Charting a new course: developing an integrated undergraduate business administration degree.

Ryan, Mike H. ; Luthy, Michael R.

INTRODUCTION

The issues facing institutions of higher education at the dawn of the 21st Century, and those affecting business education in particular, are daunting. Tectonic shifts will likely impact all content disciplines as well as the means and methods by which the educational process is facilitated. While the operational questions facing business programs may be described in numerous ways, most often the central theme is based on the point of departure from current techniques and approaches. Increased competition (both domestically and globally), changing employer demands involving the changing nature of the workplace and role of technology, as well as continuing trends toward expanded geographic coverage of markets among others underscore the need to reflect on the current delivery of business education and where modifications must be made.

Traditionally, changes in business education have focused on the relatively slow-paced evolution and inclusion of new content and materials. More recent changes, including the increasing significance of the information economy, technological strides affecting the conduct of business and competition, and the pace of change itself necessitates a re-examination of the process of preparing future executives for the 21st Century. The most notable recent example of this is the growth of distance education alternatives which employ communications technology to provide content and real-time interaction away from the traditional campus environment. Despite this trend, the current process of business education is not markedly different from that of previous models--even in the face of a changing business environment. Why then shouldn't the process of business education also change to achieve a better fit between the "product" we produce (an able and well rounded business professional) and the needs of the "customer" (the organizations and society at large that will employ them)? Integrating the current substance of the business curriculum is both a content and a process change. It offers exciting opportunities and rewards for students (employment, new way of thinking, envisioning, and solving problems), faculty (reinvigorating skills and connections to firms and their problems), schools (better serving the needs of multiple consistencies), and business. It also offers daunting challenges.

FACTORS SUGGESTING OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTEGRATION

While this issue of revising and/or integrating business education content (and the debate surrounding it) is not new, it has been more frequently discussed in the last two decades. Marchese (1991) advocated concepts derived from the total quality management (TQM) literature into the curriculum design process. Vazzana and Poole (1997) actually tracked the use of TQM techniques in a variety of educational settings.

Prior to these works, Porter and McKibbin (1988) challenged educators to develop paradigms to improve the teaching/learning of problem-solving and decision-making skills in complex and uncertain environments. In their milestone study commissioned by the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), Porter and McKibbin state that "The modern world of business ... does not present problems and decisions neatly packaged and exclusively within ... a functional box."

Vazzana and Poole (1995) assert that managers must be able to integrate problem-solving and decision-making skills across more than one functional area, and often in a team-based setting. They point to the often lone business policy/strategy course where students learn this process, but assert that it would be more beneficial to place a greater emphasis on integrative decision-making skills throughout the curriculum.

To date, only a few schools (e.g. Northern Illinois University, Fairfield University) have taken advantage of this interweaving to the extent envisioned by Porter and McKibbon (1988) or Vazzana and Poole (1995). In 1997, Graf wrote about N.I.U.'s new common business core of 12 credit hours, separated into one 9 semester-hour and one 3 semester-hour course. Students take these two courses simultaneously, with the 9 hour course taught in a mass lecture format with the 3 hour course taught as a supporting application course.

Fairfield University's approach (Boisjoly and Ryba, 1997) eliminated the six discipline specific courses designated as part of the business core and replaced them with three interdisciplinary, team taught courses. The new courses were designed "from the ground up" by a faculty team and included an integration of each functional area concentration. The introductory, discipline specific courses in Finance, Marketing, Management, Operations Management, International Business and Business Policy (capstone) were replaced by Business Decision Making and Creating a Competitive Advantage, both offered in the students' Sophomore year and Global Strategy of Business, offered during the Senior Year.

If one accepts the premise of the changing nature of business then why not focus on changing business content rather than the mechanism(s) for providing that content? After all, content changes are an inherent part of curricular development. While the arguments in favor of an integrated curriculum abound, the number of programs, such as N.I.U. and Fairfield committed to that path are few. Part of the reason is the inherent social and cultural inertia common to academic programs. Nothing ever moves as rapidly as it might. Radical change is both uncommon and frequently viewed as threatening to those who have both excelled and hold a considerable investment heavily in the current system (i.e. status quo). Primary loyalty for most faculty members is to their respective disciplines, from which most derive their employment and publishing opportunities, rather than to the needs of their institutions, colleges, or even their students. This is not to suggest that faculty in business programs are uninterested in innovation, change, or departures from the status quo. Rather, as in any organization, there are significant forces which tend to act against change. The more significant the change the more those forces marshal to minimize its perceived impact--real or imagined. Integrated curriculum initiatives generally represent a serious threat to the traditional way of "doing business" (pun intended) within an institution. Resistance is vigorous as most faculties view such changes as impinging on faculty prerogatives, academic freedom, and cherished ways of doing things. Administrators may also bristle at the thought of changing the nature of the "product" that has been "sold" to various constituencies--both on and off campus. However, changes are coming to higher education. Most institutions are already expanding their geographic focus for many of the same reasons businesses are. They are looking for more customers to spread out costs, insulate their organizations from economic uncertainty, downturns, changing student populations, and the like.

With this in mind, the developing information economy and growing technological infrastructure available, the reality of more competition argues for educational institutions to create different ways to compete. Among the great debates in higher education is the quest for academic rigor and practical application while staying true to a liberal arts root and the idea of a broad-based education. Are schools there to educate their students or to train them to meet the vocational expectations of future employers? The answer is probably both, at least to some degree. Regardless, the prevailing pace of change coupled with changing expectations necessitates a different delivery mechanism for business education concomitant with ongoing content changes. Using different delivery mechanisms force an examination of what constitutes appropriate pedagogy. Consideration of different pedagogy, in turn, forces an ongoing re-examination of content. A thoughtful and dispassionate re-examination of content suggests one consider the common assumptions regarding the merit for separation of disciplines. If separation of disciplines is no longer the best approach for presenting the complicated and interwoven nature of 21st Century business, then some departure from strictly functional courses is required. Once the conclusion is reached that the potential rewards are worthwhile, integration of the business curriculum begins to make sense.

Even the venerable accreditation agencies are interested in promoting innovation and change. The AACSB has both encouraged and supported this type of change through its mission-based approach to business accreditation (1994). The experiences of the W. Fielding Rubel School of Business at Bellarmine College in Louisville, Kentucky provide an opportunity to discuss the process, successes, and pitfalls of one school's attempt to meet this challenge.

ONE SCHOOL'S APPROACH

Organizational change is a topic of no small importance within business schools. However, when faced with change themselves, business schools are often thrust into a "do as we say, not as we do" posture. The business school at Bellarmine College faced virtually all of the symptoms of a rapidly changing educational environment including: faculty departures, internal and external resistance, false starts, missteps, restarts and finally progress. The integrated program effort was very much like that of a new life form forced to evolve rapidly or else face extinction. Even in the face of the best reasons not to do something however, even evolved creatures do dumb things. The development of the Rubel School's integrated program has had its share of "interesting" events. Evolution often produces bind alleys and missed opportunities. The development of the integrated program has had it share of both.

Crawling From The Slime

The mission statement for Bellarmine College states: "Bellarmine College serves Louisville [Kentucky] and the region by providing an educational environment of academic excellence in the Catholic liberal arts tradition, where talented and diverse persons of all faiths and ages develop in the intellectual, moral, and professional competencies to lead, to serve, and to make a living a life worth living". This is broadened by the institution's vision: "Bellarmine College aspires to be the innovative, independent Catholic liberal arts college in the region for preparing diverse persons to become dynamic leaders to serve, live, and work in a changing, global community."

As in all things, there must be a beginning. The integrated program began with the Dean's charge (i.e. "let there be an integrated program") to develop a cutting-edge curriculum, integrating the traditional knowledge of the undergraduate program with a non-disciplinary based delivery system within the mission and vision as stated in the College's handbook. Our first efforts to produce a "multi-celled organism" were in the formation of a cross-disciplinary committee. The multiplicity of opinions, concerning both the nature and scope of proposed integration, produced a number of challenging discussions. Initial efforts provided topic listings from current courses and sequencing for better effect. Unfortunately, each discussion also provided a number of avenues for serious disagreement. For example, just the discussion of whether accounting should remain separate or become part of the integrated experience devoured several hundred man-hours of time, energy and effort. What makes this all too common scene interesting is that many of the players were successfully involved in the development and delivery of the business school's integrated MBA programs. Even among those with direct experience, hard won lessons were not always translated into effective solutions for the undergraduate program. Surprisingly, concerns about implementation were either ignored or minimized. Getting an answer was perceived as more critical than getting a good answer, much less one that dealt with issues involving resource constraints. Complicating the development process was that the newly integrated curriculum would require significant changes in course sequencing thereby affecting courses in areas other than business. This perceived threat to the status quo did not go unchallenged nor without numerous objections from those outside the business school. Although these objections were overcome, the process left a distinct aftertaste that continued to complicate the School's and faculty' relationships across campus. In spite of these and other obvious impediments a program, which met the general objectives of integration, was created.

Walking About and Walking Erect

We have integration! Actually, our first effort had two parts. The first part was where we figured out what integration required and began to develop appropriate educational materials. The second part came after the committee was told to include basic accounting in the first class rather than continue it as a skill based class offered concurrently. The overall result was to split up material from the traditional courses while still offering the same amount of material found in multiple classes (See Table 1). This also led to a somewhat gerrymandered approach to courses including the first one (See Table 2). A serious side effect was also generated because of this, in the form of using multiple textbooks rather than creating a new integrated text. The cost of the shrink-wrapped approach was so high as to cause concern among various faculty members that a serious entry barrier had been created. With the introduction of accounting into the mix, what once was integrated quickly deteriorated into minimal integration of topics. Instead of true team-taught integrated material the program became tag-team teaching with loose coordination of projects. To suggest that the now erect integrated approach walked with a limp would be an understatement. Neither the faculty nor the students were happy with the result.

Fashioning Crude Tools

Implicit in the concept of integration was a systematic process for evaluation of student performance. Rather than the unified exercises and examinations envisioned the initial process, multipart final exams (separate but equal sections) combined with class participation and a few, linked projects became the norm. Consistent with the faculty's concern about the integration process or lack thereof, student assessment with feedback (See Table 3) was deemed critical. During the 15 week semester, assessments were preformed in weeks 4 and 10. Overall, students considered the experience worthwhile but viewed the general requirements well above that expected in a three hour class. More importantly the general lack of integration, coupled with the opinion that introductory accounting was over-represented, produced widespread dissatisfaction with the implementation. Clearly, a rethink was needed.

More problematic were the realities implicit in actually teaching integrated classes. Content and pedagogy were only as good as the ability to schedule the appropriate instructors. Communication and continued interaction among the faculty involved in each class section is far more critical than with traditional classes. The reality was that the level of coordination and faculty resources necessary to do a competent job of integration, let alone an outstanding one, was lacking. Stretching to cover traditional courses is not uncommon but once a program moves toward integration, resources must be in place in anticipation of demand and to adequately support the innovation effort. Attempts to create a working integrated curriculum without adequate resources only results in faculty and student frustration and an unsatisfactory program. The inevitable outcome is a loss of goodwill. Some of these early potential threats to our emergence "comet strikes" held the potential for the extension of the new life form but fortunately were localized events that "only" led to the departure of selected faculty.

Reaching for the Stars

No one likes to view curriculum initiatives as abject failures. However, it would not be an overstatement to suggest that the first effort to create an integrated undergraduate curriculum was less than successful. The issues of scheduling and commitment of resources were in themselves almost insurmountable obstacles. More critically was that the objectives of integrated content material and cross-disciplinary teaching were not achieved. With these issues in mind, the integration effort was reexamined with the intent of correcting problems and recasting a "new" program using the lessons learned. Arranged around a number of common themes rather than discipline specific courses--or parts of courses, the new design holds the potential for a more pure team teaching approach as the program is implemented.

PRACTICAL ISSUES AND INTEGRATED BUSINESS PROGRAMS

There are numerous complicating issues for any institution considering an integrating curriculum. Among the more critical are content determination, teaching approaches, and scheduling of faculty. Most of the acute problems start with discussions of content. Clearly, that is an area in which most faculties feel comfortable. As faculty members, we tend to know our respective areas, having been trained in a traditional discipline orientation, and to hold strong opinions about what is required to master the subjects we teach. Most faculty members also have opinions and distinct preferences about teaching pedagogy. Generally, the preference is to be in charge of your own course rather than responsible to a common approach. There is tolerance for a common syllabus in core courses, common exams in prerequisite classes, and even similar lecture frameworks, etc. when teaching assistants are involved. But virtually everyone recoils from having their hands tied to a specific approach or format that provides little or no flexibility to account for differences in teaching style. To some degree, integrated programs will hit just about everyone's "hot buttons" on what is appropriate and desirable as a classroom experience. Even when (or if) these salient issues are laid to rest, the harsh realities of scheduling integrated materials for maximum effect makes actual teaching much more difficult. For a program to be truly integrated, materials must be scheduled for their impact and not faculty convenience. Normal scheduling of classes is almost impossible if the program employs team teaching on any significant scale. Even tag team teaching, often seen as a less integrated substitute for team teaching, introduces some serious scheduling issues. If integrated programs were easy, everyone would do them. They are not easy! Integrated programs should be undertaken only when the resources are available and when the faculty involved fully understands the implications of the program.

Content

The tendency in the development process is to focus on the content of the curriculum almost to the exclusion of all other issues. In part, this occurs because of the vested interests involved in producing the overlapping course materials. Everyone wants to insure that his or her discipline is appropriately covered. The result is often to include too much material, in a compressed format. The goals of the new curriculum are frequently treated as "self-evident" even though the materials agreed too may not produce clearly identifiable outcomes. Discussions revolve around more management versus more marketing versus more accounting versus more operations rather than what the student ought to look like upon completion of the program. Clearly defined outcomes and learning objectives are critical to the long-term success of an integrated program. Without clear objectives the content becomes a mixture of topics and issues, unrelated to what the student should know and the skills that he or she should have. Further complicating content decisions are the following:

The need to reflect real-time changes in business such as has occurred with E-commerce;

Insufficient linkages both between sections of content and within sections so both the student and faculty have a mental map of where they are, where they are going and where they have been; and,

Tendencies to view content as complete once the initial materials have been selected.

The initial development and ongoing maintenance of integrated materials place far larger burdens on faculty that traditional materials. The need to update, keep current, fix holes, and revise on a continuous basis insures that faculties are always behind the learning curve. Economies of scale due to prior preparation may not be as easy or even possible with an integrated program. For an integrated program's content to remain on the cutting edge of business it must be subject to rapid, continuous evolution. However, each change in content produces ripple changes throughout the program. Therefore, an integrated program is never stable in the same sense as a more traditional program would be. This lack of stability is unsettling for faulty members, difficult for students, and hard to explain to administrators. Even the benefits which integrated content can provide may be insufficient to overcome the ongoing difficulties in some environments where flexibility is absent.

TEACHING AND INTEGRATION

Teaching is one of the most important things that a faculty member does. Yet, what constitutes good teaching, appropriate pedagogy, and reasonable limits or extensions to academic freedom generate wonderfully entertaining discussions. The Rubel School's approach to the integrated program was based on the premise that simply combining content was insufficient to produce a suitably integrated curriculum. Having a single faculty member cover material that touched on multiple disciplines was a good starting point. But without extension, this approach would be similar to that of any well-taught capstone Business Policy class. The real objective would be to have multiple faculty members from different disciplines lead the discussion of integrated materials. A class experience that combined an accounting professor with a marketing professor or a strategy professor with a finance professor, etc. would by definition be more integrated. Cross-disciplinary results would be easier to achieve with different disciplines sharing the same class. The students would benefit by having heard different perspectives on the same cases or topics. The faculty would benefit by seeing where the disciplinary gaps or overlaps needed more or less coverage. Materials and skills could be delivered almost in a just-in-time approach. Practicality problems arose regardless of whether the approach was tag team or team teaching.

Clear conflicts were evident due to different teaching styles. When faculty are used to having personal control over their course, team or tag team teaching require some significant adjustments in thinking. The most obvious conflicts occurred between those individuals who view teaching as a structured activity with little room for deviation and those, more spontaneous individuals, who view flexibility as paramount. Flexibility and control are important issues that should not be overlooked. Assumptions that teaching professionals can work out their respective differences may not always be valid. More discussion as to expectations, preferences, and unacceptable approaches should be conducted among those involved in a course to avoid problems and should necessitate frequent meetings during the term. To some extent, faculty rank and any implied prerogatives (e.g. that's my course, we don't let junior faculty deal with those topics, we don't do it that way) must be dispensed with to make integration work. Students are sufficiently astute as to sense second-class faculty status in a team environment. For integration of materials across disciplines to work all faculty must be equal in the classroom. The more important issue is the formality with which specific faculty members wish to be viewed in the classroom. Some faculty members prefer a less formal, almost casual relationship with students in the classroom while others seek a more traditional role. It is important that with the team environment these preferences be acknowledged and dealt with in advance of the class session. Combined teaching style approaches can work as well as those where the roles are formal or less formal. However, experience suggests that faculty members do not always respond well to surprises from their colleagues in the classroom.

Scheduling

Of the anticipated problems in producing an integrated curriculum and program, the most underrated was that of scheduling faculty. In hindsight, it is obvious that normal expectations for schedules would be stretched. What was not expected was the additional stress that the integrated program would put on faculty members. Even though the desirable goal was as much team teaching as possible, acknowledged resource constraints made tag-team teaching necessary. Tag-team teaching became so complicated that just keeping track of who was where required an immense spreadsheet. Calculating faculty loads also became a daunting task; made more difficult if one considered the added burden imposed by combinations of team and tag team taught classes. A three-hour class split among three faculty is more troublesome, creates more work and involves more preparation than just a "normal" three-hour class. Consequently, a load differential was created to take that additional workload into account. But when that type of course environment is spread among ten or twelve classes across a half dozen faculty, the scheduling complexity grows almost exponentially. What might be normal load with block of time for other required activities quickly degenerates into a complicated, stressful, almost unworkable mass of appearances that consume large amount of time. Overall productivity for the involved faculty begins to drop as meeting on an ever-changing irregular basis becomes more taxing. The task of evaluating and commenting on the productivity of teaching faculty is also made more difficult for those who do not have intimate knowledge of the program and its history, goals, and trials.

Within the Rubel School at Bellarmine, this problem was greatly exacerbated by the scheduling of classes during the day, at night and on weekends. Some faculty members literally did not know if they were coming or going and twelve hour plus days became commonplace. When specific skill sets were required some faculty found their schedules required class appearances in the mornings, afternoons, and evenings with sessions scheduled every night of the week--for weeks at a time. When this was coupled with weekend appearances the scheduling situation became virtually unbearable. One colleague suggested, not without some seriousness, that slavery was alive and well. Clearly, integration requires a different concept of class and faculty utilization but reality requires reasonable scheduling, consistent with balancing multiple objectives. The resource requirements for integrated programming are both prodigious and expensive. Poor scheduling, particularly with inadequate faculty resources, will undermine most of the benefits that an integrated curriculum might otherwise provide. Successful integration requires an upfront realization that extensive planning, development, and resource deployment is required. Lack of intelligent scheduling will undermine the most promising program, destroy the morale of the most committed faculty, and anger the most dedicated and responsive student. If you cannot provide reasonable and workable schedules for faculty and students then it would be prudent to reconsider whether it makes sense to implement a fully integrated program.

CONCLUSIONS

The business environment has for some time been sending signals to the education industry that there is a need for a significant revision to the way in which business professionals are trained. In response to the these signals, and the experiences of one institution, the following guidelines are offered for those contemplating an "evolutionary" course of action and creating their own integrated business degree: a successful program will be / involve ...

 Outcome driven (listing specific learning outcomes for each class,
 topic, session)

 Topic or issue based

 Coordinated (with a significant oversight of program
 leader/moderator)

 Frequent monitoring and communications meetings.

 Topic sequencing building on an organic vision.

 Prioritized topics within each theme.

 Support from administrators to provide adequate time for
 development and ongoing administration and coordination.

 Control over scheduling resting with, or substantially within,
 the faculty's hands.

In order to create an integrated business program able to survive the hostile environment that will test its (and your) resolve, you must have three components. The commitment of faculty and administration, adequate resources (both monetary and time), and serious effort from all concerned is required. Attempting to undertake this process without all three of these components is tantamount to taking a long walk on a short pier--interesting but ultimately not very satisfying.

REFERENCES

American Association for Collegiate Schools of Business (1994). Achieving Quality and Continuous Improvement through Self-Evaluation and Peer Review: Standards for Accreditation Business Administration and Accounting Guidance for Self-Evaluation.

Bellarmine College Catalog (1997).

Boisjoly, R. and W. Ryba, Jr, (1997). Integrating Courses and Course Sequences: The Fairfield Experience. AACSB Undergraduate Curriculum Seminar.

Graf, D. (1997). Development of the Cross-Functional Undergraduate Business Principles Core at Northern Illinois University. AACSB Undergraduate Curriculum Seminar.

Machese, T. (1991). TQM Reaches the Academy. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin. November.

Porter, L. and L. McKibbin. (1998). Management Education and Development: Drift or Thrust Into the 21st Century? New York: Free Press.

Vazzana, G. and R. Poole. (1995). Integrating Decision Making throughout the Curriculum Using Total Quality Management Processes. Proceedings of the Midwest Decision Sciences Institute.

Vazzana, G. and R. Poole. (1997). The Role of Co-Curricular Activities in a Comprehensive Total Quality Management Model for Improving Education in a University Setting. Proceedings of the Northeast Decision Sciences Institute.

Mike H. Ryan, Bellarmine University

Michael R. Luthy, Bellarmine University

Table 1
Credit hour distribution of new business core
compared to old curriculum

37 Old 6 3

 New Accounting Economics

 3 Business Concepts 1
 6 Basis Business I 2 1
 6 Basic Business II 1 2
 6 Intermediate Business I 1
 6 Intermediate Business II 1
 6 Advanced Business
33 6 3
-4 Difference

37 Old 3 3

 New Finance MIS

 3 Business Concepts
 6 Basis Business I 1
 6 Basic Business II 1
 6 Intermediate Business I 1
 6 Intermediate Business II 1
 6 Advanced Business 1
33 3 2
-4 Difference -1

37 Old 3 4

 New Operations Statistics

 3 Business Concepts
 6 Basis Business I
 6 Basic Business II
 6 Intermediate Business I 1 1
 6 Intermediate Business II 1 2
 6 Advanced Business
33 2 3
-4 Difference -1 -1

37 Old 3 3

 New Management Law

 3 Business Concepts 1
 6 Basis Business I 1
 6 Basic Business II 2
 6 Intermediate Business I
 6 Intermediate Business II
 6 Advanced Business 1
33 2 3
-4 Difference -1

37 Old 3 3

 New Human Marketing

 3 Business Concepts 1
 6 Basis Business I 1
 6 Basic Business II
 6 Intermediate Business I 2
 6 Intermediate Business II 1
 6 Advanced Business 1
33 3 3
-4 Difference

37 Old 3

 New Policy

 3 Business Concepts
 6 Basis Business I
 6 Basic Business II
 6 Intermediate Business I
 6 Intermediate Business II
 6 Advanced Business 3
33 3
-4 Difference

Table 2
Content for Initial Integrated Course Offering

Plan Organize

Functions/skills Types of Businesses
History of Organizations
Management
History of Marketing
Marketing Mix
Strategic planning
Goal Setting

Lead Control

Vision Simulation
Role of the CEO Seminal ideas
Consumer Behavior Accounting Model
Organizational Buyer Business Operations/
Behavior Business Cycle
Professionalism Adjustment process
 Balance sheet
 Working Capital
 Income/
 Retained earnings

Table 3

Assessment Questionnaire Items (7-point Likert scale items)

For each professor teaching in the course

The general organization of the class (i.e. materials, activities,
pace) was good.

The instructor has fostered an open and participative class
experience for all students.

I have learned a lot about what management is.

How does this professor rate compared to other professors you
currently have in other courses this semester in terms of their
effect on helping you learn?

Course as a whole questions:

After the FIRST DAY, after the instructors had introduced
themselves, gone over the syllabus and generally described what we
would be doing over the semester, the teaching format, etc., my
level of ANXIETY / NERVOUSNESS / CONCERN regarding my ability to
succeed (i.e. do the work) in the course was (1 to 9)

NOW, after you have been in the course for almost two months, how
would you describe your level of ANXIETY / NERVOUSNESS / CONCERN
regarding your ability to succeed (i.e. do the work) in the course.
(1 to 9)

How does the workload (reading assignments, projects, quizzes,
exams, etc.) compare to other 3 credit hour courses you are taking
this semester?

How much do you feel you are learning about business in the course
compared to what you are learning about the subject of other
courses you are taking this semester?

In a typical week, on average how may hours do you spend studying
and preparing for this course?

In a typical week, on average how many hours do you spend studying
and preparing for each of your other 3 credit hours courses

Based on your experiences in this course so far, if a friend of
yours just graduating from High School came to you and said they
were considering a career in business, what would you tell them
about this course?

How have the grades you have earned for the various assignments,
quizzes, projects, etc in Business concepts compared to the amount
and quality of time and effort you have put into preparing for
them?

Why did you sign up for this course?

Finally, please make any comments or suggestions you would like the
faculty to know concerning Business Concepts.

Table 4
Revised Integrated Business Administration Program

 Statistics Communications

103 Introduction to
 Business 1
104 Existing Products
203a Industry and
 Suppliers 1
203b Employees 1
325a Government and
 the Community
325b Infrastructure
326a Owners and
 Financial
 Markets 1
326b New Products 1 1
425a Entrepreneurship
425b Managing
 Growth 1
Credit Hour Totals 4 3

 Microeconomics Macroeconomics

103 Introduction to
 Business
104 Existing Products 1
203a Industry and
 Suppliers 1
203b Employees
325a Government and
 the Community 1
325b Infrastructure
326a Owners and
 Financial
 Markets
326b New Products
425a Entrepreneurship
425b Managing
 Growth
Credit Hour Totals 2 1

 Accounting Law

103 Introduction to
 Business
104 Existing Products 1
203a Industry and
 Suppliers
203b Employees
325a Government and
 the Community 1 1
325b Infrastructure 1
326a Owners and
 Financial
 Markets 1 1
326b New Products
425a Entrepreneurship
425b Managing
 Growth
Credit Hour Totals 3 3

 Human Resources Management

103 Introduction to
 Business 1
104 Existing Products
203a Industry and
 Suppliers
203b Employees 1 1
325a Government and
 the Community 1
325b Infrastructure 1 1
326a Owners and
 Financial
 Markets
326b New Products
425a Entrepreneurship
425b Managing
 Growth
Credit Hour Totals 3 3

 Marketing Finance

103 Introduction to
 Business
104 Existing Products 1 1
203a Industry and
 Suppliers 1
203b Employees
325a Government and
 the Community
325b Infrastructure
326a Owners and
 Financial
 Markets
326b New Products 1
425a Entrepreneurship 1 1
425b Managing
 Growth 1
Credit Hour Totals 3 4

 Production and
 Information Operations
 Technology Management

103 Introduction to
 Business 1
104 Existing Products
203a Industry and
 Suppliers 1
203b Employees 1
325a Government and
 the Community
325b Infrastructure 1
326a Owners and
 Financial
 Markets 1
326b New Products
425a Entrepreneurship 1
425b Managing
 Growth 1
Credit Hour Totals 4 3

 Strategy

103 Introduction to
 Business 1
104 Existing Products
203a Industry and
 Suppliers
203b Employees
325a Government and
 the Community
325b Infrastructure
326a Owners and
 Financial
 Markets
326b New Products 1
425a Entrepreneurship 1
425b Managing
 Growth 1
Credit Hour Totals 4

BA 103 Introduction to Businsegments
 in communications and info tech. An introduction to
 business careers is also included.

BA 104a Fulfilling customer needs with existing products/services.

BA 104b The relationships betpolitical,
 economic, social and technological forces).

BA 203a The individual employee, work groups and unions as
 stakeholders in a firm.

BA 203b The interaction betwelocal,
 regional, national and international level

BA 325a Infrastructure; the organizational structure and internal
 resources of the firm.

BA 325b The linkages between primary
 contributing disciplines.

BA 326a Expanding the customer base with new products/services.

BA 326b Owners of the firm. Stockholders and bondholders for
 profit making organizations. The community and government
 for non and not-for-profit firms. The government/citizens for
 governmental agencies and product/service providers.

BA 426a Growth of the firm through intrapreneurial activity,
 mergers and acquisition.

BA 426b Entrepreneurial beginnings--identifying trends and
 opportunities for new ventures.