Presented at the GMAC Leadership Conference, "Implementing a New Strategic Framework" delves into how business schools can utilize rankings intelligence to make better resource allocation decisions, hence improving the institution's value proposition to its many stakeholders.

1. Implementing a New Strategic Management
Framework for Institutional Success
Using rankings intelligence as a knowledge and strategic
management tool vs playing the rankings game
Charles Tad Brinkerhoff, Director, Professional Masters Programs, Purdue
University, Krannert School of Management
Santanu Chatterjee, Director, Full-Time MBA Program & Associate Professor of
Economics, The University of Georgia, Terry College of Business
Toby McChesney, Assistant Dean of Graduate Recruiting and Student Services,
Georgia State University
MODERATOR: Camila de Wit, Principal, Setzer Group Boston (SGB) and Former
Director of Admissions and Career Services, ESADE Business School (Barcelona,
Spain)

2. Utilizing Benchmark Intelligence for Strategic Management
Agenda for Today’s Session
Session Objectives and Overview of Benchmarking as a Strategic
Management Tool
Panel Discussion Using External Benchmarking for Decision-Making
Purposes
Examples of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data
Q&A, Wrap-up and Conclusions
2

3. • To explore how external and third party “reference” and comparative data
such as rankings can be utilized to enhance both operational and strategic
resource allocation decisions within MBA and graduate management
programs.
• To explore how a strategic management approach combined with
benchmark data can focus organizational, functional and individual efforts
in a strategically appropriate and consistent direction.
Utilizing Benchmark Intelligence for Strategic Management
Introduction: Session Objectives
3

4. • Include internal surveys and feedback. Helpful to identify potential
improvement areas/gaps to be benchmarked and compared.
- Candidate/student surveys
- Exit surveys
• Rankings: Produced by media organizations, rankings data provide easily
accessible benchmark and comparative information.
- US News & World Report (US)
- Financial Times (Global)
- Bloomberg BusinessWeek (US and Global)
- Forbes (Global)
- The Economist (Global)
- America Economia (Global, from a Latin American perspective)
- Other (Poets and Quants, TopMBA, regional rankings, etc.)
External
Internal
Inputs and data for strategic management can be found in a variety of sources that allow for
identification of potential areas of improvement and comparison.
Utilizing Benchmark Intelligence for Strategic Management
Potential Sources of Information
• Other: External organizations related to the GME industry frequently provide
useful industry-wide data and information.
- GMAC
- MBA Roundtable
- AACSB
- EFMD
- AMBA
- EMBA Council
- MBA CSEA
- Faculty Surveys
- Internally generated data and research
4

5. • Activities that provide the means for institutions to sustain its competitive
positioning and capacities
- Marketing
- Development
• Critical activities necessary for the functioning of an institution regardless of
its mission, strategy or focus
- Financial Viability/Resources
- Organizational Capacity (Administrators/Faculty/Staff)
- Facilities (Physical or Online/Electronic)
• Activities central to an institution’s ability to serve its constituents/market
and deliver on its value proposition
- Enrollment Management/Admissions
- Academic Programs (Curriculum and Faculty)
- Student Services
- Career Services
- Alumni Relations
Drivers
Core
Functions
Enablers
Effective alignment of Enablers, Drivers and Core Functions with outside benchmark metrics and
data support an institution’s strategy implementation, value proposition and delivery.
Utilizing Benchmark Intelligence for Strategic Management
SGB Strategic Management Framework for Universities and GME Institutions
5

6. Drivers
Core
Functions
Enablers
Organizational
Capacity
“Facilities*”
and
Student Services
Marketing
and
Visibility
Development
Enrollment
Management
Faculty/
Curriculum
Career
Services
Alumni Services
and
Support
Student
Affairs
Financial
Viability/Resources
Utilizing Benchmark Intelligence for Strategic Management
SGB Strategic Management Framework for Universities and GME Institutions
Effective alignment of Enablers, Drivers and Core Functions with outside benchmark metrics and
data support an institution’s strategy implementation, value proposition and delivery.
*Physical or online/electronic.
6

7. Enablers
Drivers
Core
Functions
Organizational
Capacity
“Facilities*”
and
Student Services
Marketing
and
Visibility
Development
Enrollment
Management
Alumni Services
and
Support
Financial
Viability/Resources
• Total Apps
• Admissions Ratio
• Yield
• Peer Assessment
Score
• Recruiter
Assessment Score
• GMAT
• GPA
• Employment
• Total Applications
• Admissions Ratio
• Yield
• GMAT, GPA
• Salary
• Employment
• Recruiter Assessment
Score
• Salary
• Total Applications
• Yield
• Total Applications
• Admissions Ratio
• Yield
• Recruiter Ass’t Score
• Salary
• Employment
• Peer
Assessment
Score
• Recruiter
Assessment
Score
CV/Faculty/
Student Affairs
Career
Services
For Graduate Business Schools, rankings data can be mapped/aligned with Drivers and Core
Functions helping decision-makers focus resources to enhance delivery on an institution’s value
proposition.
• Recruiter
Assessment
Score
• Yield
Example of Mapping of SGB Strategic Management Framework with External Benchmark Data
US News & World Report Grad Business School Ranking as a Source
• Endowment • Online capabilities
*Physical or online/electronic.
7

8. Session Objectives and Overview of Benchmarking as a Strategic
Management Tool
Panel Discussion Using External Benchmarking for Decision-Making
Purposes
Examples of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data
Q&A, Wrap-up and Conclusions
8
Utilizing Benchmark Intelligence for Strategic Management
Agenda for Today’s Session

9. 1. What challenges do you face in your respective organizations regarding
resource generation and allocation across programs and/or core
functions?
2. Does comparative benchmarking impact your resource allocation
generation and allocations processes and what is the current perspective
within your organization with regard to utilization of external benchmark
data including rankings?
3. Do you have a structured/formal approach and/or frameworks to engage
in benchmarking and use of the information across the organization?
Utilizing External Benchmark Data for Decision-Making Purposes
Discussion
9

10. Session Objectives and Overview of Benchmarking as a Strategic
Management Tool
Panel Discussion Using External Benchmarking for Decision-Making
Purposes
Examples of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data
Q&A, Wrap-up and Conclusions
10
Utilizing Benchmark Intelligence for Strategic Management
Agenda for Today’s Session

11. +
Strategic Management Perspective Internal and External Benchmark Intelligence
11
= Enhanced Institutional Effectiveness and Resource Generation
and Allocation
• Performance metrics year over year
• Progress metrics compared to the
same time the year before
• Comparison relative to the competition
Benchmark Intelligence with a Strategic Perspective

12. Enablers
Drivers
Core
Functions
Organizational
Capacity
“Facilities*”
and
Student Services
Marketing
and
Visibility
Development
Enrollment
Management
Alumni Services
and
Support
Financial
Viability/Resources
• Total Apps
• Admissions Ratio
• Yield
• Peer Assessment
Score
• Recruiter
Assessment Score
• GMAT
• GPA
• Employment
• Total Applications
• Admissions Ratio
• Yield
• GMAT, GPA
• Salary
• Employment
• Recruiter Assessment
Score
• Salary
• Total Applications
• Yield
• Total Applications
• Admissions Ratio
• Yield
• Recruiter Ass’t Score
• Salary
• Employment
• Peer
Assessment
Score
• Recruiter
Assessment
Score
CV/Faculty/
Student Affairs
Career
Services
For Graduate Business Schools, rankings data can be mapped/aligned with Drivers and Core
Functions helping decision-makers focus resources to enhance delivery on an institution’s value
proposition.
• Recruiter
Assessment
Score
• Yield
Example of Mapping of SGB Strategic Management Framework with External Benchmark Data
US News & World Report Grad Business School Ranking as a Source
• Endowment • Online capabilities
*Physical or online/electronic.
12

13. Example of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data
US News & World Report 2015: Regional Public Universities
Ranking and Other Selected Statistics (Weighs in brackets on left)
Peer
Assessment
Recruiter
Assessment
2.9 4.03.4
Salary &
Bonus
Employ’mt
at Graduat’n
58.8% 85.1%70.9%
Employ’mt
3 months
83% 90.9%88.2%
Total Ap-
plications
135 2,721
Tuition Out
of State/Yr
$23,950 $57,200$41,576
ROI Out of
State
97% 142%123%
Avg Work
Experience
1.50 5.424.49
% Women
27.7% 44%32.6%
706668
3.25 3.39 3.55
1,028
$59,358 $136,102$97,957
632
2.6 3.54 4.4
GMAT
GPA
(25)
(15)
(14)
(7)
(14)
Institution and Ranking
(16.25)
(7.5)
25.1% 38.8% 56.7%
83.9%42.4% 55.2%
Acc’pt
Ratio
Yield
(1.25)
Total
Enrollment
91 941352
U. Michigan Ross
U. Virginia Darden
11
19
41
U. North Carolina Chapel Hill
74U. Alabama
U. Florida
U. Maryland
48U. Georgia
65Louisiana State University 93
$30,420
3.4
3.2
$86,096
63.4%
90.2%
645
3.31
44.8%
51.6%
4.58
33.3%
212
13

14. • Are our applications low due to location or marketing effectiveness? Low
number of applications affects selectivity (GMAT, GPA and Acceptance
Ratio) metrics. What actions can we implement to increase the total
number of applications to the program?
• How are our scholarships being used in the admissions process? What
actions can we implement to impact yield?
• We are doing a good job in placing our students within 3 months of
graduation, but why is our salary and bonus below benchmark average? Is
it a function of the types of profiles we admit/their career objectives (i.e.
non profit)? Or is it a function of the types of companies we attract?
• Can we increase capacity (total number of students)? Can this be affecting
our attractiveness with recruiters?
Example of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data
Examples of Potential Questions Raised by Benchmark
Identification of important questions are invaluable tools for decision-makers in developing and
implementing strategy utilizing organizational resources (people/financial).
14

15. Example of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data
US News & World Report 2015: “Technology-Oriented” Schools
Ranking and Other Selected Statistics (Weighs in brackets on left)
Peer
Assessment
Recruiter
Assessment
3.1 4.13.44
Salary &
Bonus
Employ’mt
at Graduat’n
63.8% 76.5%
Employ’mt
3 months
89.7% 95.7%92.2%
Total Ap-
plications
350 1,951
Tuition Out
of State/Yr
$20,319 $43,408
ROI Out of
State
92% 240%137%
Avg Work
Experience
4.92 5.755.18
% Women
23.5% 32.727.2
691667
3.26 3.35 3.46
881
$92,262 $131,181$109,878
607
3.3 3.56 4.0
GMAT
GPA
(25)
(15)
(14)
(7)
(14)
Institution and Ranking
U. Texas Austin McCombs 15
18
27
Carnegie Mellon Tepper
(16.25)
(7.5)
21.4% 29.5% 32.6%
65.7%29.7% 48.6%
Acc’pt
Ratio
Yield
(1.25)
Total
Enrollment
123 511271
Georgia Institute of Technology
33Rice University
37
Texas A&M
University of Rochester
$56,768
$100,609
29.9%
53.5%
40Purdue University
230
$42,174
119%
3.5
3.3
85%
91.3%
576
15

16. Example of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data
US News & World Report 2015: Part Time Programs
Ranking and Other Selected Statistics (Weighs in brackets on left)
Peer
Assessment
% Entrants
w/prior work
Experience
79% 100%97%
% Women
14% 43%29%
712300
57 206
64
2.9 3.74 4.6
(50)
Institution and Ranking
38% 71%
59% 78%
Total
Apps
Accep-
ted
Acc’pt
Ratio
Yield
345
571
92%
96%
UC Berkeley Haas
Chicago Booth
Northwestern Kellogg
New York Stern/UCLA
1
2
3
4
Texas McCombs
Michigan Ross
Indiana Keller
Ohio State Fisher
Carnegie Mellon Tepper
Emory Goizueta/Georgetown/Marshall/Foster
6
7
8
9
10
11
15
16
Minnesota Carlson
Massachusetts Amherst/Washington Olin
18Arizona State/Rice
20Georgia Institute of Tech/Wake Forest
22Maryland Smith/Texas-Dallas
24
25
Wisconsin Madison
BC/Arizona/UC Davis/Florida Hough
29Georgia State/Texas A&M Mays
226
65.5%
67.3
3.2
96%
36% 100%80%
% Entrants
providing
GMAT score
567 692622Average
GMAT
611
(15)
45% 100%86%
% Entrants
providing
GPA score
3.11 3.523.30Average
GPA
3.18
(5)
(15)
41.2%
Total
Enrollment
295 2,9501,107891
% of Enroll’t
that is PT
13% 96%54% 83%
4.58 12.176.29
(15)
Average
Work
Experience
5.83
16

17. Session Objectives and Overview of Benchmarking as a Strategic
Management Tool
Panel Discussion Using External Benchmarking for Decision-Making
Purposes
Examples of Comparative Format Using External Benchmark Data
Q&A, Wrap-up and Conclusions
17

18. 18
Camila de Wit, Principal
Setzer Group Boston
(246) 231-1510 cdewit@setzergroupboston.com