AJB-COB’s mission statement that year. The undergraduate business program (accredited continuously since 1976), the MBA (accredited since 1981), and the MSIS (a new program formed and automatically accredited since 2008) are all accredited by AACSB-International—The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.

Page 13 of 129

♦ New name of the College: Thanks to philanthropic assistance to Murray State University, the former College of Business and Public Affairs (BPA) is, since April 2012, now called the Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business (AJB-COB).

Figure 1.2.1A: AJB-COB’s Global Footprint Framework

Source: Modified from Ilan Alon and Craig McAllaster (2006, P. 34): “The Global Footprint”, in BizEd—A Publication of AACSB-International, PP. 32-35.

1.2 Our relative Advantages and Disadvantages in Reputation, Resources, and Supporters.

1.2.1 AJB-COB’s Relative Advantages

In addition to AJB-COB’s other effective practices as outlined in other parts of this 5Th Year Report, our key relative advantages and distinctive competencies include, but are not limited to the following:

(a) Global Footprints: We pride ourselves in both the depth and breadth of our Global Footprints—as exemplified by the Global Footprints Framework (GFF) shown in Figure 1.2.1A. The GFF centers around the notion that student and faculty travel and experiences abroad enhance not just learning, but also potentially brings about broader and deeper appreciation for diversity among students and faculty (and the campus) at home. Alon and McAllaster (2006) conceptualized the “global footprints” framework, which is a multidimensional model to help schools develop more clear-cut strategies and more effective practices to globalize their programs. They suggest six essential components of an effective—and ongoing—globalization strategy: a global curriculum, languages of instruction or learning, cross-cultural diversity in students, student global experiences, cross-cultural diversity in faculty, and faculty global experiences. To the Alon and McAllaster GFF model, our College has added two other dimensions because of their centrality to study abroad programs and AACSB accreditation requirements: intellectual contributions (ICs) and other outreach initiatives. In the section that follows, we briefly examine these GFF dimensions.

Page 14 of 129

♦ Global Curriculum: If, as we expect, our business students are to work for American corporations that have subsidiaries in other countries; or for foreign corporations with subsidiaries in the U.S.A; or for multinational or transnational corporations domiciled in foreign countries, then we must provide a curriculum that is sufficiently global in nature—one that is multidimensional, multi-level, multi-industry, and multi-perspective. We believe we do.

Page 15 of 129

♦ Language Study: Simply stated, this is where students are encouraged to learn another (international) language in addition to their own. Most schools worldwide rely on the fact that English is currently the lingua franca of international business, and that English proficiency automatically provides students with an international capability. We encourage our students to learn such other languages as French, Spanish, German, and Japanese, which they can study in MSU’s Department of Modern Languages.

♦ Student Diversity: Admitting a diverse student body is both a challenge and an opportunity. It is a challenge because all other schools in Kentucky (and AJB-COB’s competitive schools) compete for the same students for the many benefits they bestow on the entire learning environment. It is an opportunity on many levels—not least the learning and synergy that takes place as a result of interaction among students from diverse backgrounds.

♦ Student Global Experiences: We encourage students’ global travel to other countries under study abroad programs so that they are exposed to multidimensional, multicultural, multinational, multi-disciplinary, multi-industry, and multi-functional perspectives that cannot be replicated in our classroom setting. According to MSU’s Study Abroad Office, a preponderance of the MSU students who study abroad every year are business students.

♦ Recruitment of Foreign/International Faculty: As of November 2012, ten of our 52 participating faculty (or 19%) are foreign born, representing such countries as Armenia, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Myanmar, and Zambia. They include Dr. Gerry Nkombo Muuka (Zambia), Associate Dean of the College and author of this 5Th Year AACSB Maintenance Report.

♦ Faculty International Travel Experiences: Here, we recognize the need for our faculty to have international experience as part of faculty development. Faculty global travel experiences are also key to developing faculty exchange programs, collaborative cross-functional and cross-cultural research projects, joint colloquia, as well as the possibility of joint degree programs with schools in different countries. In the period 2008 to November 2012, some 32 of our 52 AACSB participating faculty (62%) have made 123 trips to 47 different foreign countries on all 7 continents of the world. These include such diverse nations as Australia, Argentina, Canada, Cyprus, India, the United Kingdom, Chile, Myanmar, South Africa, Guyana, Ecuador, China, Germany, Korea (South), Greece, Austria, France, Belgium, Sweden, the Czech Republic, and Zambia.

♦ Intellectual Contributions (ICs): The sixth dimension of the Global Footprints Framework is one that we have added to the Alon and McAllaster (2006) framework: intellectual contributions (ICs). Our faculty publish in international journals and conduct research of an international nature, as Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 in Section 3.5 (Intellectual Contributions) will demonstrate. In addition, one of our faculty members (Dr. Sandy Miles) serves on the International Organization for Standardization Technical Committee 260 (ISO/TC 260) that is commissioned to establish international human resource management standards. In May 2012, Dr. Miles earned the distinguished Global Professional in Human Resources (GPHR) certification that is offered by the Human Resource Certification Institute

♦ Other Outreach Initiatives: This is the second dimension that we have added to the original GFF, inspired by our recognition that there are other outreach programs and initiatives that contribute to a more holistic approach to international education, and global understanding generally. These involve any number of linkages that could emerge from the presence and utilization of advisory boards, chambers of commerce, the Kentucky World Trade Center, public and private research centers, funding agencies, trade shows and trade missions, as well as alumni centers. MSU’s international education week is worth mentioning at this point.

♦ MSU’s International Education Week (IEW): Every Fall, MSU organizes an international education week (IEW) as part of its global footprints. IEW also showcases the presence of international students on the MSU Campus. In any given year, between 5% and 12% of all MSU students are international. Figure 1.2.1B (shown next page) is a sample IEW

Page 16 of 129

picture of students from Zambia, Thailand, Belize, Kenya, India and Indonesia, among the many foreign students from around the world. They greatly enrich the classroom dynamic by bringing their diverse backgrounds and perspectives to bear on class discussions, in a synergistic relationship with their American counterparts.

Page 17 of 129

Figure 1.2.1B: MSU international students at an International Bazaar in the Curris Center on Campus.

(b) Outreach Centers and Initiatives: Our College has a rich tradition of outreach initiatives by both students and faculty. The Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) program, discussed later in this 5Th Year Report, epitomizes our student-led outreach efforts. The faculty and staff-led outreach efforts are through the Small Business Development Center (SBDC), the Regional Business and Innovation Center (RBIC), the State Farm Financial Services Center, the Center for Economic Education, the Center for Banking and Finance, and at the global level we have the Regensburg (Germany) Exchange Program and the ESC-Saint Etienne (France) exchange program.

(c) Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Program: The VITA program is a key student-driven outreach success story. The annual tax filing season each spring provides opportunities for our Accounting Majors to gain hands-on experience in processing income tax returns. What the program provides for the community is equally important. Through the annual program, MSU students, MSU employees, senior citizens, and moderate income taxpayers in the region receive free income tax preparation. Our program has been in existence for more than 25 years, and recently won a national Beta Alpha Psi award for the most returns done per participant. Dr. Floyd Carpenter, an Accounting Professor, directs the VITA Program. Over the last 3 years, our students have prepared over 1,400 federal and state income tax returns. The VITA students are also exposed to the latest technology in tax return preparation, including e-filing.

(d) Faculty Development Matrix (FDM): We have a three-tier faculty development support structure at the Department, College/AJB-COB, and MSU levels that enhances our triad consensus and balance—namely teaching, intellectual contributions, and service. The system is inherently flexible to allow for different work-loads in pursuit of scholarly activity. Other pillars of our FDM—which we present in Appendix 1.2.1—include an effective three-stage new faculty orientation to our mission and performance expectations in teaching, research, and service.

(e) Broad Stakeholder Input into our Macro-Context: Figure 1.2.1C (shown on the next page) encapsulates the broad and specific forces and viewpoints (on the left) that impact AJB-COB’s action agenda—that is, our Mission, the 2009-2014 Strategic Plan, and our Assurance of Learning Processes. The global forces that have shaped, are shaping, and will continue to shape business education world-wide are perhaps self-evident, as are the other influencers in Figure 1.2.1C, explained variously either in this 5th Year Report or as stand-alone documents on the AACSB-dedicated website to which we alluded to earlier. We need to explain Kentucky’s

Page 18 of 129

Council on Post-Secondary Education (CPE). The CPE is a 16-member board appointed by the Governor of Kentucky (KY) to coordinate postsecondary and adult education in the state, under the auspices of the Kentucky Postsecondary Education Improvement Act of 1997. CPE aims to raise the educational attainment level in KY to national levels by 2020 by asking five questions (and expecting answers) of all of Kentucky’s institutions: (a) Are more Kentuckians ready for postsecondary education? (b) Is Kentucky postsecondary education affordable for its citizens? (c) Do more Kentuckians have certificates and degrees? (d) Are college graduates prepared for life and work in Kentucky? and (e) Are Kentucky’s people, communities, and economy benefiting?

Page 19 of 129

Figure 1.2.1C: Strategic Management Map in our College: The Broad Picture

(f) Achieving the Kentucky African-American Student Diversity Plan: Pursuant to the Kentucky Plan for Equal Opportunities in Postsecondary Education as enunciated by Kentucky’s Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE), Table 1.2.1A shows some vital statistics on resident KY African-American students from 2005/2006 to 2008/2009—the Latest date for which we have such statistics. Among the positive KY African-American trends gleaned from Table 1.2.1A are the following:

♦ Undergraduate enrollment has increased from 303 in 2005/2006 (5.1% of MSU enrollment) to 317 in 2008/2009 (5.6% of MSU enrollment).

♦ Graduate enrollment has increased from 64 in 2005/2006 (5.2% of MSU graduate enrollment) to 75 in 2008/2009 (5.5% of MSU graduate enrollment). This has been bolstered, in part, by MSU’s 10 Graduate Fellowships, per year, for KY African-Americans, funded by the Provost’s Office.

♦ Retention Rates for First-Year KY African-American students have inched upwards from 69.4% in 2005/2006 to 71.6% in 2008/2009. Although these are decent retention percentages, they are still unacceptable given correspondingly higher overall retention profiles of 74.6% in 2005/2006 and 77.7% in 2008/2009. When measured against KY state diversity mandates and criteria, MSU is in compliance with many of the relevant benchmarks. The relevant Kentucky Statute (KRS 164.020) says that the CPE shall postpone approval of any new program at a state institution of higher learning unless the institution has met its equal opportunity goals as established by the CPE.

Table 1.2.1A: Status of Kentucky Resident African-American Students at Murray State University.

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009N % N % N % N %

Undergraduate Enrollment 303 5.1% 308 5.2% 300 5.1% 317 5.6%Retention of 1st-Year Students 34/49 69.4% 20/32 62.5% 35/48 72.9

% 48/67 71.6%

Retention of All 1st Year 203/272 74.6% 214/275 77.8% 231/289 79.9 230/296 77.7Page 20 of 129

Students % %Six-Year Graduation Rate 10/24 41.7% 14/29 48.3% 12/42 28.6

% 23/68 33.8%

Graduate Enrollment 64 5.2% 67 5.3% 71 5.3% 75 5.5%

Page 21 of 129

(g) Synergy (2+2=5) from Diversity of our Programs: Dysfunctional relationships sometimes characterize the presence of non-business departments in some business schools. Over time, in our case, the presence of the Department of Organizational Communication and the Department of Journalism & Mass Communications has led to some useful synergistic effects, not least of which has been the sharing of course offerings. Journalism instructors teach Principles of Advertising to our business students, for instance, instead of our Marketing instructors. There has also been healthy cross-disciplinary and cross-functional/departmental collaboration on intellectual contributions (ICs) among our functionally diverse faculty.

(h) The Bauernfeind Brand, going Forward: Under our new Arthur Bauernfeind name, the College has a real opportunity to both deepen and broaden our reputation regionally, nationally and internationally, including the quality and quantity of our degree offerings.

(i) CPA Exam Pass Rate Comparative Picture: Table 1.2.1B presents CPA pass rates for Kentucky’s 8 public universities and Bellarmine University (a private school) for 2006—2010. Several things can be gleaned from the table (and the highlighted blue line), especially the facts that:

♦ Murray State had the highest overall CPA exam pass rate of all Kentucky public universities (53.46%).♦ Murray State is one of two institutions in Kentucky (Bellarmine University being the

other) that earned a pass rate higher than 50% on each section of the CPA exam and also on all sections taken, combined.

♦ Of the 8 Kentucky public universities, Murray State ranked first on the Regulation section; second on the Financial Accounting and Reporting section; second on the Business Environment and Concepts section; and third on the Auditing and Attestation section.

Table 1.2.1B: CPA Comparative Pass Rates among Kentucky Universities for 2006—2010.

Page 22 of 129

School# of

Candidates Passed Taken%

Passed Passed Taken%

Passed Passed Taken%

Passed Passed Taken % Passed Passed Taken % PassedBellermine University 245 84 143 58.74% 87 149 58.39% 85 168 50.60% 92 170 54.12% 348 630 55.24%Eastern Kentucky University 211 54 135 40.00% 55 122 45.08% 62 113 54.87% 66 155 42.58% 237 525 45.14%Kentucky State University 21 4 13 30.77% 3 9 33.33% 3 14 21.43% 1 14 7.14% 11 50 22.00%Morehead State University 116 26 67 38.81% 31 61 50.82% 33 62 53.23% 27 79 34.18% 117 269 43.49%Murray State University 219 67 126 53.17% 68 130 52.31% 70 130 53.85% 80 153 52.29% 285 539 52.88%Northern Kentucky University 262 69 161 42.86% 80 171 46.78% 80 164 48.78% 89 164 54.27% 318 660 48.18%University of Kentucky 1,008 295 639 46.17% 343 651 52.69% 323 622 51.93% 352 725 48.55% 1,313 2,637 49.79%University of Louisville 525 144 331 43.50% 168 345 48.70% 147 326 45.09% 166 361 45.98% 625 1,363 45.85%Western Kentucky University 327 106 209 50.72% 105 214 49.07% 99 201 49.25% 110 244 45.08% 420 868 48.39%

2006

-201

0

Average Performance of CPA Candidates Without Advanced Degrees by SchoolNumber Passing

FAR AUD REG BEC Totals

School# of

Candidates Passed Taken%

Passed Passed Taken%

Passed Passed Taken%

Passed Passed Taken % Passed Passed Taken % PassedBellermine University 257 90 154 58.44% 95 162 58.64% 90 180 50.00% 100 187 53.48% 375 683 54.90%Eastern Kentucky University 221 59 142 41.55% 58 130 44.62% 66 120 55.00% 73 168 43.45% 256 560 45.71%Kentucky State University 21 4 13 30.77% 3 9 33.33% 3 14 21.43% 1 14 7.14% 11 50 22.00%Morehead State University 126 31 79 39.24% 34 68 50.00% 35 73 47.95% 31 92 33.70% 131 312 41.99%Murray State University 293 90 172 52.33% 99 181 54.70% 93 169 55.03% 112 215 52.09% 394 737 53.46%Northern Kentucky University 296 83 198 41.92% 96 207 46.38% 97 196 49.49% 105 209 50.24% 381 810 47.04%University of Kentucky 1,097 354 746 47.45% 385 728 52.88% 364 705 51.63% 415 830 50.00% 1,518 3,009 50.45%University of Louisville 568 165 367 44.96% 177 364 48.63% 169 366 46.17% 194 416 46.63% 705 1,513 46.60%Western Kentucky University 351 113 228 49.56% 117 252 46.43% 111 228 48.68% 129 282 45.74% 470 990 47.47%

2006

-201

0

Average Performance of Combined CPA Candidates by SchoolNumber Passing

FAR AUD REG BEC Totals

(j) State Farm Financial Services Center: Completed in August 2011 under the direction of Distinguished Bauernfeind Finance Professor Dr. David Durr, the College boasts a $144,000 State Farm supported Financial Services Center, complete with four 42-inch flat screen plasma TVs that display real-time financial information (stock quotes, currencies, bond yields, etc.) and also enables broadcasts of financial, business and national news.

Page 23 of 129

The Financial Services Center’s key functionality revolves around positively influencing student lives through financial education and outreach for three stakeholder groups: primary/high schools in our service region, MSU students, and businesses in the Western Kentucky region. Key career and education areas include banking, financial planning, financial analysis, and economic education. Students gain hands-on experience working with commercial-grade financial planning software. The center, shown in Figure 1.2.1D as of July 2012, includes four student workstations equipped with the latest hardware and software; and a student boardroom with wireless projection and video conferencing capabilities.

Figure 1.2.1D: AJB-COB’s State Farm Financial Services Center as of 2012

(k) Intellectual Contributions and our SSRN Rankings: As evidence of both the breadth and quality of publications in peer reviewed journals (PRJs) by our faculty, in Summer 2012 the Social Sciences Research Network (see SSRN.Com) ranked our Bauernfeind College of Business number 104 out of the top 500 business schools in the world on research productivity.

1.2.2 Our relative Strategic Disadvantages: The AJB-COB faces some noteworthy challenges, especially in four areas—namely:

♦ Budgetary Realities and Challenges now and in the Future: MSU is a tax-assisted university whose state-appropriations have declined over time. Here is the downward trend in state support:

(a) During the 1970-1971 biennial budget, Kentucky state appropriations amounted to 67.3% of the total MSU budget. At this level of state support, MSU was considered a State-Funded institution.

(b) During the 1980-1981 Fiscal Year, state appropriations amounted to 67.3% of the total MSU budget. MSU was still considered a State-Funded institution.

(c) By 1990-1991, state appropriations had dropped to 58% of the MSU budget, giving rise to the notion of a State-Supported institution.

(d) By 2003/2004, state appropriations had fallen below 50% (a low of 43% in 2006/2007), giving credence to the notion of a state-assisted institution.

Page 24 of 129

(e) In 2010/2011, MSU’s budget was $141.5 million, while state appropriations amounted to $51.8 million (36.6% of total budget). By 2011/2012 when the campus budget was $147.6 million, Kentucky state appropriations had declined to only 34% (to $50.295 million). MSU is now a KY-state Tax-Assisted institution, having lost almost half of its state support (in percentage terms) since 1970/1971.

Page 25 of 129

For 2012/2013, the total MSU budget will be $153 million, while that for the Bauernfeind College of Business will remain flat at $10 million, or 6.5% of the MSU total. With Kentucky unemployment estimated at 8.2% in 2012, the near-term outlook is for continued pressure on KY higher education budgets. The 4% MSU tuition increase for 2012/2013 (and modest overall enrollment growth) will offset some of the budgetary pressures, but not enough to nullify the overall negative effect of reduced state appropriations and MSU “give-backs” to the state. For the Bauernfeind College of Business, budgetary pressure is already being felt due to two recent events, namely:

♦ During 2010/2011, the college gave back to Murray State University, the parent institution, some $200,000 from our operating budget as part of a multi-unit “give back” to central administration.

♦ During 2012/2013, MSU will lose 6.4% (or $3.4 million) in state support. At the same time, the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE) has placed restrictions on how much KY public universities can raise tuition. Together, all the above realities and actions will limit MSU’s ability to continue with “business as usual” without sacrificing the excellence and quality for which we have come to be known. As a consequence, on June 1, 2012, MSU President Dr. Randy Dunn constituted Budget Planning and Review (BPR) Teams representing non-academic functional areas as well as the academic units. The purpose is to carry out a comprehensive budgetary review and program prioritization process which will seek to better align MSU programs with the institution’s mission and available revenue, while refocusing limited resources toward improving the overall quality of programs and services provided to our students, community and the service region. The BPR from our College will involve, among others, the Dean, Associate Dean, the 6 Department Chairs, 6 faculty members (one from each department), and at least one student and a staff member. The work of the BPR teams started in Summer 2012 and will culminate into sector reports and recommendations to the MSU Board of Regents on March 15, 2013. What criteria will the BPR teams utilize for the program prioritization work? Five (5) considerations will be employed, namely:

Essentiality: History, size, scope, relationship to mission, and its overall essentiality to MSU.Demand: External and internal demand, including enrollments and numbers served.Quality: For program inputs, outputs, and process quality.Cost Effectiveness: Revenues and other resources generated against all costs associated with the

program, including standard productivity measures.Opportunity: Impact, justification, and expansion prospects.

♦ Aging Faculty and Consequent Recruitment/AQ Challenges: As Table 10-1 later in this Report shows, a total of 20 of the 59 AACSB faculty (that is, 34%) were hired in 1990 or earlier. Many of these have been teaching for well over 22 years, meaning that their retirements are not far into the future. Once they retire, coupled with substantially higher starting salaries for new business PhDs and a flat operating budget, our faculty sufficiency and faculty qualifications challenges will not be insignificant.

♦ Student Placement Challenges: Although Murray State University has a Career Services Center that also doubles as the Campus-wide Job Placement Unit, our ideal position is to have our own stand-alone business unit performing placement functions. Financial resource constraints have thus far prevented this from becoming reality.

1.3 Internal, Environmental and Competitive forces that Challenge our Future.

♦ Location of MSU versus the Student and Faculty Diversity Imperative: The City of Murray—located in Calloway County on the western end of Kentucky, is an excellent education and living location. It is not a prime location, however, when considering ethnic and racial diversity. It becomes a challenge, therefore, for the College to attract and retain African-

Page 26 of 129

American students and, more significantly, faculty. In the 4 AACSB departments of the College, for instance, we have only two faculty of African descent: the Associate Dean, Dr. Gerry N. Muuka (Author of this 5Th Year Maintenance Report), and Dr. Seid Hassan, who teaches Economics. In our defense, it has to be pointed out that the College has made vigorous attempts, over the years, to change this state of affairs, without much success. We have been more successful in increasing the number of African-American students, however, partly through targeted scholarships. At the graduate level, 10 Minority Fellowships for Kentucky African-American students are available every year, and they have made a positive difference.

Page 27 of 129

♦ Increased Competition: Increased competition for both graduate and undergraduate students is a reality that most of us in higher education face now, and will continue to do so long into the future—whether globally from the more than 12,000 other business schools worldwide (AACSB estimates); from established online programs such as the University of Phoenix; or from such close-by upstart non-AACSB accredited business programs as Mid Continent University in Mayfield (KY) or Bethel University in McKenzie, Tennessee. A glimpse of the magnitude of competitive pressures is to be found from the fact that the state of Kentucky had originally mandated Murray State University to institute a 12x12 student enrollment goal, that is, have some 12,000 students by Fall of 2012. MSU actual enrollment was at some 10,832 students in Fall 2012. The logical question, of course, is “what strategies have we put in place to “soften” competitive pressures and increase enrollment?” The Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business introduced, in 2008, a Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS) which draws some 70% of its students from India. We also created, in 2008, the revenue-generating Professional MBA (PMBA), offered on a 2-year rotating basis in the surrounding Kentucky cities of Madisonville (2008—2010), Henderson (2010—2012), Paducah (Fall 2012 to Spring 2014) and Hopkinsville, which is envisioned for Fall 2014 to Spring 2016.

We have also enhanced the profile of our 100% Online MBA Program which, in Spring 2010, was ranked 16th in the nation (by GetEducated.Com) among online MBA programs in terms of quality (AACSB-accredited) and low cost ($551 per credit hour or $1,653 per course) in 2012/2013. Significant, from a cost-competition standpoint, is the fact that non-Kentucky residents pay the same tuition if they pursue our online MBA. This allows us to attract quality MBA students from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is no surprise, then, that at a combined online MBA and regular MBA enrollment of 296 students in Spring 2012, our MBA is the largest (by a significant margin) of any MBA program in the state of Kentucky, public or private.

1.4 Opportunities for enhancing our Degree Offerings.

Murray State University is building a $10 million new Campus in Paducah (2010 Population 60,000 and the 5th largest city in Kentucky). There is possibility for our College and other schools at MSU to offer undergraduate degrees in areas such as Marine Transportation and Accounting. Plans are still fluid, but the Bauernfeind College of Business will certainly be a significant player in the Paducah Campus program offerings. More significantly, the College and MSU will continue to extend our undergraduate offerings by working with local Community Colleges under 2+2 transfer pathways—where students complete the first 2 years at their school before transferring to MSU and our College for the final two years. We will continue to re-emphasize, in this vein, AACSB accreditation and the quality of our programs, faculty, and relatively cheap cost in attending a tax-assisted state institution like MSU.

1.5 “Included” Degree Programs and Numbers of Graduates from 2010/2011.

♦ Our scope of accreditation: The Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business (AJB-COB) has the following degree programs included in the 2008-2013 accreditation review. At the undergraduate level, we have two types of programs: the Bachelor of Arts in Business (BAB, which requires a foreign language), and the Bachelor of Science in Business (BSB, with no foreign language requirement). “Included” programs delivered by AJB-COB permit 25 percent or more of the teaching for undergraduate programs or 50 percent or more for graduate programs to be in traditional business subjects. These are: the BAB/BSB in Accounting; the BAB/BSB in Computer Information Systems; the BAB/BSB in Business Administration; the BAB/BSB in Management; the BAB/BSB in Marketing; the BAB/BSB in Finance; the BAB/BSB in International Business; the MBA Program; and the Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS).

In Table 1.5 we present all the undergraduate and graduate programs in the College, as well as the number of degrees conferred in each program for 2008/2009; 2009/2010; and 2010/2011.

Page 28 of 129

The numbers are for July 1 of the previous year to June 30 of the final year in the three ranges given in Table 1.5. The AACSB “included programs” are shown in blue in Table 1.5. The reason we have provided figures for 2008 to 2011 is to enable a trend analysis, as well as a context for how large the AACSB programs in the College are when combined with (and compared against) the non-AACSB programs. The following are noteworthy conclusions from Table 1.5:

♦ In the period 2008 to Fall 2011, a total of 1,013 undergraduate degrees have been conferred from our 15 programs in the College. Of these, 612 (60%) have been from AACSB-Included undergraduate programs.

Page 29 of 129

♦ In the period 2008 to Fall 2011, a total of 529 graduate degrees have been conferred from our 6 graduate programs in the College. Of these, 295 (56%) have been from our flagship graduate program, the MBA.

♦ In the period under review, MSU as a whole has conferred 1,923 graduate degrees from its 37 graduate programs. Of this total, 27% have been from our College alone, while an impressive 15.3% of MSU conferred graduate degrees have been MBAs. As a matter of fact, productivity reports from the MSU Registrar’s office show that the MBA is the largest Master’s degree conferring program on campus, and has held this position every year from Fall 2006 (85 degrees) to Fall 2011 when 116 MBA degrees were awarded. Spring 2012, alone, saw some 49 students earn their MBA degrees, continuing the upward trajectory.

Table 1.5: Degrees Conferred as of Fall of Respective Years: Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business.

Major 2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMSAccounting 32 45 35Computer Science 2 15 11Computer Information Systems 9 12 5Economics 3 12 9Finance 15 27 27Journalism 17 15 7Graphic Communications Management1 - 2 2Electronic Media/T.V. Production 17 7 18Public Relations 28 24 28Advertising 28 16 18Business Administration 71 99 97Management 17 19 14International Business 3 3 7Marketing 27 26 22Organizational Communication 33 44 45Total Degrees Conferred: All Undergraduate Programs 302 366 345Total Degrees Conferred: AACSB Undergrad Programs Only

174 231 207

AACSB Undergrad Programs as a %age of Total Degrees Conferred:

58% 63% 60%

GRADUATE PROGRAMSMaster of Professional Accountancy (MPAc)2 8 5 -Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS)3 - 3 6Economics 10 6 6Mass Communications 22 14 15MBA 83 96 116Organizational Communication 45 40 21Telecommunications Systems Management 13 12 8Total Degrees Conferred: Graduate Programs 181 176 172Total Degrees Conferred: MBA and MSIS (AACSB Programs) Only

91 104 122

MBA Portion of total Collegiate Graduate Degrees Conferred

46% 55% 67%

Total MSU Graduate Degrees Conferred from 37 Graduate Programs

638 638 647

Page 30 of 129

MBA as a percentage of MSU Graduate Degrees Conferred

13% 15% 18%1 GCM was moved into our College in 2009.2 The Master of Professional Accountancy (MPAc) was eliminated as a program in 2008. Students already in the program were allowed to finish by 2010, but no additional students entered the program. Students interested in an accounting graduate program were steered to the MBA with an Accounting Option.3 The Master of Science in Information Systems is a new program that began in Fall 2008.

Page 31 of 129

♦ Section Transmittal Note: In her letter to MSU dated May 6, 2008, Dr. Judy Olian (Dean of UCLA’s Anderson School of Management and, at the time, Chair of AACSB’s Board of Directors) itemized the concerns of the previous peer review team (PRT). This sub-section provides an update on the progress we have made in addressing those concerns, raised by Dr. Kjell Knudsen (PRT Chair and Dean: University of Minnesota at Duluth), Dr. David Billings (at the time Dean, University of Alabama at Huntsville), and Dr. Len Frey, Dean of the College of Business at Arkansas State University.

2.1 Major Concern #1: Provide documentation on 2009-2014 Strategic Plan development. Include plans for faculty hiring in anticipation of upcoming retirements.

♦ How we have addressed the above concern:

(a) The College has a fully operational 2009-2014 Strategic Plan, complete with Macro Goals, Objectives, Action Items/Strategies, KPIs (Key Performance Indicators), and responsible parties. The Plan is in congruence with the Strategic Imperatives of Murray State University’s broader Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is, appropriately, fully conceptualized and discussed in Section 3 of this Report, dealing with Strategic Management.

(b) Faculty Retirements and Hires: Table 10-1, later in this Report, reveals that we have hired a total of 10 participating faculty since 2008, with the following discipline-based breakdown: Accounting (1), Economics (3), Management (4), and Marketing (2). Eight of these have been replacements for retired faculty, while one of the two new hires in Marketing is a totally new faculty line fully funded by our new program: the Professional MBA (PMBA). The 2011 Accounting hire is a David and Ashley Dill Distinguished Professor from Texas A&M University, supported by a $1 million philanthropic endowment from Accounting alumnus David Dill and his wife.

2.2 Concern #2: Establish clear expectations regarding the quality of the College’s Intellectual Contributions (ICs) portfolio and how Quality is assured.

♦ How we have addressed the above concern: The College and its faculty spent the most time on this issue in the period after the Peer Review Team (PRT) visit of Dr. Knudsen, Dr. Billings, and Dr. Frey. In what we hope the current PRT of Dr. Linda U. Hadley (PRT Chair and Dean, Columbus State University), Dr. Lisa C. Toms (PRT Member and Dean, Southern Arkansas University) and Dr. Gary Giamartino (PRT Member and Dean, Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville) will construe as clearly innovative approaches, here are the things we have done:

(a) Intellectual Contributions Manual: The College now has an Intellectual Contributions Manual (ICs, 2009-2014), which coincides with our 2009-2014 Strategic Plan. Its singular purpose is to outline our definitions for participating, supporting, academically qualified, and professionally qualified faculty. Most importantly, the manual outlines the criteria that we now utilize to measure the quality of faculty intellectual contributions (ICs).

♦ All AACSB faculty participated in a lengthy (18-month) process of coming up with a prescribed list of journals. We also utilized our Aspirant Group (especially James Madison University) in this process. Due to its obvious importance, the 31-page ICs Manual is being sent to the current PRT as critical evidence.

(b) Our key measures of Quality of Intellectual Contributions now are the following:

♦ Quality Measure #1: Prescribed List of Journals for Intellectual Activity: The College has a prescribed list of journals in which our faculty should publish. These are called List A, List B, and List C Journals, as well as List D ICs which are mostly other intellectual contributions (OICs). Journals in List A and List B are the most rigorous and selective.

Page 32 of 129

SECTION 2: PROGRESS UPDATES ON CONCERNS FROM OUR 2008 AACSB MAINTENANCE REVIEW

Acceptance rates of 20% or less constitute List A Journals; Acceptance Rates of 21-30% constitute List B Journals; Acceptance Rates of 31% and above constitute List C Journals. We utilized the journal acceptance rates provided by Cabell’s for this purpose.

♦ Quality Measure #2: Selectivity Requirements (Acceptance Rates) Criterion: Faculty will aim to publish in journals with low acceptance rates, meaning that it is relatively hard to get articles published in such journals.

♦ Quality Measure #3: Blind Peer Review (BPR): Whether publishing in print or online/electronic journals, faculty must aim for blind, peer reviewed journals (BPRJs).

Page 33 of 129

♦ Quality Measure #4: Co-Authored PRJs: All co-authored PRJs must carry a bar code to indicate the percentage contribution of each author to the PRJ. This is aimed at addressing the obvious question of free-riding. 20% is the minimum effort needed for a co-author’s contribution to be deemed significant on a PRJ. An actual example of the ICs Bar Code and respective contributions nomenclature is below:

2011 PRJ DBSMiles, Sandy and Muuka, G. N. (2011). Employee Choice of Voice: A New Workplace Dynamic. Journal of Applied Business Research, Volume 27, #4, PP 91-103.

Contribution by Author:Miles 60%LR+AC; Muuka 40%LR+SA+CI

Where: LR= Literature Review SA= Statistical Analysis (including findings).CI= Conclusions and Implications AC= Article Consolidation (put the whole paper together so that it reads as if it was written by one person instead of 4 different writing styles/voices).

♦ Quality Measure #5: Ancillary—Other ICs Quality Measures in the Manual Are:

o Evidence (letter or e-mail) that PhD students and faculty at other institutions—as well as in other countries—are requesting use of specific publications by MSU’s Business faculty.

o Evidence (in writing or via-email) that faculty ICs have won best paper awards at seminars/conferences, in proceedings, or as part of regular journal accolades.

o Invitations from publishing houses—or authors of regular textbooks—for our faculty to contribute chapters in textbooks, answer-keys, or other such unique intellectual endeavors.

o Publications in journals that have a high Social Science Citations Index (SSCI).o Citation Results from Google Scholar.o Journal rankings (typically based on Google Scholar, SSCI, citations and surveys of

scholars) in which peer reviewed articles appear.

2.3 Concern #3: Provide accurate classification of faculty based on academic qualifications and current and relevant experience.

♦ How we have addressed the above concern: The following evidence shows that we are now in compliance on the above concern:

(a) The ICs manual has clear criteria for attaining and maintaining academically qualified (AQ) and professionally qualified (PQ) status. In a nutshell, regular faculty need a PhD, 2 PRJs and one other intellectual contribution (OIC) every five years to maintain their AQ status. PQ faculty, on the other hand, need a relevant Master’s degree, relevant and significant work experience, and at least three development activities every five years in order to attain/maintain PQ status.

(b) Table 10-1, presented later in this Report, has the 5-year summary of ICs and development activities for each of our 59 AACSB faculty. The table utilizes the criteria in (a) above to accurately classify each faculty member as either AQ, PQ, or no “q” (other). A separate document containing vitae for those faculty we have argued as PQ is being sent to the peer review team (PRT).

2.4 Concern #4: Further develop Assurance of Learning processes for On-Line Programs and for the MBA Program in Cyprus comparable to those in other programs.

♦ How we have addressed the above concern: This has now been addressed. The College has a robust Assurance of Learning (AoL) process at both the undergraduate and graduate (MBA

Page 34 of 129

and MSIS) levels. We now have AoL goals and assessment results for the Bachelor of Science in Business (BSB) in all of its manifestations, that is: the regular BSB in Murray; the 2+2 program where the last two years are offered online; and the interactive television (ITV) BSB. The same is true for the regular MBA in Murray, the Cyprus MBA Program, the 100% online MBA, and the new Professional MBA (PMBA) that commenced in Fall 2008. The Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS), also introduced in 2008, similarly has AoL goals, processes, and “closing the loop” continuous improvement activities.

Page 35 of 129

In 2009/2010, we reconfigured our AoL leadership structure so that there is now a separate AoL Director (Dr. Ken Sutrick) for all undergraduate AACSB Programs, and another one (Dr. Larry Guin, who unfortunately retired in May 2012) for the graduate AACSB programs: all MBA programs and the MSIS. Dr. Guin is being replaced by Dr. Joy Roach, out of the department of Management, Marketing and Business Administration (MMBA). More is said in Section 5 of this Report, dealing exclusively with Assurance of Learning.

2.5 Concern #5: Provide documentation regarding enrollment and resources for the planned Professional MBA program (PMBA).

♦ How we have addressed the above concern: The Professional MBA (PMBA) was started in October of 2008 in Madisonville, Kentucky. The degree is essentially the regular MBA program delivered in a blended onsite and online method to off campus locations. The program will rotate among the four extended campuses of Murray State University: Madisonville (completed in 2010), Henderson (completed in Spring 2012), Paducah (started in Fall 2012), and Hopkinsville, envisioned for Fall 2014.. Nineteen students graduated from the first cohort in Madisonville in May of 2010, while 20 graduated from the Henderson program in Spring 2012. As of the time of this Report, the Paducah MBA has some 30 students enrolled to start in August 2012. The PMBA has the same admission requirements as the regular MBA, the Cyprus MBA, and the online MBA.

Resources: The MBA program at the off campus location in Madisonville was offered at the Madisonville Community College campus. Students had access to computer labs and classrooms within the college. The rooms were multimedia rooms that enabled the regular MSU professors to travel to Madisonville as well as access online resources during their classes. The MBA in Henderson was housed in the new Sullivan Center at Henderson Community College. The Paducah MBA is located at our MSU Regional Campus at the Crisp Center. MSU is building a $10 million new campus off of I-24 in Paducah, due to open in 2014. It will be the venue for future MBA offerings in the largest of the 4 MSU regional campuses. Hopkinsville already has a new MSU building housing our regional campus there. It will draw students from Hopkinsville as well as two nearby cities: Clarksville (Tennessee) and the military base at Ft. Campbell in Kentucky. More is said about the PMBA in sub-section 3.4 of this Report, dealing with new degree programs since 2008.

2.6 Concern #6: Ensure that the prerequisites for the PMBA meet the intent of Standard 18: “Participation in a master’s level degree program presupposes the base of general knowledge and skills appropriate to an undergraduate degree”.

♦ How we have addressed the above concern: We are in compliance with the intent and requirements of Standard 18. For every PMBA cohort, we teach a MGT 695: Special Problems. MGT 695 is different for the PMBA because it covers the following five (5) business foundations that cover all the pre-MBA requirements and are taught by our regular AQ faculty: ACC 490 (combining both Financial and Managerial Accounting); CIS 490 (combining both Statistics and Calculus); ECO 490 (combining both Macro and Micro Economics); FIN 330 (Finance); and MKT 490 (combining both Fundamentals of Management and Principles of Marketing). The foundation courses are taught in a weekend and web enhanced format, involving some 30 hours of contact time for each course.

2.7 Major Concern #7: Reconsider the continued viability of the Cyprus MBA Program.

♦ How we have addressed the above concern: We now have a more definitive position in the Cyprus MBA. Both AACSB and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACS-COC) have expressed concerns about the viability of our Cyprus MBA. Enrollment on the program has declined steadily, from 15 in the first cohort to 11 in the second and 8 in the current cohort. Therefore, MSU is discontinuing the Cyprus MBA effective with the current/final cohort of 8 students that will graduate during 2012/2013. Six of

Page 36 of 129

the eight students in the program will complete their degree requirements in Fall 2012, while the remaining two will complete theirs through our 100% online MBA program in Spring 2013. A letter from Dr. Belle Wheelan (President of SACS-COC) to the MSU President, Dr. Randy Dunn (dated April 18, 2012) is being sent to our PRT as evidence of this termination.

Page 37 of 129

♦ Section Transmittal Note: In addition to Assurance of Learning (AoL) covered later in Section 5, Strategic Management is one of the most significant aspects and requirements of this 5Th

Year Maintenance Report. This section covers, inter alia: (a) our Vision, Mission Statement and 2009—2014 Strategic Plan; (b) our Strategic Planning Process and key outcomes of that process; (c) our Financial Strategies for achieving key mission and strategic plan action items/objectives; (d) new degree programs since our 2008 successful AACSB accreditation maintenance; as well as (e) the all-important Faculty Intellectual Contributions (ICs) and attendant Tables 2-1, 2-2, 9-1, 10-1 and Table 10-2. Tables 9-1, 10-1 and the all-important Table 10-2 are presented in Section 4 as a continuation of faculty ICs started in this, Section 3.

Vision: The College of Business aspires to be one of the best regional business schools in the nation.

Mission: The Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business (AJB-CoB) prepares students for careers in the dynamic environments of business, information technology, public and private organizations, and mass communications. With a domestic student population drawn primarily from Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Missouri, and Illinois; and a substantial international student population; the AJB-CoB strives for excellence by:

♦ Engaging students in the acquisition of fundamental knowledge; mastery of professional skills (including oral and written communication, problem solving and critical thinking); and the application of knowledge and skills to emerging issues, technologies, and professional practices in a student-centered learning environment.

♦ Providing students with quality undergraduate and master’s degree programs embodied in relevant curricula and innovative learning environments.

♦ Encouraging students in intellectual and social development by providing a high degree of student and faculty interaction both inside and outside the classroom, cultivating leadership, and developing an appreciation for ethical issues and diversity in the global market place.

♦ Providing students with global perspectives in the classroom, while also encouraging both students and faculty to pursue opportunities for international travel and learning.

♦ Developing and encouraging academic outreach, collaborative relationships with alumni, business and industry, public schools, government agencies and non-profit organizations, as well as colleges and universities at home and abroad.

♦ Supporting a faculty commitment to quality teaching, service and continuous improvement that is enhanced by a 50% to 65% focus on Discipline Based Scholarship (DBS), with secondary emphasis on both Contributions to Practice (CP) and Learning and Pedagogical Scholarship (LPS).

Values and Guiding Principles: Emphasizing teaching, research and broad-based service (in that order), the College espouses and embraces the same values as Murray State University—the parent institution—namely: Accessibility, Academic Freedom, Accountability, Diversity, Excellence, Integrity, Nurturing Environment, Shared Governance, and Student-Centered Learning.

Page 38 of 129

SECTION 3: STRATEGIC

3.1 Vision and Mission

Major Vision and Mission revisions and broad-based stakeholder affirmations were made in: Fall 2000; Fall 2003; Summer 2007, Summer 2008, Summer 2011 and Fall 2011.

Page 39 of 129

♦ Changes to Vision and Mission Statements

Our Vision and Mission Statements have changed over time. Table 3.1 presents the specific changes we have made—including when they were made, the key influencing factors, and which stakeholder groups were involved. This is further proof of the statement we made, earlier in sub-section 1.2.1 part (e) under “Our Relative Strategic Advantages”, that the College believes in broad-based stakeholder input. In Appendix 3.1A we present two samples of the old vision and mission statements from 2001/2002 and 2007/2008. This is per specific recommendation of our Peer Review Team Chair (Dr. Linda Hadley: Dean, Columbus State University in Georgia). The older vision and mission statements are considerably different from the current versions just presented earlier in this sub-section 3.1.

Table 3.1: Changes to Vision and Mission Statements—Including Trigger Points and Stakeholders Involved

Type of Change Made to Vision and Mission[Most Recent Changes First]

Change Date

Change Trigger Factors

Stakeholders Involved

♦ Mission: (a) More specificity on balance of ICs among DBS, CP and LPS (b) Dropped the word “Cutting edge” with regard to Curriculum, replaced it with “Relevant”

Fall 2011

PRT Chair Dr. Linda Hadley Recommended the Change

College Faculty Voted for Change

♦ Vision Statement: Dropped the words “To be Recognized as” one of the best business schools in the nation, to simply: “The College aspires to be one of the best regional business schools in the nation.

Fall 2011

Comments from Departmental Advisory Boards and Alumni

College Faculty voted at same time as above vote.

♦ Vision: Completely New, no longer sounds like an action step or strategy like the old vision statement did.

♦ Mission: The key changes here centered around:

♦ Student Geographic Profile: Now more specific about where our students come from.

♦ Outreach Initiatives: The new mission statement added specificity to our outreach agenda.

♦ Intellectual Contributions (ICs): We made clear the balance is among Discipline-Based Scholarship (our priority emphasis); Contributions to Practice; and Learning and Pedagogical Scholarship. No percentages were used then.

Summer 2007

404 Stakeholders Involved: Students (38 Freshmen, 52 Sophomores, 104 Juniors, 91 Seniors, 38 Graduate Students); 33 Advisory Board Members from the Collegiate board and advisory boards from 5 of the 6 departments in the College; and 48 faculty members.

Stakeholders in the Column to the Left.

Page 40 of 129

Mission: The 2005 Mission Statement was an improvement over the one in 2002 in 3 areas:

Reinforced/mentioned information technology.

Introduced a stand-alone statement on globalization and its importance.

It reinforced the critical need for students to appreciate, and embrace, ethical issues and diversity in the global market place.

Fall 2005

12-member Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) of the College, students, faculty in the College, alumni, and members of the Advisory Boards of three of our 6 departments (ACC, CSC/CIS, and JMC

Stakeholders in the Column to the Left.

Page 41 of 129

To understand Strategic Planning in the Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business, we need to briefly describe the strategic planning process at Murray State University, the parent institution. The description necessitates a two-part process, namely: the strategic planning conceptual framework, and the actual (annual) implementation and review of strategic planning goals.

♦ Strategic Planning Conceptual Framework Part A: The Strategic Imperatives Approach

In fulfillment of its vision, values and mission, Murray State University supports the development and implementation of new initiatives on both an institutional basis and at the operating unit level around what are known as Strategic Imperatives (the brainchild of MSU President Dr. Randy Dunn). There are three such imperatives, hence the reference later in this section to triple-imperatives reports, or “Triple I Reports”. The imperatives define the special calling of every highly regarded comprehensive university, indeed the moral obligation of any University—and that is to educate students, to impart skills and information, and to create new knowledge. In the case of MSU, the intent is to do so in a manner that strengthens and nurtures the region which the university is asked to serve. MSU’s strategic imperatives are not intended to serve as specific goals. Rather, they set the broad strategic direction for the University—from which innovative ideas and activities will emerge from each campus unit. The following strategic imperatives are established to bring focus to Murray State’s many multi-level plans and goals. The SIs are intended to help those goals and plans lead to tangible initiatives and create change.

(a) Excellence Through Quality [Excellence]: Quality is what ultimately drives excellence, and that is what Murray is best known for. It will continue to be our strongest calling card to attract students and their families to an outstanding University experience. We are going to keep looking for new and powerful ways to demonstrate the quality we have. Murray State has a record of excellence—independently verified and endorsed--in its academic programs and services, accomplishments in its classrooms, labs, studios, farms, athletic fields and other venues. As the Murray State community works to foster further excellence, we will embolden, enrich and continue to add vitality to our main campus as well as our extended campuses.

(b) Outreach With Partnerships [Partnerships]: As stewards of the region we serve, outreach is the special calling for (one of) the nation’s best public regional universities. However, nothing important or transformational in this vein can be done without sustaining partnerships—especially during a time of rapid social, economic, and technological change. We are going to keep searching those out—particularly in support of K-12 education initiatives, branded as K12CONNECT. Building Partnerships is key to the University’s future, just as those partnerships have been to its past. As the University works to build partnerships, MSU will look at all aspects of life in the region to see how we can partner to benefit the region, the Commonwealth, and the world—from PK-12 education, business and economic development, public health and wellness to social and cultural improvement.

(c) Innovation For Impact [Innovation]: President Dunn alludes to Innovation as a new imperative—not a derivative of what we have had previously. He says we have to break with some old habits and comfortable traditions to find innovative, less costly ways of performing our uniquely valuable functions. We must be willing—he argues—to take a tough look at what we can do well—and also think about shedding that which we cannot afford or otherwise justify.

♦ Planning Conceptual Framework Part B: Nexus between MSU’s Strategic Imperatives and the 2009—2014 Strategic Plan of the Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business:

Page 42 of 129

3.2 Strategic Planning Process and

What is the nexus/linkage between the aforementioned three imperatives (Triple I) and planning in our College? Everything we do under our own 2009-2014 Strategic Plan has to link, in some fashion, to the imperatives of either Excellence, Partnerships, or Innovation. Figure 3.1A shows this linkage and the primacy of the three imperatives as building blocks for the 5 Macro Goals that constitute our 2009—2014 Strategic Plan as a College. Note, from Figure 3.1A, the centrality of Goal # 3—Enhancement of Students, which is our moral imperative as a center of learning.

Page 43 of 129

Figure 3.1A: AJB-COB’s 2009-2014 Strategic Plan: The 5 Strategic Plan Macro Goals and Linkage to MSU’s 3 Strategic Imperatives.

In Exhibit 3.1 we show the 2009—2014 Strategic Plan of the Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business. The key elements of the Strategic Plan are the following:

(a) 5 Macro Goals: The Plan contains 5 big picture (macro) goals, already depicted in Figure 3.1A.

(b) Each Macro-Goal has clear Objectives that further clarify what we are trying to achieve.

(c) Each Objective, in turn, has Action Steps (ASs), being the Strategies necessary to achieve each objective and, in turn, to achieve the macro-goal of which the particular objective is a part.

(d) Dollar amounts, key performance indicators (KPIs), Timelines, and Responsible Parties: Not shown in Exhibit 3.1 but presented in a separate, more detailed, 2009—2014 Strategic Plan (see Appendix 3.1B) are the following critical items:

♦ How much does each Macro-goal involve, in resource terms (dollars and people)? This gives a sense of where the College would likely spend additional money if we had it. Additional resource details are provided, appropriately, in the Financial Strategies Table 3.3 later in this section of the Report.

♦ For each macro goal, what are the KPIs: Key Performance Indicators? In other words, how shall we measure progress and know that a particular goal has indeed been achieved? KPIs are, ideally, quantitative in nature.

♦ What sort of achievement timeline are we talking about, for each objective and goal? Timing, in any planning, is everything.

♦ Who is responsible for achieving each goal and attendant objectives—is it the Dean, Associate Dean, Chairs, Faculty, Staff, or a combination of these and other

Page 44 of 129

stakeholders? This is where the continuous improvement paradigm has one of its core roots.

Page 45 of 129

AS= Action Steps or Strategies for achieving respective Objectives and, in turn, the strategic macro-goals.

Goal 1 Enhancement of Curricula and Learning: Provide intellectually challenging, responsive, and up-to-date curricula in an innovative learning environment to prepare students for successful global careers.

Objective 1.1 Develop and evaluate Curricula, Learning Goals and Assessment Processes.AS 1 Define and communicate Learning Goals to key stakeholders.AS 2 Continuously Review, Assess, Communicate, and Utilize results of program

learning goals.

Objective 1.2 Provide atmosphere for high quality teaching and student learning.AS 1 Support a learning environment conducive to student success.AS 2 Determine and utilize effective teaching methods and activities, including web/online instruction.

Objective 1.3 Maintain and expand Global Involvement.AS 1 Integrate global issues into the curriculum, and provide student opportunities for global travel.AS 2 Support faculty involvement in global scholarship and instruction.

Goal 2 Enhancement of Faculty and Staff: Attract/Develop/Retain high quality and diverse faculty and staff.

Objective 2.1 Increase the quality and number of peer reviewed intellectual contributions (ICs).AS 1 Continuously reinforce the need for quality research and peer-reviewed publications.AS 2 Maintain meaningful rewards for high achievement in scholarship.

Objective 2.2 Recruit, Develop, and Retain a diverse faculty and staff.AS 1 Identify and target sources of diverse faculty/staff.AS 2 Seek additional incentive funds for hiring minority faculty.

Objective 2.3 Enhance the academic and/or professional qualifications of faculty and staff.AS 1 Encourage and support appropriate faculty and staff in pursuit of the terminal degree.AS 2 Seek funding to increase the number of tenure track faculty lines.

Goal 3 Enhancement of Students: Attract +retain + graduate quality students consistent with our Mission.

Objective 3.1 Strategically manage undergraduate and graduate enrollments.AS 1 Engage in broad-based regional outreach.AS 2 Liaise with the Institute for International Studies to attract quality international students.

Objective 3.2 Increase the quality of students entering undergraduate and master’s programs.AS 1 Periodically review admission standards.AS 2 Improve scholarships and graduate assistantships to attract and retain quality students.

Objective 3.3 Improve retention and graduation efforts for AJB-COB undergraduate and graduate students.

Page 46 of 129

Exhibit 3.1: 2009—2014 Strategic Plan of the Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business [AJB-COB]

AS 1 Provide supporting resources to the Center for Undergraduate Business Advising (CUBA).AS 2 Utilize Collegiate Ambassadors and student leaders as mentors to other students.

Objective 3.4 Enhance career preparation and placement.AS 1 Promote AJB-COB specific placement information (e.g. on collegiate website, and e-Recruiting).AS 2 Develop and encourage student participation in career services and career

enhancement programs.

Page 47 of 129

Goal 4 Enhancement of External Relations and Recognition: Enhance communication and relationships with external stakeholders and maintain or seek national and international accreditations.

Objective 4.1 Maintain AACSB-International, ACEJMC, and SACS accreditations.AS 1 Maintain currency and involvement with AACSB, ACEJMC and SACS accreditation standards.AS 2 Maintain broad faculty/staff participation in the accreditation processes.

Objective 4.2 Outreach and Stewardship—Enhance external relationships as part of Outreach Initiatives.AS 1 Develop and maintain strategies to broaden the role of the new Center for EntrepreneurshipAS 2 Support and broaden various AJB-COB Outreach Centers [e.g. Volunteer Income Tax Assistance].

Objective 4.3 Development—Increase and broaden Alumni involvement and engagement in Fundraising, student recruitment and job-placement, and public relations.

AS 1 Enhance participation of Alumni, and Departmental/Collegiate Advisory Boards in support of AJB-COB programs; as well as the job-placement, marketing, and internship opportunities of AJB-COB students.

AS 2 Increase and improve fund-raising strategies and messages to alumni and supporters.

Goal 5 Enhancement of Supporting Resources: Enhance our infrastructure and financial resources.

Objective 5.1 Provide the physical infrastructure for teaching/learning, research, and service.AS 1 Upgrade classroom infrastructure (including furniture, lighting, windows, etc).AS 2 Continue to seek State/MSU/Alumni funding for an entirely new building for the College.

Objective 5.2 Enhance our technological infrastructure to support teaching, research, and service.AS 1 Upgrade computing Capacity for Students, Faculty, and Staff.AS 2 Secure funding to continue upgrading TV studio equipment.

Objective 5.3 Development—Increase the Financial Resources of the College.AS 1 Build endowments within the College at the rate of 5% over the previous fiscal year.AS 2 Promote and enhance annual giving to the College.

Brief Historical Background: The Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business has a long tradition of Strategic Management, with formal Strategic Plans dating back at least to Dr. David Eldredge (Dean of the College, 1977-1985), Dr. John Thompson (Dean, 1986-1994), Dr. Dannie Harrison (Dean, 1994-2006) to the present (Dr. Tim Todd, Dean since 2006).

Page 48 of 129

Exhibit 3.1 Continued: 2009—2014 Strategic Plan of the AJB-COB

3.2.1 Description of our Strategic Management Planning Process—Including

The 2009—2014 Strategic Plan: The 2009-2014 Strategic Plan in Exhibit 3.1 and Appendix 3.1B is “powered” by our Mission Statement, presented earlier in Section 3 of this Report. Two critical questions and themes are yet to be addressed in this Report, namely:

(a) How did we develop the 2009—2014 Strategic Plan?

(b) What is the nature of its Annual Implementation and Review Process? We address each of these important questions, next.

Page 49 of 129

(A) Development of the 2009—2014 Strategic Plan: Our strategic planning process is led by a broad-based faculty and administration strategic planning committee (SPC, see its composition in Appendix 3.1C). Among many other factors, the 2009-2014 Plan owes its current form to two key events in the past—that is in 2003 and 2007.

♦ SWOT Analysis in 2003/2004: During 2003/2004, we reconstituted the macro (big picture) goals that directly relate to—and help achieve—our mission, namely: Enhancement of Curricula and Learning; Enhancement of Faculty and Staff; Enhancement of Students; Enhancement of External Relations and Recognition; and Enhancement of Supporting Resources. As part of internal assessment, and with a view towards continuous improvement in the College, a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis was conducted in 2003 among faculty and students. For our purposes, the SWOT analysis was articulated and presented to faculty as follows:

(a) Strengths: Internally, within the College, what do you see as the major (5-8) positive factors that help (or will help in the future) towards achievement of our goals in teaching, research, and service?

(b) Weaknesses: Internally, within the College, what do you see as the major (5-8)) negative factors that prevent (or will prevent) our College from achieving our goals in teaching, research, and service? What do we do badly?

(c) Opportunities: Externally (both outside the College but within MSU, and outside MSU) what do you see as the major (5-8) positive factors/developments that could help us achieve our goals in teaching, research, and service? Where are the good opportunities facing us?

(d) Threats: Externally (both outside the College but within MSU, and outside MSU) what do you see as the major (5-8) negative factors/developments that are preventing us (or could prevent us) from achieving our goals in teaching, research, and service? What major obstacles do we face?

The SWOT analysis was conducted among 60 College faculty on Friday, August 15, 2003; among 44 Business Students in MGT 499 (Senior Seminar); and also among 22 members of the Student Advisory Council of the College during August of 2003. The SWOT analysis was vital because it informed the College on a number of the issues that would later be reflected in the objectives and action steps of the 2003-2008 Strategic Plan, as well as the 2009—2014 Plan.

♦ Summer 2007 Comprehensive Review of Vision and Mission: A comprehensive review of our Plan took place in Summer 2007, and involved a total of 404 different primary and secondary stakeholders and influencers. These included Students (38 Freshmen, 52 Sophomores, 104 Juniors, 91 Seniors, 38 Graduate Students); 33 Advisory Board Members from the Collegiate Advisory Board and advisory boards from 5 of the 6 departments in the College, as well as 48 faculty members from all six departments. The changes made in 2007 (as outlined earlier in Table 3.1) are an important part of the current strategic plan. To be certain, the changes made to the Plan in Fall 2011 were vital, including the recommendation from our Peer Review Team Chair Dr. Linda Hadley for specificity in the balance among the three types of intellectual contributions. However, the bulk of the current Plan (2009—2014) was already intact from the 2003—2008 AACSB maintenance period.

Broad, Stakeholder-driven Revisions to the Strategic Plan: The 2009—2014 Strategic Plan was institutionalized and formalized via a formal vote of Faculty on Friday, August 15, 2008; with Fall 2011 amendments in Table 3.1 similarly approved by Faculty during 2011/2012.

When combined, the changes and influencing factors from 2003, 2007, 2008 and amendments made in intervening years are encapsulated in Figure 3.1B, which describes the entire strategic management process at MSU and in our College.

Page 50 of 129

Page 51 of 129

Figure 3.1B: Comprehensive Strategic Planning Model for the Bauernfeind College of Business

Page 52 of 129

2009-2014

Bauernfeind College of Business 2009-2014 Strategic Plan

Explaining this Figure: The parent Institution (MSU) of which CoB is a part, is marked area A, while CoB is marked area B. The committee structure in CoB is marked area C. It facilitates plan conceptualization (via the SPC*) and review and revaluation (through curriculum committees, and assessment committees) to ensure student learning and achievement of learning outcomes—assurance of learning (AoL). The big arrow out of area A is meant to signify two things. First, that CoB is only one of 6 Colleges that make up MSU. Second, that CoB’s 2009-2014 strategic plan originates from—and closely resembles in important respects including planning horizon—MSU’s 2009-2014 strategic plan. This is another

(B) Annual Strategic Plan Implementation Process

The annual planning process, at MSU and in our College, has its roots in the triad Strategic Imperatives of Excellence, Partnerships, and Innovation described in Section 3.2 of this Report. We use our 2009—2014 College Strategic Plan—especially the key objectives and action items contained in Exhibit 3.1—to set our goal priorities for the new academic year using a form called the “Triple I Report”. Triple I, as a reminder, refers to the three Strategic Imperatives of Excellence, Partnerships, and Innovation. In what is truly a bottom-up, management by objectives (MBO) planning system, each Chair and the Dean’s Office are required to complete the Triple I Report. Appendix 3.1D presents a sample of the Triple I Reports from 2009 to 2012 from each chair of the 6 Departments in our College (including the non-Business departments of Journalism & Mass Communications as well as Organizational Communication), as well as one from the Dean’s Office. Here are the essential elements of the Annual Planning Process (the Triple I Report):

Annual Planning Phase:

♦ Each department and the College as a whole: Come up with 2 or 3 goals for the upcoming planning/academic year. This is done as a consultative process with Faculty (for the Chair’s Report), and with the entire Strategic Planning Committee of the College (for the College portion of the Triple I Report).

♦ For each Goal, state the Imperative to which it has the closest linkage or nexus.♦ For Each Goal, come up with key performance indicators: Objectives, Action Steps, and

a completion Timeline. ♦ All College-wide Goals for the upcoming year are announced by Dr. Tim Todd, the Dean,

during the August annual meeting of all faculty from all 6 departments of the College—just before the new year starts.

♦ The President’s Office provides funds for promising Triple I Planning Report Action Items. The bulk of implementation resources (money and people) still comes from the College and/or individual departments, as appropriate. The Financial Strategies Table 3.3 has evidence of funds being provided to achieve action items at three levels: the MSU budget, Departmental budgets and foundation accounts, and College funds and endowments.

Annual Review Phase:

♦ At the end of the planning period/academic year, a review is made (by the same stakeholders involved earlier in the process) to determine progress made on achieving the priority items. Plan B’s and contingency plans will have been articulated earlier, in case of failure of Plan A’s. When key goals are not met, they can be reset as new ones for the ensuing planning year. The actual nomenclature on the Triple I Reporting Template reads as follows: “Please list the progress achieved towards reaching your unit’s 2011-2012 Triple I Goals. A description of what has been achieved, how it was measured, and the next steps are all encouraged.”

♦ The MSU administration also asks each planning unit to reflect on the process by answering the following question as part of planning review: How has the Triple I process (setting goals with your unit and reporting progress) influenced the unit's goals for this academic year? How will your unit adjust the goal-setting and planning in the coming semester/year to maximize the process?

♦ Publication and Publicity: All Triple I Summary Reports at MSU are housed on the MSU website under President Randy Dunn’s Office. They can be accessed at this (functioning) website link:http://www.murraystate.edu/HeaderMenu/Administration/PresidentsOffice/Planning.aspx

Page 53 of 129

♦ Most recent MSU Example of Planning Review: Appendix 3.1E is an e-mail message from Dr. Josh Jacobs, who is the MSU President’s Chief of Staff, dated September 24, 2012. In it, he invites all planning units at MSU to submit Triple I Goals for the 2012/2013 academic year—including goal achievement timelines and resource needs.

Page 54 of 129

3.2.2 Overview of Continuous Improvement Outcomes and Achievement of Mission

The accomplishments below reflect effective practices undertaken during the review period that demonstrate our commitment to achieving the key goals and objectives in the 2009—2014 Strategic Plan, as discussed earlier.

♦ Naming of the College: Thanks to an additional $2 million from long-time supporter and philanthropist Arthur J. Bauernfeind, our College bears his name since April 2012: The Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business.

♦ Endowment Growth: Our Collegiate endowments have seen a 20% increase, from $8.6 million in Fall 2008 to an invested value of $9.74 million with a market value of $10.34 million, both as of June 30th, 2012.

♦ Faculty Intellectual Contributions (ICs) Guidelines: Due in large part to our 2008 peer review team—that is, Dr. Knudsen (PRT Chair), Dr. Billings, and Dr. Len Frey—our College now has a 31-page ICs manual to guide faculty production of ICs. The centerpiece of the manual is threefold, namely: (a) to provide clear criteria on how we measure the quality of ICs, including a new list of prescribed journals, (b) to provide clear policy on co-authorships of articles in peer reviewed journals (PRJs), and (c) to provide clarity on our preferred balance of ICs among Discipline Based Scholarship (DBS), Contributions to Practice (CP) as well as Learning and Pedagogical Scholarship (LPS). As indicated in our mission statement, we expect the preponderance of faculty ICs in our college to be in the DBS category.

♦ The Department of Accounting: The Department of Accounting has been engaged in its E3 capital campaign since 2008. To date, the department has raised nearly $1.8 million as part of Murray State’s broader $60 million campaign (called Hold Thy Banner High). The Department of Accounting is the only department at MSU with its own campaign. E3 stands for: Expand, Enhance, and Equip, with regard to overall accounting student learning.

♦ Marketing “Breakthrough” on Gender Diversity: For over 20 years, the College had no tenured or tenure-track female instructor teaching marketing courses at any level. Our strategic attention to gender diversity finally paid dividends in Fall 2010 when we hired Dr. Katherine Smith from Texas A&M University, College Station.

♦ Regional Business and Innovation Center (RBIC): Opened in July 2008, this $603,600 facility serves as a comprehensive business incubator and accelerator focused on helping Kentucky entrepreneurs to perfect their business strategies. The center serves, mostly, technology and innovation-oriented businesses in the western Kentucky area.

♦ Two new Graduate Programs: MBA and Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS): In Fall 2008, the MBA extended its geographic footprint by offering a professional MBA (PMBA) in Madisonville (Kentucky), while the Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS) was introduced on the main campus in Murray.

♦ Decade-Long Review of Departmental/Functional Integration in the College: In 2000, the College took the unusual step of incorporating two non-business departments: Organizational Communication, and Journalism & Mass Communications. We already had the department of Computer Science and Information Systems at the time. Thanks to the Vision, Mission, and Strategic Plan that all 6 departments have in common, the functional integration “pains” of the period 2000 to 2002 are now a thing of the past. It is evident that our faculty, staff, and students—and even many of our alumni via departmental advisory boards—now view and treat each other as one coherent unit instead of six disparate units.

Page 55 of 129

♦ SHRM Certification: Our College has the distinction of having a Human Resources Option at the undergraduate level that was first certified by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in 2009. It was re-certified in October 2011. The curriculum requirements for our BSB with the Human Resources Option are recognized as aligned with SHRM standards.

Page 56 of 129

3.3 Financial Strategies: How do we Fund our Strategic Goals/Action Steps to achieve our Mission?

The Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business has 5 key sources of funds: University appropriations; philanthropic fundraising and endowments; the newly introduced online teaching incentive fund; course fees; revenue from the Cyprus MBA Program (which is ending during 2012/2013); and revenue from the Professional MBA (PMBA) Program. Modest amounts are also generated from both grants and consultancies. While MSU appropriations pay most of the faculty and staff salaries, the PMBA funds one full-time, academically qualified marketing position.

A new source of College operating revenue, since Summer 2011, are funds received for teaching online courses. These are dispensed by MSU’s Dean for Continuing Education and Academic Outreach (CEAO), Dr. Brian Vanhorn. Online courses cost more, in tuition terms, than normal, on-campus courses at Murray State University. Any time an MSU college offers a course online and the faculty member teaches it as an overload, then the extra revenue from online tuition is shared a follows: (a) The faculty member gets $2,500 for teaching 10 to 25 undergraduate students (or $3,000 if they teach 8 to 20 graduate students); (b) CEAO, overall, gets 60% of the revenue, while the balance of 40% (including the extra compensation stipends to faculty) is shared among other MSU units as follows: Dean’s Office (35% of the 40%); Department from which the online course originates (35% of the 40%); MSU Provost’s Office (10%); MSU Center for Teaching, Learning and Technology (CTLT: 7.5%); course development stipends (7.5%); and finally the MSU Library gets the remaining 5% for a total of 100% of the 40% balance.

What has the Online Revenue Sharing Plan (as it is called) meant for the Bauernfeind College of Business? Simply this: for teaching online courses since Summer 2011, the College will get a check (during 2012/2013) for a total amount of $174,757.42 to spend as we deem appropriate. Shown as Appendix 3.3, this total is broken down variously between the 6 departments of the College (they will receive a combined $87,378.71) and the Dean’s Office ($87,378.71). This new revenue stream is not reflected in the Financial Strategies Table 3.3, shown on the next page.

AJB-COB therefore has financial strategies (see Table 3.3) to provide key resources appropriate to, and sufficient for, achieving our vision, mission, the five macro goals—including objectives and action steps contained in our 2009-2014 Strategic Plan. The Plan specifies resource commitments in terms of personnel, financial resources, and infrastructure. Our Mission Statement is operationalized (that is, made to come alive) and achieved by the five macro goals, namely: (a) Enhancement of Curricula and Learning, (b) Enhancement of Faculty and Staff, (c) Enhancement of Students, (d) Enhancement of External Relations and Recognition, and (e) Enhancement of Supporting Resources. Each of these five macro goals is followed by Objectives that define its operational parameters, and then by the Action Steps/Strategies for achieving respective Objectives. Further, financial resources are made available to achieve key Action Steps. The objectives and action steps—which do change from time to time—represent our high priority continuous improvement efforts. As one reads through the Financial Strategies in Table 3.3, therefore, it becomes evident that we both address and adequately fund each of these macro goals. In so doing, we fund our Mission Statement and maintain quality in our programs and processes.

♦ Nexus and Relation to the Mission: As required in AACSB Standards 4 and 5, the Financial Strategies table has an added column: a narrative explanation of the enhancements to mission fulfillment, as well as the importance attached to funding the particular action item. The explanatory notes/narrative column has the following notation: Goal X + Objective Y + Action Step N. This means the Action Item in column one is directly linked to Macro Goal X (GX); under Objective Y (OY), whose Action Step (AS) or Strategy for achievement is N as shown in the 2009-2014 AJB-COB Strategic Plan. This linkage to the Strategic Plan—and, by

Page 57 of 129

extension, to fulfillment of our Mission — is therefore shown in the last part of the narrative column as: GX + OY + AS.

Page 58 of 129

TABLE 3.3: FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR KEY STRATEGIC ACTION ITEMS COLLEGE ENDOWMENTS AS OF JULY 2012: $10.343 MILLION Linkage to 2009-2014

Plan and accomplishment of the AJB-COB MissionRenaming of the College Spring

2012$2 M $0 Arthur J. Bauernfeind Funding key items in G1 to G5.

Ω

(1) Upgrade: Student Computer Labs Summer 2006

$45,000 $80,000 Technology Fees (1) Strategic Plan calls for upgrades once every 4 Years: G5+O5.2+AS1

(2) Student Scholarships Longstanding

$275,928 $256,799 Endowment Funds (2) Recruit Quality Students: G3 + O3.2 + AS2

(3) Oral Communications Center Spring 2012

$21,908 $16,000 University Libraries (3) Assists students with presentation skills: G3+O3.3+AS2

(4) Technology Center Fall 2012 $90,000 $0 AJB-COB Budget (4) Center provides technology support for staff and faculty: G5+O5.2+AS1

(5) AJB-COB Technology Specialist Spring 2007

$34,000 $36,494 + Raises

$18,588 AJB-COB Funds$17,906 CEAO

(5) Manages technology for the college: G5+O5.2+AS1

(6) CUBA Director: Center for Undergraduate Business Advising

Fall 2005 $42,394 $45,880 + Raises

AJB-COB Budget (6) CUBA: Centralized Business Advising: G3+O3.3+AS1

(7) Business Adviser/Off-Campus Student Coordinator, AJB-COB Recruitment Coordinator

Fall 2008 $28,000 $30,628 + Raises

AJB-COB Budget (7) Advises students in the online and region campus programs: G3+O3.1+AS1 and G3+O3.3+AS1

(8) Study Abroad Scholarship Support Fall 2007 $7,000 $15,400 AJB-COB Funds +Four AJB-COB Faculty

(8) 53 Business Students studied abroad from Summer 2011 to Spring 2012. AJB-COB students make up around 22% of all students studying abroad this year: G1+O1.3+AS3

(9) Retention: Residential College Faculty

Fall 1994 N/A $2,400 MSU Budget (9) Student retention and interaction with Faculty: G3+O3.3+AS1 and AS2

(10) Accounting Scholars Fall 2014 $5,000 $5,000 - $25,000

Accounting Donors (E3 Fund-raising Campaign)

(10) Accounting Scholars will award 4-year scholarships to 5 freshmen students each year: G3 + O3.2 + AS2

(11) Accounting Camp Summer 2014

$25,000 $25,000 Accounting Alumni Donors

(11) To support an accounting camp: G3 + O3.1 + AS1/G3 + O3.2 + AS2

(12) Internship Support Summer 2014

$5,000 $10,000 Accounting Alumni Donors

(12) Helps students on internships: G3 + O3.4 + AS3

Ω

(1) New Faculty Positions Fall 2007 $559,965 $400,520 AJB-COB Budget (1) Fall 2011: we hired 5 replacement faculty : G2+O2.2+AS1

(2) A.J. Bauernfeind Endowed Chair in Finance

Fall 2003 $103,000 $134,569 + Raises

$46,621 Endowment$87,948 AJB-COB Budget

(2) First ever Endowed Chair in the College/Finance: G2+O2.1+AS2

(3) Distinguished Hutchins Professor Fall 2011 $129,280 $129,280 $1,311 Endowment$127,969 AJB-COB Budget

(3) Helped retain a key Marketing Faculty Member: G2+O2.1+AS2

Page 59 of 129

(4) Dill Distinguished Professor Fall 2011 $155,000 $155,000 + Raises

$15,000 Endowment$140,000 AJB-COB Budget

(4) Supported in part by a $1 million dollar pledge and $.25 million in matching funds, this Accounting hire brings research excellence to the College: G2+O2.1+AS2

(5) BB&T Fellows Stipend Fall 2008 $3,000 $3,000 $1M BB&T Endowment

(5) Three BB&T Faculty Fellows receive $1,000 yearly: G2+O2.1+AS2

(6) Support for Faculty Intellectual Contributions (Graduate Assistants)

Fall 2000 $93,000 $166,042 (a) $132,267 AJB-COB(b) $33,775 Academic

Affairs

(6) Direct Support for Faculty Intellectual Contributions: (a) G2+O2.1+AS1 and AS2 as well as: (b) G3+O3.2+AS2

(7) Faculty Development Support: Including Travel to Conferences; Internal (Friday) Faculty Development Seminars, etc

Longstanding

Over $35,000

$50,713 AJB-COB + MSU Foundation Accounts

(7) See our multifaceted Faculty Development Matrix at our AACSB-Dedicated Website: http://www.murraystate.edu/cbpa/aacsb/ID: AACSB Password: Excellence2: G2+O2.2+AS3

(8) PhD Completion Support Fall 1999 $2,200 $15,000 AJB-COB Budget (8) Salary enhancement upon completion of PhD: G2+O2.3+AS1

(9) Doctoral Study Support Fall 2005 $54,950 $253,452 AJB-COB Budget (9) Salary support for Faculty Members pursuing PhDs: G2+O2.3+AS1

(10) Other Research Support Longstanding

$4,000 $3,800 CISR Grants (10) See Development Matrix referenced in (5) above: G2+O2.2+AS3

(11) Technology Upgrade for Faculty Summer 2006

$11,000 $11,000 Faculty Vacancy credits + Foundation Accounts

(11) Our 2009-2014 Strategic Plan calls for upgrades at least once every 4 Years. Added RAM + HD to most Faculty and Staff PCs: G5+O5.2+AS1

Page 60 of 129

TABLE 3.3 CONTINUED: FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR KEY STRATEGIC ACTION ITEMS

Faculty Development Continued Linkage to 2008-2014

Plan(12) Research, Technology and Library Specialist

Fall 2006 $38,790 $35,000 + Raises

MSU Operating Budget

(12) Library research support for AACSB, SACS and ACEJMC accreditation efforts: G2+O2.1+AS1

(13) Retention Dimension: Summer Teaching

Longstanding

$200,000

$258,620 CEAO/MSU/AJB-COB (13) Extra Comp for Faculty to Teach in Summer: G2+O2.1+AS2

(14) Online Teaching Incentive Stipend Summer 2011

$2,400 $2,400 CEAO Budget (14) Extra Comp for Faculty to develop online courses: G2+O2.1+AS2

(15) Regents Teaching Awards Longstanding

$1,000 $2,000 MSU Budget (15) Two $1,000 base pay stipends for teaching excellence: G2+O2.1+AS2

Ω

(1) Cyprus MBA Program: Travel and Extra Comp Pay for AJB-COB Teaching Faculty

Spring 2011

$51,000 $51,000 per year for two years (including year one)

Cyprus MBA Tuition (1) (a) The total program cost of $102,000 is spread across the 2 years needed for students to complete Cyprus MBA.(b) Our partner in Cyprus is Mr. Socrates Metaxas. He provides facilities, and support for our faculty when in Limassol: G1+O1.3+AS3/G5+O5.3+AS3

(2) Professional MBA Program Fall 2008 $335,776

$335,776 New Money from MSU

(2) An 18 month MBA with new MKT faculty position: G5+O5.3+AS3

(3) AACSB and ACEJMC Accreditation 1976 $2,000 $8,900 AJB-COB Budget (3) Annual Accreditation-Maintenance Fees for the two major accreditations in the AJB-COB: G4+O4.1+AS1

(4) Assessment and Curriculum Review 2000 $2,500 $4,350 AJB-COB Budget (4) Major Field Tests (Business II + MFT for the MBA): G1+O1.1+AS2

(5) Faculty attendance at AACSB Meetings

Longstanding

$10,000 $4,807 AJB-COB Budget (5) We send faculty to key AACSB Seminars: G4+O4.1+AS1

(6) CTLT Instructional Seminars for Campus

Fall 2000 $25,000 $11,000 MSU Budget (6) Faculty instructional and web development: G2+O2.2+AS3

Ω

(1) Center for Entrepreneurship Studies

Spring 2007

$0.5 M N/A: Planned $500,000 Gift from Dr. Miller and Dr. Miller

(1) Aspirant for this: Ball State University: G4+O4.2+AS2

(2) Small Business Development Center

Fall 1992 $297,400

$436,730 MSU+KY + USDA (2) Supports Small Business Development needs in Region: G4+O4.2+AS2

(3) Director of Development for AJB-COB

July 2005 $53,923 $54,600 + Raises

MSU Operating Budget

(3) Enhancement of Resources via Fundraising: G4+O4.3+AS2

(4) Regional Business and Innovation Center

July 2008 $692,921

$603,600 (a) $244,800 State of Kentucky(b) $130,000 MSU(c) $153,000 Various Grants(d) $75,800 Programs

(4) The Regional Business and Innovation Center serves as a comprehensive business accelerator focused on helping Kentucky entrepreneurs perfect their business strategies to build successful technology and innovation-based businesses: G4+O4.2+AS2

(5) Director: Center for Banking and 2004 $80,000 $115,670 (a) $105,050 AJB- (5) Mission is to enhance the educational opportunities of

Page 61 of 129

Finance COB Budget(b) $10,620 Foundation

students and finance professionals in the Area: G4+O4.2+AS3

(6) Emerging Technology and Marketing Center

Spring 2012

$8,811 $8,811 AJB-COB Budget (6) Technology enhancement for faculty and businesses: G4+O4.2+AS2

(7) State Farm Financial Services Center

Fall 2011 $143,597

$8,775 AJB-COB + State Farm

(7) Focus is on hands-on career development for banking, financial planning, financial analysis, and economic education students: G3+O3.4+AS2

(8) Center for Economic Education 1974 N/A $1,125 AJB-COB Budget (8) The Center for Economic Education offers professional development courses for area K-12 teachers: G3+O3.1+AS1

(9) Partnering and Preparing for Professionalism

Fall 2011 $20,872 $20,872 AJB-COB Budget (9) A seminar where local business people assist students in preparing for employment and workplace challenges: G3+O3.4+AS2

(10) Racer Academy Fall 2011 $5,000 $5,000 Academic Affairs Budget

(10) The College offers several dual credit courses: G3+O3.1+AS1

(11)Regensburg (Germany) Program Fall 1991 $1,000 $7,168 AJB-COB Budget (11) Supplements Regensburg Program Director’s Salary: G1+O1.3+AS2

Page 62 of 129

3.4 New Degree Programs since Spring 2008

Since our last maintenance of accreditation in Spring 2008, we have introduced one truly new program—the Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS). The second, a Professional MBA (PMBA) is new only in terms of location and delivery times, but essentially the same as the regular MBA in Murray in all other important respects—including admission requirements, profiles of teaching faculty (the same MBA-in-Murray faculty travel to rotational cities in Kentucky to teach the program), and AoL goals. Each is discussed in ensuing paragraphs.

♦ The Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS)

The Department of Computer Science and Information Systems started offering the MSIS in Fall 2008. The program is aimed at imparting managerial skills relating to information management and information systems management in organizations.

Intended Student Market: The market for the new program covers a broad spectrum of students. They include recent graduates from the bachelor’s degree in CIS or other business degrees, experienced Information Systems professionals, experienced business professionals and International students with a background in Information Technology. The curriculum also includes foundation courses for those that lack adequate preparation.

Employer /Employment needs: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), computer applications related jobs will see high growth through 2016. Systems analysts jobs will see an annual growth of 29%, Database administration jobs 29%, and Applications software engineers will grow at 45% nationwide. For the commonwealth of Kentucky the growth rates are even higher (Systems analysts 170%, Database administration jobs, 90% and Applications software engineers 200%). These are typical of the jobs our graduates will be prepared to take on. After graduation, the students can pursue managerial careers in Information Systems or join Doctoral programs in Information systems.

Faculty sufficiency: The program consists of 10 courses of which 7 form the core. Students pick 3 electives that support their academic/professional goals. Only academically qualified (AQ) faculty teach on the MSIS Program, as shown in Tables 10-1 and 10-2 later in this 5 th Year Maintenance Report.

Technology support: The MSIS is taught on the MSU campus in Murray, where students have the full range of technology resources and support services available to other on-campus MSU students. Additionally, the College has software and databases appropriate for a program like this, including a Microsoft SQL Server, Microsoft Dynamics AX, SAS, Microsoft Project, Visual Studio.Net, and Net-beans among others.

Library: The library at Murray State hosts numerous publications in digital and print format. Students have access to all the major Information Systems journals and magazines through the library’s portal. They also have the full range of services available to other MSU students, as appropriate.

♦ The Professional MBA (PMBA)

The PMBA concept is modeled along a similar program at Ohio University—one of our three aspirant schools alongside James Madison University and Ball State University. The program is offered in rotation at MSU’s 4 extended campuses, namely: Madisonville (Fall 2008 to Spring 2010); Henderson (Fall 2010 to Spring 2012), Paducah (Fall 2012 to Spring 2014), and Hopkinsville (envisaged for Fall 2014 to Spring 2016). The discussion here refers mostly, but not exclusively, to the Henderson PMBA, since it’s our most recent rotational site. Figure 3.4, on the next page, shows Dr. Lacewell, a Finance Professor, teaching Principles of Finance in Henderson.

Page 63 of 129

Courses: All PMBA courses (including MBA foundations, the 7 core courses and 3 electives) were taught in a weekend plus web enhanced method by regular, academically qualified MSU faculty. Each course met for five weeks with three live weekends. Classes meet from 6 to 10 PM on Friday, and from 9AM to 4PM on Saturday. Thus, 36 hours of live instruction along with course management contact during the off weeks allowed for more contact hours than a typical on-campus course.

Intended Student Market: The PMBA drew students from cities around Henderson, namely: Owensboro, Madisonville (both in Kentucky) as well as 40% from the Evansville, Indiana, area.

Page 64 of 129

Employer Needs: The Henderson Regional Campus sits squarely in the quad-county community of Henderson and Owensboro, Kentucky, and Evansville and Newburgh, Indiana. The total population of this area exceeds 300,000. The diverse business districts include manufacturing, nationally ranked hospitals, and a large variety of businesses requiring upper echelon degrees. The Chambers of Commerce from Henderson, Evansville, and Owensboro have joined hands in numerous local and national political/business interests.

Technology and Classroom Support: Classes were held in two rooms of the ultramodern Sullivan Center. One traditional classroom with tables seats 28. The other area is an amphitheater classroom that seats 54 students, comfortably. Both are “smart room” equipped. There is also a computer lab, with 50 PCs. In addition to local libraries, PMBA Students also had access to the full MSU library resources through the Waterfield Library portal. This includes online resources, books, articles and databases. In addition to in-class instruction, students used Blackboard as a course management program that added content, testing and communication methods to each class. Books for each course were included in the $18,875 total tuition cost per student.

Figure 3.4: Dr. Steve Lacewell, a Finance Professor, shown here teaching FIN 330 on the PMBA Program in the Sullivan Center at Henderson Community College in Henderson, Kentucky.

3.5 Intellectual Contributions (ICs).We begin this intellectual contributions sub-section, perhaps appropriately, by comparing performance in the 2003—2008 accreditation period to our current AACSB accreditation cycle: 2008—2013.

♦ Comparison in ICs Production between Accreditation Periods: How do the overall ICs numbers compare this time around (2008—2013) versus the 2003—2008 accreditation cycle? What type of profile emerges in terms of the balance among these ICs between Discipline Based Scholarship (DBS), Contributions to Practice (CP) and Learning and Pedagogical Scholarship (LPS)? We are able to draw the following insightful answers to these critical questions, based on Table 2.0, Table 2.1 and Table 2.2. These tables are discussed hereunder.

(a) Increase in PRJs in 2008—2013 over 2003—2008: When articles in peer reviewed journals (PRJs) and other intellectual contributions (OICs) are combined, there were 359 total ICs in 2003—2008 versus 374 ICs in 2008—2013. The bigger story, however, is in our preferred type of ICs: PRJs. There has been a 32% increase in PRJs between the two accreditation periods—from 143 PRJs in 2003—2008 to 188 PRJs in 2008—2013. This is a good proxy for improvement in overall quality of ICs on the part of our faculty.

(b) During 2003—2008, our faculty published in a total of 84 different journals. During 2008—2013, that number has increased by nine to 93 journals.

Page 65 of 129

(c) Balance among ICs: The following picture emerges between the two accreditation periods:

♦ PRJs only: During 2008—2013 (188 PRJs so far), the balance is DBS (70%); CP (15%); and LPS (15%). For 2003—2008, the distribution was DBS (52%), CP (25%) and LPS (23%).

Page 66 of 129

♦ OICs only: During 2008—2013 (among the 186 OICs), the balance is DBS (71%); CP (11%); and LPS (18%). For 2003—2008, the picture looked as follows: DBS (51%), CP (15%), and LPS (34%).

♦ What about the overall ICs numbers? When all 374 ICs are considered for 2008—2013, the balance among the various types of scholarship emerges with a preponderance in DBS (70%) and a fair balance between both CP (13%) and LPS (17%). The 2003-2008 portfolio of ICs, on the other hand, also reflected a preponderance of DBS (50% of all PRJs and OICs), followed by a fair balance between both CP (19%) and LPS (31%).

3.5.1 Table 2.0: Introducing Table 2.0 as an addition to AACSB’s Table 2.1 and Table 2.2.

We are introducing here, for the first time, Table 2.0 as a compliment to Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 in Standard 2 of AACSB-International. Table 2.0 is a comprehensive record of all ICs during the 5-year accreditation period, which is 2008—2013 in our case. Table 2.0 is being suggested so that it is the vital source for all the ICs information needed to construct AACSB’s existing Table 2-1, Table 2-2, half of Table 10-1, and the all-important Table 10-2.

The new Table 2.0 (which is presented as Appendix 2.0 due to its obvious size) has the following ingredients:

♦ Name of Faculty Member: Such as Gerry Nkombo Muuka.(a) PRJs: Single Authorship: List each IC, including: Year of Publication or Acceptance for

Publication; indicate that it’s a PRJ; state the type of PRJ (DBS, CP or LPS). An example of this presentation is:

2012 PRJ CPGerry N. Muuka (2011). Navigating AACSB’s Intellectual Contributions Landmines: A Blueprint for Business Schools. European Journal of Management, 25(4), PP. 15-25.

(b) PRJs: (i) Co-Authorships: Indicate all co-author names; List each IC, including: Year of Publication; indicate that it’s a PRJ; state the type of PRJ (DBS, CP or LPS); and all other normal PRJ details.

(ii) ICs Bar Code (for Co-authored PRJs only): For each Co-authored PRJ (not OIC), insert the ICs Bar Code that shows the contribution of each author to the PRJ effort in two ways: an estimate of overall percentage contribution; and the type of contribution of each co-author to the PRJ effort (LR, CI, SA, AC or any combination of these). Percentages to a co-authored PRJ must add up to 100%. It takes at least 20% for contribution to a co-authored PRJ to be deemed significant for AQ or PQ purposes. An example, given earlier in Section 2 of this 5Th Year Maintenance Report, is presented below:

2011 PRJ DBSMiles, Sandy and Muuka, G. N. (2011). Employee Choice of Voice: A New Workplace Dynamic. Journal of Applied Business Research, Volume 27, #4, PP 91-103.

Contribution by Author:Miles 60%LR+AC; Muuka 40%LR+SA+CI

Where: LR= Literature Review SA= Statistical Analysis (including findings).CI= Conclusions and Implications AC= Article Consolidation (put the whole paper together so that it reads as if it was written by one person instead of 4 different writing styles/voices).

Page 67 of 129

(c) OICs: Both Single Authorships and Multiple Contributions: List each OIC, to include the following details for each: year it happened; indicate

that it’s an OIC; state the type of OIC (DBS, CP or LPS); and then in parentheses indicate what the OIC is (PRP, PRPP, FRS, Non-PRJ, Book, etc); and finally provide the OIC title and the usual details.

Repeat the same steps as with PRJs outlined earlier, BUT: Do not use the ICs Bar Code for OICs. It is only used for co-authored PRJs. An example of is below:

2011 OIC DBS (PRPP)Smith, L. Murphy and Rebecca Files. 2011. “Key Differences between IFRS and US GAAP: Impact on Financial Reporting.” Institute of Management Accountants 92nd Annual Conference & Exposition (June), Orlando, Florida.

Page 68 of 129

♦ Format Codes utilized by our College to specify the types of ICs (PRJs and OICs): AACSB has come up with new labels for ICs, namely:

PRJs Peer Reviewed Journals PRP Peer Reviewed ProceedingsRM Research Monographs PRPP Peer Reviewed Paper PresentationsBooks FRS Faculty Research SeminarsChapters in Books Non-PRJ Non-peer reviewed journalsOthers [Cases, Instructional Materials, Instructional Software, Working Papers, etc]. A further stipulation by AACSB is to indicate whether each of the above types of ICs belongs to the DBS, CP or LPS types of scholarship. Our faculty are responsible for self-identifying their ICs as either DBS, CP, or LPS.

3.5.2 Table 2.1: Contains our 5-year summary of intellectual contributions (ICs) for the period 2008 to 2013. The 5-year summary of development activities column in the table is indeed consistent with information contained in column 5 of Table 10-1, as required by the AACSB Standards. The summary of ICs has its origin in Table 2.0, as explained earlier. Below are some worthy insights from Table 2.1.

♦ Relevant Observations and Conclusions from Table 2.1:

(1) There are 188 PRJs and a total of 186 other intellectual contributions (OICs), for a grand total of 374 ICs.

(2) Balance among DBS; CP and LPS: Our Mission Statement utilizes the following language in reference to DBS, LPS and CP: ♦ Supporting a faculty commitment to quality teaching, service and continuous improvement that is enhanced by a 50% to 65% focus on Discipline Based Scholarship (DBS), with secondary emphasis on both Contributions to Practice (CP) and Learning and Pedagogical Scholarship (LPS). Here is the actual balance from our 2008—2013 ICs:

(a) Among the 188 PRJs, the balance is DBS (70%); CP (15%); and LPS (15%). On the PRJs side, these numbers support our assertion, in the Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business Mission Statement, that DBS scholarly activity is emphasized more than both CP and LPS.

(b) Among the 186 OICs, the balance is DBS (71%); CP (11%); and LPS (18%)—again supporting the preponderance of DBS over both CP and LPS as envisioned in our Mission Statement.

(c) Overall Numbers: when all 374 ICs are considered, the balance among the various types of scholarship emerges with a preponderance in DBS (70%) and a fair balance between both CP (13%) and LPS (17%). These figures are indeed consistent with the balance and emphasis provided for in our Mission Statement.

3.5.3 Table 2.2: Amending Table 2-2 of AACSB-International: 5-Year Summary of Peer Reviewed Journals and Number of Publications in Each [Based on Table 2-1] for Years 2008-2013—Names, Acceptance Rates, Peer Review Profiles, and List A, B or C Journals in which our Faculty have Published between 2008 and 2013:

Under the current standards, AACSB makes clear that Table 2-2 is optional for business schools, and that if a school chooses to use Table 2-2, only two things need to be included: the 5-year summary of peer reviewed journals (PRJs) in which faculty have published, and the number of articles published in each journal. This MSU Report expands the existing Table 2-2 from two columns to six. We do this because the remodeled Table 2-2 in fact addresses the all-important “quality of faculty intellectual contributions” question. The quality of ICs is a centerpiece of Standard 2 of AACSB-International. The four new columns being introduced are the types that ask, and ultimately address, critical questions, namely:

Page 69 of 129

(a) Is the journal listed in Cabell’s?(b) Quality of ICs: if a school utilizes a prescribed and tiered list of journals (our ICs Quality

Measure #1), what list does each journal belong to? Our lists, seen earlier in Section 2, are List A, List B and List C.

(c) Type of Peer Review: what type of peer review is utilized by each journal—blind peer review (BPR), or is the journal composed of Editor Reviewed Articles (ERAs)?

(d) Quality of ICs Measure #2 (Selectivity Requirements or Journal’s Acceptance Rate): What is each journal’s acceptance rate as found in Cabell’s or obtained from the journal’s editor if the journal is not listed in Cabell’s?

Page 70 of 129

♦ Relevant Observations and Conclusions from Table 2.2:

(1) Listing in Cabell’s: 79 of the 93 journals in Table 2-2 (that is, 85%) are listed in Cabell’s. But as we know, having a journal listed in Cabell’s is not, in and of itself, a measure of ICs quality. The true value lies in the fact that Cabell’s provides the selectivity requirements (acceptance rates) for all journals. This, in turn, makes it easier for a school to place a journal in List A, List B, or List C as the case may be. If a journal in which a faculty member has published is either not listed in Cabell’s or has no acceptance rate—a distinct possibility for quality journals that may be housed in foreign countries—then the faculty member needs to obtain the selectivity requirements (acceptance rates) from the editor of such a journal.

(2) Quality of ICs: this can be gleaned at two levels in Table 2-2, namely:

(a) First, of the 93 journals, 63 (or 68%) are in Lists A and B, thereby meeting the “preponderance” test on the need for faculty to publish in higher quality journals. The balance of 32% are List C journals.

(b) Second, of 149 articles published in the 93 journals, 108 (or 72%) are from List A or List B. As with the total number of List A and List B journals, the total number of articles published in Lists A and B also meets the “preponderance” test.

(3) Type of Journal Review: The highest and most preferred type of publication is one that has undergone blind peer review (BPR). The case for BPR is perhaps self-evident, not least because it reduces the chance of bias on the part of the two or three reviewers of an article since they do not (should not) know the author of the article. Such an article or publication is therefore deemed to have been accepted—or rejected—“blindly” on its own merit, and not because the author is known (or unknown) to the reviewers. This latter problem—where the author is known to the reviewer—afflicts another type of publication: “invited articles”. As a consequence, invited articles do not pass the “peer review” test in its intended purity, and should be kept to a minimum among the total portfolio of faculty publications in our business school—or any school, for that matter. In between blind peer review and invited articles lies editor reviewed articles (ERAs). While ERAs do not suffer from the shortcomings of invited articles, they fall short of the benefits that accrue from having more than one person (more than the editor of the journal) review an article, a benefit that is the exclusive preserve of blind peer review. In Table 2-2, some 79 of the 93 journals (85%) have gone through a blind peer review process. The remaining 15% are either editor reviewed (13%) or have a review process that could not be ascertained (2%).

(4) Column five of Table 2-2 (journal’s acceptance rates from Cabell’s) contains the bands used to construct column three of the table, the List A, B or C categories.

3.5.4 Value of our College’s ICs, and how the “Substantial Cross-section of Faculty involved in ICs in each Discipline” is Achieved:

Table 2.1 shows the publications per capita (per each faculty member) from 2008 to the date of this Report, including all publication types (DBS, CP, LPS) and all types of faculty (AQ, PQ, and other). While the value of our ICs is described and demonstrated in sub-section 3.5.5, in Table 2.1 we demonstrate how ICs are achieved by a substantial cross-section (at least 66%) of faculty in each discipline. Specifically, in determining how many faculty in each discipline have articles in peer reviewed journals (our unit of analysis on the cross-section question), we come up with the following picture:

♦ 8 of the 10 faculty in Accounting (that is, 80%) have had articles in peer reviewed journals.♦ 6 of the 7 faculty in Information Systems (that is, 86%) have PRJs during the 2008-2013 period.

Page 71 of 129

♦ 9 of the 11 faculty in Economics (that is, 82%) have PRJs during the period in question.♦ 2 of the 7 faculty in Finance and Real Estate (that is, 29%) have PRJs. The reason for

the low percentages in this discipline has to do with the fact that 4 of the 7 faculty are supporting faculty (who are professionally qualified) subscribing to a different set of development activities to maintain their PQ status.

♦ 8 of the 14 Management faculty (57%) have PRJs. Here, too, 5 of the 14 are PQ faculty with a set of development activities that does not necessarily have to include PRJs.

♦ 5 of the 8 Marketing faculty (63%) meet the preponderance and cross-section criterion.

Page 72 of 129

3.5.5 Description of Infrastructure Supporting Faculty ICs Development

The AJB-COB infrastructure supporting faculty intellectual contributions (ICs) development is, necessarily, multi-pronged. First, our faculty should be able to answer two clear questions: “Do I understand the types of ICs that I should be engaged in; and does the College/Department/MSU provide the funding, moral and technical support necessary for me to succeed in this vital endeavor?”. For us, the depth and breadth of this infrastructural support has the following essential elements:

(a) Proper definition and understanding of required ICs: Our faculty understand (and should understand) that there are three types of ICs: Discipline Based Scholarship (DBS, which AACSB defines as closely resembling Basic Research); Contributions to Practice (CP, which AACSB likens to Applied Research); and Learning & Pedagogical Scholarship (LPS, akin to Instructional Development according to AACSB). Faculty further understand that the most logical area to undertake a preponderance of their ICs is in the discipline/area in which they obtained their terminal degree. Basic research (or Discipline Based Scholarship) answers closest to this description. So, accordingly, our Mission Statement (see Section 3.1 of this Report) specifies a 50%-65% focus on DBS, ahead of both CP and LPS which share the remaining 35%-50% ICs balance. As of November 5, 2012, the AJB-COB AACSB faculty had produced a total of 374 ICs—that is, 188 articles in peer reviewed journals (PRJs) and some 186 other intellectual contributions (OICs). Among the 188 PRJs, the balance is DBS (70%); CP (15%); and LPS (15%). On the PRJs side, these numbers support our assertion, in the Mission Statement, that DBS scholarly activity is emphasized more than both CP and LPS. Among the 186 OICs, the balance is DBS (71%); CP (11%); and LPS (18%)—again supporting the preponderance of DBS over both CP and LPS as envisioned in our Mission Statement. When all 374 ICs are considered, the balance among the various types of scholarship emerges as DBS (70%); CP (13%); and LPS (17%). These figures are indeed consistent with the balance and emphasis provided in our Mission Statement.

(b) Quality and Scrutiny of ICs: DBS, CP and LPS can be in peer reviewed journals (PRJs) or in OICs—such as books, chapters in books, conference proceedings, and presentations at seminars and conferences. Not only should all ICs be available for public scrutiny, the PRJs should specifically adhere to two ICs quality measures contained in our 31-page ICs Manual: Selectivity Requirements (including, but not limited to blind peer review and journal acceptance rates); and our prescribed list of journals—that is, List A, List B, and List C journals as reflected in the ICs Manual discussed in Section 2 of this Report. These lists depend on journal rigor as expressed, in part, by acceptance rates.

(c) Nexus between Intellectual Contributions, Tenure and Promotion: Our faculty members are challenged by Chairs and the Dean/Associate Dean, every spring during the annual evaluation process, to continue producing ICs out of self-interest: that’s because ICs are vital for both tenure and promotion and, for those who have already attained both, for our AASCSB accreditation purposes. Our mission statement clearly demands and demarcates production and types of ICs. Tenure and promotion processes, on the other hand, are described in Sub-Section 4.2.2 later in this Report.

(d) Faculty Development Matrix—Financial, Moral and Technical Support for ICs Development: There are many ways in which our faculty receive financial, moral, and technical support for their ICs endeavors at the collegiate, university, and department levels. The Faculty Development Matrix (FDM), discussed earlier in Section 1 of this Report and displayed in Appendix 1.2.1, outlines the core of these endeavors, which also feature as part of the Financial Strategies Table 3.3 discussed earlier in Section 3. In terms of funding, for instance, in 2011/2012 the college spent $500,000 in enhancements for faculty, broken down into graduate assistantship support ($166,040); faculty travel to conferences ($54,510); faculty technology upgrades ($11,000); salary enhancement for completion of PhD ($15,000) and payment of salary while some faculty were completing their PhDs ($253,450).

Page 73 of 129

Table 2-1: 5-Year Summary of Intellectual Contributions for the Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business—2008 to 2013. [Summary of our policies guiding Faculty in the production of ICs is footnoted].5-Year Summary of Development Activities Column below Should be Consistent with information contained in Column 5 of Table 10-1.

SUMMARY OF TYPES OF INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONSPRJs Books Chapt

ersPeer

Reviewed

Proceedings

Peer Reviewed

Paper Presenta

tions

Faculty Resear

ch Semina

rs

Non-Peer

Reviewed

Journals

OthersDB

SCP LPS DBS CP LPS

AccountingChamberlain, D 1 1 1 1Carpenter, F 1 2 3 2 4Grossman, A 2 6 1 2 7Johnson, L 1 6 1 14 1 9 12Lanier, AMiller, TRudolph, H 1 5 2 1 1 6 2Stambaugh, C. T. 1 2 2 1 4Smith, L. M. 38 3 8 21 70Tervo, W 2 3 1 3 5 3 1Computer Infor SystemsAntony, S 2 1 1 2 3 2 1Chen, S 2 1 1 4 1 7 1 1Johnsonius, L 1 1 1 1Raj, V 1 2 2 1 4Rice, G 1 1 1 1Singh, M 2 1 1 1 5Sutrick, K 2 1 1 2EconomicsBrasfield, D. 2 1 3Badasyan, N. 4 2 1 7Broker, T. 1 1 2Brown, B. 1 3 3 1Eaton, D. 2 2 4Harrison, D.Hassan, S. 1 1 2 1 3McCoy, J. 4 3 7Milkman, M. 4 2 6Reed, M.T. 1 1 1 1 2 2Silva, S. 4 5 9Finance and Real

Page 74 of 129

SUMMARY OF TYPES OF INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONSPRJs Books Chapt

ersPeer

Reviewed

Proceed

Peer Reviewed

Paper Presenta

Faculty Resear

ch Semina

Non-Peer

Reviewed

OthersDB

SCP LPS DBS CP LPS

EstateBlankenship, MCalkins, PDurr, D. 2 1 2 1 5 1

Page 75 of 129

SUMMARY OF TYPES OF INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONSPRJs Books Chapt

ersPeer

Reviewed

Proceedings

Peer Reviewed

Paper Presenta

tions

Faculty Resear

ch Semina

rs

Non-Peer

Reviewed

Journals

OthersDB

SCP LPS DBS CP LPS

Fin +Real Est ContinuedGuin, L.Hopkins, WLacewell, S. 4 4 1 2 4 7Smith, RManagementBetts, T 1 1 2Busija, EDublin, S.Keller, H 2 1 3Martin, DMcNeely, B. 2 3 5Miles, S. 4 1 5Mitchell, JohnMuuka, G. N. 3 1 1 1 3 1 9 1Ray, TRoach, J 5 3 1 3 5 13 4Seaton, J 5 1 4 8 13 5Sheets, B. 5 2 2 7 2Todd, TMarketingBrockway, G.Holmes, T. 3 5 8Johnston, T 3 1 4 8Linhoff, S. 1 1Mangold, W. G. 6 3 1 9 1McNeely, S.Miller, F. 2 2 1 10 9 23 1Smith, K. 18 1 2 6 26 1

130 29 29 8 8 41 89 24 1 15 261 50 63

Page 76 of 129

Totals

♦ Section Transmittal Note: This section provides key profiles of our Students and Faculty. It also continues the coverage of key AACSB Faculty Tables commenced in Section 3, by providing Table 9-1, Table 10-1, and the all-important Table 10-2 which covers the 50% and 90% Rules regarding AQ and PQ qualifications thresholds.

4.1 Students: Changes in enrollment trends, diversity, admissions criteria and support services (advising, career services, other student development initiatives) since 2008.

♦ Enrollment Numbers

Table 4.1: Enrollment Numbers as of Fall of Respective Years: Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of BusinessMajor 2008 2009 2010 2011UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMSAccounting 196 204 192 201Computer Science 81 82 92 94Computer Information Systems 50 37 27 45Economics 25 25 19 17Finance 86 86 68 83Journalism 74 83 75 89Graphic Communications Management1 - 45 43 47Electronic Media/T.V. Production 71 66 73 67Public Relations 85 91 81 78Advertising 86 81 75 69Business Administration 409 369 332 345Management 88 80 55 72International Business 32 34 34 34Marketing 95 98 95 96Organizational Communication 110 117 93 95Undeclared-Business2 5 - - -Total Enrollments: All Undergrad Programs 1,493 1,498 1,354 1,432Total Enrollments: AACSB Programs Only 956 908 803 876AACSB Programs as a %age of Total Enrollments:

64% 61% 59% 61%

GRADUATE PROGRAMSMaster of Professional Accountancy (MPAc)3 13 3 - -Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS)3

7 12 14 9

Economics 17 16 23 27Mass Communications 42 35 36 35MBA 179 228 266 285Organizational Communication 79 81 73 60Telecommunications Systems Management 33 29 32 30Total Enrollments: All Graduate Programs 370 404 444 446Total Enrollments: AACSB Programs Only 199 243 280 294MBA Portion of Total Bauernfeind Graduate Enrollment

48% 56% 60% 64%1 GCM was moved into our College in 2009.2 Undeclared-Business was eliminated as an option for students after 2008.

Page 77 of 129

SECTION 4: PARTICIPANTS

3 The Master of Professional Accountancy (MPAc) was eliminated as a program in 2008. Students already in the program were allowed to finish by 2010, but no additional students entered the program. Students interested in an accounting graduate program were steered to the MBA with an Accounting Option.

Using the same approach we adopted in Table 1.5 (degrees conferred), in Table 4.1 we present a trend of undergraduate and graduate enrollments for each Fall from 2008 to 2011, the latest date for which we have such figures. The AACSB-included programs (graduate and undergraduate) are highlighted in blue in the table.

Page 78 of 129

The following critical conclusions can be drawn from Table 4.1:

(a) Total enrollments for all 15 undergraduate programs in the College have fluctuated from 1493 in Fall 2008 through 1,354 in 2010 to 1,432 in Fall 2011. Among the 7 “AACSB-included programs”, a similar fluctuation has occurred—from 956 in 2008 through 803 in 2010 to 876 in Fall 2011. Business administration leads all AACSB enrollments, accounting for 41% of total enrollments from 2008 to 2011.

(b) The 7 AACSB undergraduate programs account for 61% of total undergraduate enrollments.

(c) At the graduate level, total enrollments in the 6 graduate programs have risen each year during the period under review—from 370 in 2008 to 446 in Fall 2011, a 20.5% spread.

(d) The 6 graduate programs account for 22.5% of total enrollment in our College. By comparison, for MSU as a whole, 18% of total enrollment comes from the 37 graduate programs.

(e) Predominance of the MBA program: In Table 1.5 we pointed out that the MBA confers more degrees than any other graduate program at MSU. Equally, MBA enrollments are the highest of any graduate program at MSU. At the Collegiate level, the MBA is larger than the other 5 graduate programs combined: it, alone, accounts for 57% of all graduate enrollments. Our MBA program (with Spring 2012 total enrollment at 296) has been the largest among all MBA programs in the state of Kentucky since 2010, with Morehead State University coming a distant second.

♦ Diversity Profiles: Our student diversity profile has changed somewhat from 2008 to Fall 2011. Gender diversity is at 60% female versus 50.2% in 2008 and 40% male in 2011 versus 49.8% in 2008. In terms of ethnic diversity, the break-down by race is as follows (with x%/y% representing 2008/2011, respectively): White (83.6%/77%); African-American (7%/7%); American Indian (0.2%/0%); Asian (1.1%/1%); Hispanics (1.1%/1%); International Students (7%/12%); and multi-racial (0%/2%). Respective color percentages add up to 100%.

♦ Changes in Advising Initiatives and Procedures

The discernible changes in advising at the undergraduate level have occurred in the Center for Undergraduate Business Advising (CUBA). CUBA is the central advising unit for the Bauernfeind College of Business. Its Director is Ms. Linda Johnsonius, while the Assistant Director (for all intents and purposes) is Ms. Stephanie Totty, who also recruits students for and advises our undergraduate online Business Administration Program. Some alignments in undergraduate Bachelor of Science in Business (BSB) admission criteria have occurred, so that the program is in tune with MSU’s University Studies curriculum. The other CUBA-inspired changes since 2008 all involve student retention, and they are:

♦ In Summer 2010: CUBA began hosting all departmental challenge exams.♦ In Fall 2010: CUBA began hosting Mathematics placement exams for international students.♦ In Fall 2011: CUBA began sending warning letters to all students with -semester GPAs less than 2.0.♦ Change in Summer Orientation Advising: Since Summer 2009, CUBA now prepares

initial schedules for all AJB-COB business students. Individual departments are then invited to update these as appropriate.

♦ Changes in Admissions Criteria: At the graduate level, the only discernible change in admissions criteria since 2008 has occurred in the Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS).

The MSIS program started in Fall 2008. The admission decision model used for processing MSIS applications has evolved and become more streamlined over time. The following are highlights of the changes in the MSIS admissions criteria and process:

Page 79 of 129

From 2008 to Spring 2012: Applicants were required to submit transcripts, GRE or GMAT scores, a resume, recommendation letters, as well as an essay describing their leadership, technical and other skills. Those documents were reviewed by a committee of Information Systems faculty until a consensus was reached on whether to accept or reject the application.

Between 2008 and Fall 2010, we had three faculty members review each application packet and make a recommendation. While this method helped the faculty to know their potential future students better, it resulted in long review cycles.

Page 80 of 129

Towards the end of 2010, we noticed that the recommendations from the three faculty were usually similar. We were convinced that a reduction in the number of reviewers from three to two would not compromise the decision model. So, from Spring 2011, we had only two faculty members review each application. If there was any disagreement in their recommendations, the third faculty was called in to break the tie.

Spring 2012 to the Present: By Spring 2012, we had collected some data points to conduct useful statistical analyses. The dataset consisted of quantitative factors used in admission decisions (GRE/GMAT score, and undergraduate GPA) and graduate student success (as measured by GPA). We found that the GRE was significant in predicting the success of a graduate student. This finding led to considerable revision in the admission requirements, as described below.

Current MSIS Admissions Criteria: The revised model has done away with recommendation letters and essays. The decision outcomes are more deterministic than before. Simply using the GPA, and the GRE (or GMAT) score, any one can predict the admissibility of an applicant. Our new decision model is available online for any future applicant to view and use. The website link (or URL) for the MSIS is:

http://www.murraystate.edu/msis.aspxIn a nutshell, the new admissions criteria include a minimum GMAT score of 490 (or 288 on the GRE) for applicants whose overall GPA is at least 3.0. Those with lower GPAs need considerably higher GMAT/GRE scores.

4.2 Faculty

4.2.1 Criteria Guiding the Development of Faculty Intellectual Contributions (ICs) and Definitions of Academically Qualified (AQ), Professionally Qualified (PQ), Participating, and Supporting Faculty:

♦ Section Transmittal Note: A 31-page Faculty Intellectual Contributions Manual exists that provides the entire depth and breadth of guidelines for faculty Intellectual Contributions. The ICs Manual is our direct response to the concerns of the Knudsen-Billings-Frey Peer Review Team from 2008, as discussed in Section 2 of this 5thYear Report. Below are the specific classifications, definitions, and criteria for different types of faculty.

♦ Academically Qualified (AQ) Faculty: Full-time Tenured or Tenure Track Faculty; Full or part-time Faculty Non-tenure Track; and Half-time Retired Faculty: Must possess the appropriate doctoral degree and an ongoing record of externally recognized intellectual contributions (ICs). Specifically, the AQ designation for tenured or tenure track faculty requires publication (or acceptance for publication) of at least two articles in Peer Review Journals (PRJs) plus at least one Other Intellectual Contribution (OIC) during the previous 5 year period. As a quality control measure, at least one of the two PRJs must be from either List A or List B Journals appearing later in this document. Journals in List A and List B are among the most selective and rigorous, as explained later in the document. Faculty with Administrative Roles—that is, the Dean, Associate Dean, Chairs, the Assessment Directors and others with significant administrative responsibilities—must possess the appropriate doctoral degree. Also, they must have published one article in a Peer Reviewed Journal (PRJ) plus at least two Other Intellectual Contributions (OICs) OR have had at least two articles published (or accepted for publication) in PRJs during the period.

♦ Professionally Qualified (PQ) Faculty: (a) Relevant Academic Preparation—at least a master’s degree in the area of teaching, and (b) Professional experience (at least 5 years) that is relevant to the faculty member‘s teaching assignment, significant in duration and level of responsibility, and current at the time of hiring. Criteria for Maintaining PQ Status: At least three (3) different developmental activities between 2008 and 2013 from the following: (a) Intellectual Contributions (Peer Reviewed Journal articles; Peer Reviewed Proceedings; Books; Chapters in Books; Research Monographs; Peer Reviewed Paper Presentations; Faculty Research Seminars; Non-peer reviewed journal articles; Cases, Instructional Materials, Instructional Software, Working Papers); (b) Professional Certifications; (c) Consulting; (d)

Page 81 of 129

Presentation at Seminars or Conferences, (e) Attendance and participation (panelist or other) at professional development meetings; (f) Attendance at Faculty Development meetings (COB and MSU, or at Regional Schools); (g) Organizing Seminars and Conferences; (h) Managing a Company; (i) Leadership in academic/professional societies (including advising student groups).

♦ Participating Faculty: Typically has an office on campus; holds regular office hours; teaches both fall and spring semesters; regularly attends and participates in departmental and collegiate meetings; serves on departmental, collegiate, and/or university committees; and provides other service in support of departmental and collegiate missions—such as the Residential College Program.

Page 82 of 129

♦ Supporting Faculty: Typically does not have a permanently assigned office on campus; may teach only in one semester per year; does not serve on committees or provide other services for the department, college or university; does not participate in university governance, and normally is a part-time instructor/Adjunct Professor.

4.2.2 Faculty Management Policies: Recruitment, Hiring, Mentoring, Evaluation, Reward Systems: Based upon our Mission and the 2009—2014 Strategic Plan, the College seeks to recruit, select, develop and retain a high quality faculty and staff necessary to ensure quality student learning and engagement. Our policies and procedures for doing this are summarized in the sections below. Before we do that, it is vital to acknowledge that the Bauernfeind College of Business is cognizant of the following facts and realities when it comes to faculty recruitment and retention:

♦ That workload is vital to faculty recruitment, as are clear promotion and tenure processes.

♦ That we must compete on more than salary alone, and sell all the opportunities in the College, at MSU, and in the City of Murray. The Faculty Development Matrix (presented earlier in Appendix 1.2.1) has some of these incentives and selling points.

♦ That we must continuously find ways to leverage compensation to deal with escalating salaries, whenever and wherever this is possible. This may include summer research stipends, incentive travel to conferences, and any number of other innovative ways.

♦ That wherever possible, we must continue to develop our own Academically Qualified faculty—something we have done with two of our faculty since May 2011. Both earned their doctoral degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

♦ That the Dean and our six Chairs (including the four AACSB Chairs) play and should play critical roles in matters of Faculty Retention.

♦ That we must have resources, resource capability and resource capacity—at the Departmental, Collegiate, and Provost/MSU levels—to not only recruit from other schools when the need arises, but also to be able to head-off counter raids of our key faculty from competitive, peer, or aspirant schools. We have been fortunate over the years, as part of our retention initiatives, to keep key faculty and administrators from leaving for other business schools. And, yes, from time to time we have also lost a few faculty members to competing schools.

♦ In the future, resources permitting, we will continue to be participants in the PQ Bridge Program offered through AACSB-International. Our first participant (Ms. Joyce Gordon) completed the AACSB Bridge Program in Summer 2012, and will commence teaching in an AACSB-included program in Fall 2012 as a professionally qualified (PQ) faculty member for the next 5 years. She has a Lecturer designation.

♦ Faculty Recruitment, Selection, and Orientation Procedures

Recruitment and selection practices in the Bauernfeind College of Business (AJB-COB) are consistent not only with the college mission and degree programs, but also with our 2009—2014 Strategic Plan. Typically, the dean of the college meets with each department chair as needed, but at least once per year during the spring budgeting process, to discuss needs in terms of new faculty—as well as to jointly review faculty performances during the academic year that is about to end. Regardless of the timing of the meeting, the discussion is conducted with an eye toward the long-range plan of the college. The ultimate objective is to ensure that both the college and the department have the faculty, in the ensuing academic year, that will provide for continuous improvement in the three core areas of teaching, intellectual contributions, and service. The Spring semester meeting between the dean and each

Page 83 of 129

department chair yields three outcomes: (1) An update regarding faculty recruitment needs in each department, (2) Requests for funding for new faculty in the budget that the college submits to the university administration, and (3) Efforts to recruit the needed faculty members. Recruitment and selection activities at Murray State University are expected to follow the guidelines established by a document entitled “Procedures to Hire Executive /Administration / Managerial, Faculty, and Professional Non-Faculty Positions.” The recruiting effort for faculty positions in the College draws upon several effective channels: academic meetings, advertising (e.g., in the Chronicle of Higher Education and the placement rosters of academic organizations/placement fairs), online fora, and referrals from current faculty members.

Page 84 of 129

The selection process relies heavily on an examination of applicant vitae, interviews with the applicant, and review of references. Both the chair of the department with an open position and a search committee of faculty from the department examine the vitae of all applicants in order to highlight the few that meet the requirements of the position and the mission statement of the college—including whether they are Academically Qualified (AQ). Then, the best three or four applicants are invited to campus to be interviewed by the departmental faculty, the department chair, and the dean of the College. Applicants are also expected to demonstrate their instructional skills in a presentation to the departmental faculty. Some departments require a research presentation in addition to, or in lieu of, the teaching presentation. Appendix 4.2.2A is a clear flowchart depicting the New Faculty Recruitment Process.

♦ Faculty Orientation and Mentoring Procedures

Orientation Procedures : When new faculty members join the College we have a systematic orientation to our vision, mission and objectives, and to the pedagogical, intellectual contribution, service, and other expectations outlined elsewhere in this 5Th Year Report. This clear understanding is articulated at three levels—MSU, AJB-COB and respective Department Chairs—so that the faculty member knows how performance will be evaluated/rewarded. The three-step orientation process is as follows:

Stage One: Teaching, Research and Service Expectations Explained in Position Announcements and further explained during the interview process by the Search Committee, Chair, and Dean.

Stage Two: Campus-Wide Faculty Orientation—Themes and Processes: Hired faculty will typically undergo a Murray State University-wide new faculty orientation. Topics covered include (but are not limited to): equal employment opportunity (EEO) and sexual harassment policies, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), services for students with learning disabilities, library services, institutional studies and research, human resource procedures, residential colleges, sponsored programs, study abroad, as well as online teaching and blackboard.

Stage Three of the Orientation Process (AJB-COB and Departmental Orientation Elements). This covers a wide range of issues, from settling-in to departmental and collegiate expectations for faculty teaching, service, and intellectual contributions (ICs). The College, therefore, maintains effective practices for the orientation of new faculty, to not only ensure that they settle well in their new roles, but also that they have a realistic job preview. We want them to understand the teaching, intellectual contributions, and service activities expected in the college, including the larger mission of the College and that of Murray State University, the parent institution.

Mentoring: There is also informal coaching on performance expectations that new hires receive from their Department Chairs during their first few weeks and months on the job. Among the official documents provided to new faculty as part of their settling-in process are: the Faculty Handbook, containing university policies on faculty matters; and the Faculty Policy and Procedures Manual in use in the College.

♦ Faculty Promotion Policy and Process

Promotion and Tenure decisions in the College—and indeed among all constituent Colleges at Murray State University—follow the guidelines contained in the Faculty Handbook. Section 2.6 of the Handbook deals with Academic Promotion Policy, and recognizes the fact that differences exist among faculty members' achievements in the university community and that rank should reflect those achievements. Decisions on promotions are thus to be an individualized process whereby the qualifications and guidelines shall be considered. The primary responsibility for promotion recommendations should rest with the department chair and the dean, after consultation with faculty of the rank to which the applicant aspires or higher (department promotion committee and college promotion committee).

Page 85 of 129

Recommendations citing significant professional experience and accomplishments should be accompanied by tangible supporting evidence.

The minimum qualifications of experience and education for the various ranks and guidelines for measuring professional achievement are to aid chairs, deans, committees, and faculty in their deliberations and recommendations. The qualifications as stated should not, however, be interpreted as an exclusive set of objectives to be met for automatic advancement in rank, or so rigidly applied as to prevent promotion of an individual with outstanding professional experiences and accomplishments, whose recommendations are accompanied by tangible supporting evidence.

Page 86 of 129

The minimum qualifications normally expected to be met prior to consideration for promotion for specific ranks are as follows:

Instructor Education: Master's degree appropriate to the teaching or professional field. Experience: None.

Assistant Professor Education: Earned doctorate appropriate to the teaching or professional field or the highest

level of academic achievement normally attained in that field. Experience: None.

Associate Professor Education: Earned doctorate appropriate to the teaching or professional field or the highest

level of academic achievement normally attained in that field. Experience: Completion of five years of successful recognized teaching, research and other

professional experience in the field.

Professor Education: Earned doctorate appropriate to the teaching or professional field or the highest

level of academic achievement normally attained in that field. Experience: Completion of ten years of outstanding teaching, research and other

professional experience in the field, with recognition of that experience extending beyond the university community.

Appendix 4.2.2B is a clear flowchart depicting MSU’s Faculty Promotions Process.

♦ Faculty Tenure Policy and Process

The MSU Faculty Handbook (in Section 2.7) conveys clearly the procedures and processes for awarding tenure, as well as the obligations for such award. Academic tenure may be granted only by formal action of the MSU Board of Regents. It is granted to a member of the faculty for three reasons:

(a) To maintain an atmosphere favorable to academic freedom.(b) To provide the faculty member a reasonable expectation of security so that the

university may attract and retain quality professional men and women. (c) To promote institutional stability by creating a faculty with a strong, long-term

commitment to Murray State University and, in our case, to the Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business.

Once tenure has been granted, the faculty member will receive an annual contract renewal, unless the faculty member is dismissed for cause pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.8.6 or separated due to financial exigency or other reduction in force pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.8.5 of the Faculty Handbook. Pursuant to the purposes of tenure, a faculty member shall hold tenurable appointment provided that the faculty member:

(a) Is either employed at least half-time in teaching credit courses or in professional library services, or holds the position of chair, academic dean, or associate/assistant dean.

(b) Has completed the appropriate degree or the equivalent thereof in the faculty member's principal area of responsibility as determined by the departmental tenure committee in consultation with the dean and the provost.

(c) Is employed in a position for which continuing funding can be reasonably expected. Funding of this sort includes state appropriations, tuition and fees, and designated endowment income.

Page 87 of 129

The Tenure Probationary Period: Tenure consideration shall occur during the final academic year of the probationary period. This probationary period normally consists of six (6) academic years of continuous full-time service to Murray State University.

Page 88 of 129

The Annual Tenure Evaluation Process: Each academic year, in conjunction with the annual performance review for all faculty conducted by the departmental Chair and Dean (see Section 2.16.1 Salary Policy of the Faculty Handbook), each probationary faculty member shall receive written evaluations by Departmental Tenure Committee (see section 2.7.5.1), the Chair, and the Dean based on the established criteria for assessing faculty performance. Should the probationary faculty member disagree with any aspect of these annual evaluations, or if the faculty member has been granted an extension under 2.7.3.2, the faculty member shall have the privilege of forwarding a response, which will be attached to the written evaluation. The annual performance reviews are not tenure recommendations even though language may be used to this effect. The performance reviews will be used by the tenure recommending agencies in the year of decision. Favorable annual performance reviews do not mandate positive recommendations for tenure. The evaluation procedures do not preclude probationary faculty, Chairs or Deans from consulting with tenured faculty in the department or any tenure-recommending agency relative to the criteria for evaluating faculty performance or the needs of the university. Appendix 4.2.2C is a clear flowchart depicting the faculty tenure process.

Basis for Awarding Tenure: The tenure decision must be a deliberate and considered action involving both faculty and administrative recommendations. To assure institutional stability and quality, and to facilitate a spirit of professional inquiry, both the capabilities of the individual and the needs of the department, the college, and Murray State University must be evaluated during the tenure consideration process. The tenure recommending agencies will be guided by the established criteria for evaluating faculty performance and by those factors determining departmental, collegiate/school, and university needs for quality and development.

♦ Faculty Performance Appraisal and Evaluation

With regard to faculty performance appraisal and evaluation, the College has a formal, periodic review process for reappointment, promotion, and tenure decisions that produces results consistent with our mission and 2008—2014 Strategic Plan. Within the total criteria used for evaluation, attention is given to course development, intellectual contributions, effective teaching, and instructional innovations. The two broad purposes of this evaluation process (which typically happens in Spring of each year) are to provide (1) feedback for faculty self-improvement and (2) data for personnel decisions—including salary raises or denial of merit raises. The evidence maintained by faculty members in support of their performance claims is very important in this entire process. We employ an Annual Faculty Evaluation Procedure (every Spring Semester) whose essential elements are covered in the clear flowchart presented in Appendix 4.2.2D.

♦ Criteria for Tenure/Promotion Versus AQ/PQ Status—A vital Clarification

Our faculty understand (and must understand) that although the 2 PRJs and 1 OIC every 5 years may be enough to attain and maintain AQ or PQ status, this is not enough for attaining tenure and promotion at Murray State University. As described in the foregoing sections, tenure and promotion criteria and guidelines are stipulated in MSU’s Faculty Handbook, whose website link is:

http://www.murraystate.edu/Libraries/Faculty_Senate/Faculty_Handbook.sflb.ashx

Page 89 of 129

Transmittal Note: The AACSB Standards are clear that the Peer Review Team (PRT) may request Table 9-1 and Table 10-2 for Periods prior to the full academic year before the PRT Visit. Our full academic year prior to the February 24-26, 2013 PRT Visit includes both Fall 2011 and Spring 2012. We have, however, gone ahead and provided, ahead of time and for the convenience of our PRT, Tables 9-1 and 10-2 (including the attendant sub-tables) for one additional/optional semester: Spring 2011. This document therefore contains the following key/complete Faculty Tables:

♦ Table 9-1: Summary of Faculty Sufficiency by Discipline in the Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business: Overall Numbers as per Standard 9—Using Student Credit Hours.

♦ AACSB Rules of Thumb/Thresholds for Table 9-1: Discipline: >60% Participating Faculty, while for the College Overall it should be >75 for Participating Faculty—Using Student Credit Hours [SCH].

♦ Table 9-1 Overall Numbers by Discipline for Spring 2012, Fall 2011, and Spring 2011.

♦ Table 9-1 Sub-Tables for Spring 2012, Fall 2011, and Spring 2011: By Program, Location, Day Classes, Night Classes, and by Delivery Method. The undergraduate alternative delivery methods in question are: the Online Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (BSB) and the interactive television (ITV) version of the BSB. At the Graduate Level, attention is on the MBA (Live, Online, Cyprus, PMBA) and the Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS) Program.

♦ Table 10-1: As of Spring 2012—Summary of Faculty Qualifications, Intellectual Contributions (ICs) and Professional Responsibilities Per Standards 2 and 10.

♦ Table 10-2: Calculations Relative to Deployment of Qualified Faculty—Overall Numbers Per Standard 10:

♦ AACSB Rules of Thumb/Thresholds for Table 10-2: Discipline: >50% Academically Qualified (A) Faculty, while the combination of AQ and Professionally Qualified (PQ) Faculty should be >90% for the College.

♦ Our AQ and PQ Summary Criteria: 2PRJs and 1 OIC (AQ), and 3 Development Activities (PQ) Every 5 Years.

♦ Table 10-2 Overall Numbers by Discipline for Spring 2012, Fall 2011, and Spring 2011.

♦ Table 10-2 Sub-Tables for Spring 2012, Fall 2011, and Spring 2011: By Program, Location, Day Classes, Night Classes, and by Delivery Method. The undergraduate alternative delivery methods in question are: the Online Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (BSB) and the interactive television (ITV) version of the BSB. At the Graduate Level, attention is on the MBA (Live, Online, Cyprus, PMBA) and the MSIS Program. Note that the Cyprus MBA is being discontinued.

♦ Our Summary Judgment: From Spring 2011 through Spring 2012, this document has a total of 112 tables and sub-tables. Our College meets the 50%, 60%, 75% and 90% AACSB Rules in 105 (94%) of the tables. The 7 exceptions are (a) Table 9-1 Night coverage for the BAB/BSB was 69% for Spring 2012; 44% for Fall 2011, and 50% for Spring 2011; (b) Table 10-2 was 87% for Day classes in Spring 2011; and (c) Table 10-2 was 86% for MBA night classes and 89% for MBA Web classes in Spring 2012, while the PMBA was 88.2% in Henderson.

Page 90 of 129

4.2.3: FACULTY TABLES: Table 9-1, Table 10-1, and Table 10-2.

What are our Solutions to the above shortcomings? We have eliminated the two non-AACSB faculty who taught on the Henderson PMBA; we have improved participating faculty night coverage (when most of our adjunct faculty teach); while the Online MBA will lose the non-AQ faculty member to tenure problems.

Page 91 of 129

Table 9-1: Spring 2012 Summary of Faculty Sufficiency by Discipline in the AJB College of Business (Standard 9: Using Student Credit Hours: SCH).

PARTICIPATING (P) ORSUPPORTING (S)

AMOUNT OF TEACHING IF P[BLANK IF S]

SCH

AMOUNT OF TEACHING IF S

[BLANK IF P] SCH

ARE THE THRESHOLDS ACHIEVED?

Carpenter, F P 228Chamberlain, D P 219Grossman, A P 210Johnson, L P 378Lanier, A. S 124Miller, T. P 48Rudolph, H P 363Smith, L.M. P 150Stambaugh, C. T. P 261Tervo, W P 273Total Accounting 213

0 124Pa/(Pa+Sa)= 94% AchievedContext: 96% in 2008

Antony, S P 120Chen, S P 354Johnsonius, L P 106Raj, V P 38Rice, G P 100Singh, M P 108Sutrick, K P 266Total C/Info Systems

1092 0

Pi/(Pi+Si)= 100 % AchievedContext: 100% in 2008

Badasyan, N. P 165Brasfield, D. P 150Broker, T P 351Brown, B. P 237Cheng, C. P 192Eaton, D. P 117Harrison, D. P 75Hassan, S. P 156Mathis, G. S 24McCoy, J. P 225Milkman, M. P 18Reed, M-T. P 432Silva, S. P 207 Context: 94% in 2008Total Economics 232

5 24Pe/(Pe+Se)=99% Achieved

Page 92 of 129

Table 9-1 Continued: Spring 2012 Summary of Faculty Sufficiency By Discipline in the AJB-College of Business

P OR S SCH IF PARTICIPATIN

G

SCH IFSUPPORTING

ARE THRESHOLDS ACHIEVED

Blankenship, M. S 54Dunlap, Z. S 93Durr, D. P 366Guin, L. P 528Hopkins, W. S 129Lacewell, S. P 321Total Finance 121

5 276Pf/(Pf+Sf)= 81% AchievedContext: 67% in 2008

Alkhatib, I. S 66Betts, Teresa P 258Busija, E P 216Dublin, H. S. P 159Keller, R.H. P 327Martin, David P 138McNeely, B. P 168Miles, S. P 306Mitchell, J. S 63Muuka, G. N. P 120Ray, Teri P 306Roach, J P 309Seaton, L. J. P 177Sheets, B. P 402 Context: 100% in 2008Total Management

2886 129

P/(Pmgt+Smgt)=96% Achieved

Brockway, G. P 123Holmes, T. P 306Johnston, T P 195Linnhoff, S. P 192Mangold, W. G. P 186McNeely, S. P 447Miller, F. P 153Smith, K. P 165Total Marketing 176

7 0P/(Pmkt+Smkt)= 100 % Achieved

Grand Total: AJB-COB

11,968 SCH11,415 553

P/(P+S)= 95% Achieved

Page 93 of 129

TABLE 10-1: Spring 2012 Summary of Faculty Qualifications, Intellectual Contributions (ICs) and Professional Responsibilities (Standards 2 and 10).

NAME

HIG

HES

T D

EGR

EE

EAR

NED

&

YEA

R

DA

TE O

F FI

RST

A

PPO

INT’

NT

TO T

HE

SCH

OO

L

PER

CEN

T O

F TI

ME

D

EDIC

ATE

DTO

TH

E SC

HO

OL’

S

AC

AD

EMIC

ALL

Y Q

UA

LIFI

ED

PRO

FESS

ION

ALL

Y Q

UA

LIFI

ED

OTH

ER

FIVE-YEAR SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES SUPPORTING AQ OR PQ STATUS

NO

RMAL

PR

OFE

SSIO

NAL

RE

SPO

NSI

BILI

TIE

S

ICs Totals

PRO

FESS

IO

NAL

EX

PERI

ENC

CON

SULT

IN

G

PRO

FESS

IO

NAL

D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

OTH

ER

PRO

FESS

IO

NAL

AC

TIVI

TIES

PRJs

OICs

AccountingCarpenter, F PhD, 1984 Aug 1987 100% AQ 3 3 UG/GRChamberlain, D DBA, 1991 Aug 1986 100% AQ 2 0 UG/GRGrossman, A PhD, 2007 Aug 2007 100% AQ 8 1 UG/GRJohnson, L JD, 2002 Aug 2006 100% AQ 8 14 UG/GRLanier, A MPAc, 2004 Aug 2005 25% PQ 0 0 2 1 UGMiller, T PhD, 1973 Aug 1967 25% PQ 0 0 3 UGRudolph, H DBA, 1995 Jan 1981 100% AQ 8 1 UG/GRSmith, M. DBA, 1983 Aug 2011 100% AQ 38 32 UG/GRStambaugh, C. T. DBA, 1981 Aug 1986 100% AQ 3 2 UG/GRTervo, W PhD, 2006 Aug 2006 100% AQ 6 3 UG/GRComputer Infor SystemsAntony, S PhD, 1997 Aug 2005 100% AQ 3 3 UG/GRChen, S PhD, 2007 Aug 2007 100% AQ 2 7 UG/GRJohnsonius, L MBA, 1997 Jan 2003 100% PQ 0 2 1 1 UGRaj, V PhD, 1992 Aug 1990 100% AQ 3 2 ChairRice, G MS, 1973 Aug 1999 100% PQ 0 2 2 UG/GRSingh, M PhD, 2000 Aug 2003 100% AQ 2 3 UG/GRSutrick, K PhD, 1979 Aug 1984 100% AQ 2 1 UG/GREconomicsBadasyan, N. PhD, 2004 Aug 2004 100% AQ 4 3 UG/GRBrasfield, D. PhD, 1990 Aug 1986 100% AQ 2 1 UG/GRBroker, T. MS, 2008 Aug 2009 100% PQ 1 1 1 UGBrown, B. MS, 1977 Jan 1991 100% PQ 1 3 UGCheng, C. PhD, 2011 Aug 2011 100% AQ 0 0 UG/GREaton, D. PhD, 1995 Aug 1996 100% AQ 2 2 ChairHarrison, D. PhD, 1974 Aug 1969 25% PQ 0 0 3 UGHassan, S. PhD, 1993 Aug 1992 100% O 1 3 UG/GRMathis, G. PhD, 1966 Aug 1966 25% PQ 0 0 2 1 UGMcCoy, J. PhD, 1986 Aug 1985 100% AQ 4 3 UG/GRMilkman, M. PhD, 1989 Aug 1988 100% AQ 4 2 UG/GRReed, M.T. MS, 1991 Aug 1995 100% PQ 2 2 UG

Silva, S.PhD, 2007 August

2008100% AQ 4 5 UG/GR

Page 94 of 129

Page 95 of 129

TABLE 10-1: Spring 2012 Continued: Summary of Faculty Qualifications, Intellectual Contributions (ICs) and Professional Responsibilities (Standards 2 and 10).

NAME

HIG

HES

T D

EGR

EE

EAR

NED

&

YEA

R

DA

TE O

F FI

RST

A

PPO

INT’

NT

TO T

HE

SCH

OO

L

PER

CEN

T O

F TI

ME

DED

ICA

TED

TO T

HE

SCH

OO

L’S

AC

AD

EMIC

ALL

Y Q

UA

LIFI

ED

PRO

FESS

ION

ALL

Y Q

UA

LIFI

ED

OTH

ER

FIVE-YEAR SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES SUPPORTING AQ OR PQ STATUS

NO

RMAL

PR

OFE

SSIO

NAL

RE

SPO

NSI

BILI

TIES

ICS TOTALS

PRO

FESS

ION

AL

EXPE

RIEN

C

CON

SULT

ING

OTH

ER

PRO

FESS

ION

AL

ACTI

VITI

ES

PRJs

OICs

Finance and Real EstateBlankenship, M. JD, 1979 Aug 1980 25% PQ 0 0 3 UGDunlap, Z. MBA, 2010 Aug 2011 25% PQ 0 0 3 UGDurr, D. PhD, 1995 July 2003 100% AQ 3 3 UG/GRGuin, L.1 DBA, 1979 Aug 1978 100% PQ 0 0 2 1 UG/GRHopkins, W. JD, 1982 Aug 1990 25% PQ 0 0 3 UGLacewell, S. PhD, 2001 Aug 1999 100% AQ 8 3 UG/GRManagementAlkhatib, I. PhD, 2008 Aug 2010 25% AQ 0 0 UGBetts, T. PhD, 2012 Aug 2009 100% AQ 1 1 UG/GRBusija, E PhD, 2006 Aug 2007 100% O 0 0 UG/GRDublin, S. MBA, 1987 Aug 1997 100% PQ 0 0 1 2 1 UGKeller, H. PhD, 2011 Aug 2009 100% AQ 2 1 UG/GRMartin, D. PhD, 1999 Aug 1999 50% O 0 0 UGMcNeely, B. PhD, 1991 Aug 1987 100% AQ 2 3 UG/GRMiles, S. DBA, 1991 Aug 1991 100% AQ 4 1 UG/GR

Mitchell, J.M.Eng, 1980

Aug 2009 25% PQ 0 0 3 UG

Muuka, G. N. PhD, 1993 Aug 1994 100% AQ 3 7 A/DeanRay, T. MBA, 2001 Jan 2011 100% PQ 0 0 1 3 UGRoach, J. PhD, 2006 Aug 2008 100% AQ 8 9 UG/GRSeaton, J PhD, 2007 Aug 2007 100% AQ 6 12 UG/GRSheets, B. PhD, 1983 Aug 1997 100% AQ 7 2 UG/GRTodd, T. Ed.D, 1994 Aug 1995 100% PQ 0 0 10 DeanMarketingBrockway, G. PhD, 1976 Aug 1976 100% PQ 0 0 3 UG

Page 96 of 129

NAME

HIG

HES

T D

EGR

EE

EAR

NED

&

YEA

R

DA

TE O

F FI

RST

A

PPO

INT’

NT

TO T

HE

SCH

OO

L

PER

CEN

T O

F TI

ME

DED

ICA

TED

TO T

HE

SCH

OO

L’S

AC

AD

EMIC

ALL

Y Q

UA

LIFI

ED

PRO

FESS

ION

ALL

Y Q

UA

LIFI

ED

OTH

ER

FIVE-YEAR SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES SUPPORTING AQ OR PQ STATUS

NO

RMAL

PR

OFE

SSIO

NAL

RE

SPO

NSI

BILI

TIES

ICS TOTALS

PRO

FESS

ION

AL

EXPE

RIEN

C

CON

SULT

ING

OTH

ER

PRO

FESS

ION

AL

ACTI

VITI

ES

PRJs

OICs

Holmes, T. PhD, 1997 Aug 2000 100% AQ 3 5 ChairJohnston, T PhD, 1993 Aug 2007 100% AQ 3 5 UG/GRLinnhoff, S. PhD, 2011 Aug 2010 100% AQ 0 1 UGMangold, W. G. DBA, 1985 Aug 1983 100% AQ 6 4 UG/GRMcNeely, S. ABD, 1986 Aug 1987 100% PQ 0 0 3 UGMiller, F. PhD, 1978 Aug 1980 100% AQ 2 22 UG/GRSmith, K. DBA, 1986 Aug 2011 100% AQ 19 8 UG/GR1 Guin retired at the end of Spring 2012. He was director of the Graduate Business Curriculum and Assessment Committee (GBCAC).

Page 97 of 129

TABLE 10-2: Spring 2012—Calculations Relative to Deployment of Qualified Faculty—Overall Numbers Per Standard 10 Thresholds.

NAME QUAL

IFIC

ATIO

N (A

CADE

MIC

-AQ,

PR

OFES

SION

AL-

PQ, O

THER

-O)

AQ F

ACUL

TY %

OF

TIM

E DE

VOTE

D TO

M

ISSI

ONPQ

FAC

ULTY

%

OF T

IME

DEVO

TED

TO

MIS

SION

OTHE

R FA

CULT

Y %

OF

TIM

E DE

VOTE

D TO

M

ISSI

ON

QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER

STANDARD 10

>=50%

>=90%

AccountingCarpenter, F AQ 100%Chamberlain, D AQ 100%Grossman, A AQ 100%Johnson, L AQ 100%Lanier, A. PQ 25%Miller, T. PQ 25%Rudolph, H AQ 100%Smith, L.M. AQ 100%Stambaugh, C. T. AQ 100%Tervo, W AQ 100%

TOTAL ACCOUNTING 800% 50% 0% 94% 100%Computer Information Systems

Antony, S AQ 100%Chen, S AQ 100%Johnsonius, L PQ 100%Raj, V AQ 100%Rice, G PQ 100%Singh, M AQ 100%Sutrick, K AQ 100%

TOTAL CIS 500% 200% 0% 71% 100%Economics

Badasyan, N. AQ 100%Brasfield, D. AQ 100%Broker, T PQ 100%Brown, B. PQ 100%Cheng, C. AQ 100%Eaton, D. AQ 100%Harrison, D. PQ 25%Hassan, S. O 100%Mathis, G. PQ 25%McCoy, J. AQ 100%Milkman, M. AQ 100%Reed, M-T. PQ 100%Silva, S. AQ 100%

TOTAL ECONOMICS 700% 350% 100% 61% 91%

Page 98 of 129

NAME QUAL

IFIC

ATIO

N (A

CADE

MIC

-AQ

, PR

OFES

SION

AL-P

Q, O

THER

-O)

AQ F

ACUL

TY

% O

F TI

ME

DEVO

TED

TO

MIS

SION

PQ F

ACUL

TY %

OF

TIM

E DE

VOTE

D TO

M

ISSI

ONOT

HER

FACU

LTY

% O

F TI

ME

DEVO

TED

TO M

ISSI

ON

QUALIFICATION RATIOS PER

STANDARD 10

>=50%

>=90%

Finance and Real Estate

Blankenship, M. PQ 25%Dunlap, Z. PQ 25%Durr, D. AQ 100%Guin, L. PQ 100%Hopkins, W. PQ 25%Lacewell, S. AQ 100%

TOTAL FIN AND REAL Est 200% 175% 0% 53% 100%Management

Alkhatib, I. AQ 25%Betts, Teresa AQ 100%Busija, E O 100%Dublin, H. S. PQ 100%Keller, R.H. AQ 100%Martin, D. O 25%McNeely, B. AQ 100%Miles, S. AQ 100%Mitchell, J. PQ 25%Muuka, G. N. AQ 100%Ray, Teri PQ 100%Roach, J AQ 100%Seaton, L. J. AQ 100%Sheets, B. AQ 100%Todd, T. PQ 100%

TOTAL MANAGEMENT 825% 325% 125% 65% 90%Marketing

Brockway, G. PQ 100%Holmes, T. AQ 100%Johnston, T AQ 100%Linnhoff, S. AQ 100%Mangold, W. G. AQ 100%McNeely, S. PQ 100%Miller, F. AQ 100%Smith, K. AQ 100%

TOTAL MARKETING 600% 200% 0% 75% 100%

Grand Total: AJB- COB 3625

% 1300

% 225% 70.4% 95.6%

Notes:(a) Faculty who joined the College during the period of the above Table are: Murphy

Smith (Accounting) and Katherine Smith (Marketing).(a) Faculty who left the College during the period: John Thompson, Former Dean and

Accounting Professor, retired at the end of Spring 2011; Larry Guin (Finance) retired at the end of Spring 2012; and Rob Seay (Accounting) retired in 2010.

Page 99 of 129

♦ Section Transmittal Note: Perhaps at par in importance with the Strategic Management Standards, Assurance of Learning (AoL) receives broad and deep coverage in this section. Spefically, we (a) Provide an overview of major program and curricula revisions made since our last maintenance visit in Spring 2008, including the factors triggering those revisions—we do this as part of “Closing the Loop” in the AoL assessment cycle; (b) Provide a brief historical background to the AoL system in our College; (c) Provide the Learning Goals for our undergraduate Bachelor of Science in Business (BSB) Program in all of its offerings (regular on-campus program, the interactive television (ITV) program, as well as our Last-2-Years 100% Online BSB Program); (d) Provide the Learning Goals for our MBA Program in all of its offerings and locations—that is: the regular MBA in Murray, the Cyprus MBA (which is being cancelled effective with the end of the current cohort which only has 8 students in Limassol, Cyprus), the 100% Online MBA, as well as our Professional MBA (PMBA) Program; (e) Provide the Learning Goals for our Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS) Program. Finally, we (e) Provide a list of the assessment tools, procedures, and results used to demonstrate progress toward achievement of the AoL part of our mission statement for all the foregoing programs.

♦ Blue-Print for Success of AoL Efforts: Important Conceptual Underpinnings

Before we outline (in sub-section 5.1) the curricula changes made since 2008, it is worth noting that our review of the AoL AACSB Standards (16 through 20 for undergraduate and master’s programs) has enabled our College to come up with a 10-point encapsulation and check-list for our successful assessment experience. For many years now, we have continuously asked (and answered) the following 10 AoL questions:

♦ (1) Definition: What is Assessment? The now famous definition is one given by Polomba and Banta (1999), who view assessment as the systematic collection, review, and use of information about educational programs undertaken for the purpose of improving student learning and development. The goal is continuous improvement in learning and achievement.♦ (2) Have you developed/Defined AoL Goals for all programs listed in your “Scope of Accreditation” section of the official letter from AACSB in Tampa? Yes we have. Further, do your AoL goals include both (a) General and (b) Management-Specific Goals? Yes. The general knowledge and skills goals, while not management specific, relate to knowledge and abilities that graduates will carry with them into their careers. Such learning areas as communications abilities, problem-solving abilities, and ethical reasoning skills are the types of general knowledge and abilities that we have defined as part our AoL goals. Second, we have management-specific learning goals in areas that directly relate to management tasks and form the business portion of our degree requirements. Such areas include, but are certainly not limited to, traditional learning disciplines such as accounting, management science, marketing, human resources, information systems, finance and operations management.♦ (3) Do your AoL Goals have Objectives and Measures of Success or Criteria for judging success of student learning—also known as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)? Yes, ours do. The results section has the KPIs.♦ (4) Did you involve key stakeholders in the development of these goals: such as employers, alumni, and advisory boards? Yes, especially Advisory Boards at the department level.♦ (5) Have you designed specific AoL Plans (how and where will students “learn it”) including the specific courses in which each goal will be assessed; and specific assessment instruments/forms and the timing of assessments for each AoL goal by semester? Yes, as will be evident later in this, Section 5 of the 5Th Year Report.♦ (6) Have you collected data for each AoL goal and for each Scope of Accreditation Program? Yes, utilizing at least 2 data points on each goal to enable a trend analysis. Again, the results section has the details.♦ (7) Have you analyzed the assessment data—all of it? Yes, though this is an on-going process.

Page 100 of 129

SECTION 5: ASSURANCE OF

♦ (8) Have you reported the results of the above assessments and analyses? Do relevant Bauernfeind College of Business faculty know these results? Do the Business Chairs and Dean’s Office know these results? Yes.♦ (9) Continuous Improvement/Closing the Loop: Have you used the assessment results to “close the loop”? Yes, as Section 5.1 will demonstrate shortly.♦ (10) What and which Programs are involved in AoL Processes?: In the case of the Bauernfeind College of Business, AoL results are needed for each of the following degree programs: BSB (Regular); Online BSB (Business Administration); BSB (ITV); MBA (Regular); PMBA; Cyprus MBA; Online MBA; and the MSIS Program.

Page 101 of 129

Table 5.1: Continuous Improvement Paradigm—Program and Curriculum Changes made, including Date of Improvements.

Ω AoL Driven Program/Curriculum Improvements: Closing the Loop Activities for the BSB Program Ω Date♦ Closing the Loop #1: Addition of MGT 558—Advanced Human Resource Management.♦ Closing the Loop #2: Elimination of MGT 552—Management of Operations and Technology.♦ Change Trigger Factors (Background to the Change): MGT 558 was developed for the Human Resources Option

in order to exceed the minimum Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) program requirements and fill the gaps identified by the SHRM assessment program. The undergraduate Human Resources Program was altered to reflect MGT 558 as a required course.

Spring 2011Added MGT 558EliminatedMGT 552

♦ Closing the Loop #3: Elimination of Goal 7 on Foreign Languages.♦ Change Trigger Factor: Foreign languages are not under the purview of the Bauernfeind College of Business.

Spring 2011

♦ During Fall 2011 and Spring 2012, the undergraduate business curriculum and assessment committee (UBCAC) reviewed all six BSB goals and all objectives under each goal, including respective assessment instruments and results. The wide-ranging review led to the following AoL-triggered changes:

♦ Closing the Loop #4: The assessment instrument for Goal 2: Problem-Solving and Decision-Making, Objectives 2 and 3, assessed in MGT 443, was changed in Spring 2011 reflecting a change in textbook and a slight change in topics.

♦ Closing the Loop #5: The assessment instrument for Goal 6b (Written Communication) was changed since the assessment was previously conducted through the English Department. We now assess written communication in-house, in our BPA 215 course.

♦ Closing the Loop #6: In reviewing past assessment results the biggest problem was in Goal 3: Information Technology. In the April 2, 2012, UBCAC meeting it was decided that Excel problems would be added to the following classes: CIS 243, CIS 343, and FIN 330. In CIS 343, for instance, a project was added involving one sample and two sample t-tests. In FIN 330, an Excel assignment in calculating present values and net present values was added.

Fall 2011 to Spring 2012

Ω AoL Driven Program/Curriculum Improvements: Closing the Loop for the MBA Program Ω♦ Closing the Loop #1: Addition of two new Management Electives: MGT 653 (Seminar in Human Resources

Management), and MGT 658 (Advanced Topics in Human Resources).♦ Change Trigger Factors: Introduced under the auspices of SHRM, as discussed under the BSB Program above.

MGT 653[Summer 2011]MGT 658[Fall 2011]

♦ Closing the Loop #2: Addition of a new Accounting elective (ACC 610: International Accounting) on the MBA Program.

♦ Change Trigger Factors: Three factors conjoined to bring about this change, namely: recommendations by members of the Advisory Board of the Department of Accounting; as a direct response to dictates of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs); and the hiring of an accomplished Accounting Professor (Dr. Murphy Smith) from Texas A&M University, College Station.

ACC 610Spring 2012

♦ Closing the Loop #3: Macro changes have been made to the MBA Foundation and Prerequisite Courses: Addition of Survey Courses.(a) Consolidation of MBA Foundation Courses: In addition to ACC 490 (covering ACC 200 and ACC 201) and ECO

490 (covering ECO 230 and ECO 231), the following were introduced: CIS 490 (MAT 220 + CIS 343) and MKT

Spring 2009

Page 102 of 129

490 (MGT 350+ MKT 360).(b) The above Survey Foundations have been developed as 100% web courses in order to achieve needed

competitive advantage for the MBA Program.♦ Change Trigger Factors: Admission requirements of our Peer, Competitive, and Aspirant Schools dictated the

change. A preponderance of these schools had fewer than the 9 MBA foundation courses in use in our College before the above change.

Cyprus MBA Goal 4: Ethical Issues: Students will be able to incorporate various ethical perspectives into their decision making.♦ Closing the Loop #4: The results have improved markedly. Part of the reason may be a greater emphasis on

ethics across several classes due to the different customs and ethical standards of Cyprus.

Page 103 of 129

Ω MBA Program Improvements: Closing the Loop Continued ΩGoal 6: Global Awareness and Diversity Issues:♦ Closing the Loop #5: The instrument was expanded to incorporate more open-ended questions, which will more

accurately test the students’ depth of knowledge about topics such as currency hedging policies. Results indicate that students have demonstrated a mastery of the topic areas and that no further changes are necessary.

2010/2011

Cyprus MBA Goal 5: Technology: Students are required to construct advanced spreadsheets to support their case analyses.♦ Closing the Loop #6: The instructor has added coverage on sensitivity analysis of outputs to inputs, risk

management, and modeling various scenarios. The results indicate that the students have added to their skill set and have mastered the technology.

2010/2011

♦ Closing the Loop #7: Changes made in MKT 667 (Core Course): In order to enhance MBA students’ ethical perspectives, the instructor (Dr. Terry Holmes, Chair of the Department of Management, Marketing and Business Admin) developed an Ethics Workshop. Results have improved.

Summer 2010

♦ Closing the Loop #8: Wholesale GBCAC Review of all 7 MBA Core Courses: As a result of various discussions, committee members began to realize that it has been quite a while since the entire program was reviewed to ensure that the MBA program is both current and relevant. Consequently, GBCAC is asking AACSB departments to examine their required MBA courses and identify three types of material:

(1) Core concepts that are so vital that they should be part of any quality MBA program. The department should ensure that these topic areas receive adequate coverage in its core course(s).

(2) Peripheral topic areas that have emerged in recent years and are increasing in importance. These topic areas should be considered for possible inclusion in the core courses.

(3) Frontier topic areas that are quite new and hold promise for wider use by practitioners. These topic areas should not receive extensive coverage in the program now but should be identified and monitored for possible inclusion in the future.

(4) The committee has also decided to examine the amount of active versus passive learning that is taking place in the MBA program. We elaborate on this “closing the loop” endeavor in the discussion part of sub-section 5.1 of the assurance of learning segment.

Started in Spring 2012 with FIN 602, and has now covered all 7 MBA core courses.

Ω AoL Driven Program/Curriculum Improvements: Closing the Loop Activities for the MSIS Program ΩNote: The MSIS is a very small, nascent graduate program. It has averaged some 8 to 15 students a semester in the last 2 years.

Goal 1: Core IS Knowledge: Students will possess the current working body of knowledge in the Information Systems field.

♦ Closing the Loop: In CIS 650, it was decided to include more hands-on software development projects. The performance has been very strong, exceeding KPIs and other benchmarks. Secondly, some incoming MSIS students have shown inadequate preparation to take graduate courses. To address this gap, a new foundation course has been proposed, combining topics from both CIS 407 and CIS 317.

Spring 2012

Page 104 of 129

Page 105 of 129

5.1 Overview of Curricula Changes since 2008: Closing the Loop (CTL) on AoL + Influencing Factors

In Table 5.1, we present the curriculum (course and program) continuous improvement efforts that we have made since 2008. The changes are as a result of both assessment results and stakeholder influences on our programs. Table 5.1 is unique because it has the following essential elements:

(a) It shows curriculum and program changes made at both the undergraduate (Bachelor of Science in Business, BSB) and graduate levels (the MBA and MSIS programs).

(b) For each of the above levels, we do the following:♦ We list/number the “Closing the Loop” activity, and specify exactly what it is.♦ We provide the “Change Trigger Factors or Forces.” That is, we provide a brief

background as to what caused the curriculum and program change.♦ We also provide the date of each curriculum change. This three-step approach is

both useful and consistent with the intent (if not the letter) of the AACSB Standards on assurance of learning.

♦ Expanding on Closing the Loop #8 of Table 5.1: Active versus Passive Learning Methods in the MBA Program: There are seven (7) MBA core courses: ACC 604, CIS 653, ECO 625, FIN 602, MGT 651, MGT 656 and MKT 667. In Spring and Summer 2012, the graduate business curriculum and assessment committee (GBCAC) asked all faculty who teach core courses to do three things, namely: (a) to ensure that their course content is current and relevant to the job market, (b) to ensure that graduate teaching methods encourage active learning, and (c) to ensure that the grading structure provides incentives for students to actively strive to learn rather than passively sitting and listening to lectures. Necessary changes have been identified for each course and have either been implemented or targeted for improvement the next time the course is offered. One example of such a change has taken place in FIN 602 (Corporate Finance). In order to make the course more relevant to the job market, for instance, “active learning” components have been added to FIN 602. The course is now much more analytical and less descriptive, with additional class time and weight given to solving financial cases—thereby allowing for a much deeper examination and strengthening of the knowledge, skills, and abilities of our MBA students in the finance area.

Table 5.1B: Instructional and Assessment Methods in the 7 Core Courses on the AJB-COB MBA ProgramINSTRUCTIONAL METHOD

FIN MGT ACC ECO MKT CIS602 651 604 625 667 653 Average

Lecture 45% 30% 30% 34% 30% 40% 35%Problem-Solving 15% --- 20% 33% --- 30% 16%Planned Discussion 10% 50% --- --- 20% 10% 15%Cases 30% --- 10% --- 20% 10% 12%Business simulation --- --- 40% --- 30% --- 11%Independent application --- 20% --- 33% --- --- 9%Readings --- --- --- --- --- 10% 2%TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Assessment Method FIN MGT ACC ECO MKT CIS

602 651 604 625 667 653 AverageProblems 25% 10% --- 25% --- 100% 27%Essay 20% 90% --- 25% 13% --- 25%Multiple Choice 20% --- 70% 20% 20% --- 22%Cases/Presentations 35% --- 10% --- 33% --- 12%Business simulation --- --- 15% --- 33% --- 8%Research paper/project --- --- 5% 30% --- --- 6%Discussion --- --- --- --- --- --- 0%TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Page 106 of 129

Table 5.1B delineates MBA instruction and assessment (grading) methods in each core course. Roughly one-third of the course foundations are delivered by lecture, with the remaining 65% of material in each course being centered around active learning and hands-on assignments, application, and discussion of problems, cases, and simulations. When it comes to types of graded assignments/assessments, the bottom half of Table 5.1B shows a mixture of methods, from multiple choice questions, essays, problems and research papers to cases.

Page 107 of 129

The overall idea behind Table 5.1B was to find out if instructors were perhaps depending too heavily on one area of instruction or assessment in their courses, compared to their peers. This knowledge would help them to “mainstream” their approaches if needed.

♦ Key Conclusion: It is evident, from both Table 5.1 and Table 5.1B, that the AoL process has enabled our College the ability to not only live up to our moral imperative (educating our students), but also to come full-cycle and circle: all the way from enunciating clear AoL goals to “closing the loop” using assessment results for continuous improvement in student learning.

5.2 History of AoL in the Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business.The Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business has a history of assessment of student learning dating back to the pre-2003/2004 period. Current assurance of learning (AoL) processes in the College fall under the purview of two “two-in-one” separate but collaborative standing committees. Each performs both an assessment as well as a curriculum review function. We will rationalize this seemingly un-usual arrangement later in this AoL section. The two committees are:

♦ The Undergraduate Business Curriculum and Assessment Committee (UBCAC): Formed in Fall 2003, UBCAC is in charge of both curriculum and assessment processes for our Bachelor of Science in Business (BSB) programs. The core programs (“included programs” as explained earlier under our scope of accreditation) are Accounting, Business Administration, Computer Information Systems, Finance, International Business, Management, and Marketing. The BSB AoL goals were unanimously approved through a vote of the business faculty. Although some assessments (e.g., the ETS Field Test), were conducted as early as Fall of 2003, the assessments began in earnest in 2005, with five goals being assessed in Spring 2005, five in Fall 2005, five in Spring 2006, six in Fall 2006, and six in Spring 2007.

♦ The Graduate Business Curriculum and Assessment Committee (GBCAC): Established in Fall 2004, the GBCAC oversees curriculum and assessment matters involving our graduate programs: the MBA and MSIS.

♦ Broad Faculty Involvement through Learning Goals Taskforces: On March 9, 2004, the Dean of the College (at that time Dr. Dannie Harrison) announced the formation of assurance of learning taskforces for the BSB Programs. Each of the seven (7) taskforces dealt with one learning goal, leading to broad faculty participation in the creation of learning goals and assessment methods. All participating faculty members in the College were attached to one of the seven taskforces.

♦ Rationales for using UBCAC and GBCAC: A key question to be raised and addressed at this point is why does our College have both assessment and curriculum review under the purview of one committee at the graduate and another at the undergraduate levels?. To argue that the UBCAC and GBCAC “two-in-one” arrangement has worked successfully for our College since 2003/2004 may not be enough. Our broader answer lies in two considerations, that is:

(a) In Figure 5.1, we present an innovative Assurance of Learning Influencers and Participants Framework (AoL-IPF). This is a flowchart demonstrating a typical progression from influencers of our AoL goals through use of direct and indirect assessment measures all the way to making appropriate curricula improvements aimed at enhancing student learning. What the last (right) column in Figure 5.1 shows, with some clarity, is that both UBCAC and GBCAC are assessment and curriculum recommending committees. The final authority on whether their recommendations get implemented lies with faculty, the department chairs, and the Dean’s Office. We think this is as it should be. As the Financial Strategies Table 3.3 demonstrated earlier, curriculum changes inevitably involve resource allocation or re-allocation (of faculty and/or money), hence the involvement of department chairs and the Dean.

(b) Depth and Breadth of our College Committees: The second key rationale is found in Appendix 5.2, which shows all the committees in the College (as well as MSU committees on which our faculty serve) and their composition during 2011/2012. We pointed out, while

Page 108 of 129

defining our faculty in Section 4.2 of this Report, that “Supporting Faculty” do not serve on committees. Our 52 Participating Faculty serve on a total of some 26 college and MSU committees shown in Appendix 5.2. In more than half of these committees, there has to be at least one faculty member from each of our 4 business departments. That means our faculty are spread rather thin on committees. Under this scenario, it is in our interest to “synergize” and consolidate committees wherever practical. Hence UBCAC and GBCAC, each performing both an assessment and a curriculum function.

Page 109 of 129

Figure 5.1: The Assurance of Learning (AoL) Influencers and Participants Framework (AoL-IPF) in the Bauernfeind College of Business.

AnecdotalEvidence and views

from ProfessionalOrganizations

SeniorSeminars

CapstoneCourses

State and National Surveys

Senior ExitSurvey and Interviews

EmployerSurveys

AlumniSurveys

EmploymentSummaries

AndInternship Reports

Business Faculty:Course EmbeddedAssessment Data

DepartmentalAdvisory Boards

MFT for the MBAETS Test

CoBAdvisory Board

UndergraduateBusiness IIETS Test

Univ. of WashingtonInstructional

Assessment System(Student Evaluation)

Closing the Loop: Program or Curricula Improvements Made

LOOP CLOSED

Faculty, Chairs, Associate Dean, and

Dean review the proposed AoL Improvements

UBCAC and GBCAC propose improvements based on AoL results

Results reviewed by the Dean and Chairs

Results reviewed byFaculty in the Department or

Discipline

Results reviewed byUBCAC and GBCAC

Assessment Committees

Establish Undergraduate

and Graduate AoL Learning Goals

Review AACSB and

Regional Accreditation Standards on

AoL

Review CoB Mission and

Strategic PlanStart

Review University

Mission Statement and

University Strategic Plan

Obtain Assessment Data and ideas from Various Sources/Activities

(Direct + Indirect Assessment Measures)

Notes: Indirect Assessment Measures Direct Assessment Measures

Significant Note: Demonstrating a typical progression from influencers of the undergraduate and graduate program AoL goals, through use of direct and indirect assessment measures, all the way to making curricula improvements and enhancing student learning: that is, Closing the Loop.

UBCAC= Undergraduate Business Curriculum and Assessment Committee.

Collect at least 3 direct data points for

each AoL Goal

Seek AoL input from Advisory

Boards and Alumni

5.3 Assurance of Learning Goals for Various Programs Offered by Our College:

5.3.1 Assurance of Learning Goals for the Undergraduate Bachelor of Science in Business (BSB) Program: Graduates of the BSB programs shall be able to:

Courses Where Assessed

Goal 1: Fundamental Knowledge: Demonstrate a fundamental knowledge of the core business disciplines.

MGT 590

Goal 2: Problem-Solving and Decision-making: Demonstrate effective problem solving and decision making skills in business situations.

FIN 330, MGT 443

Goal 3: Information Technology: Apply information technology tools appropriately in the analysis of business problems.

BPA 355, CIS 307

Goal 4: Ethical Issues: Perform a structured analysis of ethical issues in business.

BPA 442

Goal 5: Global and Multicultural Dimensions: Demonstrate knowledge of the global and multicultural dimensions of the modern business environment.

ECO 310

Goal 6 (a): Effective Oral Communication: Communicate effectively in oral formats.

MGT 590

Goal 6 (b): Effective Written Communication: Communicate effectively in written formats.

BPA 215

5.3.2 Assurance of Learning Goals for all MBA Programs: MBA Graduates will: Where Assessed

Goal 1: Core Business Knowledge: Possess the current working body of knowledge in the business disciplines of Management, Marketing, Managerial Accounting, Managerial Economics, Corporate Finance, and Quantitative Management Science.

MGT 656

Goal 2: Strategic Problem Solving and Decision Making: Be able to incorporate a strategic perspective into their decision making and problem solving processes after identifying, analyzing, and applying relevant data and information.

ECO 625

Goal 3: Effective Written Communication: Students will be able to effectively communicate ideas in written professional reports.

MGT 656

Goal 4: Ethical Issues: Students will be able to incorporate the various ethical perspectives into their decision making and problem solving processes after identifying, analyzing, and applying relevant data and information.

MKT 667ACC 604

Goal 5: Technology Awareness and Usage: Students will apply information technology tools appropriately in the analysis of business problems.

FIN 602

Goal 6: Global Awareness and Diversity Issues: Students will be able to demonstrate an understanding of the impact of internationalization on businesses.

FIN 602

5.3.3 AoL Goals for the Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS) Program

Where Assessed

Goal 1: Core IS Knowledge: Students will possess the current working body of knowledge in the Information Systems field.

CIS 650, CIS 609, CIS 645

Goal 2: Students will have knowledge of Business Intelligence and Decision Support and Quantitative Financial Controls.

CIS 695, CIS 609, CIS 645

Goal 3: Students will have adequate interpersonal skills to be effective in business world.

CIS 650, CIS 695

Page 111 of 129

Goal 4: Students will have adequate communication skills to be effective in business world.

CIS 650, CIS 695

Goal 5: Students will have adequate awareness of global and multi-cultural issues in information systems.

CIS 650

♦ Important Note regarding the MBA AoL Goals: The 2003—2008 Peer Review Team of Dr. Knudsen, Dr. Billings, and Dr. Frey made the observation that our College was assessing way too many goals, 8 at the time. As a result, early in the 2008—2013 assessment cycle we eliminated two goals: (a) Oral Communication, and (b) Leadership and Change Management. Consequently, we now have six (6) AoL goals for the MBA Program in all its locations and delivery modes.

Page 112 of 129

In Figure 5.2 we introduce a clear 8-Step procedure depicting our management of the entire assessment process. In a nutshell, the assessment process works as follows:

♦ Steps 1, 2 and 3 involve establishment of Learning Goals, Objectives, and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The KPIs for each goal tell us at what point we think our students have “learned it”.

♦ Steps 4 and 5 involve assessment methods and assessment locations (courses where assessments are actually carried out). This is where we identify assessment instruments/measures as well as align curricula with adopted AoL goals. In Appendix 5.4A we provide the assessment objectives, KPIs, and assessment forms/rubrics/instruments for each undergraduate learning goal in our College. Appendix 5.4B, on the other hand, presents equivalent information for the MBA and MSIS graduate programs.

♦ Steps 6 and 7 are critical, because this is when both UBCAC and GBCAC are involved in assessment data collection (using the forms and rubrics in Step 4); actual analysis and interpretation of the assessment results; as well as dissemination of the assessment results among key stakeholders in the College—that is, faculty, department chairs, and the Dean’s Office. The directors of UBCAC and GBCAC report directly to the Associate Dean on AoL matters.

♦ Assessment Results: We present the undergraduate BSB assessment results from Fall 2006 to Spring 2012 in an AoL matrix in Appendix 5.4C. Appendix 5.4D presents an equivalent AoL matrix for the MBA and MSIS programs. Appendices 5.4C and 5.4D show AoL goals, KPIs, courses where each goal is assessed, assessment results, and a commentary/discussion of the results with a view to “Closing the Loop” on each AoL goal. The latter is part of the all-important Step 8 in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2: An 8-Step AoL Assessment Cycle Using Direct (Course Embedded) Measures.

Page 113 of 129

5.4 AoL Assessment Tools, Procedures and Results for Various Programs

Page 114 of 129

According to AACSB-International (2012, see: http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards-busn-jan2012.pdf), business schools like ours may supplement direct measures of student achievement with indirect measures as part of a comprehensive learning assessment program. Such techniques as surveying alumni about their preparedness to enter the job market or surveying employers about the strengths and weaknesses of graduates can provide some information about perceptions of student achievement. AACSB (2012) says that often, schools find that alumni and employer surveys serve better as tools to gather knowledge about what is needed in the current workplace than as measures of student achievement. Such surveys can alert school like ours to trends, validate other sources of curriculum guidance, and help maintain external relationships. By themselves, AACSB warns, surveys are weak evidence for learning. Such indirect measures, therefore, cannot replace direct assessment of student performance.

♦ Example of Indirect Assessments by our College—the BSB/BAB Alumni Survey: In Spring 2012, we surveyed some 120 alumni, 41 of whom were at MSU from the time in 2005 when we embarked on broader direct assessments. The survey measured a number of different dimensions of our College. The survey consisted of 23 questions. Each question asked whether our AoL goals were part of the following courses: ACC 200 Principals of Accounting, ACC 201 Principals of Managerial Accounting, BPA 215 Business Communication, BPA 355 Information Systems and Decision Making, BPA 442 Business Ethics and Environments, CIS 243 Business Statistics I, CIS 343 Business Statistics II, ECO 310 Issues of the Global Economy, FIN 330 Principals of Finance, LST 240 Legal Environment of Business, MGT 350 Fundamental of Management, MKT 360 Principals of Marketing, MGT 443 Management of Operations and Technology, and MGT 590 Strategic Management. For each survey question and for each subject the possible responses were: Agree Strongly, Agree, No Opinion, Disagree, and Disagree Strongly. The alumni survey measured our AoL goals in a quite different way compared to direct assessments. Our direct assessment goals are measured in specific and limited courses while the alumni survey measured our goals as covered in all the above courses. The undergraduate alumni survey results are presented in Appendix 5.5. Many of the indirect assessment dimensions were found to correlate with and directly reflect our current direct assessment goals while others were a general measure of our program. Perhaps the most important general measure of our program was the question of whether our alumni would recommend our program to a friend. Some 96.4% of those surveyed indicated in the affirmative that they would indeed do so. Overall, alumni indicated that we are achieving our assessment and learning goals.

♦ Section Transmittal Note: In this concluding section, we address additional issues or areas not covered (or simply insufficiently addressed) in earlier parts of this 5Th Year Maintenance Report. Additionally, we also self-identify innovative and exemplary practices domiciled in the Bauernfeind College of Business for the attention of Dr. Linda Hadley (Peer Review Team Chair), Dr. Giamartino (PRT Member), Dr. Toms (PRT Member) as well as AACSB HQ in Tampa, Florida.

6.1 Innovative and Exemplary Practices in the Bauernfeind College of Business:6.1.1 Assurance of Learning (AoL) Best Practice—The Larry Guin AoL Framework: Dr. Larry Guin, a long-time Finance Professor who unfortunately retired from MSU at the end of Spring 2012, in 2003-2008 developed what is now coined the Larry Guin AoL Framework: that is, a

Page 115 of 129

SECTION 6: OTHER

5.5 A Note on Indirect Measures of Learning

“dashboard” that was praised by the 2008 PRT of Dr. Knudsen, Dr. Billings and Dr. Frey for its effective and clear visual presentation of assessment results and trends. The Framework is presented as part of Appendix 5.4B in section 5 of this Report, on Assurance of Learning.

6.1.2 Assurance of Honesty (AoH) Policy: In AACSB’s July/August 2012 edition of the BizEd Magazine is an article on the ‘cheating pandemic” in business schools. Written by Steve Williams, Margaret Tanner and Jim Beard, the article alludes to as many as 87% of undergraduate business students admitting to cheating on exams. “The issue of academic dishonesty is critical for business schools because those who cheat in college are more likely to cheat on the job”, the three authors argue correctly.

Page 116 of 129

The Bauernfeind College of Business has a long and proud tradition of “catching and rehabilitating” student culprits of academic dishonesty. How do we do this? We utilize a three-pronged approach, namely:

(a) Academic Dishonesty Policy: We have, since the 1990s, implemented an honor code that has made a difference (we hope and believe) in student behaviors, attitudes and beliefs. Our academic dishonesty policy is part of every course syllabus (graduate and undergraduate) in all 6 departments of the College. In other words, we educate our students about appropriate academic conduct on exams and assignments, including discussion of plagiarism and the condemnable tech-savvy methods some students use to try and cheat. In short, we have an assurance of honesty (AoH) policy that condemns dishonesty; specifies unacceptable academic conduct; specifies penalties; and explains appeal procedures available to students.

(b) All faculty in the College are encouraged to report all cases of academic dishonesty to the Associate Dean of the College.

(c) We give students a second chance. In other words, we try to rehabilitate first-time offenders into becoming more ethical and honest citizens of the world.

(d) The evidence: In Table 6.1 we present summary statistics of all reported cases of dishonesty in the College between Spring 2006 and Fall 2010. The key observations from Table 6.1 are the following:

Table 6.1: Reported Cases of Academic Dishonesty in the College of Business from 2006 to 2010

Undergraduate Cases Graduate CasesNature of Action

Taken 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Totals

Failed Project 34 26 17 20 38 4 4 1 2 146Failed the Exam 5 1 8 2 2 18Failed the Course

6 9 2 3 4 1 4 29

Points Deducted 1 2 3 1 7Dropped Course 2 1 1 4Dismissed 1 1

45 38 19 30 43 13 2 2 5 5 3 205

(a) There were 205 incidents of academic dishonesty since 2006. Of these:♦ 17 have been at the graduate (600) Level, accounting for 8.3% of the total.♦ 188 have been at the undergraduate (500 and below) level, accounting for 91.7% of

all cases of academic dishonesty.♦ The largest number of cases—occurring in 2006—have been reported by the

Computer Science and Information Systems Department. CSC 199 provides the necessary clues.

♦ Of all the cases of academic dishonesty, a total of 115 (that is, 56.1%) have happened in CSC 199.♦ A preponderance of the offenders either failed an assignment or exam as first

offenders (175 of them, or 85.4%), or failed the course due to either a repeat offense in the same course, or were involved in grave offenses (30 of them, or 14.6%).

(b) One graduate (MBA) student was dismissed from the College of Business in 2007 due to repeat offenses. In the period 2003 to 2008, a total of 4 students (2 undergraduate and 2 graduate) have been dismissed from the College on account of proven and repeated incidents of academic dishonesty.

6.1.3 COBIS and the 25% Rule: In the period since our 2008 AACSB accreditation maintenance, Dr. Victor Raj (Professor, Computer Information Systems and Chair of the department of Computer Science and Information Systems) has developed and finalized a fully

Page 117 of 129

functioning College of Business Information System (CoBIS: see icon below). COBIS dramatically enhances our ability to access data from “Banner”, the MSU-wide database, for decision-making purposes. COBIS makes key tasks and reports available to various stakeholders, and these functionalities are not limited to the ones below:

Page 118 of 129

(a) Monitoring the AACSB 25% Rule: The Registrar’s Office has encoded the MSU degree audit to look for all business courses that are part of the 25% rule. Once a student has completed 11 hours of business courses, a block appears on the degree audit that warns students that because of their specific degree program they are not allowed to complete more than 30 hours of business courses with specific prefixes. COBIS, on the other hand, lists all the students who have completed 22% or more of their classes in a Business discipline (ACC, BPA, CIS, FIN, MKT, MGT). Since this can be pulled at will, the Dean’s office has accurate up-to-the-week actionable items to prevent students from taking classes they shouldn’t be in, even if they meet the pre-requisites.

(b) Admit List: COBIS helps the Center for Undergraduate Business Advising (CUBA) because it lists all the students who are close to completing the business foundation requirements before they can be admitted to the Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business. It also flags students who failed to get the proper grade in some key classes (‘C’ or better in CIS 243, for instance). With the overall student list often exceeding 800 students, COBIS is a huge time-saver.

(c) Retention List: This shows the user a list of struggling students. It can be used to follow up with those students at risk. Chairs, the Dean’s Office, Program Directors and CUBA staff have access to this report.

(d) Enrollment Distribution: This is a compact cross-tabulated report by program that allows chairs and the Dean to easily tell which programs are hurting and which ones are doing well.

(e) ABC Reports: This gives a distribution of grades by level (Freshman, Sophomore, etc).

(f) Multi-Section Course Comparisons: COBIS is handy when Chairs wish to monitor grade divergence in different sections of the same course, checking for grade inflation and a semblance of academic integrity

6.1.4 The Center for Free Enterprise and Organizational Democracy: In Fall 2008, BB&T Bank funded this $1 million Center for which MSU also received $250,000 in KY-state matching funds. These funds will be used to support faculty research and student scholarships. The Center will host a bi-annual Speaker Series, bringing influential business leaders from around the world to Murray to address issues related to the national and international economy. The endowment supports three faculty fellowships (of $1,000 each per year) in the departments of Journalism & Mass Communications, Organizational Communication and Economics and Finance. Drs. Michael Bokeno, Martin Milkman and Allen White have been appointed as faculty fellows at the Center.

6.2 Other Issues and Material6.2.1 Decisions on Faculty AQ/PQ Status: Using Form F (the faculty AQ and PQ Maintenance Form) in Appendix 6.2.1, decisions on who is AQ, PQ (or no “Q”) are now the exclusive preserve of individual department chairs. This was a key consultative recommendation of our PRT Chair, Dr. Linda Hadley. The department chairs work on AQ/PQ matters in close consultation with the Associate Dean of the College, Dr. Gerry N. Muuka, the author of this 5th Year Maintenance Report. Dr. Muuka also keeps records of all intellectual contributions, and completes all the AACSB Faculty Tables.

6.2.2 Other Faculty Processes and Procedures: Using clear flowcharts, we present additional faculty processes as follows:

♦ Appendix 6.2.2A: Procedures for admission to Graduate Faculty Status.♦ Appendix 6.2.2B: Faculty Grievance Procedure.♦ Appendix 6.2.2C: Faculty Grievance Board Formation Procedure.

Page 119 of 129

♦ Appendix 6.2.2D: The Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Grievance Procedure.

6.2.3 AJB-COB Organizational Chart: Appendix 6.2.3 shows the positions and reporting relationships of various leadership ranks in the Bauernfeind College of Business.

6.2.4 Profile of Advisory Boards in the College: In Appendix 6.2.4 we present the names of advisory board members at departmental level, as well as for the whole college generally.

Page 120 of 129

Dr. Gerry Nkombo Muuka (BBA, MBA, PhD) is the Associate Dean in the Arthur J. Bauernfeind College of Business at Murray State University in Kentucky, where he has been Assistant and Associate Dean since 2000. He holds a Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) degree (Summa Cum Laude) from the Copperbelt University in Zambia; an MBA from Murray State University; and a PhD in Business from the University of Edinburgh in Scotland where, as a British Commonwealth Scholar in 1993, he became the first black student (at Edinburgh University) to complete a business doctoral degree in less than 3 years. He has published some 34 articles in peer reviewed journals (PRJs), in addition to two books and over 20 chapters in books and conference proceedings. His

publications and other written works span the entire development spectrum, including those on strategic planning; poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA); work on impediments to economic integration in Africa; Africa’s informal sector; the impact of structural adjustment programs (SAPs) on business strategy in Africa; market access in relation to the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the European Union (EU); African tourism; as well as books on managing human resources in Africa and Africa’s higher education landscape. He has received numerous awards, including the 1998 Presidential Fellowship Award—one of the most prestigious academic awards at Murray State University, and the 2006 Sandra Flynn Professor of the Year Award.

From 2004 to 2007, Professor Muuka was President of the International Academy of African Business and Development (IAABD). This 2013 Maintenance report is the second of its type authored by Dr. Muuka, having previously written the successful 2008 Fifth Year Maintenance Report.

♦ Important Tables, Figures, and Exhibits: During the accreditation period under review, Dr. Tim Todd (Dean) and Dr. Gerry N. Muuka (Associate Dean) have consulted quite heavily with (and benefited greatly from) our Peer Review Team Chair (Dr. Linda Hadley, Dean, Columbus State University in Georgia). Among many things, we agreed that key tables, figures and exhibits would remain inside the 5Th Year Report as close to their point of discussion and illustration as possible, instead of relegating them to the appendices section. The exceptions we have made involve AACSB Table 2-2 on intellectual contributions, and our Appendix 5.5 showing AoL indirect assessment results. These two appear on the next page.

♦ AACSB dedicated website: All the key Appendices pertaining to this 5Th Year Maintenance Report were shared with the Peer Review Team of Dr. Hadley (Chair), Dr. Giamartino (Member) and Dr. Toms (Member) as part of the pre-accreditation visit consultative process. This happened on August 10, 2012, some 4 months before this final report. Because the appendices are lengthy (numbering some 200 pages in combined length), we have deemed it prudent to provide them on our AACSB dedicated website instead. Our AACSB-dedicated

Page 121 of 129

About the Author of this 5Th Year AACSB Maintenance Report

Important Explanatory Notes about Appendices for this 5Th Year

website can be found at: http://www.murraystate.edu/cbpa/aacsb/ Username: AACSB Password: Excellence2.

♦ Specific location for all Appendices: On the above website, please see the “Appendices” link, and it takes you directly to all the appendices referenced in this report. For instance, Appendix 3.1A will appear as such, that is: 3.1A.

Page 122 of 129

Table 2-2: 5-Year Summary of Peer Reviewed Journals and Number of Publications in Each [Based on Table 2-1]: Years 2008-2013—Names, Acceptance Rates, Peer Review Profiles, and List A, B or C Journals in which AJB-COB Faculty have Published during the Accreditation Period

Name of Journal Listed in Cabell’s?

Quality: What List is the Journal From?[A, B, or C of our Manual]

Type of Review:Blind Peer Review (BPR)Editor Reviewed Article(ERA)

Journal’s Acceptance Rate

Total Articles

1 AABRI Journal of Academic and Business Ethics Yes A BPR 20% 12 Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal Yes B BPR 25% 33 Academy of Business Research Journal Yes B BPR 25% 14 Academy of Educational Leadership Journal Yes B BPR 21-30% 25 Academy of Marketing Studies Journal Yes B BPR 21-30% 46 Accounting Education Yes B BPR 25% 17 Accounting Forum Yes A BPR 11-20% 18 Accounting Horizons Yes A BPR 15-16% 19 Accounting Instructor’s Report No B BPR 25-40% 110 Advances in Accounting Yes A BPR 15% 611 Advances in Social Work No C BPR 40% 112 Albany Law Review No C ERA Unknown 113 American Journal of Business Education Yes A BPR 11-20% 214 American Journal of Information Technology Yes C BPR 31% 115 Arkansas Libraries Journal No C ERA 95% 116 Behavioral Research in Accounting Yes A BPR 20% 117 Business Education Innovation Journal Yes B BPR 25% 618 Business Horizons Yes B ERA 20-25% 419 Business Quest (B>Quest) Yes C BPR 50% 220 Business Review, Cambridge, The Yes A BPR 18% 1

21Communications or the Association for Information Systems Yes C ERA 40% 1

22 CPA Journal, The Yes C BPR 51% 123 Critical Perspectives on Accounting Yes A BPR 6-10% 124 E-Business No C Unknown 1

25Ethiopian e-Journal for Research and Innovation Foresight No C BPR Unknown 1

26Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal Yes A ERA 11-20% 1

Page 123 of 129

Name of Journal Listed in Cabell’s?

Quality: What List is the Journal From?[A, B, or C of our Manual]

Type of Review:Blind Peer Review (BPR)Editor Reviewed Article(ERA)

Journal’s Acceptance Rate

Total Articles

27 Human Systems Management Yes B ERA 21-30% 1

28Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal Yes B BPR 21-30% 1

29 Internal Auditing Yes C ERA 75% 5

30International Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Performance Evaluation Yes A BPR 18% 2

Page 124 of 129

Table 2-2 Continued……………………..Name of Journal Listed in

Cabell’s?Quality: What List is the Journal From?[A, B, or C of our Manual]

Type of Review:Blind Peer Review (BPR)Editor Reviewed Article(ERA)

Journal’s Acceptance Rate

Total Articles

31 International Journal of Applied Economics Yes B BPR 25% 132 International Journal of Auditing Yes C BPR 39% 133 International Journal of Business and Commerce Yes A BPR 20% 134 International Journal of Business Disciplines Yes C BPR 40-50% 1

35International Journal of Business, Marketing, and Decision Sciences Yes A BPR 15% 1

36 International Journal of Critical Accounting Yes A BPR 4% 237 International Journal of Economics and Accounting Yes B BPR 22% 1

38International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing Yes C BPR 38% 1

39International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Yes C BPR 25-35% 1

40 International Journal of Modern Engineering No C BPR Unknown 1

41International Journal of Non-Profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing No C BPR Unknown 1

42 International Journal of the Academic Business World Yes A BPR 20% 243 Journal for Global Business Education Yes C BPR 60% 1

44Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education Yes A BPR 11-20% 2

45 Journal of Accountancy Yes A BPR 11-20% 246 Journal of Accounting, Ethics & Public Policy Yes B BPR 30% 147 Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research No C BPR Unknown 148 Journal of Applied Business Research Yes A BPR 6-10% 149 Journal of Applied Economics and Policy Yes C BPR 11-20% 150 Journal of Applied Research for Business Instruction Yes C BPR 35% 151 Journal of Business and Training Education Yes B BPR 21-30% 252 Journal of Business Case Studies Yes A BPR 11-20% 153 Journal of Business Communication Yes A BPR 10% 154 Journal of Consumer Marketing Yes B BPR 23% 155 Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance Yes B BPR 40% 456 Journal of Corporate Taxation Yes B ERA 21-30% 157 Journal of Economic Education Yes A BPR 21-30% 258 Journal of International Business Management Review No 159 Journal of International Business Research Yes B BPR 21-30% 460 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies Yes B BPR 40% 1

Page 125 of 129

Name of Journal Listed in Cabell’s?

Quality: What List is the Journal From?[A, B, or C of our Manual]

Type of Review:Blind Peer Review (BPR)Editor Reviewed Article(ERA)

Journal’s Acceptance Rate

Total Articles

61 Journal of Learning in Higher Education Yes A BPR 11-20% 362 Journal of Legal, Ethical, and Regulatory Issues Yes B BPR 21-30% 163 Journal of Managerial Issues Yes A BPR 20% 164 Journal of Marketing Channels Yes A BPR 22% 165 Journal of Marketing Education Yes A BPR 22% 1

66Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict Yes

BBPR 25% 1

Page 126 of 129

Table 2-2 Continued……………………..Name of Journal Listed in

Cabell’s?Quality: What List is the Journal From?[A, B, or C of our Manual]

Type of Review:Blind Peer Review (BPR)Editor Reviewed Article(ERA)

Journal’s Acceptance Rate

Total Articles

67 Journal of Services Marketing Yes A BPR 21-30% 1

68Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development Yes

CBPR 32% 1

69 Journal of Strategic Marketing Yes B BPR 21-30% 4

70Journal of the Academy of Business Administration, The No

ABPR 11-20% 3

71 Journal of the American Taxation Association Yes A BPR 11-20% 172 Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing Yes B BPR 21-30% 173 Kentucky Business Education Association Journal Yes B BPR 11-20% 374 Marketing Education Review Yes A BPR 20% 175 National Social Science Journal Yes A BPR 12-15% 176 Networks Yes B ERA 30% 177 New Accountant Yes B BPR 21-30% 378 Oil, Gas & Energy Quarterly Yes C BPR 30-40% 279 Perspectives on Economic Education Research Yes C BPR 35% 180 Public Administration Review Yes A BPR 15% 181 Public Finance Review Yes A BPR 15-20% 182 Research in Accounting Regulation Yes B BPR 30% 1

83Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting Yes

BBPR 25% 2

84 Services Marketing Quarterly Yes C BPR 45% 185 Seton Hall Legislative Journal No B ERA Unknown 186 Strategic Finance Yes A BPR 15-20% 187 Tax Notes Yes C ERA 60% 388 Technology Interface Journal, The No C BPR Unknown 189 Telecommunications Policy Yes C BPR 50% 290 Today’s CPA Yes B BPR 75% 291 Transportation Science Yes A ERA 11-20% 192 Wisconsin Business Education Journal Yes C BPR 50% 393 World Economy, The No C BPR Unknown 1

Page 127 of 129

Appendix 5.5: BAB/BSB Undergraduate Alumni Survey Results from Spring 2012:

The format of the Alumni Survey is illustrated by the results for Question #1 of the Survey shown below:1. This course has real-world relevance:

ACC 200 Principles of Financial Accounting 46.5% (53) 43.0% (49) 7.0% (8) 0.9% (1) 2.6% (3)

ACC 201 Principles of Managerial Accounting 41.2% (47) 39.5% (45) 13.2% (15) 5.3% (6) 0.9% (1)

BPA 215 Business Communication 51.8% (59) 38.6% (44) 8.8% (10) 0.0% (0) 0.9% (1)

BPA 355 Information Systems and Decision Making 33.9% (38) 36.6% (41) 22.3% (25) 6.3% (7) 0.9% (1)

BPA 442 Business Ethics and Environments 49.6% (56) 31.9% (36) 16.8% (19) 0.9% (1) 0.9% (1)

CIS 243 Business Statistics I 27.0% (31) 43.5% (50) 20.9% (24) 7.0% (8) 1.7% (2)

CIS 343 Business Statistics II 21.9% (25) 43.0% (49) 24.6% (28) 8.8% (10) 1.8% (2)

ECO 310 Issues of the Global Economy 34.8% (39) 33.0% (37) 22.3% (25) 8.0% (9) 1.8% (2)

FIN 330 Principles of Finance 49.1% (56) 41.2% (47) 7.9% (9) 0.9% (1) 0.9% (1)

LST 240 Legal Environment of Business 45.6% (52) 34.2% (39) 16.7% (19) 3.5% (4) 0.0% (0)

MGT 350 Fundamentals of Management 40.4% (46) 43.9% (50) 12.3% (14) 2.6% (3) 0.9% (1)MGT 443 Management of Operations and Technology 25.0% (28) 40.2% (45) 26.8% (30) 5.4% (6) 2.7% (3)

MGT 590 Strategic Management 39.3% (44) 35.7% (40) 19.6% (22) 5.4% (6) 0.0% (0)

MKT 360 Principles of Marketing 37.2% (42) 37.2% (42) 18.6% (21) 6.2% (7) 0.9% (1)

1 - Strongly agree

2 - Agree3 - No

Opinion4 - Disagree

5 - Strongly Disagree

We now correlate the survey results with our direct assessment goals and at the end will present the results of some of the more general survey questions. Each of our six assessment goals is measured in the survey. Starting with Survey Question #1: This course has real world significance, and Survey Question #10: This course was most useful in mastering my field of interest, are related to our Assessment Goal #1: Fundamental Knowledge. The results for Question #1 above are that about 70% or more Agree Strongly or Agree, with the smallest percent for the quantitative courses such as statistics and operations research. The results for Question #10 (not shown) are similar.

Survey Question #2: This course demanded mature, independent thought and expression, is most correlated with Assessment Goal #2: Problem Solving and Decision making. Again about 70% of our Alumni answered Strongly Agee or Disagree across most subjects.

Assessment Goal #3: Information Technology is measured in the survey with Question #3: This course demands the use of technology. Responses from our Alumni were low for most subjects such as Ethics, Legal Environments, Management and Marketing. The more quantitative courses such as statistics and information technology have 60% or more Strongly Agree or Agree.

Page 128 of 129

The subject of Ethics covered in Assessment Goal #4: Ethical Issues and in the survey in Survey Question #5: This course emphasized the need for social responsibility, high ethical standards and moral standards in business. Alumni responses were mostly 70% or more Strongly Agree or Agree across most subjects.

Survey Question #4: This course led me to understand and appreciate diversity and the dynamics of the world economy, measures whether Assessment Goal #5:Global and Multicultural Dimensions was covered during our Alumni’s time at Murray State. As expected the highest amount Strongly Agree(SA) and Agree(A) occurred in Economics 310 with 50.9% Strongly Agree and 25.9% Agree. The lowest responses were in statistics about 30% SA and A which is not surprising since this subject is not covered in statistics. Responses were somewhat surprisingly low in accounting with slightly above 30% SA and A.

Survey Question #9: This course emphasized oral and written communication, corresponds exactly to Assessment Goal #6: Oral and Written Communication. As expected this had high Strongly Agree or Agree (81%) in Business Communication and low in other subjects such as accounting and statistics and information systems. Moderate responses slightly above 60% for SA and A occurred in most of the remaining subjects.

Perhaps the best indicator that ours goals are being met were indicated by Survey Question #10: I am extremely pleased with, the results are shown below:10. Overall, I am extremely pleased with:

(a) The quality of MSU’s AACSB-International accredited BSB/BAB Programs 63.6% (70) 30.9% (34) 4.5% (5) 0.0% (0) 0.9% (1)

(b) The use of the team approach in classes 37.3% (41) 40.9% (45) 16.4% (18) 4.5% (5) 0.9% (1)(c) The emphasis placed on leadership in some of the business classes 42.7% (47) 36.4% (40) 13.6% (15) 6.4% (7) 0.9% (1)

(d) My salary expectations after graduation 26.4% (29) 40.0% (44) 20.0% (22) 9.1% (10) 4.5% (5)(e) The chance I got to interact with students from different cultural backgrounds 34.9% (38) 36.7% (40) 23.9% (26) 4.6% (5) 0.0% (0)

(f) The quality of placement services at MSU 19.1% (21) 30.0% (33) 33.6% (37) 12.7% (14) 4.5% (5)

1 - Strongly agree

2 - Agree3 - No

Opinion4 - Disagree

5 - Strongly Disagree

Our Alumni Survey indicates that our Alumni believe Murray State is meeting its Assessment goals.

Page 129 of 129