The idea of integration is the what Harvard and Darden are addressing with the case method. Integration occurs as students build their theory of management through the varied cases. On the other side, the Northwestern/Carnegie approach achieves integration through case and theory. Northwestern extended the logic by including the team approach to projects. Thus, students are expected to integrate not only facts and theory to a problem but also work through a team. The team approach is now well entrenched in most top MBA programs.

Now I do not see what international does beyond potentially expanding the scope of the problem. I think the value is primarily for “spin” execution.

The School of Management & Information Systems at UMR is brand new, just 5 or so years old. Next month we are starting our very first MBA cohort ever. Until now, the only degrees offered here were BSBA and the MS in Info Systems. For this new MBA, we are developing an integrated curriculum very similar in spirit to Yale’s, with a similar distinction between the internal and external environment. While our vision here developed independently. our curriculum also is not functionally driven but made up of an integrated core. A main difference between our program here and Yale’s (besides the ones already obvious to all this blog’s readers) is that we require all applicants to already possess a BSBA (or similar degree). Which speaks to the point mentioned at the end of the original post.

(Another difference is that a fair share of our integrated core is based on learning the SAP software package. This due to the fact that we are almost strictly an engineering school here at UMR.)

I’m part of the MBA curriculum planning committee here, and let me share that this kind of integrated curriculum is extremely difficult to put together. It’s not just a matter of whether students have acquired concepts before. It’s also a matter of making sure that the faculty are all attaching similar meanings to the labels (e.g. terminology) that are used in this kind of integrated learning. Student learning is severely hampered if different faculty are using the same terms but in damagingly idiosyncratic ways.

Of course, presumably this SHOULDN’T happen. We have pretty rigorously trained faculty here from pretty good schools. Our curriculum planning meetings have gone reasonably smoothly and not revealed the ‘dangers’ I’m describing, but some of us are still crossing our fingers.

To qualify, I suppose any kind of interdisciplinary, integrated learning will run into the use of faculty who assign different meanings to the same labels. And to a certain extent, perhaps students could benefit from learning how to appreciate all the subtleties in meaning that one label might have. Hmm, is that a stretch?

Furthermore, while I concede that I’m not particularly familiar with Yale’s plan, I’d be hopeful that Yale SOM doesn’t churn out managers who have learned such an effective yet idiosyncratic approach to management (e.g. concepts such as the ‘Operations Engine,’ and the distinction between the ‘Employee’ and the ‘Innovator’) that they aren’t able to mentor (or otherwise communicate with) their subordinates.