† These data are provided for information only. For schools whose main headquarters are outside the US figures are based on average dollar currency exchange rates for 2012. ‡ The first figure refers to the number of individual surveys completed by clients of the business school. The figure in brackets indicates the total number of years of survey data included in this ranking. Data are retained for those schools that participated in the 2012 or 2011 ranking but were unranked in that year. *Includes revenue from food, **Includes revenue from food and accommodation, ***Aggregate total for open and customised programmes. Although the headline ranking figures show changes in the data year to year, the pattern of clustering among the schools is equally significant. About 330 points separate the top school, Duke Corporate Education, from the school ranked number 70. The top 13 business schools, from Duke CE to Harvard Business School, form the top group of custom providers. The second group is lead by IE Business School and the third by Rotterdam School of Management. The top and bottom schools in the second group are separated by 150 points; in the third group there is a 60 point gap between top and bottom.
1. The level of interaction between client and school, the extent to which purchasers’ ideas were integrated into the programme, and the effectiveness of the school in integrating its latest research.
2. The flexibility of the course and the willingness of schools to complement their own faculty with specialists and practitioners.
3. The quality of teaching and the extent to which teaching staff worked together to present a coherent programme.
4. The relevance of skills gained to the workplace, the ease with which they were implemented, and the extent to which the course encouraged new ways of thinking.
5. The extent and effectiveness of follow-up offered after the course participants returned to their workplaces.
6. The extent to which academic and business expectations were met, and the quality of feedback from individual participants to purchasers.
7. Rating of the learning environment’s quality and convenience, and of supporting resources and facilities.
8. Purchasers’ rating of the programme’s design, teaching and materials in terms of value for money.
9. The likelihood that clients would use the same school for future customised programmes, and whether they would use the school for the same programme.
10. The percentage of clients with headquarters outside the business school’s base country and region.
11. The extent to which customised programmes have participants from more than one country.
12. The international reach of the school’s customised programme teaching.
13. The quantity and quality of programmes developed or taught in conjunction with other business schools.
14. The mix of faculty by nationality and gender.
15. The number of individual surveys completed by clients of the school. Figures in brackets indicate the total number of years of survey data included in the ranking.
16. Income from customised programmes in 2012 in $ millions, provided optionally by schools. Figures are based on average dollar currency exchange rates for 2012.