View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Navigating Disruptive Innovation in Undergraduate Business Education

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Navigating Disruptive Innovation in Undergraduate Business Education
Language: English
Authors: Behara, Ravi S., Davis, Mark M.
Source: Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. Jul 2015 13(3):305-326.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 22
Publication Date: 2015
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Business Administration Education, Undergraduate Study, Educational Innovation, General Education, Educational Change, College Curriculum
DOI: 10.1111/dsji.12072
ISSN: 1540-4595
Abstract: The undergraduate business education landscape is dramatically changing and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Many of the changes are being driven by increasing costs, advances in technology, rapid globalization, and an increasingly diverse workforce and customer base, and are occurring simultaneously in both the business world and higher education. This is especially true for undergraduate business education in which alternative models to the traditional four-year curriculum continue to emerge. Using Christensen's theory of disruptive innovation as a framework, we develop a set of recommendations to help undergraduate business education navigate the disruptions it faces by adopting a "pragmatic liberal" approach. This approach offers a direct contrast to the decades of limited success that business schools have had integrating liberal education and business education.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2015
Accession Number: EJ1067789
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEBYS9U_roqni2-rQljvp0JAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIE0YaZfx7AoeEy46gIBEICBmsZKByls7GKBS5944ReTwvf9Kuf_J_yDOAWoOmBRWdOO-GMKkkD7d2SGNDqad12DsEGbvSHLJHt8_ur2FojM_qXlKxUOZjQiGB6Gonvqj_jnG8IDhwYwe79reoZNc_5gWeuJtxCWdJbZE0lPIgPsebm_tN6LtHZbYD9O0sX3eFkX2oQ_P0cvOq96YRwvPZvuwbg_2sOHd-5QKVw=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0103670672;q1n01jul.15;2018Jul11.14:51;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0103670672-1">Navigating Disruptive Innovation in Undergraduate Business Education. </title> <p>The undergraduate business education landscape is dramatically changing and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Many of the changes are being driven by increasing costs, advances in technology, rapid globalization, and an increasingly diverse workforce and customer base, and are occurring simultaneously in both the business world and higher education. This is especially true for undergraduate business education in which alternative models to the traditional four‐year curriculum continue to emerge. Using Christensen's theory of disruptive innovation as a framework, we develop a set of recommendations to help undergraduate business education navigate the disruptions it faces by adopting a “pragmatic liberal” approach. This approach offers a direct contrast to the decades of limited success that business schools have had integrating liberal education and business education.</p> <p>Operations Management; Content Areas; Undergraduate Education; Academic Areas; Projects; Pedagogical Approaches; Service Learning; and Pedagogical Approaches</p> <p>“The chief business of the American people is business.” This quote by President Calvin Coolidge, the 30th President of the United States, is often used without the broader context in which it was made. President Coolidge made this remark while addressing the Society of American Newspaper Editors on the role of the press in free market democracies. His complete remarks that day were “After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing, and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these the moving impulses of our life” (italics for emphasis). President Coolidge made this comment regarding his concerns about the commercialism of the press, and that the wealth and economic interests of newspaper owners may influence newspapers’ editorial policies. He went on to say, “A press which is actuated by the purpose of genuine usefulness to the public interest can never be too strong financially, so long as its strength is used for the support of popular government.” (Coolidge, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref1">6</reflink>] ).</p> <p>These insightful comments are especially applicable today in the context of the crossroads at which undergraduate business education finds itself. Business is not just the most popular program of study in U.S. higher education, with over 20% of the undergraduate students in the U.S. graduating with degrees in business (NCES, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref2">27</reflink>] ), but is central to our personal and civic lives. The “genuine usefulness of the public interest,” as noted above by President Coolidge, is also a goal that is shared by higher education, which is simultaneously facing financial challenges. Most interestingly, undergraduate business education is also being threatened by some of the same disruptive innovations that have decimated the once great newspaper enterprises and radically changed their industry forever. The disruptive innovations facilitated by the digital, internet, and social media revolution in the traditional newspaper business are epitomized by the rise of The Huffington Post as a news organization, and events such as the recent sale of The Washington Post newspaper to Amazon's founder Jeff Bezos that ended four generations of the Graham family's stewardship of one of America's leading news organizations. Facing disruptive innovations facilitated by similar technological forces, it is important that undergraduate business education understand the disruptions it is experiencing in order to better navigate through them.</p> <p>Disruptive innovation is the process by which a product (good or service) initially takes root in simple, most often less‐attractive solutions at the lower end of a market within a given industry, and then relentlessly moves up in that market, eventually displacing established competitors and causing a major disruption in that industry. Disruptive innovation is not the same as breakthrough improvement. Indeed, products that are typically associated with disruptive innovation are usually not as good as those provided by the leading firms in an industry, which therefore tend to ignore them at their own peril. Traditional customers are also initially reluctant to purchase and use these new products as they usually do not meet their needs. Many of the initial customers for these new products are often those who did not have access to the traditional products. However, the new firms gradually improve their offerings and start to meet the needs of the targeted customers who have higher expectations. (Examples of service firms that have successfully done this include Walmart in retail and Southwest Airlines in air travel.) These customers then begin switching from established industry leaders to the new providers because they perceive more value in the new offerings. This causes an overall disruption in the industry (Christensen, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref3">8</reflink>] ; Christensen and Raynor, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref4">10</reflink>] ).</p> <p>This article contributes to the ongoing reexamination of undergraduate business education, beginning with a brief review of its history and some of the current directions it is taking. This is followed by a brief overview of the current challenges facing both business and higher education. This includes a review of the fundamentals of the theory of Christensen's Disruptive Innovation (Christensen, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref5">8</reflink>] ; Christensen and Eyring, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref6">12</reflink>] ) that is then used to examine the current challenges in undergraduate business education. Using this as a springboard for discussion, we propose that the integration of career‐based knowledge and a broader liberal education in undergraduate business programs has not successfully occurred for many decades because of the perceived dichotomy of the disciplines.</p> <p>The American Association of College and Universities called for a pragmatic liberal education that emphasizes the end of the artificial distinction between liberal education and business education (AACU, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>] ). Liberal education is designed to open students’ minds to broader issues while business education tends to focus on providing skills to take actions. Taken together, they help develop the capability for responsible and ethical actions based on judgment that is informed by a broader understanding of the context in which any actions are being taken. Most undergraduate curricula have however adopted a program of two years of general liberal education followed by two years of business education. This approach has resulted in limited success to bridge the “two worlds.” As an alternative, Chew and McInnis‐Bowers ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref8">7</reflink>] ) called for a blended approach that attempts to overcome the artificial divide through integrated courses. This approach is now being more broadly attempted within business courses by requiring traditional liberal education outcomes of (a) oral and written communication, (b) critical and analytical thinking, and (c) the development of ethical and global perspectives. While this effort is worthy, it runs the risk of becoming another assessment checklist that ignores the need to design a “pragmatic liberal education” as initially called for.</p> <p>To operationalize this pragmatic liberal education, we present specifically designed learning experiences in which liberal inquiry is blended with practical activity in Operations Management courses. These innovative approaches to undergraduate business education that were developed within the core undergraduate Operations Management/Service Management courses at our respective institutions include service learning, undergraduate research, and operations consulting. We conclude by illustrating how innovative efforts in the decision sciences can include the underlying tenets of a liberal education that address the complexity, diversity, and changes that take place in today's business environment by providing both a wider knowledge base and in‐depth functional expertise. In doing so, we propose that ending the artificial dichotomies between liberal and business education, study and work, and even work and play, are essential for a “pragmatic liberal business education.” This, in turn, will help us navigate the disruptive innovations that undergraduate business education faces.</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-2">A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE</hd> <p>The need to rethink how business schools educate undergraduates is not new. One study of business education in the United States recommended the following for undergraduate business education:</p> <p>Develop more effective liberal arts content in undergraduate business education to develop in students the capacity to appreciate, understand, enlarge upon, and use what they learn in liberal arts courses.</p> <p>Eliminate fields of concentration as “business itself is enough specialization” and drastically streamline the number of required courses.</p> <p>Encourage a shift in teaching methods and course content to emphasize principles and clinical teaching (use of cases, problems, and other assignments to simulate situations that students will experience in the business world) instead of detailed and descriptive subject matter that is passively received by students and regurgitated in exams.</p> <p>Maintain higher standards through selective admission or higher attrition, as business schools attract a smaller percentage of the best students than other traditional professional fields.</p> <p>Surprisingly, these recommendations were not made recently but over half a century ago (Gordon & Howell, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref9">18</reflink>] ). The study also recommended that the AACSB (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business) increase the general education content from 40% to 50% in undergraduate business programs. At the time of its publication in 1959, these were some of the events that were occurring in the U.S. and the world: NBC broadcasted its first television series in color (Bonanza); the Grammy Awards were first televised; Alaska was admitted as the 49th U.S. state and Hawaii as the 50th; Texas Instruments requested a patent for the IC (Integrated Circuit); the USSR Luna 1 made the first fly‐by the moon; Iran and the United States signed an economic and military treaty; the Dalai Lama fled Tibet for India; Fidel Castro named himself Cuba's premier and proclaimed a new constitution for Cuba (source: <ulink href="http://www.historyorb.com/events/date/1959">www.historyorb.com/events/date/1959</ulink>). The world has certainly changed a lot since then on many issues, but the slow pace of change in business education compares with the continued domination of Tibet by China, the continued exile of the Dalai Lama in India, and the continued communist rule in Cuba.</p> <p>A recent AACSB conference focusing on undergraduate business curriculum highlighted the need for the following (source: ww.aacsb.edu/en/events/conference/2014/undergraduate‐curriculum):</p> <p>Building thinking and reasoning skills.</p> <p>Developing interpersonal skills.</p> <p>Integrating the major business disciplines.</p> <p>Developing quantitative reasoning skills.</p> <p>Designing and implementing curricular initiatives.</p> <p>Designing and implementing pedagogical initiatives.</p> <p>These changes were proposed to help business schools navigate their way through a higher education business environment that is experiencing increased competition, major financial constraints, growing employer expectations (and dissatisfaction), and new technologies, not unlike what businesses that hire their students are themselves experiencing. The above curriculum requirements simply reflect the same problems highlighted by Gordon and Howell ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref10">18</reflink>] ), namely the need to integrate liberal arts education to facilitate critical thinking and communication skills. The growing need for integration is a consequence of the extensive specialization and subspecialization that business schools have trended towards, and the need for emphasis in quantitative reasoning is a reflection of the continued reality that fewer and fewer of the better high school students are opting to go to business schools. The call for continued curricular and pedagogical initiatives is also not new, rather it is a continuation of the call made over a half century ago.</p> <p>More recently, Colby, Ehrlich, Sullivan, and Dolle ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref11">13</reflink>] ) presented the results of a national study of undergraduate business education undertaken by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. They found that business students, as part of their education, need to develop professional judgment that is ethical. They also suggested this can be achieved by effectively integrating liberal arts learning that provides students with a broader perspective that allows them to better comprehend the world in which they live and their roles in it. Understanding the wider social contribution business professionals can also contribute to their personal fulfillment. Furthermore, beyond the technical competencies associated with business education, these liberally educated business professionals highlight not only the need to develop innovative and entrepreneurial thinking but the ability to skillfully navigate their way in a truly global business environment. While none of these ideas are particularly new, the lack of a broad implementation of them in business education reinforces the need to reexamine current pedagogical efforts in undergraduate business education. Many business schools are responding to this challenge by redesigning their curricula to integrate ethics, writing, history, psychology, philosophy, and even engineering, with core business subjects like finance and marketing with the goal of improving the abilities of business students to be critical thinkers and problem solvers (Korn, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref12">20</reflink>] ). In this article, we focus on student learning (versus teaching), the need to recognize the artificial division of disciplines in management education (and the need to integrate them), and the importance of experiential learning through real‐world projects, which when taken together provides the desired pragmatic liberal education perspective.</p> <p>Many of the suggested efforts will have limited success because the current state of undergraduate business education cannot be addressed by curriculum design alone. Detrick ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref13">14</reflink>] ), one of the pioneers in management education, discussed key elements of the mess (system of problems) in business education. These include controversial elements such as the impact of tenure and the role of exams. However, in more general terms, higher education is going through three major upheavals that are threatening established ways of teaching and learning that are more fundamental than just curriculum design (The Economist, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref14">31</reflink>] ). First, higher education is experiencing a new financial reality. Historically generous government subsidies of higher education, especially in the United States, are quickly becoming a thing of the past. At the same time, investments in technology/facilities, faculty salaries, and large increases in administrative costs are significantly increasing the costs of higher education. Some predict mass bankruptcies of low‐ to mid‐tiered colleges and universities in the United States within the next two decades. Second, the ongoing technological revolution is radically changing the traditional higher education business model. Online education, best exemplified by free Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), has democratized higher education while simultaneously impacting the traditional high‐tuition‐based revenue model. Finally, the reality of a globally connected competitive environment requires a workforce that is constantly in need of learning and training. While colleges and universities provide some of these services, there are a growing number of companies and other organizations that provide viable alternatives. In this context, undergraduate business education that is consumed only by curriculum redesign lacks the situational awareness that is critical for its survival.</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-3">DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION</hd> <p>As mentioned earlier, disruptive innovation is the process by which new products (goods and/or services) initially take root as simple, often less‐attractive solutions at the bottom of an industry, but then relentlessly move up in that industry and eventually displace established competitors, thereby causing a disruption in an industry. In higher education, community colleges have been disrupting traditional four‐year colleges. There are two types of disruptive innovation (Christensen, Johnson, & Horn, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>] ). With Type 1 disruptive innovation, the new entrant provides products to a group of noncustomers who are not currently being served by the industry leaders. The rise of the University of Phoenix is a classic example of such an entrant in higher education. DeVry University and Kaplan University also provide good examples that compete in this segment. These educational institutions address a need for those students who cannot afford either the time and/or cost of a traditional four‐year university program because of personal and professional circumstances. These potential students were not being served by anyone until the University of Phoenix and similar institutions introduced online platforms that were combined with a physical presence in various communities around the country. It is only after observing the tremendous growth and success of this segment of the higher education market that traditional universities are attempting to replicate a similar method of online delivery. However, it is still only being provided as an incremental improvement to existing offerings that serve current customers rather than to attract those not being served. (There are a few exceptions, one being Southern New Hampshire University that now offers online undergraduate and graduate degrees. <ulink href="http://www.snhu.edu/online‐degrees.aspx">www.snhu.edu/online‐degrees.aspx</ulink>)</p> <p>An important lesson that higher education can learn from the manufacturing sector is that people learn or work best at different rates. Nowhere is it written that a specific topic must be learned by every student in exactly the same way within a given class period. For a variety of reasons, some students grasp certain topics more easily than others who require more time to absorb the material. This important lesson was learned years ago by manufacturers when people‐paced assembly lines (in which the product being built is advanced to the next stage only when the worker has completed assigned tasks) resulted in significantly fewer errors than machine‐paced assembly lines (in which the product moves from one stage to the next at a constant rate). Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU) was one of the first academic institutions to adopt this innovative approach (and was named in 2012 as one of Fast Company's 50 most innovative organizations – and the only educational one). Students from all over the country take online courses at SNHU and work on these courses until they receive a passing grade. In other words, there is no time limit to when students have to complete courses. This is a Type 1 Disruptive Innovation, one in which a different performance measure of academic progress has allowed SNHU to serve those who were previously noncustomers. In this case, online education itself is not the disruptive innovation, but rather the leveraging of it to serve students in a self‐paced learning environment that is customized to their ability and time needed to learn.</p> <p>With Type 2 disruptive innovation, established firms continue to improve with “sustaining innovations” that help them continue on their trajectory of improvement. Current efforts to integrate liberal arts education into traditional business subjects is a “sustaining innovation,” as is much of the use of technology in traditional and distance learning. These efforts continue to over deliver with respect to the needs of many students. New entrants provide products to current customers who are over‐served by established firms, meeting their needs along some value proposition, and thereby disrupting the established firms. Disruptive innovations often address the needs of less demanding customers with more appropriate solutions, while incumbent leaders continue to pursue (and exceed) the needs of the most demanding customers. The recent emergence of Community/State Colleges granting four‐year undergraduate business degrees, is such an example. These programs cost much less than those of traditional four‐year universities. In addition, being traditionally closer to local employers, the programs are usually more targeted to local business needs and job opportunities. As such, they provide greater value to many students and therefore offer a more attractive higher education alternative. Type 2 disruptive firms also disrupt by serving the unique needs of the most demanding students by using creative solutions. For example, Minerva Schools at KGI in San Francisco have entry criteria that rival those of the best Ivy League colleges. Courses taught at Minerva use an innovative computer‐based program that incorporates state‐of‐the‐art developments in neuroscience and human cognition. They are taught using real‐time video that links students with peers around the world. After the first year in San Francisco, every semester takes place in another global city like Shanghai, Sao Paulo, or Mumbai. Tuition is $10,000 per year (Carey, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref16">5</reflink>] ). With the strong emphasis on technology, this uniquely global yet low‐cost rigorous academic program is a Type 2 disruption.</p> <p>Traditional four‐year undergraduate business education is currently facing not only a Type 1 disruption from programs such as those offered by the University of Phoenix and Southern New Hampshire University, but also a Type 2 disruption from new four‐year programs at Community/State Colleges and those at institutions like Minerva Schools at KGI. It is the latter Type 2 disruptive innovation that is the focus of the remainder of this article as it constitutes a more immediate threat to the traditional business education programs.</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-4">CHALLENGES IN HIGHER EDUCATION</hd> <p>To better understand Type 2 disruptive innovations to traditional four‐year business programs, it is necessary to first recognize the major challenges that exist today in higher education in the U.S. We identify the following three major challenges: (a) skyrocketing tuition costs, and the return on investment (ROI)/suitable employment for students, (b) disruptive changes in the delivery of education, and (c) dissatisfaction by employers with students’ abilities to apply what they learned in today's increasingly complex world of business.</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-5">Skyrocketing Tuition Costs</hd> <p>Tuition costs in the United States continue to escalate at a rate faster than the cost of living index, and is exceeded only by the rising cost of healthcare. For the 2011–2012 academic year, the average annual current dollar price for undergraduate tuition, room, and board was estimated to be $14,300 at public institutions, $37,800 at private nonprofit institutions, and $23,300 at private for‐profit institutions (U.S. DoE, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>] ). It is interesting to note that private for‐profit institutions charge less, on average, than private nonprofit institutions. This could be attributed to cost controls and the use of online education at these for‐profit institutions, and the fact that some may be nontraditional institutions (trade schools) or not offer comprehensive services (such as not having sports teams). Between 2001–2002 and 2011–2012, the price of undergraduate tuition, room, and board rose by 40% at public institutions, and by 28% at private nonprofit institutions after adjustment for inflation. The inflation‐adjusted price of undergraduate tuition, room, and board at private for‐profit institutions was 2% lower in 2011–2012 than in 2001–2002. (U.S. DoE, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref18">17</reflink>] ). While some of the increases can be attributed to faculty salaries and other instruction‐related costs, most is attributable to noninstructional costs such as administrative, and room and board costs. In addition, according to payscale.com, the 2014 College ROI report shows a maximum of 12% ROI on a college education over 20 years for business majors. While this reinforces the value of an undergraduate education, the variability in ROI is significant (ranging from −15% to + 12%) based on the undergraduate major and type of higher educational institution attended. The number of graduates employed in fields other than those in which they were actually educated is an added challenge. As a consequence, in 2014, almost 50 million Americans were carrying a total of more than $1 trillion in higher education debt, and many were having difficulty in repaying their loans (ASA, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref19">3</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-6">Disruptive Technology</hd> <p>Technology now allows more and more learning to take place online, both remotely and asynchronously. New and emerging approaches to learning are often proving to be superior to traditional classroom education (KhanAcademy.org), resulting in the growing adoption of such concepts as the “flipped classroom” in which learning occurs at home and homework is done in the classroom. In addition, technology provides access to education at little or no cost to those who have not previously had access to it. The concept of MOOCs is one emerging model in online education. Most of these courses are currently available for free but have no course credit attached to them. Christensen, Aaron, and Clark ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref20">9</reflink>] ), however, indicated that the innovation of online education is, by itself, neither sustaining nor disruptive. It is how the innovation is deployed that makes a difference. They suggest that universities either target nonconsumers (University of Phoenix) or develop a low‐cost way to target over‐served customers (e.g., California School Districts using KhanAcademy.org). They warn that institutions that adopt a disruptive technology (e.g., online learning) that is not low cost to existing customers will fail in their efforts after spending a significant amount of money.</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-7">Unsatisfied Employers</hd> <p>A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (Gallup 2/28/14) identified a significant gap between how well educational institutions believe they are doing in providing qualified graduates to businesses that hire them and how well the businesses themselves believed the educational institutions are doing. While 96% of the colleges and universities believe they are doing a good job of satisfying the needs of business, only 11% of the businesses concur with them. A similar gap exists between businesses and their customers: 85% of business executives believe they are doing a good job of satisfying the needs of their customers, while only 15% of their customers agree (Goodman, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref21">16</reflink>] ). A 2005 Bain & Company survey of 362 firms obtained similar findings that revealed that 80% of the companies believed they delivered a “superior experience” to their customers, yet only 8% of their customers agreed (Bain & Company, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>] ).</p> <p>In response to these studies, different types of innovations are emerging in higher education. Innovation can take many forms. The Doblin Group (<ulink href="http://www.doblin.com">www.doblin.com</ulink>) has identified four major categories of innovation: (a) process, (b) offering, (c) delivery, and (d) finance/business model. Examples of each of these types of innovation can be readily observed in higher education, while recognizing that there exists some overlap among the categories.</p> <p>Probably the best example of process innovation in higher education is the “flipped classroom” in which students learn assigned material outside the classroom on their own and then spend time in class doing homework and asking questions under the guidance of their teachers. While he was not the first to introduce this innovative concept (Lage, Platt, & Treglia, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref23">22</reflink>] ), Salman Khan, the founder of the Khan Academy (<ulink href="http://www.khanacademy.org">www.khanacademy.org</ulink>) brought it to national attention shortly after he began producing videos on different academic subjects that allowed students to learn on their own. The underlying premise with the flipped classroom is that students do not learn at the same rate, the assumption that is made when a given amount of material is presented in a class within a fixed time period. In any class, there are some students who grasp the material easily and become bored while others struggle to keep up. The idea that each student learns best at their own rate is not new. Shortly after he visited his daughter's fourth grade class in 1953, Harvard University psychology professor B.F. Skinner invented a “Teaching Machine” that permitted students to pace themselves through a given course (Nguyen, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref24">28</reflink>] ). Capella University in Minneapolis, MN has an online program called FlexPath in which students learn at their own pace and are tested when they are ready (<ulink href="http://www.capella.edu/flexpath‐self‐paced‐learning">www.capella.edu/flexpath‐self‐paced‐learning</ulink>). This competency‐based program offers a bachelor degree in business (among others) and costs $2,000 per quarter. Students can take a maximum of two courses in any given quarter. The self‐paced learning process is also a delivery innovation as it is taught online, and the low cost is a business model innovation.</p> <p>Innovations in the service offering often focus on the total system that has been developed to provide a competitive advantage (not unlike the concept of members of a supply chain working together to create a competitive advantage). Innovative offerings in education include the dual degree program. For example, Dartmouth's Thayer School of Engineering offers a bachelor's degree in engineering for students who are working on a liberal arts degree at another university. To receive the additional degree, students need to attend either their junior or senior year at Thayer plus a fifth year. There are currently 20 liberal arts schools participating in this program (engineering.dartmouth.edu/academics/undergraduate/dual/). The Concordia University system, which consists of 10 universities and colleges, allows students to spend up to a year studying at another campus, and represents another example (<ulink href="http://www.cus.edu">www.cus.edu</ulink>). Internationally, students attending any of the European University's four main campuses can spend their last two semesters at Nichols College in Dudley, Massachusetts and receive a Bachelor in Business Administration degree from European University and a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration degree from Nichols College (<ulink href="http://www.euruni.edu/euruni/Programs/Undergraduate‐Bachelor‐s/Double‐Degree‐Nichols‐College/Double‐Bachelor‐s‐Degree‐with‐Nichols‐College.html">www.euruni.edu/euruni/Programs/Undergraduate‐Bachelor‐s/Double‐Degree‐Nichols‐College/Double‐Bachelor‐s‐Degree‐with‐Nichols‐College.html</ulink>).</p> <p>Innovation in delivery can take several forms. One is the growing number of online undergraduate degree programs being offered. There are now 553 schools offering online degree programs, of which 441 offer undergraduate degrees (<ulink href="http://www.guidetoonlineschools.com/online‐schools?lvl=4">www.guidetoonlineschools.com/online‐schools?lvl=4</ulink>). Other schools are offering hybrid (part in‐class and part online) and lecture‐capture‐video‐streaming (LCVS) classes in which students can either attend in‐class, online with streaming video, or online by watching a recording of the class (one of the authors offers the core Operations Management course through this method). Coursera, the online educational platform partners with over 116 colleges and universities to offer free courses (<ulink href="http://www.coursera.org">www.coursera.org</ulink>), while edX (<ulink href="http://www.edx.org">www.edx.org</ulink>), which was started by Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, now has 67 institutional members that include leading universities, companies (Microsoft), institutions (Smithsonian Institution, International Monetary Fund), and nonprofit organizations (Learning by Giving Foundation) (Carey, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>] ). Another approach to innovation in delivery is actively involving students in real‐world problems. Education, and in particular undergraduate business education, cannot be delivered in a vacuum. Students need to apply the concepts and theory learned in the classroom to solve real‐world problems. For example, Knod is an online learning platform that focuses on bridging the gap between employment and education by integrating real‐world projects into its curriculum (<ulink href="http://www.knod.net">www.knod.net</ulink>). Hult International Business School's LEAP (Learn, Experience, Action Projects) program, which is integrated throughout its curriculum, provides students with the opportunity to put into practice the theory and concepts they learn in the classroom (www.hult.mediacore.tv\\podcasts\\recruiting‐videos\\hult‐leap‐method).</p> <p>Emerging finance/business model innovation focuses on creating more affordable education in order to provide a greater number of students with the opportunity to obtain a college degree. For example, in January, 2015, President Obama proposed making all junior/community colleges tuition free. Similarly, IBM is partnering with high schools to offer 6‐year P‐TECH (Pathways in Technology Early College High School) programs in which students receive both their high school diploma and an associate's degree, thereby requiring only an additional two years of college education to earn a bachelor's degree. There are currently eight high schools that offer this program, with another 29 high schools scheduled to offer it in the next two years. (Foroohar, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref26">15</reflink>] ). Some junior/community colleges have already begun forging alliances with traditional four years colleges and universities so that graduating students who have received their associate's degree with a specified GPA are automatically accepted into the four college year programs. Hudson Valley Community College, for example, has established articulation agreements to do this with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Syracuse University, and several other four‐year colleges (https://<ulink href="http://www.hvcc.edu/las/ens/transfer.html">www.hvcc.edu/las/ens/transfer.html</ulink>).</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-8">NAVIGATING DISRUPTIVE INNOVATIONS</hd> <p>We propose design recommendations that allow traditional undergraduate business programs to more easily navigate the disruptions described. Our focus is on Type 2 disruptive innovation as it constitutes a more immediate threat to traditional programs. Figure [NaN] provides a framework of undergraduate business programs that will be explored in more detail.</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-9">Traditional‐Undifferentiated Programs</hd> <p>Undifferentiated undergraduate business programs at traditional universities are most at risk for disruption. Education providers at these institutions should ask the question “What are the ‘jobs’ that students are ‘hiring’ business schools to do?” This will help create much needed awareness of the alternative performance measures that students (and other customers including parents and state/alumni funders) are using to measure the education service students receive. The current dominant perspective of many educational institutions of “We know what is best for you” is old at best and patronizing at worst. One common metric of interest here is cost, both to the student and to the state/institution. Another is success in being hired into a well‐paid job that the student went to college to obtain. The disruption created by low cost/free two‐year community colleges is difficult to address. It is not possible to compete against ‘free’ purely on a cost basis. In addition, those four‐year programs that automatically accept community college students will end up with a student body that may have a mixed grounding in the liberal arts. Trying to bridge liberal arts education with business education in this context could quickly become a costly and futile effort. A better approach to address these low‐cost disruptors is to develop an undergraduate program that focuses on blending liberal education and business skills in a job context, thereby shifting the evaluation criteria to postgraduation job placement success.</p> <p>There are two effective approaches to accomplish this. For full‐time students, immersive “co‐ops”/ “residencies” (as currently exist in Engineering and Medical programs respectively) or internships and consulting assignments should be a requirement for business programs. Many of today's students work part or full time while completing their undergraduate programs. It is imperative that this experience be integrated with their academic pursuits by ending the artificial dichotomy of study and work through the use of reflective work as a vehicle for learning. This is not “giving credit for work” but rather integrating work into the curriculum.</p> <p>It must be noted that the “new entrant” community/state colleges may not currently have as rigorous degree programs as traditional universities; they will however continue to improve over time. They are typically more agile in program development, and, as such, will soon develop specialized career‐focused programs. When this happens, there will be a major disruption to traditional‐undifferentiated programs, as students will move to these low‐cost and job/skill‐focused programs in increasing numbers.</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-10">Leading‐Undifferentiated Programs</hd> <p>The undifferentiated programs at leading universities have in the past relied on the strength of their institutional status (and their sports teams in some instances) rather than the distinctiveness of their undergraduate business programs. These programs are also usually high cost, especially for out‐of‐state students. While not immediately under threat, there are two types of disruptors to these programs. The recent agreement between Starbucks and Arizona State University through which employees at Starbucks are provided a low‐cost online degree program from Arizona State University at no cost to the employee, is an example. While it may currently appear to be a Type 1 disruption of serving previously unserved new students, the model of employer‐based fully subsidized undergraduate degree programs has the potential to disrupt undifferentiated programs. Further, MOOCs‐based certificate programs at leading universities have begun to emerge (e.g., the data analytics certificate at Johns Hopkins University). While not yet full‐fledged undergraduate programs, and again Type 1 disruptions, they too have the potential to disrupt undifferentiated programs by delivering focused programs from leading universities at a low cost. In these scenarios, technology‐driven, low‐cost high‐quality programs have the potential to disrupt undifferentiated programs even from leading universities through low cost and specialization.</p> <p>Leading universities can navigate this emerging disruption by leveraging their usually larger established programs across multiple disciplines. Pragmatic liberal education in this instance can take the form of undergraduate research, and combining business education with content specific training from other disciplines of the different colleges on campus, thereby providing differentiation.</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-11">Traditional‐Differentiated Programs</hd> <p>Differentiated programs at traditional universities have the distinction of being focused programs, despite limited recognition by the university. This differentiation helps delay the disruption that is emerging from disruptive sources. As mentioned above, MOOCs‐based certificate programs from leading universities have begun to emerge, and they will become a disruptive force if they emerge as full, degree granting undergraduate programs. However, as in the case of traditional‐undifferentiated business programs, immersive “co‐ops” and internships can help strengthen the defense against any future disruptions. In addition, the focus of the program can be leveraged in specific student‐consulting projects if they are made integral to the undergraduate program, thereby providing students with additional real‐world experiences to further enhance their differentiated program.</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-12">Leading‐Differentiated Programs</hd> <p>These undergraduate business programs are least likely to be disrupted by other similar programs. The reputation of the university and the focus of the program will always be sought after by new students. However, a lack of effective blending of liberal studies and business education will result in graduates being unable to be truly effective in the workplace, thereby affecting the program's long‐term standing. As such, and more for competitive reasons than the threat of disruption, these programs need to leverage all the sources available from the university. However, one source of disruption remains. The very basis of a business undergraduate program may be questioned when undergraduates from other disciplines such as the liberal arts or engineering perform as well as, if not better than, traditional business undergraduates in a work environment that is increasingly diverse, global, and technologically challenging. Examples could include situations in which a math graduate (with a minor in finance) is more effective than a finance graduate in an algorithmic‐driven business environment, an art‐design major (with a minor in marketing) is more effective than a marketing major in product or campaign design, or a computer science major (with a business minor) is more effective working with big‐data analytics. In all these cases, Type 2 disruptions to leading differentiated undergraduate programs would come from other colleges at their own universities. While these nonbusiness graduates may not initially be as proficient with business issues, their specific technical competencies will be more than adequate to get them started in a technological and design intensive work environment, and they would ultimately learn the required business skills on the job. This could lead to more impactful disruption of undergraduate business education as an institution. This disruption is already underway, but masked by the large number of students (but not always the best), who continue to be attracted to undergraduate business education.</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-13">UNDERGRADUATE CONSULTING AND RESEARCH</hd> <p>In addition to the increased global‐sourcing of talent and automation in knowledge‐intensive work, there is a growing realization of an increasing shortage of 21st century skills in the workforce. For instance, there is a greater focus on big data analytics in every facet of business that requires related competencies. However, as the consulting firm McKinsey found, there is expected to be a shortage of 140,000 to 190,000 people with analytical expertise and 1.5 million managers and analysts with the skills to understand and make decisions based on the analysis of big data by 2018 in the United States alone (Manyika et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref27">25</reflink>] ). The required skills are not just quantitative and computational in nature, but include the ability to understand business situations and relationships and make judgments and communicate effectively. Yet students from undifferentiated business undergraduate programs will likely graduate with limited, inadequate and/or outdated skills as these programs expend their resources in continuing to build sustaining solutions. Still another challenge to undifferentiated programs is emerging. A blend of traditional programs and MOOCs courses is being proposed by some experts. The alternative to the traditional four‐year program would be to spend the first year on learning fundamentals via MOOCs courses, followed by two years of traditional university learning, and completing the program off with a fourth year in which students work part‐time while completing their degree via more MOOCs courses (The Economist, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref28">31</reflink>] ). Deeper competencies as well as flexible programs that incorporate work experience thus appear to be emerging approaches that may be needed by undifferentiated programs.</p> <p>Implementing such pragmatic liberal design elements into undergraduate business programs, especially to navigate disruptions faced by Traditional‐Undifferentiated Programs and Leading‐Undifferentiated Programs, may be accomplished through consulting and research assignments in Operations Management courses that provide real‐world experiences. Since by its very nature Operations is action‐oriented, these approaches have the specific advantage of developing practical skills within the context of a broader understanding of business and its nuances. Specifically, Operations Consulting was implemented by one of the authors within a Service Learning framework, and operations research through a larger university‐wide effort to promote undergraduate research. These initiative are described below in detail so that others may adopt these teaching innovations within their own programs. Other consulting projects that utilize data analytics can also be developed in a similar way, given the access to suitable companies and/or databases.</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-14">High‐Impact Educational Practices</hd> <p>Service Learning and Undergraduate Research are among the high‐impact educational practices that have been widely tested and shown to be beneficial to college students and to increase student retention and engagement (Kuh, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref29">21</reflink>] ). Service Learning is a community‐based experiential learning approach in which students apply experience with issues they are studying in the curriculum while being involved in ongoing efforts to analyze and solve problems in the community. Such educational practices provide students with advantages beyond what the curriculum offers, in that they provide a good foundation for citizenship, work, and life. For instance, a study of over 600 students involved in Service Learning projects in courses covering over 30 different disciplines showed that Service Learning contributes to a positive learning climate, increases motivation, civic and problem solving skills, and an appreciation for diversity (Levesque‐Bristol, Knapp, & Fisher, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref30">23</reflink>] ). Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, and Yee ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref31">4</reflink>] ) conducted a more extensive study that tracked over 22,236 college undergraduates that attended a national sample of colleges and universities, with about 30% of the students being involved in Service Learning projects. They found that these projects, from a student perspective, increased their (a) sense of personal efficacy, (b) awareness of the world, (c) civic responsibility, (d) awareness of one's personal values, and (e) engagement in the classroom experience. These benefits would be a distinct advantage to any undergraduate business student.</p> <p>Many colleges and universities now provide undergraduate research experiences for students in all disciplines. While they are used prominently in science, their use in undergraduate business education is gradually emerging. The goal is to introduce students to a scientific approach to investigating interesting questions, and for them to experience the excitement that comes from discovery. Seymour, Hunter, Laursen, and Diatonic ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref32">30</reflink>] ) found that students involved in undergraduate research were overwhelmingly positive, specifically identifying personal and professional gains, skill gains, and preparedness for work and graduate school. A survey of 1,135 undergraduates involved in research found that over 83% began or continued to plan for postgraduate education in the sciences (Lopatto, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref33">24</reflink>] ). In addition to the personal and intellectual development of students, undergraduate research was found to provide a pathway to professional socialization, and can be considered to a cognitive apprenticeship into the community of practice (Hunter, Laursen, & Seymour, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref34">19</reflink>] ). Undergraduate research opportunities were also found to increase students’ understanding, confidence in their skills, and awareness of opportunities after graduation (Russell, Hancock, & McCullough, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref35">29</reflink>] ). While these studies were based on students involved in research in the sciences, there has been little work on how undergraduate research should be approached in the social sciences (Wagner, Garner, & Kawulich, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref36">32</reflink>] ). However, many leading undergraduate business programs provide their students with research opportunities, but these are usually limited to a select few students. It is time to bring these benefits to the larger body of undergraduate business students.</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-15">Service Learning in Operations Management</hd> <p>The growing emphasis on community service in the United States can be integrated with the undergraduate Operations Management course through the implementation of an Operations Consulting project as part of integrating Academic Service Learning (ASL) into the curriculum. ASL, or Service Learning as it is also called, is a pedagogy that upholds a commitment to appreciating the assets and serving the needs of a community partner while simultaneously enhancing student learning and academic rigor through the practice of intentional reflective thinking and responsive civic action. The consulting project also incorporates social impact and social consciousness in a very real and pragmatic way for the students.</p> <p>Innovative and unique features of ASL projects include:</p> <p>Active learning: This learning‐through‐doing approach allows students to apply specific Operations Management concepts and methods to an actual project, thereby enhancing learning and increasing retention.</p> <p>Community Service: This heightens student awareness about the world around them and their civic responsibilities, while empowering them with the knowledge that they can positively influence their world.</p> <p>Reflection: This contemplation on their own actions during and after their projects helps students mature as individuals.</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-16">Examples of ASL Projects</hd> <p>The ASL projects undertaken in an undergraduate Operations Management course were primarily consulting projects. They were designed to provide actionable plans for either a nonprofit organization's staff or volunteers. As stated earlier, the specific topics addressed depended on the needs of the individual nonprofit organization. Some of the topics addressed and the reason for their selection are discussed below:</p> <p>Service Design: Increased demand for food and lower voluntary financial contributions led to a significant increase in demand on financial resources coupled with a simultaneous budget shortfall for the Community Food Pantry (CFP). A Dollar‐for‐Food Project was designed as a fund raising effort to generate additional revenues that could be used to purchase food for distribution.</p> <p>Sourcing: The increased demand for food at the Community Food Pantry (CFP) but a budget shortfall meant there was a need to stretch each contributed dollar. The Low‐Cost Sourcing Project was therefore charged with identifying low‐cost nonperishable food sources that could be contacted by the CFP.</p> <p>Forecasting: The CFP was faced with lower food inventories and increasing demand midway through the year. They therefore needed to estimate total food requirements for the remainder of the year. The Demand (Need) Forecasting Project developed various forecasts to give the CFP much needed information with which to plan.</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-17">Effectiveness and Specific Benefits of the Learning Process</hd> <p>Relevance, real‐world context, active learning, community engagement, and civic responsibility were all integral parts of the students’ experiences working on the ASL projects. The effectiveness of the ASL approach and its benefits to students are captured in their reflection statements that included:</p> <p>“We were grateful for the opportunity to lend our abilities to a project whose rewards, we hope, will contribute to our community as well;”</p> <p>“Until we undertook this project none of us were fully aware of the scope of the problem and its root causes;”</p> <p>“Awareness is probably one of the biggest problems in what is progressively becoming a crisis in this nation;”</p> <p>“While we as individuals may not be able to help materially, we hope that we were able to help, if even a little, by working on this project.”</p> <p>In response, the CFP client wrote “The timing of your assistance could not have been better…. The students’ research and discovery of low cost sources of food, free food sources, and how to forecast our food needs, has been extremely helpful…. Thank you so much for helping us feed the hungry in our community!”</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-18">Transferability</hd> <p>Faculty at any institution of higher education in the United States can integrate ASL into their existing Operations Management (and other) courses. The detailed steps provided above can serve as a starting point. ASL is an established and recognized pedagogy (<ulink href="http://www.servicelearning.org">http://www.servicelearning.org</ulink>). Non‐U.S. Universities/Colleges can also adopt this approach based on their specific academic and community environments, and can refer to the international service learning programs web site for further information (<ulink href="http://www.ipsl.org">http://www.ipsl.org</ulink>).</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-19">Undergraduate Research in Operations Management</hd> <p>This project involved implementing a university‐wide research initiative in the undergraduate business program. Over 225 students in the core Operations Management course conducted individual projects in which they researched the Operations of a unique Fortune 500 company that was assigned. It should be noted that the class used a hybrid format referred to as “lecture capture video streaming” or LCVS. Students can attend the class in person, watch it live on‐line, or watch it recorded at a later time. This flexible delivery addresses the needs of the students, a majority of whom are employed full‐time. Students were required to primarily use various business databases (e.g., EDGAR) that were available through the University library. Each student submitted a written report as well as a research poster (in PowerPoint) that was displayed at the university undergraduate symposium. The research report was to be structured as outlined below. This was essential to ensure that a large number of students followed a well‐defined process that led them through a research exercise of a type they had not encountered before in their academic program. The major parts of the research included:</p> <p>Introduction: Discuss the state of the industry/sector in which your company operates. What opportunities and challenges does the industry face? Who are the competitors? What are they doing?</p> <p>Problem Definition: Identify the various operational challenges that your company is facing. Examples: Need to innovate, improve the supply chain, quality problems, new projects being undertaken, improving business processes using new technology, launching new products, data analytics.</p> <p>Analysis: What are the various efforts being undertaken by your company to address the operational challenges it faces?</p> <p>Implementation Challenges: What challenges did your company face when implementing these operational efforts?</p> <p>Results: How successful has your company been with these operational efforts? What is the guidance going forward?</p> <p>Bibliography: Include all references you used in doing this research.</p> <p>This project was an intensive effort that took place over two months and integrated multiple topics. Students closely studied business reports such as industry IBISWorld reports and company 10K filings from different functional and stakeholder perspectives, and integrated the information by thinking analytically about the implications for business operations. Basic principles of mass customization were used to ensure that over 225 students were able to conduct business research and deliver quality results that competed with the best undergraduate research from all Colleges in the University including the natural and social sciences, and engineering. Productivity has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in China and India in recent years and in the United States many decades ago. We need to do the same to lift the vast majority of undergraduate business degree programs out of mediocrity. The undergraduate research projects that were conducted by over 225 students in one large section of the Operations Management course are an example of such an effort.</p> <hd id="AN0103670672-20">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>Disruptive innovations in higher education are being driven by several factors, including the following: (a) escalating costs, (b) technological innovations, (c) the need for greater responsive to the needs of students and employers, and (d) the need to develop more effective learning to respond to a more competitive global environment. The traditional model of education, which has not changed for centuries, is now clearly under assault. It is within this context that we need to rethink undergraduate business education. Relying on the decades‐old “solution” of integrating liberal and business education does not recognize the seismic changes currently underway in higher education. Any redesign of undergraduate business education must necessarily begin by recognizing and understanding the impact of the disruptive innovations that are occurring and respond to these challenges. It is essential that a “pragmatic liberal” approach should serve as the guiding principle for any curriculum redesign. Such an approach blends inquiry based in the liberal education tradition with the pragmatic development of marketable skills related to jobs and careers.</p> <p>To understand the impact of disruptive innovations in business education, a framework was proposed that relates categorizations of traditional versus leading universities/colleges to the delivery of differentiated versus undifferentiated business undergraduate programs. Such a classification helps clarify the varying impact of disruptions on different types of programs. Since most business schools are constantly making efforts to improve through “sustaining innovations,” they end up over delivering with respect to the needs of many students. This can typically be seen in the significant use of technology to effectively deliver the same service as before the technology was implemented. This is the context in which Type 2 disruptions occur, disruptions that deliver appropriate learning to students while also satisfying them along specific dimensions of interest (such as cost).</p> <p>The potential response to Type 2 disruptions is the adoption of a “pragmatic liberal” approach to learning. While many undergraduate programs focus primarily on on‐the‐job training, using internships as a panacea, there are other, often better academically rigorous opportunities. Specifically, service learning and undergraduate research are presented as viable alternatives to reinforcing undergraduate business curricula by providing a pathway that creatively navigates the challenging transitions that undergraduate business education is currently experiencing. We believe that this is just the beginning of a new era in higher education, one that will require all involved to develop creative programs on an ongoing basis.</p> <ref id="AN0103670672-21"> <title>REFERENCES</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref7" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>AACU: Association of American Colleges and Universities. ( 2003 ). Greater expectations: A new vision for learning as a nation goes to college. Washington, DC : Association of American Colleges and Universities. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref22" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Allen, J., Reichheld, F., Hamilton, B., and Markey, R. ( 2005 ). Closing the delivery gap. Boston, MA : Bain & Company. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref19" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>ASA: American Student Assistance. ( 2014 ), Unlockinh Opportunity: Revolutionizing the way the way students approach, finance, and repay higher education, 2014 Annual Report, <ulink href="http://www.asa.org/site/assets/files/3483/2014%5fannual%5freport‐for‐web.pdf">www.asa.org/site/assets/files/3483/2014%5fannual%5freport‐for‐web.pdf</ulink> (accessed 1 April 2015). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref31" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. ( 2000 ). How service learning affects students. Los Angeles : Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, January 2000. heri.ucla.edu/pdfs/hslas/hslas.pdf (accessed 1 April 2015). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref16" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Carey, K. ( 2015 ). “ The University of Everywhere.” Departures, March/April 2015, pp. 108 – 109. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref1" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Coolidge, C. ( 1925 ). Address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors. Washington, DC : January 17, 1925, <ulink href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=24180">http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=24180</ulink> (accessed 24 June 2014). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref8" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Chew, B. E., & McInnis‐Bowers, C. ( 2004 ). Blending liberal arts & business education. Liberal Education, 90 ( 1 ), 56 – 63. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref3" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Christensen, C. M. ( 1997 ). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA : Harvard Business School Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref20" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Christensen, C. M., Aaron, S., & Clark, W. ( 2001 ). Disruption in Education, The Internet and the University: 2001 Forum, A joint publication of the Forum for the Future of Higher Education and EDUCAUSE. https://net.educause.edu/forum/ffpiu01w.asp?bhcp=1 (accessed 30 June 2014). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref4" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. ( 2003 ). The innovator's solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston, MA : Harvard Business School Publishing. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref15" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Christensen, C. M., Johnson, C. W., & Horn, M. B. ( 2008 ). Disrupting class, expanded edition: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. NY : McGraw‐Hill. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref6" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. ( 2011 ). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco, CA : Jossey‐Bass. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref11" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Colby, A., T. Ehrlich, W. M., Sullivan, & J. R., Dolle ( 2011 ). Rethinking Undergraduate Business Education: Liberal Learning for the Profession, San Francisco : Jossey Bass. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref13" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Detrick, G. ( 2002 ). An interview with Russel L. Ackoff. Academy of Management Learning and Education. 1 ( 1 ), 56 – 63. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref26" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Foroohar, R. ( 2014 ). The school that will get you a job. Time, February 24, 22 – 29. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref21" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Goodman, J. ( 2009 ). Strategic customer service, New York, NY : AMACOM. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref17" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>U.S. DoE. ( 2013 ). Digest of Education Statistics 2012 (NCES 2014–015), National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. <ulink href="http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76">http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76</ulink> (accessed 28 June 2014) </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref9" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. ( 1959 ). Higher education for business. The Journal of Business Education, 35 ( 3 ), 115 – 117. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref34" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Hunter, A.‐B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. ( 2007 ). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students‘cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91, 36 – 74. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref12" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Korn, M. ( 2012 ). Wealth or waste? Rethinking the value of a business major. Wall Street Journal, April 5, 2012. <ulink href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304072004577323754019227394">http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304072004577323754019227394</ulink> (accessed 24 June 2014). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref29" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Kuh, G. D. ( 2008 ). High‐impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref23" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Lage, M. J., Platt, G., & Treglia, M. ( 2000 ), Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. Journal of Economic Education, 31 ( 1 ), 30 – 43. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref30" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Levesque‐Bristol, C., Knapp, T. D., & Fisher, B. J. ( 2010 ). The effectiveness of service‐learning: It's not always what you think. Journal of Experiential Education, 33 ( 3 ), 208 – 224. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref33" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Lopatto, D. ( 2004 ). Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): First findings. Cell Biology Education, 3, 270 – 277. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref27" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., & Byers, A. H. ( 2011 ). Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity, McKinsey Global Institute May 2011, <ulink href="http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business%5ftechnology/big%5fdata%5fthe%5fnext%5ffrontier%5ffor%5finnovation">www.mckinsey.com/insights/business%5ftechnology/big%5fdata%5fthe%5fnext%5ffrontier%5ffor%5finnovation</ulink> (accessed 2 April 2015) </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., & Byers, A. H. ( 2011 ), Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity, McKinsey Global Institute May 2011, <ulink href="http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business%5ftechnology/big%5fdata%5fthe%5fnext%5ffrontier%5ffor%5finnovation">www.mckinsey.com/insights/business%5ftechnology/big%5fdata%5fthe%5fnext%5ffrontier%5ffor%5finnovation</ulink> (accessed 2 April 2015) </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref2" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>NCES ( 2014 ). Digest of Education Statistics 2013, Bachelor's, master's, and doctor's degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions by field of study: Selected years, 1970–71 through 2011–12, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. <ulink href="http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13%5f318.20.asp">http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13%5f318.20.asp</ulink> (accessed 1 Feb 2015). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref24" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Nguyen, S. ( 2015 ). “ Computing in the Classroom: From the ‘Teaching Machine’ to the Promise of Twenty‐First Century Learning Technology ,” Harvard Magazine, March‐April, <ulink href="http://harvardmagazine.com/2015/03/computing-in-the-classroom">http://harvardmagazine.com/2015/03/computing-in-the-classroom</ulink> (accessed 2 April 2015). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref35" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., & McCullough, J. ( 2007 ). Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science, 316, 548 – 549. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref32" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Seymour, E., Hunter, A.‐B., Laursen, S. L., & Diatonic, T. ( 2004 ). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three‐year study. Science Education, 88, 493 – 534. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" idref="ref14" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>The Economist ( 2014 ). The future of universities: The digital degree. The Economist, 28th June 2014, <ulink href="http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21605899‐staid‐higher‐education‐business‐about‐experience‐welcome‐earthquake‐digital">www.economist.com/news/briefing/21605899‐staid‐higher‐education‐business‐about‐experience‐welcome‐earthquake‐digital</ulink> (accessed 20 March 2015). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" idref="ref36" type="bt">32</bibl> <bibtext>Wagner, C., Garner, M., & Kawulich, B. ( 2011 ). The state of the art of teaching research methods in the social sciences: towards a pedagogical culture. Studies in Higher Education, 36 ( 1 ), 75 – 88. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <p>Graph: Framework of undergraduate business programs.</p> <aug> <p>By Ravi S. Behara and Mark M. Davis</p> <p></p> <p>Ravi S. Behara is an Associate Professor in the Department of Information Technology & Operations Management in the College of Business at Florida Atlantic University. His current research interests are in healthcare and service operations analytics. He has published over 90 refereed journal articles, conference papers, and book chapters, including articles in International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Decision Support Systems and International Journal of Production Economics and in research books such as Handbooks in Information Systems and Advances in Patient Safety. He is currently co‐PI in an NSF supported study in healthcare analytics with patent pending technology. Dr. Behara serves on the editorial boards of Service Science and the Journal of Service Management. His business experience also includes operations consulting and working as an electrical engineer in the construction of large multi‐national power plants projects in India and Saudi Arabia. Dr. Behara holds a PhD in service operations management from Manchester Metropolitan University, U.K., and a BE in electrical engineering from The Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.</p> <p>Mark M. Davis received a BSEE from Tufts University, and an MBA and DBA from Boston University. He worked as a manufacturing engineer for the General Electric Company and is a graduate of its Manufacturing Management Program. He was also a programs manager for the U.S. Army Natick Research Laboratories, where he focused on the design of military foodservice systems. In addition to publishing numerous articles, Dr. Davis is also the co‐author of two textbooks: Operations Management: Integrating Manufacturing and Services, (McGraw‐Hill/Irwin, 2005, 5th edition, with Janelle Heineke), and Managing Services: Using Technology to Create Value (McGraw‐Hill/Irwin, 2003, with Janelle Heineke). Dr. Davis is a Past President of the Decision Sciences Institute (DSI) and a Past President of the POMS College of Service Operations. He also served as a member of the DSI Board of Directors, and was named a Fellow in the Decision Sciences Institute in 2000. He served on the 1996 Board of Examiners for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. Dr. Davis currently serves on the editorial review board of Service Science and is an area editor for Operations Management Research. As a visiting professor, Dr. Davis has taught courses/workshops in service operations/management at Cornell University's School of Hotel Administration in Ithaca, New York; Instituto de Empresa in Madrid, Spain; Groupe HEC in Paris, France; Keio University in Tokyo, Japan; Al Akhawayn University in Casablanca, Morocco; Corvinus University in Budapest, Hungary; and Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia.</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1067789
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Navigating Disruptive Innovation in Undergraduate Business Education
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Behara%2C+Ravi+S%2E%22">Behara, Ravi S.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Davis%2C+Mark+M%2E%22">Davis, Mark M.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Decision+Sciences+Journal+of+Innovative+Education%22"><i>Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education</i></searchLink>. Jul 2015 13(3):305-326.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 22
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Business+Administration+Education%22">Business Administration Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Study%22">Undergraduate Study</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Innovation%22">Educational Innovation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22General+Education%22">General Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Curriculum%22">College Curriculum</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/dsji.12072
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1540-4595
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The undergraduate business education landscape is dramatically changing and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Many of the changes are being driven by increasing costs, advances in technology, rapid globalization, and an increasingly diverse workforce and customer base, and are occurring simultaneously in both the business world and higher education. This is especially true for undergraduate business education in which alternative models to the traditional four-year curriculum continue to emerge. Using Christensen's theory of disruptive innovation as a framework, we develop a set of recommendations to help undergraduate business education navigate the disruptions it faces by adopting a "pragmatic liberal" approach. This approach offers a direct contrast to the decades of limited success that business schools have had integrating liberal education and business education.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1067789
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1067789
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/dsji.12072
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 22
        StartPage: 305
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Business Administration Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Study
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Innovation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: General Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Curriculum
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Navigating Disruptive Innovation in Undergraduate Business Education
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Behara, Ravi S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Davis, Mark M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2015
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1540-4595
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 13
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1