Assessing Online Programs
Virtual versus Traditional Business Schools
Dr. Milan Frankl, MBA, PhD, is
professor of business at University
Canada Wests School of Business and
adjunct professor of bioinformatics
at the University of Victoria. He
has managed large-scale systems
development projects, conducted
numerous IT, telecommunications,
and business reengineering strategic
plans, and played major roles in
key business systems development
initiatives. He has considerable
experience in strategic management
planning, project management,
system development, system metrics
and evaluation techniques, system
feasibility studies, system quality
assurance, and human resource
planning. He is involved in promoting
information technology at the
university level (as an academic)
as well as at the industry level (as a
research associate) in the areas of
systems development techniques and
knowledge transfer. He published
extensively on information technology
management, science, and education
technology topics.
Comparing Educational Values and Outcomes
Milan Frankl, School of Business,
University Canada West,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6B 1V9
Abstract: In this article, we compare the educational value
of a degree obtained through a traditional brick-and-mortar
business school to online programs. We propose a defini-
tion of educational value applied to both types of higher
education institutions. We argue that quality of program
learning outcomes should be used as a more appropriate
comparison criterion between these two modes of learn-
ing. We suggest a Program Assessment Method (PAM)
for online programs based on competencies and learning
outcomes.
Keywords: Competencies, Learning outcomes, Online
learning, Program assessment, Program values
New Online Course Development
ParadigmBackground
University Canada West (UCW) is a young Canadian uni-
versity established in 2004 on Vancouver Island, British
Columbia, Canada. It offers a range of undergraduate
and graduate programs to Canadian and international
students. A review of the marketplace requirements in
graduate studies confirmed that a strong need exists to
address the void of senior IT management competen-
cies in the marketplace because of the dot.com fiasco
at the turn of the millennium, which resulted in dwin-
dling enrollments in computer science programs.
To address that void a substantive program that will
meet market needs, respond to industry expectations,
and deliver a quality academic content without affect-
ing quality standards for online and face-to-face delivery
mechanisms was developed by UCW. Both internal and
external university resources were invited to participate
in debating appropriate methods of program develop-
ment and delivery, use of innovative mechanisms for
content identification, while building on existing and
potential resources readily available to the university.
Expert Insights 1
 Assessing Online Programs
None of the Canadian universities offer
innovative programs for the technology
sector. Most of these universities continue
to develop and deliver their academic mate-
rial using traditional pedagogical methods
based on learning outcomes and textbooks
of leading higher education publishing
establishments. By comparison, some in-
ternational universities, for example, the
University of Florida (USA) and Victoria
University of Wellington (New Zealand),
have addressed the market need for profes-
sional IT manager training programs. Both
of these universities take a traditional busi-
ness school approach of case-based courses
with an emphasis on management.
Instead of following this example, UCWs
leadership has decided to explore new
grounds for program development based on
a learning competencies model (Beheshtifar
2012). To that end, the university identified
and applied appropriate learning competen-
cies to address the specific needs of the ob-
jective pursued: a new degree program in
the management of information technology
geared toward the marketplace requirements.
This program differentiates itself from the
numerous MBA programs, including some
with formal information technology manage-
ment concentrations, by the use of experien-
tial learning criteria and hands-on, applied
coursework that goes beyond the more typi-
cal offerings of courses covering basic infor-
mation technology topics and employing
traditional development mechanisms.
What follows is a description of a three-year
process that was utilized by this author, with
university faculty support, to explore av-
enues to address this need as it applies to
technology outsourcing from the mature
economies of Canada and the United States.
Introduction
A widely accepted principle is that edu-
cation, in general, has value: specifically,
economic and social value (U.S. Bureau of
Census 2012). As President Alejandro To-
ledo of Peru said, There is no better in-
vestment that a person, a community, or
2 Expert Insights
a nation [can] make than investing in the
minds of our people (Moore 2003). We do
not question here the value of education in
itself, but rather ask how one can compare
educational value achieved through the tra-
ditional brick-and-mortar schools (B&MSs)
versus the educational value achieved
through a point-and-click virtual schools
(VSs) (Coughlan 2013).
Traditionally, the measurement of a
quality education was tightly linked to the
status and resources of B&MSs (Cox 2005;
Noble 1997; Redpath 2012; Stahl 2014),
which were based on three foundation
measures of a solid education:
Knowledge transfer: through access to
educational material (books, classroom
handouts, notes, reference articles, or
even specialized software and labs) made
available throughout courses.
Human resources: through access to
teachers, mentors, professors, teaching
assistants, or other persons adding value
to the study material, capable of transfer-
ring knowledge, and assessing students
performance.
Certification: through the issuance of de-
grees, certificates, or diplomas confirming
the knowledge acquired by the student.
An additional principle in knowledge
transfer mastery is achieved when integrat-
ing knowledge through teamwork results in
performance synergies. An education envi-
ronment lends itself to systematic knowl-
edge integration, especially in professional
services and management (Gardner, Staats,
and Gino 2012).
Benefits of a solid education can, there-
fore, be summarized as access to knowledge,
access to resources capable of transferring
that knowledge, and access to institutions
accredited of certifying the acquisition of
that knowledge. Estimating the value of ed-
ucation becomes a qualified and quantified
measure of those benefits. Other factors
also can be included: time, cost, availabil-
ity, accessibility, recognition, and usability.
 Assessing Online Programs

Comparing Educational Value of 4. Of course, one could assign any ar-

of B&MSs and VSs
We compare in Tables 1 and 2 the educa-
tional value of B&MSs and VSs. The com-
parative criteria used are based on a variety
of sources identified in each case.
Applying Trochims qualitative to quan-
titative conversion method to the above
tables by giving an arbitrary quantitative
value to each of the chosen criteria results
in the following graphical representation of
those values (Trochim 2006).1
In Figures 1 and 2 a quantitative crite-
rion has been assigned to the respective
comparative criteria.
The quantitative values are presented
on a scale of 1 to 10: with the highest value
of8, a median value of 6, and a lowest value
bitrary value and use it for comparative
purposes. In this case, the reasoning was
based on the assumption that no properly
accredited higher education institution
merits a value higher than 8, and no prop-
erly accredited higher education institu-
tion merits a value lower than four based
on the argument that no educational value
is perfect or totally inadequate. Each edu-
cational value lies somewhere in between
those two extremes.
In both cases, one can note some level of
value asymmetry between B&MSs and VSs.
What seems to work well in one environ-
ment works less so in the other.
Indeed, Figure 1 suggests that VSs offer a
higher availability to students and are more

Table 1: B&MS versus VS Comparative Quantitative Educational Value

Comparative criteria B&MS VS Source
Availability effect Deemed least available Deemed most available (Greco 2004)
Economic effect Deemed most Deemed least expensive (Anonymous, 2003 Full-
expensive time MBA Profiles 2004)
Place effect Deemed most Deemed least (Ibid)
constraining constraining
Time effect Deemed most Deemed least (Dash 2000)
demanding demanding
Prestige effect Deemed most Deemed least (Ibid)
prestigious prestigious
Recognition effect Deemed most Deemed increasing (Forelle 2003)
recognized recognition
Social effect Deemed most valuable Deemed acceptable (Wofson 2004)
Usability effect Deemed most usable Deemed usability (Symonds 2000)
increasing

Source: Developed by the author

Table 2: B&MS versus VS Comparative Qualitative Educational Value

Comparative criteria B&MS VS Source
Access to knowledge Deemed most effective Deemed very effective (Oakes 2002)
(learning effectiveness)
Access to resources Deemed effective Deemed most accessible (Warner 2002)
(human, material)
Access to certification Deemed most effective Deemed accessible (Bejar 2012)

Source: Developed by the author

Expert Insights 3